>As I recall, John K. Clark assumes the existence of qualia
>based on experience and Dan Fabulich claims we have no
>reason to make such assumptions. The only way to settle
>this dispute is to find evidence that qualia do not exist.
Even more important and fundamental is to define the components of
propositions being made. In terms of the existence of qualia, we must,
BEFORE anything else, define both existence
and qualia. We have defined qualia many times, so I won't bore you again,
but not existence. This, like a great many other commonly used words is
assumed defined, the existence of a coherent symbolic counterpart in our
minds being the source of the assumption. But these symbols, useful to the
animal within us, are far from dependable when working with pure logic. In
fact, they don't have to have any counterpart in reality at all.
The failure of certain people to acknowledge the above leads to propositions
such as "Qualia does not exist". Well, my definition for entities that exist
is those entities I can perceive through my senses either directly or
indirectly. I know of no other definition. Given this, it is irrational to
propose that qualia do not "exist", since we all directly perceive them.
I could go on all day, but the points I'd make I've already posted several
times to no effect.
Got any comments folks? Any alternative definitions of existence? From here
we can begin a real debate - not from ten miles down a line of highly
questionable personal assumptions as is usually the case. Take out the
ambiguity from the bottom up, and then you'll see former matters of opinion
become matters of fact, and real progress on issues can be made, avoiding
the "who's got the biggest golden hat?" game that humans seem incapable of
avoiding even when engaged in supposed rational debate.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:02 MDT