Anyone familiar with Qualia and the Knowledge argument and want to argue about it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument
wow what an insanely dumb argument
is this why certain philosophy really filters up into mainstream awareness, because the rest of it is ridiculous language games
>>7892026
Nice rebuttal, moron.
>>7892049
he's right, although it's not necessarily feigl's fault. it's just a really stupid method of reducing things to an aspect and then bringing in what was lost in the process in the form of a paradoxon. the irony of this method is that it relies heavily on a form of reductionism that it criticizes and assumes it works just like that in science or a person experiencing something.
I've dealt with Qualia for two semestres now, not going to bother with it
>>7891983
bump.
Imo the daniel denett argument makes most sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument#Daniel_Dennett
>>7892026
please tell us why you think it's dumb? It seems interesting to me imo. probably easily solvable but still the argument is interesting.
>>7893296
Please bother with it. I want to know what you think about it. Plus rambling about it on a board for some anons will be some sort of validation for all the work you did.
>>7893564
>daniel denett
stopped reading there
>>7893599
you = moron
The problem is that "knowledge" is a fuzzy term from folk psychology. There's no objective fact of the matter.
>>7893599
i don't know who he is bruv. I just read his argument on this thought experiment and it seemed to make sense to me :/
could you tell me why he's wrong here? (also tell me why you hate him so? I haven't read any of his works so i don't know anything about him)
>>7893564
I don't want to bother with it. You might think it's something that relates to a handful of philosophers and a dozen or so of articles / books
Dennets argument isn't a normal argument about Qualia, he comes after the discussion and puts forward an eliminitavist attitude, i.e. Qualia doesn't exist.
Qualia, raw feels, qualitative content, and so on, has been touched on for centuries. It comes again and again.
Dennets merit lies in the fact that the meaning of the concept has been washed out now, although his real project assumes it means what it does for the people who use it, so, he opts for a naturalized view of it, where these inescapable first person only accesible states of mind, are a myth, and that they too, somewhat, can be objectified.
I find that Nagels view in "What is it like to be a bat" is quite interesting and puts forward good points as to why "Qualia" (quotes because the concept is not necessarily his 'what-it-is-likeness') cannot be touched on by science.
I think Nagel is right, but maybe only in the sense that he sees there is something wrong with the discourse, but fails to see the cause of it. Wittgensteins take on mental phenomena, which is not realist nor anti-realist, in PI, still needs to be taken serious, and in some sense, it has been, but just by Sartre and Heidegger.
To go back to your post, "What do you think about it?" is silly. Ask a real question, and not just "say something about x". Ask if Qualia are real, what is the properties of qualia, how is it possible to know of Qualia, if it is possible (introspection, but what is that?), and so on. Bring out one of Dennets intuitions pumps and tell us why it breaks qualia down.
Oh, you mean the "That's why STEM is the only way to truth" argument?
>>7893611
Qualia is a concept of our "raw feels", our experience of things. But as I said in my large blogpost above, this is an enourmous concept to just tackle with that word. How things appear has been a major player in philosophy since Plato, taking space throughout the major philosophical canon. It's what feeds idealism.
But beside this enourmous philosophical history (before the name Qualia), there is also the analytical discussion of it in regards to the last centurys philosophy of mind. It had been a problem for some theories, like functionalism, how qualia arises in a functional system.
Dennet enters the scene with his article "Quining Qualia" which is a funny joke, as Quining is a term that Dennet made himself in a dictionary, which he mentions in the article as "to deny the importance or existence of something real or signficant", because Quine was a naturalist too.
Here is the article, but why read it if you haven't read behaviorism, identity theory and functionalism, not to mention dualism coming before that.
http://www.fflch.usp.br/df/opessoa/Dennett-Quining-Qualia.pdf
My current teacher in Science Philosophy is a naturalist too and we're reading his book on how to naturalize epistemology. Big fucking whoop
Science can prove that there is mechanisms for your behavior and psychological make up. And engineering can prove that even if you became purely subjective, there are still definable mathematical probabilities mechanistically on your status/transitive state of being. So there is no pure subject except in controlled experiments on a given set/universe.
>>7891983
>If a camera made to beep when it detects red detects red, then qualia exist.
Hahahahahah.
>>7893822
i think you're oversimplifying this problem quite a bit.
