Quining qualia.

Post Reply New Topic

http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/quinqual.htm
In a nutshell Dennett's argument is,
1. Qualia by definition are ineffable.
2. Qualia are shown (via "intuition pumps". Intuition without qualia?!) to not be http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... subjective
3. To lack intersubjectivity is to be ineffable.
4. Therefore, qualia do not exist because they are ineffable.
Dennett’s "argument" is a proposition not an argument. Or at best a tautology, "the ineffable does not exist because the ineffable does not exist.” Or at worst a circular argument. Note that, ineffable does not mean supernatural. One cannot describe (in words) how to move one's thumb.
Ironically Dennett uses “Quine” in the title of his paper. Quine advocated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indetermin ... ranslation * In other words, since there is an “indeterminacy of translation” there is no intersubjectivity! As for his “intuition pumps” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-inverted/ is better. It deals more directly with qualia’s lack of intersubjectivity. However, like Dennett’s “intuition pumps” it has nothing to do with the existence of qualia. It only helps us understand what qualia are.

* The “indeterminacy of translation is reinforced by the following points, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_analysis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_man_argument if one replaces “forms” with “concepts” (or universals)

Intuition pumps?

Isnt that what hookers wear on their feet?

Well, I would not go that far. Tho I did knock out one of Dennett's best arguments. Denett is a heavy weight philosopher. OK! Lets celebrate with humor!

I know that qualia exist. And I'm pretty sure that Dan Dennett does too. In fact, if Dan Dennett doesn't experience qualia, that would remove the main reason that killing him would be immoral. So he might want to be careful about going around saying that he doesn't experience qualia.

But since it is impossible to talk about qualia from a third-person perspective, Dan has found a fun way to waste everyone's time, by pretending that he doesn't understand what everyone else is talking about.

To add to the OP (which proved that Dennett's "argument" is circular ), Dennett's "argument" is also self refuting. For example, "2+2=4" is only a pattern of ink when no one understands it (it is not a true or false proposition). Intentionality (google "intentionality, philosophy". I am using intentionality in the philosophical sense.) requires consciousness (qualia). If Dennett is correct (he is obviously not) then everything he writes is meaningless! His writings are as meaningful as,"huksundcilkenmullaw"!
Suppose there are no qualia. Pain then equals C fibers firing.Dennett would have to say that there is nothing wrong with torture! Causing pain is wrong.However,causing C fibers to fire is ethically neutral.
I agree with Searle who characterized Dennett's position as neurotic. To doubt that one is conscious is the ultimate delusion.

It is true that the OP is not graced with perfect syllogisms.* I did not take the same time in preparing the OP as I did preparing for the seminar.
* They are valid and prove Dennett wrong. However, they are not as formal as the presentation I gave at university for seminar. All objectors and objections at the seminar were addressed and the objector convinced of the correctness of my argument.

enjoyable thread, thanks.

Qualia! How Unspeakable!

ruveyn

If you read Dennett's article you would have understood my argument. I really do not see how my argument is a mess. And I am sure you cannot either or you would have shown how my syllogism is invalid. As to Dennett saying that qualia do not exist because they are incapable of intersubjectivity, that is his whole argument. Perhaps if you had read the article, you would have seen that.
Debating you is pointless. I offer syllogisms and facts and all I get back is, "what a mess" ",you're wrong" etc. How can I respond to such general accusations?
I suppose debating you is pointless, because I can never convince you of anything,because that requires changing ones beliefs and as an elimimative materialist you have no beliefs!

Here I will do your homework for you,
“If there are such things as qualia, then there is a fact about whether you have OK memories and inverted qualia, or OK qualia and inverted memories. Such a fact could never be empirically determined. But if you can't empirically determine something, there can't be a fact about it. Since assuming the existence of qualia leads to a contradiction, there must be no qualia after all.”
FROM
http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/mind/qualia.html

I agree that the above quote is an accurate representation of Dennett’s “argument’.
Dennett’s argument is circular because “empirically determined” implies (and in the context of his argument means) intersubjectivity. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... subjective *
Qualia by definition are not intersubjective. For example, you cannot feel my pain.
Dennett then proves that qualia lack intersubjectivity.
He then says that that proves that qualia do not exist!! !!
Also as I showed in the OP, Dennett ironically mentions Quine. Quine would say that when it comes to language actually portraying empirical reality, it cannot because it lacks intersubjectivity . So empirical validation ( provisionally assuming that one can write about it, scientific papers etc and that validation requires concepts) is impossible!
* Empirically determined ( in Dennett's mind) implies intersubjectivity because if only I am aware of something, that is qualia not empirical. For example, Dennett would say that my sensation of coffee is not empirical because only I have it. For something to be empirical it must be verified by an objective outside source. That is what his "Quining Qualia" is all about!
Obviously, a circular argument!

First of all, wth is qualia?

Qualia=
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/
Qualia are secondary qualities, pain, pleasure, beliefs etc.
Dennett says that they do not exist!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary/se ... istinction