In “Wanted: An Actual Argument for the Knowledge Intuition” I pitted 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”) against bold claim BC (”No one has ever given an argument for the Knowledge Intuition”). All commentators provided much useful feedback. Some commentators questioned whether KI was something anyone would find plausible or relevant and other commentators provided some interesting counterexamples to BC.
Now for round two.
In this corner, in the red trunks, we have:
(KI+): There exists at least one type of experience such that one cannot know what it is like to have it unless one has had an experience of that or some relevantly similar type.
And in the other corner, in the black and white trunks, we have:
(BC+): No one has ever given an argument for KI+.
1. Don’t talk about Knowledge Intuition Fight Club
2. Single-premise existential generalizations are not welcome.
3. Arguments for KI+ that have premises concerning phenomenal concepts, phenomenal beliefs, and their brethren should specify what those things are in ways such that assertions of their existence aren’t simply different ways of stating KI+.