Re: Qualia Question
- From: "1Z" <peterdjones@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Jun 2005 05:49:04 -0700
Lester Zick wrote:
> I'm assuming this response is addressed to me.
>
> On 29 Jun 2005 13:56:34 -0700, "angola" <spamaddress@xxxxxxxxxxx> in
> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
> >Isn't the question rather the other way round?
> >
> >We experience light of a certain frequency as being 'red,' and
> >strawberries taste like strawberries. Surely the challenge that qualia
> >pose, is to account just for those elements of our actual experience
> >that are absent from any behavioural, (or physical) description. To
> >suggest that we can get by very well thank you without using qualia is
> >just to miss the point. (Though I don't deny that it might be very
> >useful to persue that line of reasoning)
>
> We've had mental descriptions descriptions of all kinds both objective
> and subjective for centuries which don't rely on behavioral or
> physical descriptions. Adding qualia to the inventory doesn't enhance
> or advance the comprehension of those effects one way or the other.
> They're just used to talk about the same old things the same old way
> and pretend something of value has been added to the conversation.
>
> Regards - Lester
They do indeed re-state an old problem; the thing is that all other
terms
are ambiguous in some way. Dr X can talk about "perceptions", for
instance, and his behaviourist colleague Dr Y will take that to mean
responses to external
stimuli, while the neurologist Dr Z thinks a perception is a pattern of
neural
activity. The subjective aspect has got lost.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Qualia Question
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Qualia Question
- References:
- Re: Qualia Question
- From: angola
- Re: Qualia Question
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Qualia Question
- Prev by Date: Re: Qualia Question
- Next by Date: Re: Qualia Question
- Previous by thread: Re: Qualia Question
- Next by thread: Re: Qualia Question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|