[foldr]

Neither will saying "it just does." How do you think that seeing a detailed brain scan would tell you what it is like to see red? It's extraordinary that you think the burden of proof is on those who simply deny the near-inconceivable possibility that it would.

The problem is precisely one of predictions. Physicalism doesn't predict the existence of conscious experience. (And if you really think its necessary to give an argument for the existence of these experiences other than "we all have them and know that we have them," I am not sure what to say -- you are simply in denial.)

[ewjordan]

Physicalism doesn't predict the existence of conscious experience. (And if you really think its necessary to give an argument for the existence of these experiences other than "we all have them and know that we have them," I am not sure what to say -- you are simply in denial.)

It is absolutely necessary to give an argument for the existence of these experiences.

I know that you believe you have them, and that I believe I have them, but that doesn't mean that they have any tangible reality, it just means that our brains store things in a way that they will respond "yes, I have conscious experience."

Alternatively, should I accept as real everything that a person believes they experience? A schizophrenic's voices are real? A memory of a past trauma that is, in fact, a false memory, proves that the past trauma is real? This is a very dangerous path to walk, accepting the validity of introspection as a means of investigating the world...

[foldr]

>I know that you believe you have them, and that I believe I have them, but that doesn't mean that they have any tangible reality

It does in the case of experiences. I can't even conceive of what it would mean to be mistaken about the very fact that you are having experiences. It would be a very different sort of mistake from that of being mistaken about the _object_ of an experience (thinking that you are hearing voices when there aren't any, etc. etc.)

Also, your use of the word "tangible" is very odd in this context. Almost by definition, nothing could be more tangible than an experience.

>[I know that] I believe I have them

So, do you believe that you have them or not?

[nazgulnarsil]

the burden of proof clearly lies with those who posit the existence of an unobservable quality to cognition.

[foldr]

I'm not positing the existence of an unobservable quality to cognition. What gives you that idea?