Materialists......

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't understand. What debate?

The debate where you try to decide whether the original question has any meaning whatsoever.

Just because it is impossible to define the terms, doesn't mean that we can't know what we are refering to by the word "quality". I know exactly what the word is refering to. The only way you can progress is to examine direct knowledge, which is not knowledge of physical things but of qualitativeness.

You know what the word means to you. I have no idea what you mean.

I think you miss the point. There is no "conclusion" drawn about the nature of quality. It is direct knowledge.

What is direct knowledge?

This seems a contradiction. If you are happy to start the debate without a definition of quality then I assume you know what we are talking about (have direct knowledge?).

No, damn it, I don't. I'm willing to start the debate because other people want to, and I'm hoping things will become clearer as we go.

The truth of what we are talking about, in your experience, has been established before that point, or it seems from what you have said.

Then you misunderstood me.

If you can't have a conversation without people "having direct knowledge of the topic" before you even start, surely you don't think the conversation is going to be of value?

~~ Paul

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The debate where you try to decide whether the original question has any meaning whatsoever.


You know what the word means to you. I have no idea what you mean.


What is direct knowledge?


No, damn it, I don't. I'm willing to start the debate because other people want to, and I'm hoping things will become clearer as we go.


Then you misunderstood me.

If you can't have a conversation without people "having direct knowledge of the topic" before you even start, surely you don't think the conversation is going to be of value?

~~ Paul

Is this a simple matter of one party looking at "debate" to mean "A discussion of 'What is X?'" vs another party looking at "debate" to mean "A formal debate, whereby the matter to be discussed is clearly defined in neutral terms and the parties then argue for, or against, a proposition that is related to the matter"?

 

[hammegk]

What is direct knowledge?

We tell you we name it a quale. Why you don't have direct experiences is a deep mystery.

If you can't have a conversation without people "having direct knowledge of the topic" before you even start, surely you don't think the conversation is going to be of value?

Damn Wiigenstein. Why do you bother to participate in these meaningless-to-you discussions?

 

[Z]

Since qualities can be illusory, or mistaken in nature, qualities are not direct knowledge at all; in fact, they are often not indicative of the true nature of things.

Attempting to discuss an issue on the basis of perceived qualities alone, without definitions and discussions, is akin to madness - entertaining, perhaps, but pointless at best.

 

[Z]

No one has direct experiences.

Chew on that for a moment...

 

[davidsmith73]

Since qualities can be illusory, or mistaken in nature,

That statement is the illusion! i.e. made from a supposed "3rd person perspective"

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We tell you we name it a quale. Why you don't have direct experiences is a deep mystery.

I know what an experience is, but David is using the term "direct knowledge." I presume he meant direct knowledge of what experience actually is, not simply of an experience. I guess I was confused. Oh wait, I already said I was confused!

Is this a simple matter of one party looking at "debate" to mean "A discussion of 'What is X?'" vs another party looking at "debate" to mean "A formal debate, whereby the matter to be discussed is clearly defined in neutral terms and the parties then argue for, or against, a proposition that is related to the matter"?

I'm not sure how we can have even a discussion without some idea of the meanings of terms.

~~ Paul

 

[davidsmith73]

I'm not sure how we can have even a discussion without some idea of the meanings of terms.

~~ Paul

Quite. But the meaning of the terms here cannot be given by definition. The meaning is the experience itself. Would you agree?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Quite. But the meaning of the terms here cannot be given by definition. The meaning is the experience itself. Would you agree?

Nah, that's just lazy. However, if we agree to use the experience as the meaning, then we had also better agree that we can't determine what the experience actually is at its fundamental level. Otherwise we are claiming that the experience tells the entire story of itself, which is a groundless assumption.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Nah, that's just lazy. However, if we agree to use the experience as the meaning, then we had also better agree that we can't determine what the experience actually is at its fundamental level. Otherwise we are claiming that the experience tells the entire story of itself, which is a groundless assumption.

~~ Paul

Don't we need to define "meaning"? And "determine"? And "actually"? And "is"? And ???

 

[davidsmith73]

Nah, that's just lazy. However, if we agree to use the experience as the meaning, then we had also better agree that we can't determine what the experience actually is at its fundamental level. Otherwise we are claiming that the experience tells the entire story of itself, which is a groundless assumption.

~~ Paul

If its lazyness then you better have plenty of energy in you because you'll be here for eternity trying to define redness for what is actually is! Conceiving of an underlying form to a qualitative experience is meaningless. Experience is the fundamental level of a quality. I can't see how that is an assumption. Assumptions refer to things we can be in error of.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If its lazyness then you better have plenty of energy in you because you'll be here for eternity trying to define redness for what is actually is!

Are you kidding? I'm not trying to define it anywhere near that well. I can't even tell whether people think qualia include only the original experience of red, or the re-experiencing of it when recalling a memory. Does it include only the "redness," or also the associated memories, such as that of a tomato? Does it include the emotions elicited?

Conceiving of an underlying form to a qualitative experience is meaningless. Experience is the fundamental level of a quality. I can't see how that is an assumption. Assumptions refer to things we can be in error of.

What the hell is a fundamental level of a quality? I meant to say that you can't tell by the experience whether it is some sort of fundamental existent, as idealists would say, or whether it is a product of brain function. If the former, you cannot determine the mathematical model of the existent. If the latter, you cannot determine how the brain actually works and gives rise to experience. You can't determine much of anything by the mere experience of redness.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Don't we need to define "meaning"? And "determine"? And "actually"? And "is"? And ???

What is it with you people? You laugh at the problem of defining terms and then scoff at the evil materialists for not agreeing with your muddled perception of reality.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

What is it with you people?

Er, sfaik, it's just 'me'.

You laugh at the problem of defining terms and then scoff at the evil materialists for not agreeing with your muddled perception of reality.

And here I thought my post was a serious question, not a jocular aside.

 

[Robin]

Don't we need to define "meaning"? And "determine"? And "actually"? And "is"? And ???

Customer: What is the $100 dollar charge on my bill?
Accountant: That is the flumbig levy
Customer: What does "flumbig" mean
Accountant: Do I have to define "That" and "is" and "the" and "levy" as well?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Er, sfaik, it's just 'me'.

Oh, it's not just you.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

If you say so. Have your people get in touch with "my" people. Let me know what my people suggest in case I don't hear from them first.

 

[hammegk]

Customer: What is the $100 dollar charge on my bill?
Accountant: That is the flumbig levy
Customer: What does "flumbig" mean
Accountant: Do I have to define "That" and "is" and "the" and "levy" as well?

That's readily understandable by the meanest intelligence, but I always thought 'flumbig' was spelled 'flumbeig'. Thanks.

 

[davidsmith73]

Are you kidding? I'm not trying to define it anywhere near that well. I can't even tell whether people think qualia include only the original experience of red, or the re-experiencing of it when recalling a memory.

It includes the qualitative aspects of both

Does it include only the "redness," or also the associated memories, such as that of a tomato? Does it include the emotions elicited?

All that is qualitative. If something can be defined by relationships then you wouldn't be refering to qualitativeness

What the hell is a fundamental level of a quality?

This term fundamental is causing confusion. I initially was responding to your use of the word but I think it should be dropped. Fundamental suggests we are dealing with a component of some kind of reductive explanation. There is only one level with quality and that is the quality! Quality, qualia, appearance, all these terms refer to the same single level of existent.

I meant to say that you can't tell by the experience whether it is some sort of fundamental existent, or whether it is a product of brain function.

I disagree. Again, I don't like the word fundamental here. Rather, you can fully realise that it is inconceivable that quality can be reduced to other levels or act as a component of a reductive explanation. Those things are the job of quantity.

You can't determine much of anything by the mere experience of redness.

We may agree on something! Regardless of this disappointment, we are just seeking the truth. How profound we find these aspects of reality is up to us. I'm not under any illusions that a true and direct understanding of quality will enable us to find new ways to manipulate our world.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I meant to say that you can't tell by the experience whether it is some sort of fundamental existent, or whether it is a product of brain function.

I disagree. Again, I don't like the word fundamental here. Rather, you can fully realise that it is inconceivable that quality can be reduced to other levels or act as a component of a reductive explanation. Those things are the job of quantity.

This is the basic just-so statement of idealists. It always involves words like "inconceivable" or that funny word Ian uses. You might as well say you're personally incredulous. You have absolutely no idea from your experiences what constitutes them.

There is only one level with quality and that is the quality! Quality, qualia, appearance, all these terms refer to the same single level of existent.

This claim is instantly refuted by neurological case studies.

~~ Paul