The Knowledge Intuition is what makes so much of the philosophy of mind go ’round. The Knowledge Intuition is this:
(KI): One cannot know what it is like to have an experience of a certain type unless one has had an experience of that type.
Consider, now, the following Bold Claim:
(BC): No one has ever given an argument for the Knowledge Intuition.
Before considering the truth of BC, let’s talk a bit about its alleged boldness. On the one hand, maybe it isn’t so bold. The Knowledge Intuition is an intuition after all, and nowadays calling something an intuition is a gentle way of admitting to yourself and others that you don’t have an argument for this thing you really want to believe anyway. On the other hand, however, BC is a non-analytic negative existential and those are notoriously difficult to prove short of an exhaustive search of the entirety of creation. And this leads us now to the question of the truth of BC…
Maybe someone somewhere has an argument for KI and thus a counterexample to BC. And maybe they could post it here on Brain Hammer as a comment to this post. I’m willing to be pretty liberal as to what counts as an argument for KI. Maybe it would be entailed by some theory of consciousness that has independent support. Or maybe someone has a weird argument for how, even though KI, strictly speaking, is supported by no argument, it merits acceptance due to the health-conducive effects of believing in it. Or something. Note, however, that mere assertions of the alleged intuitiveness or obviousness of KI are not welcome.