the scope of the word qualia; or, the art of the horse-corpse pummel

From: sayke (sayke@gmx.net)
Date: Fri Feb 25 2000 - 16:24:42 MST


[dead horse; baby seal; qualia... they all look the same to me...]

[skye wrote:]
>Yes, but what that would mean then is that by so
computing you would disprove them by saying that the
things which people define them by are false. If you
say that something called a "fizzle" had four legs and
I see something you call a fizzle that does not have
four legs, either your definition is wrong or your
identification of the fizzle is wrong. If it don't
talk like a duck and it don't walk like a duck, then
it is a non-duck object. Therefore....
if we've computed qualia....
they aren't.

        ja, i understand that. in hindsight, i think it was poorly worded, but
what i was getting at is that it seems that something much like an aspect
of qualia is computable. pedantic? quite possibly.

[and dan wrote:]
>So on what grounds should we accept a qualia axiom? On what grounds
should we reject it? Can any account of qualia be given which does not
beg the question against a qualia skeptic? The skepticism alone has not
convinced the believers, and the axiom, naturally, hasn't convinced very
many non-believers. How can debate move forward from this point?

        yea, i hear ya. it does kinda seem to be at a deadlock. well, lets see
here... does the term "awake" describe anything? have you ever had
insommnia? if so, was there not something fucked up about that? if so,
what, exactly? did you answer this already and did i forget? is that a
meaningless question? har... i see how this can get old. dan, if your
really sick of it, thats cool with me. i can quit any time. honest. no, i
mean it. [twitch]

sayke, v2.3.05



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:12 MDT