Banno

Again, so what?

Knowing that needs demonstration as much as knowing how.

So what. Moving your foot and moving your hand are associated with different parts of the brain, but are both movements. As if talking and writing wer...

...then by what right would you call them memories? Is it so clear?

Ah, yep. Thanks. For example? Could one have stored in memory a fact that was utterly irrelevant to any action one might undertake? And here we might ...

Just the consequence of looking to use rather than meaning. Folk who get hung up on justified true belief are following Socrates in attempting the imp...

No. I'm suggesting philosophers might better analyse knowing that... in terms of knowing how... The flatus at the end of Theaetetus comes from an atte...

Good; it's always better not to let new information undermine your pre-existing view...

That cyst on your foot was alive; yet you had it removed. How is a cyst in a womb different?

Yes. As Quine put it, The all-too-neat OP seeks to advance falsification as a way of defining knowledge by showing that it avoids Gettier, while ignor...

What counts as being certain is dependent on what one is doing. It is certain that the bishop must stay on squares of the same colour; until it become...

That's just wrong. There are patterns.

Shhh. No yelling.

Don't buy into that. It's an ad hoc fallacy used to defend religious fervour. Your belief in the device on which you are reading this and their belief...

Brains doing statistical analysis? Isn't it rather that what neural networks learn using feedback, Bayesian models use feedback, and hence neural netw...

Gettier isn't the big problem for 'critical rationalism' - a grandiose name for falsification. Quine and Duhem point out that falsifying an hypothesis...

Not flawed; just incomplete.

I suspect this thread is what happens when one's diet is solely tertiary texts.

The OP is just a piece of closed reasoning. It tells us nothing. Further, the definition is wrong. Truth is a predicate of statements; it is not a thi...

Well, that's the question. If that's all they are, why introduce the term? Those who use the term might speak of "What it is like to see red", not of ...

Yep, there's a difference between red and a certain frequency. No problem. What about the qualia?

:grin:

It might be time that @"Hippyhead" be relieved of his duties as a member.

Indeed. All the objections to sense-data get imported. WHat are mental states? over-indulged.

...but I would not accept that wording. There's a slide going on here that I would avoid. It starts with the taste of milk and ends in nonsense such a...

If nothing is added, why bother? Adding unneeded entities also adds confusion,

?

Hm. The private language argument did not deny that humans can have private thoughts.

OK. The next step is to recognise the damage the introduction of such a notion can do... see and .

How do you know? What's your justification for thinking it is the same number? Could you never be mistaken here?

If you can't know anything about the think in itself, then why insist on talking about it? It drops out of the conversation.

Here's my question for those who would have us talk of qualia: what is added to the conversation by their introduction? If a qual is the taste of milk...

You seem to be agreeing with me...? A memory is also a qual?

That'd be because the notion of a thing in itself is an odd piece of philosophical nonsense.

Good of you to actually address the article - cheers. It's in the third person in order to introduce "it occurs to me that to you, cauliflower probabl...

This is at odds with the notion that we can't know what a thing is in itself... since we do supposedly know qualia directly. As if they could be used ...

That would seperate them from perception. THat's at odds with how they are used in the literature.

Yes; and such talk need make no mention of qualia...

Again, what is added to talk of the difference between "700 nanometer wavelength electromagnetic wave" and talk of red by introducing qualia?

Why add that? What is gained by talk of the-qual-of-the-flower that is not found in talk of the red flower? I suspect we agree that the additional phi...

Seems to me that there is nothing that talk of qualia is about. In so far as talk of qualia is usable and useful, it is no different to talk of colour...

And intuition pump #15: the guitar string. Arguably we have here three qualia; the first open E, the harmonic, and the second open E. Is the point her...

intuition pump #14: the Jello box. This seems to be about the information content of the notion of qualia; if I've understood it aright, one side of t...

Intuition pump #13: the osprey cry. There's danger here of following Kripke rather than Wittgenstein. However the point must stand, that recognising t...

Intuition pump #12: visual field inversion created by wearing inverting spectacles. The point here seems to be that even if there were qualia, they ne...

Intuition pump #10: the world-wide eugenics experiment. How to make sense of the qualia of secondary properties... Someone who says phenol-thio-urea i...

Intuition pump #9: the experienced beer drinker. This is similar to 7 & 8 in playing on the supposed difference between the qualia and the judgement o...

Pff. Definitions are over-rated. And off-topic. And appeals to authority are without value. Have a read of what he actually says at the start of the a...

Intuition pump #7: Chase and Sanborn. They have the same decreased liking for the coffee they taste; but is it the coffee that is faulty, or is it the...