But not my brain, not my chemical reactions. That's the difference, that's objectivity. That's what mysticism, religious experience, conscience, emotions, or the aesthetic/artistic sense all lack. No matter how similar, they won't ever be exactly the same, because the two people percieving it won't ever be the same.
Hang on.
So, is your argument that via the 5 senses people perceive the objects of their experience the same way?
How about the colour blind, the hard of hearing, those with 20/20 vision, those with perfect pitch, those with pitch-deafness, the visually impaired, the short-sighted, everyone who has to wear glasses, wine experts, perfumiers...etc etc.. etc..
So, being able to perceive these objects of experience only in some impaired manner does not usually translate into any rational argument for the non-existence of said objects.
We can see the same chair, but one of us may or may not think it is ugly, depending on his experience and education (or lack thereof), the other beautiful. That beautiy is not objective, it is "in the eye of the beholder".
Wrong again. Just as some people have impaired vision, some people have an impaired aesthetic sense. Think Britney Spears fans.
The logical consequence of your position is that there is no real objective difference, in terms of musical aesthetic beauty, between an organg utan playing the bagpipes and a Mozart piano concerto.
Which would be absolutely absurd, and yeah, irrational.
One of us may have been whipped by an abusive father while bent over a similar chair, the other may have kissed their first love in it. Our emotions are our own, unique to us, based on our individual exerience, and not objective.
So would your argument be that the average person is equally likely to react emotionally positively to being beaten by their father as they would to kissing their first love?
After all, if emotions are not referring to any objective emotional reality, then you'd reasonably expect people not in any significant way to react better to a beating than a loving kiss.
Which would be more absurdity.
The chair is real, but these ephemeral things we attach to it- they are all in our heads, created by our brains and chemical reactions.
The visual experience of the chair is in your head too. Maybe you have good eyesight and see it clearly. The aesthetic experience of the chair is in your head too. Maybe you have a well-developed aesthetic sense and can gauge its level of beauty better than the average person can.
That doesn't mean either the chair or the chair's beauty are unreal.
Yes, you're hampered by the blinders of preconcieved conclusions.
Perhaps we should be discussing mirrors instead of chairs.
