> No. You're observing exactly what I pointed out at the end of my post. It's
> hard to eliminate human alterior motivations from supposed debate. I am
> interested only in the truth. I'm not a great fan of the way humans conduct
> themselves, and would like to improve the situation by making at least some
> proportion of human debate purely reasonable.
SOME portion of human debate *is* purely reasonable. _After_ we decide on
definitions and starting premises, the truth or falsehood of most claims
is a matter of simple deduction. However, this is not the case *before*
we decide on definitions and premises, and this is arguably where debate
is impossible. (Though perhaps some conversation is not.)
> It seems to me that your definition is just a more objective version of
> mine. I stated mine in terms of human perception. You eliminate such
> subjectivity by using "have causal effects on" rather than "perceive through
> my senses". Obviously, entities must have a causal effect on your sensors to
> be presented to your "self" as a perception.
The important difference, however, is that qualia necessarily exist under
your definition, whereas they don't necessarily exist (and thus they
probably don't exist) under my definition.
As you may or may not be aware (check the archives), people who disbelieve
in qualia do not believe that anything is "presented" to their senses at
all. In THAT sense of the word, I've argued, we don't *have* senses. You
process information "dumbly," on this account, without Understanding or
any Inner Experience of perception.
Your original definition gave existence in TERMS of perceptions (sense
impressions); this is obviously begging the question against the position
that we don't have sense impressions. You attempted to provide a
sense impression analysis of my causal argument, but if sense-impressions
don't exist, this analysis severely breaks down.
Back when the qualia debate was raging, I employed a technical notation:
Thinking, Knowing, Perceiving, etc. was what happens when someone with
qualia has them. You Perceive something when you have a quale presented
before your mind; only then do you have any possibility of Knowing of its
existence. However, I might turn out to be a zombie, who only "thinks,"
"knows," and "perceives," and by that I mean that the zombie acts exactly
like a Thinker, acts like a Knower, acts like a Perceiver, with no
behavioral or physical differentiation whatsoever, except that the zombie
does not really have Experiences at all.
Clearly, "thinking," "knowing," and "perceiving" can all happen without
any qualia in the world at all; it is what I am asserting is happening
within you right now, despite some people's claims that more is going on.
It is NOT necessary that qualia exist under my causal picture of
existence. IT IS necessary that qualia exist under your picture of
existence.
Let me draw yet another picture: the claim that qualia do not exist, is
the claim that NOTHING is presented to your senses (since you don't have
any) and therefore the claim that nothing exists *under your definition of
existence*. NOTHING fulfills the criteria you specified for existence;
you've got the wrong criteria.
If that didn't make sense to you, check out Ken's post from a couple of
days ago and start checking old posts on the topic.
I don't think a qualia debate is worth the effort, but it is worthwhile to
see how and why this debate is an intractable dispute of axioms.
> Yes we do. Debate. The establishment of definitions MUST be the first stage.
On what grounds can you argue when the subject in question is the grounds
of debate?
> So given your comments above, what do you think debate is? Just a game, a
> pointless pastime? Of course not. It's an opportunity to show off, get some
> more brasso for your golden hats. To reap the calming, warm sensation of
> self respect from the feedback of others, impressed by your use of esoteric
> vocabulary and poetic rhetoric. Is anyone on this list or elsewhere
> interested in producing conclusions from debate, to perhaps make our
> existence more bearable? Probably not. I'm leaving this ostentatious,
> puerile human reality for good if I don't find soon just ONE other person so
> mewhere who isn't solely concerned with enhancing their social status to
> reap the associated short term sensory benefits. So hands up anyone that
> sees what I'm saying !
Wow. What a mouthful of words and beliefs you've ascribed to me, without
even the benefit of stating my own case.
My epistemology (these days) is hermeneutical, a la PCR. While I see
analysis to be possible within the groundwork of a set of premises, the
only way to select premises is to see which ones seem plausible to us;
this is much the same way we do moral analysis. I make it my project to
have the most convincing argument possible, whether by refining the
position I have currently in mind or, if the opposing position is more
convincing, by switching to the position that's most convincing.
I find deduction to be very convincing, but only when performed from
convincing premises. Some things which I once found inherently convincing
these days I find very unconvincing on account of the fact that they come
into conflict with other beliefs that I have which I consider more
convincing.
I reccomend you pick up a book called _Philosophy and the Mirror of
Nature_ by Rorty. Skim the historical sections and focus on the
arguments. You may find it quite eye opening.
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:07 MDT