Qualia, Solipsism and Contextualism - Defence

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Qualia, Solipsism and Contextualism - Defence

Post by Necromancer » Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:55 pm

This is the defence of Qualia, Solipsism and Contextualism with a bit of Ego in it all.

So let's assume that the impression of nature, of beauty, of colours have qualia to them in such a fashion that context of them in the brain, in the soul (that I think exists) makes them special to the person in space and time by the unique experiences they make in a person's mentality. This creates a special kind of solipsism as well such that the true magnificence of experiences overall has this subtle, non-investigative quality of person that is firmly set by context, a contextualism in the brain, in the soul. Sure, overt feelings are now fairly easy to determine by for example fMRI and other. But this is not the issue, it is the depth of contextuality in the mind that makes those other qualities of feelings inaccessible overall because they are impossible to describe and impossible to entirely investigate.

The mystery of the World, one type of religious experience, "God's temple" in us in the grand World, much stronger too with the enhancement of science and questions over existence. So I say that to live is to have qualia, solipsism and contextualism in this fashion, the imprint on each and every one by the World as a whole!

So: Do you agree with my account of Qualia, Solipsism and Contextualism?

Note: One account of Qualia can be found in Philosophy of Mind, 2nd ed. by Jaegwon Kim, chapter 8, for instance.

User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: Qualia, Solipsism and Contextualism - Defence

Post by Necromancer » Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:25 pm

Addition:
I have used a special definition of Solipsism. One that I describe to some extent in my text. I certainly do not use solipsism in the sense that only the subjective person exists.

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (1995), edited by Robert Audi, says:
solipsism, the doctrine that there exists a first-person perspective possessing privileged and irreducible characteristics, in virtue of which we stand in various kinds of isolation from any other persons or external things that may exist. This doctrine is associated with but distinct from egocentricism.
I do not use solipsism in the sense of ontological solipsism or epistemological solipsism!

Note: Let me write that I use Solipsism in the Contextual Solipsism sense!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 7 guests