<div>On 08/07/2026 04:14, Mike Dougherty wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:mailman.21.1783480484.23875.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<div lang="x-unicode"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Jul 7, 2026, 1:48 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><span>Can an external party, even in principle, know for sure what someone else is experiencing?</span><div><br></div><div><span>This
is, I think, an important question that determines whether 'subjective'
phenomena can be regarded as separate from 'objective' phenomena.
Something that is objective is something that we can all verify and
hopefully agree on, that we all have access to. Examples include the
moon, the law of gravitation, 1+1=2, dead people don't talk, etc.</span></div><div><br></div><div><span>Subjective
things are those that only one person, the person who experiences the
subjective phenomenon, has access to. Examples include what it is like
to be a bat, the experience of a specific shade of maroon, the sadness I
feel when thinking of my dead cat (I really miss him, but don't expect
anyone else to feel the same way).</span></div><div><br></div><div>[snip]</div><div><br></div><div><span>What
I'm saying is that there is absolutely NO WAY that one person can,
without any uncertainty, know what another person is experiencing or has
experienced in the past. We are all sealed vessels, with our own unique
contents that is only accessible to ourselves. I don't expect that to
ever change, even with the advent of uploading (what comes after
uploading, though, is an open question, and may destroy my argument.
Time will tell).</span></div><div><br></div><div><span>If anyone can
think of a refutation to this view, please post it here. I'd be most
interested in reading it (but please, PLEASE, use plain language! No
Brentian 'knowledge of', 'fundamental/causal qualities' or 'wrong
physics', please!).</span></div></blockquote></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I think the definitions are too assumptive. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I
suppose you are asserting something about the precision and fidelity of
knowing subjective experience. I bet you'd agree that hitting your
thumb with a hammer subjectively "sucks" - but I'm not sure the various
permutations of nuance need to be deeply modelled down to neuronal
correlates of consciousness to precisely grasp the fundamental of
whatever swear words you use to name the sensation, nor do we need
measure the wavelength of light to know what color is the inevitable
bruise. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">We "think" we
"know" what a hydrogen atom is, or is like, or what it does - but who
really knows? If the math works, there might well be unicorns and
leprechauns dancing around the nucleus. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Refutation?
No, i think i agree with you. I don't think that needs to be as much
an issue for each of us to share a world of common things that we each
enjoy in myriad ways - whether redness of red, qualia of quale, or
pheasant of fez.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><blockquote style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"></blockquote></div></div>
</div></blockquote><br><br><div>
Good points, and I hadn't considered the issue of precision or fidelity
at all. This raises the possibility of a spectrum, or a
Subjective/Objective sliding scale of some kind. I'll have to think further about
that.<br></div><br>
Thanks.
<pre cols="72">--
Ben</pre><br><div class="protonmail_quote">
On Wednesday, 8 July 2026 at 00:29, Mike Dougherty <msd001@gmail.com> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite">
<div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jul 7, 2026, 1:48 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>Can an external party, even in principle, know for sure what someone else is experiencing?</span><div><br></div><div><span>This is, I think, an important question that determines whether 'subjective' phenomena can be regarded as separate from 'objective' phenomena. Something that is objective is something that we can all verify and hopefully agree on, that we all have access to. Examples include the moon, the law of gravitation, 1+1=2, dead people don't talk, etc.</span></div><div><br></div><div><span>Subjective things are those that only one person, the person who experiences the subjective phenomenon, has access to. Examples include what it is like to be a bat, the experience of a specific shade of maroon, the sadness I feel when thinking of my dead cat (I really miss him, but don't expect anyone else to feel the same way).</span></div><div><br></div><div>[snip]</div><div><br></div><div><span>What I'm saying is that there is absolutely NO WAY that one person can, without any uncertainty, know what another person is experiencing or has experienced in the past. We are all sealed vessels, with our own unique contents that is only accessible to ourselves. I don't expect that to ever change, even with the advent of uploading (what comes after uploading, though, is an open question, and may destroy my argument. Time will tell).</span></div><div><br></div><div><span>If anyone can think of a refutation to this view, please post it here. I'd be most interested in reading it (but please, PLEASE, use plain language! No Brentian 'knowledge of', 'fundamental/causal qualities' or 'wrong physics', please!).</span></div></blockquote></div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div></div></blockquote></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I think the definitions are too assumptive. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I suppose you are asserting something about the precision and fidelity of knowing subjective experience. I bet you'd agree that hitting your thumb with a hammer subjectively "sucks" - but I'm not sure the various permutations of nuance need to be deeply modelled down to neuronal correlates of consciousness to precisely grasp the fundamental of whatever swear words you use to name the sensation, nor do we need measure the wavelength of light to know what color is the inevitable bruise. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">We "think" we "know" what a hydrogen atom is, or is like, or what it does - but who really knows? If the math works, there might well be unicorns and leprechauns dancing around the nucleus. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Refutation? No, i think i agree with you. I don't think that needs to be as much an issue for each of us to share a world of common things that we each enjoy in myriad ways - whether redness of red, qualia of quale, or pheasant of fez.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote><br>
</div>