Referencing Qualia, Is That Transcendentalism?
October 26th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Talking About Qualia :: Accepting the Evidence of Experience :: The Property, The Brainstate and the Qualia :: Recherche du Temps Perdu
[Jud]: I never *eliminate* any words, as I am tired of telling you. I
simply point out that such words do not have any denotatum. That means
that what needs to be addressed by me in such circumstances (in an
ontological discussion - not some downtown half-pissed bar chatter) is
the existential modality of the brain of the person who used such an un
referenced abstract noun. Do you or do you not understand what I have
just written? Please confirm that you do for I do not want you to waste
my time (as MichaelP has done for years) by asking the same inane
questions over and over again.
[Joe]: I understand you to mean what you say in the next paragraph: that
you personally do not use words that refer to qualia; and, consequently,
whenever you use the word ‘afterimage’ you are referring to a brain
state.
[Jud]: With regard to the word *afterimage* I do not refer to the
*qualia,* for I reject the whole Lewisean idea of *qualia* along with
other qualophiles and similar Nagelian, chiropteran infantile
nonsense. It is a holistically-felt painful toe that exists - NOT
*toe-pain.*
[Joe]: suppose I claim that when I use the word ‘afterimage’ I am
referring to the qualia not the brain state; is that enough to be
considered a transcendalist as you define that term?
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
