Questions for the friends of qualia.

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Scott Mayers
Posts: 2074
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Questions for the friends of qualia.

Post by Scott Mayers »

raw_thought wrote:So you believe in qualia?
The term is archaic and is not one I am sufficiently used to using. But if "qualia" is simply just any unique 'feeling' or 'experience' as an elemental sensation, then yes. I think that we're mainly trying to make sense of the phenomena, not to assert or deny them as existing as real or not. I think the differences people have on this topic is whether something like "red" or "pain" exists in each of our independent minds as being a product of something in common or not. I explain that the structure of "color" as a generic formula for what will be any color is in common but that the particular experience may be differently assigned. It is like this:

Color Structure can be a universal formula such that it requires some form that distinguishes at least three color data information to create any color sensation in common. But one may 'assign' particular colors differently like:

For one person it might be:
Color Structure (1) is assigned to green,
Color Structure (2) is assigned to red,
Color Structure (3) is assigned to blue.

For another different person it might be:
Color Structure (1) is assigned to red
Color Structure (2) is assigned to green
Color Structure (3) is assigned to blue

Only the particular assigned values for each numbered experience will differ. But it might be the case that all Color Structure (1)'s are always objectively identical things.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2636
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Questions for the friends of qualia.

Post by Ginkgo »

raw_thought wrote:Dennett does deny subjective experience. He also says that he accepts them.
See the beginning of his quining qualia. He defines qualia as subjective experience. He then denies that qualia exist. Therefore, it follows that he denies that subjective experience exists.
However, a paragraph later he says that he does not deny that subjective experiences exist!
That obvious contradiction must be because 1. a lack of understanding regarding logic and /or 2. disingenuousness.

Dennet denies qualia in the sense that you and a few other dualists understand qualia. One can have a physicalist explanation for consciousness without resorting to dualism.
raw_thought
Posts: 1775
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Questions for the friends of qualia.

Post by raw_thought »

Dennett and many here deny that qualia exist. I realize that denyiing that subjective experiences exist seems silly but that is the claim some make..
But how does your explanation explain why c fibers firing cause me to feel pain?
raw_thought
Posts: 1775
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Questions for the friends of qualia.

Post by raw_thought »

Whether I am a dualist or not does not matter. That was an ad hominum.
Dennett does not believe that subjective experiences exist! Simply read the beginning of quining qualia. HIS definition of qualia is subjective experience.
raw_thought
Posts: 1775
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Questions for the friends of qualia.

Post by raw_thought »

My understanding of what qualia is???? I am using Dennett's definition of qualia!!!!
raw_thought
Posts: 1775
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Questions for the friends of qualia.

Post by raw_thought »

They have not yet explained consciousness. Denying that subjective experiences (qualia) exist shows how desperate they are.
Subjective experience is central to what consciousness is.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2636
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Questions for the friends of qualia.

Post by Ginkgo »

raw_thought wrote:Dennett and many here deny that qualia exist. I realize that denyiing that subjective experiences exist seems silly but that is the claim some make..
But how does your explanation explain why c fibers firing cause me to feel pain?

in order to explain how we become conscious of pain from the physicalist point of view one would need to go into a detailed explanation in terms of neural synchrony, cascades and levels of representation.
raw_thought
Posts: 1775
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Questions for the friends of qualia.

Post by raw_thought »

Fine, but he (Dennett) still denies that subjective experiences exist and that is silly! Pain hurts! It is not just c fibers firing.
Last edited by raw_thought on Fri Aug 21, 2015 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2636
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Questions for the friends of qualia.

Post by Ginkgo »

raw_thought wrote:Whether I am a dualist or not does not matter. That was an ad hominum.
Dennett does not believe that subjective experiences exist! Simply read the beginning of quining qualia. HIS definition of qualia is subjective experience.
Well then, Dennett has a contradiction . Just because he has a contradiction on his hands doesn't mean that he is in a state of denial,
raw_thought
Posts: 1775
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Questions for the friends of qualia.

Post by raw_thought »

So you agree that he is saying "A" is true.
And he is saying that "A" is not true.
That is illogical.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2636
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Questions for the friends of qualia.

Post by Ginkgo »

raw_thought wrote:Whether I am a dualist or not does not matter. That was an ad hominum.
Dennett does not believe that subjective experiences exist! Simply read the beginning of quining qualia. HIS definition of qualia is subjective experience.
How was that an ad hominum?
raw_thought
Posts: 1775
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Questions for the friends of qualia.

Post by raw_thought »

Either he is in denial or his mind cannot understand basic logic.
raw_thought
Posts: 1775
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Questions for the friends of qualia.

Post by raw_thought »

An ad hominum is not necessarily an insult. It is a fallacy.
For example, if I made the "argument" well of course you believe that because you are an atheist. ".You being an atheist or theist has nothing to do with the validity of your argument.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2636
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Questions for the friends of qualia.

Post by Ginkgo »

raw_thought wrote:So you agree that he is saying "A" is true.
And he is saying that "A" is not true.
That is illogical.
Yes, as I have said many times before, the problem with a materialist explanation for consciousness is that you end up eliminating the very thing you are trying to prove.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2636
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Questions for the friends of qualia.

Post by Ginkgo »

raw_thought wrote:An ad hominum is not necessarily an insult. It is a fallacy.
For example, if I made the "argument" well of course you believe that because you are an atheist. ".You being an atheist or theist has nothing to do with the validity of your argument.
In what way is a dualist explanation for consciousness a fallacy in the context of that particular post?
Post Reply