Why? I realize that Yudkowsky isn’t the most coherent writer in the universe, but how the heck did you get from here to there?
I’m afraid we’re not on the same page. From where to where?
A simple qualia-based argument against skepticism (i.e. percepts are simply there and can’t be argued with) is problematic- even if you conceded direct knowledge of percepts, you couldn’t really know that you had such knowledge. They do not deal with rationality and there aren’t any premises you could create from them. It seems less of a foundational tree of justification than a collection of meaningless smells, sounds and colors.
I understand that believing in qualia is not sufficient to form sizable beliefs, but it is necessary, is it not?
I’ afraid we’re not on the same page. From where to where?
What does ‘dark side epistemology’ have to do with an argument that seems like a non-sequitur to you?
I understand that believing in qualia is not sufficient to form sizable beliefs, but it is necessary, is it not?
The hell I know. There certainly are arguments that don’t involve qualia and are taken seriously by philosophy; I’m not going to be the one to tackle them all! This website might have some resources, if you’re interested.
What does ‘dark side epistemology’ have to do with an argument that seems like a non-sequitur to you?
The arguments in the OP don’t seem like non-sequiturs, as they are assumed without evidence, not with faulty reasoning from premises. Believing one doesn’t need evidence for beliefs is what dark side epistemology is all about.
I’m afraid we’re not on the same page. From where to where?
I understand that believing in qualia is not sufficient to form sizable beliefs, but it is necessary, is it not?
What does ‘dark side epistemology’ have to do with an argument that seems like a non-sequitur to you?
The hell I know. There certainly are arguments that don’t involve qualia and are taken seriously by philosophy; I’m not going to be the one to tackle them all! This website might have some resources, if you’re interested.
The arguments in the OP don’t seem like non-sequiturs, as they are assumed without evidence, not with faulty reasoning from premises. Believing one doesn’t need evidence for beliefs is what dark side epistemology is all about.