@grainloom So, first off, how familiar are you with the concept of qualia? That's kind of the basis for a lot of my framework, here.

@grainloom Oh, and have you heard of the Mary the Color Scientist thought experiment? If you're unfamiliar with either of those, the wikipedia summaries are good enough for the point I'm trying to make.

@starkatt I've looked at the qualia article and I sort of get what it's supposed to be, I've also looked at the "criticisms" section and the first one pretty much sums up my problems with it.

Also, the article has multiple definitions so there is a reason why _I'm_ asking _you_. I want to hear _your_ explanation.

@starkatt I checked the Mary experiment and IMO... it's a pointless question. We cannot know what it'd be like to know everything about neuroscience and even a neuroscientist is subject to their own brain.

The problem with these experiments is that they ignore too much. Humans with brains capable of understanding the entire workings of other brains would think and feel very differently to us.

So far I think the notion of qualia is pointless. 😐

@grainloom Heh, all right. If you think the notion of qualia is pointless, then that basically stops cold the rest of the argument. I think we're coming from places different enough that I don't know how to reach across the gap.

Take care :)

@starkatt It seems so, I thought being a "post-skeptic" meant you originally had a similar enough viewpoint and could explain the logical steps from there.

Well, you still seem cool. Take care u 2.

@grainloom So, I've thought about it some more, and I think I have another way of explaining things that might make sense, if you're willing to re-engage :)

@starkatt Sure, I'm in.

@grainloom Cool :)
So, have you ever been to a really good live music performance? Was that a valuable experience?

@starkatt Yes and yes.

@grainloom Ugh, sorry I missed this earlier. Hope it's okay for this conversation to be asynchronous; I'm going to bed soon.

Anyway.

So, if you saw a really good show, would that experience still be valuable even if the band was regarded by almost everyone else as not very good?

To take it a step further, if you were alone with a friend and they played a really beautiful improvisational composition -- never to be heard again -- would that have value?

@grainloom If yes, the value of that experience has nothing to do with consensus opinion, or repeatability, or predictive power about your future actions, right?

@starkatt Well, not necessarily, in the first case it's more like:
"I have this subjective opinion that goes against the consensus, that might mean I'm wrong and I should re-evaluate it just in case."

Both have value but they don't override rational thinking.

@grainloom The value isn't a function of a rational evaluation though, right? Like, if you went to a rock show that you thought was great, but most people in the audience quietly thought was meh, you still would have had an amazing time, yeah? The subjective experience is what makes it worthwhile.

@grainloom Cards on the table here: me being trans *greatly* informs my thought processes on the value of subjective experience, and was one of the first really important steps in my movement away from strict rationality.

@grainloom At this point, it's six years since I started transition. I've read piles and piles of text about gender theory -- everything from dense academic literature to microblog shitposts.

*And I still have no idea what gender is*. Really. Genuinely. I have no idea what it means to "feel like a woman". But, I viscerally and manifestly did, and had to act upon that.

@grainloom There might very well be a reductionist explanation for why people experience a sense of there own gender, but for me any explanation was and continues to be utterly irrelevant.

There's no objective tests for whether someone is trans -- people have tried and failed to create them. What mattered is how I felt. Ultimately, that was the *only* thing that mattered.

@starkatt TBH I'm still not convinced but I get what you mean.
My interpretation:
people are ultimately selfish and subjective, but rationality is the best long term strategy to achieve large scale subjective success.
Now, what someone's brain considers a "good" input will vary, I personally consider a more rational brain a better brain.
The problem arises when one has to implement rationality with/against irrational people.

@starkatt When discussing rationality I think it makes perfect sense to distance ourselves from the subjective and for me, distancing myself (even temporarily) from my subjective feelings has been my best strategy for self improvement.
That's pretty much why I don't think "qualia" as some mystical, atomic thing makes sense, brains are brains.

@starkatt While trying to build one's worldview from "only I surely exist" is an interesting philosophical thought experiment, it makes no practical sense. An axiom system that is not focused on real world gain is pointless.