From: Metaqualia (metaqualia@mynichi.com)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2004 - 19:31:29 MDT
>Am I to understand, then, that while you (a) admit that you have no
definition of what qualia
>are and (b) question whether anyone does, you somehow maintain that we
should all be able
>to agree what they are? This position is simply illogical and I implore you
to examine it more
>critically. To whit, without offering a definition, how can we agree on a
definition?!
The problem with defining qualia in the way we'd like everything to be
defined (precisely, unambiguously, in terms of simpler stuff, possibly in a
way that can be written down as math) is that we don't have other concepts
or analogies or anything at all to rely on.
But we can agree on what qualia are because we all have them!
Can you explain redness to a person who was born blind? The answer is no,
you have no definition yet we all agree on what redness is.
mq
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 21 2006 - 04:22:42 MST