There is no fundamental error it’s purposefully exactly as you state. Nagel is saying that consciousness is that second thing.

▲

bondarchuk 6 days ago | parent [-]

>Nagel is saying that consciousness is that second thing.

That's exactly what I'm saying is erroneous. Consciousness is the first thing, we are only led to believe it is a separate, second thing by a millenia-old legacy of dualism and certain built-in tendencies of mind.

▲

trescenzi 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

So then are you saying there is no such thing as consciousness? That everything is conscious? The intent of that quote is to say “consciousness is subjective experience”. You don’t need dualism to agree with that quote. I agree with Nagel’s general construction but I’m also a materialist. The hard problem doesn’t mean magic is needed to solve it, just that we don’t have a good explanation for why subjective experience exists.

	▲	mensetmanusman 6 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Materialists don’t even know what materials are though.
	▲	bondarchuk 6 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>The intent of that quote is to say “consciousness is subjective experience” I doubt Nagel would go out of his way to offer such an unnatural linguistic construction, and other philosophers would adopt this construction as a standard point of reference, if that was the sole intent. >So then are you saying there is no such thing as consciousness? No, not at all. I'm only saying that if we want to talk about "the consciousness of a bat", we should talk about it directly, and not invent (implicitly) a second concept that is in some senses distinct from it, and in some sense comparable to it.

▲

goatlover 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That's just idealism. Idealism doesn't have a hard problem. But it does have a problem with accounting for how the world appears to be physical independent of any mind experiencing it, such as before any life evolved or in many places were no life is around.