[extropy-chat] Creating software with qualia

[Damien Broderick]

At 09:27 AM 12/1/2005 +1030, Emlyn wrote:

>I think everyone forgot to say "OMG Hal, post of the month, post of the 
>month!"

Yes, but--

Doesn't resolve the problem (assuming there is one), just spells out part 
of what distinguishes rich or thick from thin descriptions, leaving 
*experiences* as an uninvestigated zone. From a different perspective, 
maybe "emic" vs. "etic" approaches, sort of, neither phenomenological in 
character. Eugen and JKC will probably utter the word "emetic" around now. :)

http://faculty.ircc.cc.fl.us/faculty/jlett/Article%20on%20Emics%20and%20Etics.htm 
:

<As Pike defines it, the emic perspective focuses on the intrinsic cultural 
distinctions that are meaningful to the members of a given society (e.g., 
whether the natural world is distinguished from the supernatural realm in 
the worldview of the culture) in the same way that phonemic analysis 
focuses on the intrinsic phonological distinctions that are meaningful to 
speakers of a given language (e.g., whether the phones /b/ and /v/ make a 
contrast in meaning in a minimal pair in the language).  The native members 
of a culture are the sole judges of the validity of an emic description, 
just as the native speakers of a language are the sole judges of the 
accuracy of a phonemic identification.

             The etic perspective, again according to Pike, relies upon the 
extrinsic concepts and categories that have meaning for scientific 
observers (e.g., per capita energy consumption) in the same way that 
phonetic analysis relies upon the extrinsic concepts and categories that 
are meaningful to linguistic analysts (e.g., dental 
fricatives).  Scientists are the sole judges of the validity of an etic 
account, just as linguists are the sole judges of the accuracy of a 
phonetic transcription.>