Philosophy Now Forum

raw_thought wrote:Look up "qualia". It is what something feels like. ...

Materialists do not believe in qualia.

raw_thought wrote:Note that Dennett says," Qualia is an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the way things seem to us."
UMMM So we are familiar with something that does not exist?!!!
Note that he is not referring to the concept "qualia". He is referring to what the concept "qualia" refers to. We are (ironically according to Dennett ) familiar with actual qualia and not the concept "qualia"!!
Just another example of Dennett's many contradictions.

raw_thought wrote:I come from a scientific background. I can sympathize with the desire for everything to be physically quantifiable. However, when one denies the existence of feelings (pain, joy,pleasure,saddness:all of which are examples of qualia) one is close to being psychotic! Actually, Searle (a validated academic philosopher ) used the same argument against Dennett, that if Dennett really believed the nonsense he preaches he must be clinically psychotic.
Obviously, Dennett does not believe what he writes. If he did believe that first person narratives are meaningless, he would ask his wife after sex, "it was good for you.Was it good for me?" Of course he would never say something so absurd. Therefore, he does not believe what he writes.
That is what those profs told me. They said that Dennett said that he does not believe that an "on" switch knows that the light is on. He only says that for dramatic effect.
The materialist position (that qualia do not exist) is either a lie (they dont really believe what they are saying*) or they are psychotic. I do not think that Dennett is psychotic.
* You can make youself believe a lie. Especially, when one is devoted to a particular world view. In the case of materialists,that everything is quantifiable and that qualia do not exist.

Arising_uk wrote:

raw_thought wrote:Look up "qualia". It is what something feels like. ...

So you are saying above and beyond feeling a pain there is another feeling? That we when experiences red there is a feeling above and beyond experiencing red? As I think this is what the non-materialists claim about 'qualia', that there is a non-physical aspect but I wonder how one can have a feeling that is non-physical? Do you have to be a dualist to believe in 'qualia'?

Materialists do not believe in qualia.

If you mean a feeling or aspect that exists for some non-physical reason or lives in some immaterial world then I think I agree with them.

raw_thought wrote:"Qualia" comes from the word quality as opposed to quantity. Only quantity can be quantified. However, without any qualities there.is nothing to quantify!

raw_thought wrote:Qualia= private subjective experiences.
Dennett's argument (in "quining qualia") is circular.
He proves that qualia are defined as private subjective experiences. He then states (without any argument) that private subjective experiences are impossible. Therefore, he concludes that qualia are impossible.
Basically, his "argument " is that subjective private experiences are impossible because subjective private experiences are impossible.
He contradicts himself because he relies on subjective terms to "prove" that subjective terms are meaningless. His "argument " is disingenuous because he redefines words.
1. Feelings are and only are brain states.
2. I (Dennett) believe in feelings because I believe in brain states.
That is similar to me (an agnostic ) saying that the definition of "God" is "my dog". I then say that I believe in God because I believe that my dog exists.

Ginkgo wrote:

raw_thought wrote:Note that Dennett says," Qualia is an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the way things seem to us."
UMMM So we are familiar with something that does not exist?!!!
Note that he is not referring to the concept "qualia". He is referring to what the concept "qualia" refers to. We are (ironically according to Dennett ) familiar with actual qualia and not the concept "qualia"!!
Just another example of Dennett's many contradictions.

This is not actually Dennets argument. What he is saying is that qualia cannot exist in the way proponents of qualia make out. So what we think is qualia is not actually qualia at all.

Ginkgo wrote:

raw_thought wrote:I come from a scientific background. I can sympathize with the desire for everything to be physically quantifiable. However, when one denies the existence of feelings (pain, joy,pleasure,saddness:all of which are examples of qualia) one is close to being psychotic! Actually, Searle (a validated academic philosopher ) used the same argument against Dennett, that if Dennett really believed the nonsense he preaches he must be clinically psychotic.
Obviously, Dennett does not believe what he writes. If he did believe that first person narratives are meaningless, he would ask his wife after sex, "it was good for you.Was it good for me?" Of course he would never say something so absurd. Therefore, he does not believe what he writes.
That is what those profs told me. They said that Dennett said that he does not believe that an "on" switch knows that the light is on. He only says that for dramatic effect.
The materialist position (that qualia do not exist) is either a lie (they dont really believe what they are saying*) or they are psychotic. I do not think that Dennett is psychotic.
* You can make youself believe a lie. Especially, when one is devoted to a particular world view. In the case of materialists,that everything is quantifiable and that qualia do not exist.

It has nothing to do with people lying or being psychotic. Ad hominems are usually reserved for forums such as this. Can provide us with the quote whereby Searle claims Dennett is psychotic?

Dennett and other materialists are promoting this particular methodology as a means of discrediting dualism. They are doing this in order to ensure that first person narratives don't creep into science. Dennett' argument is largely twofold. Firstly, despite the fact that you know your first person account is "rock solid", you are mistaken . Secondly you are mistaken in terms of functionalist and materialist explanations.

I disagree with Dennett on all counts, but I would prefer to see his arguments represented accurately..

it is important to appreciate that qualia is not "a given". It is still highly controversial, especially in the field of science.

Ginkgo wrote:

raw_thought wrote:"Qualia" comes from the word quality as opposed to quantity. Only quantity can be quantified. However, without any qualities there.is nothing to quantify!

Yes, qualia is a quality of experience. On this basis qualia must always accompany experience. This is why qualia cannot exist independently of experience. This is why it becomes important to distinguish mental states may or may not have and qualia.