Knowing how versus Knowing that

[Lev Muishkin]

I do not want and explanation or an empirical exposition. I simply asked what you think it means|
The notion of the qualium derives from a logical consequence of thinking about perception, and objectivity. What you have above is not on the page. I mean really "quantum foam"!!

Lev, you asked for my opinion and a I gave it you you.

Qualia is what we experience, the gap between "I love you", and "it's just a bunch of hormones" From the way the thread has been going I'm not sure we are in the same page with this.

Yes, all theories of qualia leave us with an explanatory gap. Upon reflection I have told you what little I know about qualia.

I am on the same page as the wikipedia article:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

I can't do any better than this.

Sad but true.

[Ginkgo]

I do not want and explanation or an empirical exposition. I simply asked what you think it means|
The notion of the qualium derives from a logical consequence of thinking about perception, and objectivity. What you have above is not on the page. I mean really "quantum foam"!!

Lev, you asked for my opinion and a I gave it you you.

Qualia is what we experience, the gap between "I love you", and "it's just a bunch of hormones" From the way the thread has been going I'm not sure we are in the same page with this.

Yes, all theories of qualia leave us with an explanatory gap. Upon reflection I have told you what little I know about qualia.

I am on the same page as the wikipedia article:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

I can't do any better than this.

Sad but true.

I guess that's just the way it is when we try and fill the explanatory gap with a dualistic theory. It usually turns out to be inadequate.

I'll try and do better next time.

[Lev Muishkin]

I guess that's just the way it is when we try and fill the explanatory gap with a dualistic theory. It usually turns out to be inadequate.

I'll try and do better next time.

I never once asked you for a explanation. All I wanted was your descriptive understanding.
Why is that so hard?

[Ginkgo]

I guess that's just the way it is when we try and fill the explanatory gap with a dualistic theory. It usually turns out to be inadequate.

I'll try and do better next time.

I never once asked you for a explanation. All I wanted was your descriptive understanding.
Why is that so hard?

Qualia being like the smell of flowers or the taste of wine and the feeling these sensations invoke.

[Wyman]

I guess that's just the way it is when we try and fill the explanatory gap with a dualistic theory. It usually turns out to be inadequate.

I'll try and do better next time.

I never once asked you for a explanation. All I wanted was your descriptive understanding.
Why is that so hard?

Now that you have spent three pages demanding a description of qualia, did you have something to say about it?

[Lev Muishkin]

I guess that's just the way it is when we try and fill the explanatory gap with a dualistic theory. It usually turns out to be inadequate.

I'll try and do better next time.

I never once asked you for a explanation. All I wanted was your descriptive understanding.
Why is that so hard?

Now that you have spent three pages demanding a description of qualia, did you have something to say about it?

No, I think I've lost the will to live now, and can't remember why I thought an alternative notion was being employed. It's too late at night to trawl back through all the post of the thread.
Maybe another day?
Maybe I was trying to pin qualia to "knowing that" and "knowing how".. oh shit I think your meanings for that were also idiosyncratic too.!!!!!

[Lev Muishkin]

I guess that's just the way it is when we try and fill the explanatory gap with a dualistic theory. It usually turns out to be inadequate.

I'll try and do better next time.

I never once asked you for a explanation. All I wanted was your descriptive understanding.
Why is that so hard?

Qualia being like the smell of flowers or the taste of wine and the feeling these sensations invoke.

Good, though it's more of the essence of uniqueness of each of those things, don't you agree?

[Ginkgo]

Good, though it's more of the essence of uniqueness of each of those things, don't you agree?

I guess the short answer is that I can see some similarities and differences when it comes to essences and qualia. But this would need a lot of clarification of our terms, especially in relation to qualia.

[Lev Muishkin]

Good, though it's more of the essence of uniqueness of each of those things, don't you agree?

I guess the short answer is that I can see some similarities and differences when it comes to essences and qualia. But this would need a lot of clarification of our terms, especially in relation to qualia.

But rather than a "feeling", as such, the qualium is that quality felt. Do you see the distinction?

[Impenitent]

isn't the how an afterthought?

perception

how (categorized - linguistically, then reacted upon)

untrained reflexive actions may reverse the reaction/categorized order...

-Imp

[Lev Muishkin]

isn't the how an afterthought?

perception

how (categorized - linguistically, then reacted upon)

untrained reflexive actions may reverse the reaction/categorized order...

-Imp

How is not an afterthought but a continual process It might follow from a knowing that, and might lead to new knowing that's.
Know how - are we talking about the autonomous aspects of learned behaviour?

E.g. I that where middle C is on a score, and on the piano key. The trick is the "know-how" to automatically hit the key for the right length of time, and the right pressure in the midst of a flourish of other playing without having to think about it.
Same with typing, running catching jumping. But does this sort of know how lie behind the conscious outworking of "knowing that" a lot more than we would like to think?
Obviously there is the completely untried knowledge - not yet put into practice.
But i'm thinking about the area where you seem to rationalise with a process of thinking some response to a query: something that you might already know more that you think.

[Ginkgo]

Good, though it's more of the essence of uniqueness of each of those things, don't you agree?

I guess the short answer is that I can see some similarities and differences when it comes to essences and qualia. But this would need a lot of clarification of our terms, especially in relation to qualia.

But rather than a "feeling", as such, the qualium is that quality felt. Do you see the distinction?

Yes, I think your way of saying it is better.

[Lev Muishkin]

I guess the short answer is that I can see some similarities and differences when it comes to essences and qualia. But this would need a lot of clarification of our terms, especially in relation to qualia.

But rather than a "feeling", as such, the qualium is that quality felt. Do you see the distinction?

Yes, I think your way of saying it is better.

Okay great we are on the same page. Now how does all this hinge on the thread?

[Wyman]

isn't the how an afterthought?

perception

how (categorized - linguistically, then reacted upon)

untrained reflexive actions may reverse the reaction/categorized order...

-Imp

Red is 'categorized' according to past behaviors learned. Language is a behavior/ability. Do you have to 'do' something see a red apple? I don't. So there's no difference between untrained and trained reflexive actions here.

[Wyman]

Good, though it's more of the essence of uniqueness of each of those things, don't you agree?


But rather than a "feeling", as such, the qualium is that quality felt. Do you see the distinction?

I've never felt red.

What does red feel like to you?

What is the uniqueness of 'red' - a paradigm?