Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
it is true that debate (often) is a result of being unable to clearly arbitrate something, but the implied argument here is that the "fact" (the spiritual experience) can't even be expressed, communicated or explained and therefore any debate is negated.
As with most things related to human experiences, there is the opportunity for a shared experience. We all believe that everyone else has some sort of experience of consciousness similar to ours, but it's really hard to communicate it in a way that would make sense to someone who lacks it. The "fact" of our basic sensory experiences would be negated in that case. But in many cases, it isn't because of the existence of those shared experiences.
I can talk to you about "seeing" things because you understand "seeing" from your own experiences. I have a lot harder time talking about "seeing" things to someone who is born blind. And the more sensory experiences you take away, the harder it is for me to communicate.
Quote:
And I don't really see the point of that. "I believe something, but any disagreement is void because I can't tell you what, why or how." Why even bring it up?
The point of it is to attempt to communicate (at least at some level) the experience. Maybe we can't quite explain "seeing" to the blind person, but we can at least communicate some information about the objects we see in a way that might connect to him. Or not. But the point is that those experiences may still carry useful content.
What MB is doing (as the blind man in this analogy) is insisting that because he can't see that it must be that the person who can see should negate the experience of seeing. Indeed, if MB is actually interested in seeing, he should simply allow the person who can see to attempt to explain seeing as best as possible, and not challenge the seeing itself. (Of course, I don't think that MB any more interested in that as he is capable of changing his perspectives as the result of rational conversation.)
