From: Rob Harris (rob@hbinternet.co.uk)
Date: Fri Feb 25 2000 - 10:37:47 MST
It was written:
>> I'm not saying that qualia do or do not exist, but if they do not
>> then it seems reasonable to suggest that there is a mechanism in
>> your brain that fools you into thinking you Experience the world.
>> If such a mechanism were found then it would be evidence against the
>> existence of qualia.
Brent responded:
>I'd be happy if there we even some rational theory of how this
>could be, let alone some way that it actually is. This doesn't even
>seem logically possible to me. Whatever the representation is, that
>is our knowledge, whether it is incorrect or not, these
>representations have phenomenal qualities. And it is these internal
>conscious phenomenal qualities of our knowledge that we are talking
>about. It's as if one is arguing that there isn't really any
>representation that is our conscious knowledge, we just consciously
>know things, and this knowledge is mistaken. How is saying we don't
>have qualia, it just seems to us that we do, any different?
Rob writes:
I'm with you here, Brent. The words "Experience" and "Qualia" are pointers
to observed entities. Someone someday decided to name an observed effect
"experience" this observed effect still "exists" (contraversial!) and always
will. Quibbling with definitions will not make the original observations go
away, and saying that "qualia does not exist" will only nullify the label
"qualia", and will simply require a new label for the effect which caused
the creation of the word "qualia" in the first place. I propose
"Itdoesfuckinexistyoustupidbastards" as the new term. Now back to finding
out what it's function might be and what "IT" IS, rather than allowing
threatened sophists to remove it from their formerly simplistic model of
reality with rabid psuedo-religious denial due to the mind-boggling
freakyness such effects present. You never know, seriously hardcore
technology may sprout from a calm and humble approach to studying such
effects. What's certain is that it is in this direction that the far future
of science lies.
Also, Dan - you might have guessed from some of the above that I wasn't
satisfied with your breakdown of the debate situation - I'll get back to you
on it v. soon!
Cheers,
Rob.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:04 MST