[extropy-chat] qualia

[Jeff Davis]

--- gts <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
 
> Correct me if you like, Brent, but your theory seems
to be physicalist, at least in so much as it seems to
reject mind-body dualism. And as Nagel states here,
"If physicalism is to be defended, phenomenological
features must themselves be given a physical account."
This what we've been asking you to do.

> > Them philosophers are totally bat-guano.
> 
> :) But empirical science seems just as lost here.

Herein lies my problem with "qualia",...and with
religion.  When the universe presents you with
something about which you have many unanswered
questions, the correct answer to any of those
questions should be "I don't know." (Or perhaps, "I
don't know,...yet.")  Not "qualia" or "God".  Humans,
especially clever humans, have an aversion to "I don't
know.", perhaps because their sense of self-worth, is
linked to having the right answer and being
admired/respected/compensated for delivering it as
needed.

"I don't know" refers to he/she who utters (or should
utter)
it, and only obliquely to the matter addressed by 'the
question'.  That question remains,...unanswered, but
whatever answer there may be also remains,
unprejudiced by the refreshing clarity and directness
of "I don't know".  "Qualia" or "God" may yet prove to
be the answer, but only when vetted by the usual
process, not proferred as a fudge factor.

Best, Jeff Davis

   "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
                           Ray Charles



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com