Yes, thats my question.
If I do in fact not feel hungry, in what "space" would I introduce doubt to that proposal?
Because it is not epistemologically self-evident, it has doubt to others as soon as it claimed.
If I do not feel hungry, the self evidence lies in it proving it's self to me. There is something so immediate about my perception of my own state that it becomes absurd to introduce other parties to confirm or deny it.
Something that is epistemologically self-evident doesn't need others to confirm or deny it; it is its own evidence of being true through merely understanding the terms.
If you are simply talking about being "so obvious as to not warrant proof or further explanation" then yes, not being hungry would be self-evident to you.
But the status of your hunger is not self-evident to the rest of us.
The emotions may arise from a false world view or whatever, but the fact remains that my lack of hunger is self evident to me.
Not epistemologically speaking it is not.
Only in the sense of being "so obvious..." etc.
Epistemologically speaking the absence of evidence to the contrary (i.e. absence of physical sensations or emotions of feeling hungry) is evidence of the absence of hunger.
But the words "I am not hungry" are not in and of themselves a self-evident claim.
Despite not feeling hungry, others may successfully encourage me to eat, etc, but at the end of the day, the state of my being is so immediate to me that to doubt it would be to doubt my existence.
I'm sure you have confidence in your own body.
It no doubt has worked well enough for you thus far.
As I mentioned earlier, any prototype for such a test would be engineered on the authority of someone asserting they do not feel hungry. If you are not feeling hungry and a testing machine confirms that you are, what do you believe?
If I can understand the principles of what is being assessed, I would likely believe that while I feel I am not hungry my body is actually telling me that I am, and that somewhere the signal is being suppressed.
Obviously it remains self evident to the seer. Whether others accept or do not accept has zero bearing.
That's the point, though: being self-evident to the seer is irrelevant to how others see it.
Yes.
This is why I said at the very beginning ...
Then I'm glad we agree on that.
Yet it raises the question of why you then said: "
If I make the claim 'I do not feel hungry', how is that not true for everyone? What test can a 2nd party perform to invalidate that truth, and thus prove it isn't true for everybody?" as if every claim you make that you also claim is self-evident for you should be accepted as being self-evidently true to everyone else.
You are the one who introduced the notion of bringing everyone else to validate the self evident claim of one's hunger.
Where did I do that?
You were the one who introduced it: "
If I make the claim 'I do not feel hungry', how is that not true for everyone? What test can a 2nd party perform to invalidate that truth, and thus prove it isn't true for everybody?"
That seems like a request for falsification. I've spent the last couple posts trying to explain how ridiculous that is.
Your posts have been implying that without falsification your claim, that is self-evident to you, should simply be accepted by everyone as being self-evidently true.
I repeat: what a bizarre notion.