Banno

To All: You can't tell us what qualia are, because they are ineffable. And you cannot show them to us what they are, because they are private. Were th...

You sure about that? Tell us exactly what it is that is missing. And if your answer is "the qualia", then... ...all you have done is engage in the cir...

:up: Indeed; it's bad thinking. In the next breath the phenomenal becomes all there is; the experience becomes the ontology. Most philosophical proble...

Yeah, I've shown, at least to my own contentment, this question has no sense nor reference.

We tend to assume that there is something common to all red things - the supposed thing that makes them all "red"; but as Austin pointed out, why shou...

But, can you set out what that "something" is? And if you can't how can you be so sure of it? Or is it that we expect genus-differentia definitions ev...

I'm not just making a bald assertion; see the last half-dozen posts to @"khaled". If you want, address the argument.

No - later.

I'd need more info to address this. I'm not following the argument.

That's good. I had in mind something more like the Myth of the Given. I might not have to assert anything stronger than that pain is a family resembla...

That's a good question. What is your answer? Now's your chance.

No.

In looking for a place for criticism of the position I've given, I'd look to the following paragraph: I seem to be arguing against the position that e...

More than that. It seems not to be individuated.

Of course not. It's just that the assumption that pain is a thing is misguided.

Curiously, I can't know that you are in pain, according to those who advocate for qualia and the privacy of pains, because your pain is ineffable. So ...

"I have a pain in my hand" is more like "Ouch!" than like "I have an apple in my hand". Not "the same as". There remain differences. How do you know w...

:up: Complaints.

OK, so let's get rid of "red". Secondary properties might have a distinct grammar and complicated the issue unnecessarily. Here's the question we are ...

But more than the referent being ambiguous. Sometimes it’s beside the point. Sometimes it is absent.

Thanks. Our chat is in danger of being swamped in @"creativesoul"'s Great Debate. Creative's doing a fine job of keeping the candle of wisdom alight. ...

Spot on.

Odd, isn't it.

Things can be treated as symbols. If everything is just a symbol, what are they symbols for? Each other? Idealism.

I really want to start a thread called "The floor in the Chinese Room".

Here we might be getting to a fundamental difference. Does "The apple" refer to the apple? I say that it does. Others will say variously that it refer...

...you hit the nail squarely on the head here. Kudos.

Let's just check something. Adopting the notion that words refer... The referent of "The apple in the fruit bowl" is the apple in the fruit bowl. The ...

No True Scotsman is altruistic.

Indeed; hence, "one can 'divide through' by the thing in the box; it cancels out, whatever it is".

The terms rarely help to clarify things. Too much baggage.

Well, I suppose that's one way to deal with the confusion of the subject/object distinction.

They are subjective and objective?

Respectfully, I can see it makes no sense to you; but that's not my problem. At this stage, I don't see a point in continuing. Cheers.

SO far as I can see, this was addressed at length by @"creativesoul", @"Andrew M" and @"Isaac" and I; I see no point in going over it again. Cutting i...

Cheers. It's been interesting.

@"khaled" And yes, I know you will find that answer frustrating; but that's it... Did you read The Mark of Zombie?

My bolding. Notice that the explanation bit makes no use of qualia, only of pain. Adding "qualia" into the explanation achieves nothing. Which was to ...

...and you think "Pain is a quale" answers this? Answer your own question; what is added to the understanding of pain by introducing qualia?

Well, in the one case, the person is in pain; whereas, and in contradistinction, in the other, they are not. Yes; indeed. As we did, with the English ...

If it were conceptually sound, then perhaps it could be left alone. But look, for example, to @"Enrique"'s misuse, earlier in the thread. And again, i...

Not poor thinking - the opposite. When one comes across the sort of contradictions and paradoxes you love, what is one to conclude? What is it that yo...

89 km = c * 0 Solve for c: c=89/0 c * 0 = 89000 km Solve for c: c=89000/0 Nonsense begets nonsense.

No, poor arithmetic at line three results in division by zero. The misuse of The contradiction used in The confusion of extension and intension in The...

No, dividing by zero results in an undefined result. The mathematical rule is, don't do it. Same goes for most of your other threads; don't break the ...

You divided by zero.

When I'm not on a thread that is about qualia, that's exactly what I do. Indeed, one of the arguments that has been used in this thread is exactly tha...

Pfft. You don't have to be here, yet you are. If Olivier prefers to use a term, who is to stop him? So that argument looks to be a bit disingenuous. I...

That's good coffee. I use a pulverised coffee imported from the middle east. Almost equal amounts of coffee and sugar, bring it to the boil in a pan, ...

Yep. The proceeding posts, amusing as they are, did not address the issue. Sure, there is a difference between being in pain and pretending to be in p...