From: Dan Fabulich (daniel.fabulich@yale.edu)
Date: Mon Nov 29 1999 - 20:19:02 MST
'What is your name?' 'Zeb Haradon.' 'IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR NAME
IS!!!':
> The question is this: do you deny that there is a difference between YOUR
> subjective experience of red, and the objective movements of matter which
> constitute detection of the red-wavelength of light? If you say no, you must
> be fundementally different from me. If you say yes, then you're admitting
> qualia (as I define the term) exist.
My SUBJECTIVE experience of red? I'm not HAVING a *subjective* experience
of red. I'm having an experience of red alright, but it's entirely
OBJECTIVE. (And thus, it's perfectly reasonable for me to claim its
equivalence with the *objective* movements of matter which constitute
detection of the red-wavelength of light.)
You want me to explain why we have the illusion of subjective experience?
When I pinch myself, you don't wince. Some people falsely inferred from
this that there was something subjective going on, when, in fact, the
reason you didn't wince when I did is because you didn't detect my
pinching through your pinch-detectors, not because I had a feeling which
was inaccessible to you.
("Pinch-detectors" isn't very precise, but it'll do in a ... erm... under
these circumstances.)
No sale? Allow me to to make the same argument in the style of
"reductionist" materialism, which Dennett explicitly eschewed in his paper
in favor of "eliminative" materialism, but which I'll accept for the sake
of argument, because it works just as well either way.
Actually, yeah, I believe that the objective movements of matter which
constitute detection of the red-wavelength of light simply ARE my
"experience" of red.
Why would you want to say that this is not the case? Some might argue
that it is because their "subjective experience" of red doesn't "feel
like" the movement of matter. But that's just begging the question; it's
neither here nor there.
Consider this question: It is natural to say that the sun revolves around
the earth; we refer to the "rising/setting sun" as if we believed that
this was what was really going on. Why? Because it SEEMS like the sun
revolves around the earth. But what would it seem like if the earth
revolved around the sun? Similarly, what would it feel like if "red" WAS
the objective movement of matter?
If you jump in and say "it couldn't feel like anything at all," or
something like that, then you're REALLY begging the question. On the
other hand, if you conclude that it would feel like exactly what it feels
like right now, then you no longer have a motivation to say that your
"subjective experience" of red is NOT qualia.
Except, of course, the fact that it's not subjective. And, really, if
it's not subjective, then in what sense is it qualia?
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:53 MST