From: Samantha Atkins (sjatkins@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2004 - 23:41:36 MDT
While we may agree, somewhat vaguely, on all having qualia, that is a
far cry from agreeing that qualia are something that should somehow be
reified as being all that is significant or all that need be
considered in formulating a valid ethics between sentient beings.
For us to believe that we would have to attribute to qualia all the
extra nuances and significance that you do. It does not follow from
any notion of qualia we all agree on that you correctly equate
morality to maximization of positive qualia.
Your argument seems to reduce to the fact that you believe it because
you believe it.
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 13:23:08 +0800, Metaqualia <metaqualia@mynichi.com> wrote:
> > I can explain redness to a person who is not blind. Therefore, I have a
> > definition for anyone who, like me, is in possession of the necessary
> > faculties to comprehend that definition.
>
> that is not a definition you just point at the common experience you and the
> other person have. so you two can agree on what redness is although you have
> no definition, just like I think we can agree on what qualia are though I
> have no definition
>
> mq
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 21 2006 - 04:22:42 MST