The argument here seems to go roughly like this:
- Facts about what it is like for the experiencing organism are subjective.
- Facts about the neuro-physiology of the experiencing organism are objective.
- Therefore, facts about what it is like for the experiencing organism are not facts about the neuro-physiology of that organism.
X has property F.
Y has property G.
∴ X is not Y.Now consider the following substitution instance:
- Americans are most likely to say that global warming is exaggerated.
- Americans are more worried about the economy than climate change.
- Therefore, Americans are not Americans.
So, if the argument about Americans is invalid, does that mean that Nagel’s argument is invalid as well?