Hacker News Reader

> There is a difference between the nature of a phenomenon and the nature of a phenomenon’s existence, and the existence of intentionality and qualia is self-evident.

I would argue that good faith rational inquiry should not begin by having a desired final conclusion in mind and declaring it to be self-evident.

View on HN

Would you be able to argue in favor of you not having intentionality or qualia?

Considering qualia self-evident is not equivalent to starting an inquiry with a predetermined conclusion. Rather, it is acknowledging a foundational aspect of existence that is necessary for any further inquiry to take place.

Although I agree that intersectionality could be inquired, qualia is the only thing that is literally self-evident. Qualia, by definition, refer to individual instances of subjective, conscious experience. This experience is immediately known to the experiencer and is, therefore, self-evident in a very basic sense.

Unless you're doing math (and are willing to take first order logic as a priori true) you need to start with something. Learning about the world requires data, data requires identifying a data source, and identifying a data source requires knowing at least one thing about the world.

As foundations go, it's hard to see how you could go any deeper than "I am having an experience".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com