Dan Fabulich wrote:
>
> As for why it's considered a dead horse? Because the existence of qualia
> is taken to be axiomatic/fundamental/unquestionable by those who accept
> their existence...
No, I think it's considered to be a dead horse because everyone with
something original to say about the subject has either already said it,
is tired of discussing it, doesn't think it's worth it, or all three.
I don't consider the existence of qualia to be unquestionable. Our
minds may be set up in such a way that it is impossible not to be
certain of individual quales, but whether this is (a) correct and (b)
anything unusual can be debated. Except that I'm tired of debating it,
which is why it's a dead horse.
--
sentience@pobox.com Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
http://pobox.com/~sentience/beyond.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:59 MDT