That wouldn't be charitable at all. I would be cheating him of the truth.I Like Sushu wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:52 pm I don’t understand the question, but I’ve been down that road before. Perhaps using the term ‘quale’ would help? I’m not a fan of it but it seems to fit something akin to what Steve is attempting to refer to.
There comes a point at which you end up staring at the abyss. You simply have to accept certain concepts on faith.
Many things in science are explained in terms of the CONCEPT of "energy".
We know how to measure energy, but we don't know what energy IS. Ontologically speaking.
Many things in science are explained in terms of the CONCEPT of "time".
We know how to measure time, but we don't know what time IS. Ontologically speaking.
Many things in science are explained in terms of the CONCEPT of "mass".
We know how to measure mass, but we don't know what mass IS. Ontologically speaking.
We can certainly speak of no qualia for energy, time or mass. We only accept them on their pragmatic utility and the authority of the SI units.