Qualia

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Joseph Polanik

unread,
Aug 9, 2009, 4:02:47 PM8/9/09
to anal...@yahoogroups.com, analytical-in...@yahoogroups.com, nomin...@yahoogroups.com, episte...@yahoogroups.com, Mo...@googlegroups.com, desc...@yahoogroups.com
Walter Horn wrote:

>Joseph Polanik wrote:

>>Walter Horn wrote:

>>>Joseph Polanik wrote:

>>>>"how about you [Jud]? I seem to recall that you once claimed that
>>>>people don't experience qualia --- the redness of a ripe apple or
>>>>the greenness of an afterimage."

>>>Maybe he just agrees with me in holding that while people experience
>>>them, they aren't "qualia."

>>that people experience them is what defines them as 'qualia'.

>We've been through this before and this insistence of yours is
>inappropriate. I claim that "qualia" is a technical term, used by a
>number of philosophers for a number of years, that includes "being
>private" and "being short-lived" and "existing only while someone is
>conscious of them." You've got some other definition that doesn't
>include these, perhaps, but you can't or won't say what it is.

I've never made any secret about accepting the technical meaning of
qualia; although, not precisely as you portray it.

'private' is okay.

'short-lived' is ego-centric since there is no objective standard by
which to determine how long an interval can be before it is no longer
short. in any case, I'll buy 'transient'.

'existing only while someone is conscious of them' could become
contentious due to disputes about the definition of 'existing'; but,
elsewhere in this thread you've used 'mind dependent' and I have no
objection to that phrase; although, personally, I prefer 'experience
dependent'.

>Let's just call what people experience "what people experience" and
>nobody will be able to cheat.

I have no objection to defining a common language within which to talk
about the topic at hand, a language that is independent of theories of
experience.

the problem is that, the last time these issues came up in a thread
about qualia, no one could stop *you* from cheating by playing
definition games --- trying to define 'experience' so that the quale of
redness was identical to the property of an external object that
reflected light in the 650 nanometer range.

if you want to present a case for the proposition that the quale of
experience is identical to the property of an external object you are
free to do so; but, tinkering with the definition of 'experience' to
make your case is game playing.

Joe


--

Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages