Posted by
Russ Abbott on
Jul 01, 2009; 11:35pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Re-Direct-conversation-tp3137870p3192472.html
Hi Eric,
Sorry to be so blunt, but bullshit. You have completely misrepresented my position. It's a lot of fun and I'm sure you feel quite righteous arguing against dualism. And of course the best way to do that is to assert that what you are taking arms against is a version of dualism. But that's not what I'm saying. I'll reply briefly to your comments below.
-- Russ
P.S. Since this is heating up again, I've added the list back to the addressees.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Eric Charles
<[hidden email]> wrote:
Greetings all,
I have just discovered that this conversation was happening off list, and being sent to an email that gets checked less frequently. Weighing in on the difference between positions, I am tempted to say that at this point it has distilled to a simple and straightforward axiomatic difference as follows:
Russ asserts, on principle, that experiencing an object always and necessarily involves more than just an experience of the object. Whereas Nick asserts, on principle, that experiencing an object involves nothing more than you and the object in a relation.
I have no idea what you mean by saying that I assert "that experiencing an object always and necessarily involves more than just an experience of the object." I assert that experiencing an object is what the word "qualia" refers to. Qualia are the experiencings of an object.
It seems to me that the issue comes down to what we mean by "to experience." Since you and Nick use the word, I assume you don't object to it as part of your position. I challenge you to tell me what you mean by it. I'll even go first.
My basic position is that experiencing occurs in the
brain while in a state of wakeful alertness. You won't experience salt by cutting out your tongue and touching it to salt. Similarly you won't experience salt by having your tongue touched to it while you are asleep. (One could argue about having a dream that is triggered by that touching, but let's not go there at least now.) If you prefer, I would say that you don't experience salt when under anesthetic.
I can imagine many more refined test cases against which to ask whether experiencing occurs,. But lets start with these. Do you agree or disagree? And in either case, what is your definition of "to experience"?
Of course I really just put off the hard question by using the term "wakeful alertness." What do I mean by wakeful alertness? That's very difficult, and what that means is another way of characterizing what we are talking about. My position is that we don't know enough to fully say what we mean by wakeful alertness. What is your position on that? Does wakeful alertness come into your version of experiencing? If so what you mean by it?
More generally it sounds like you are claiming to know all the answers to these questions. Is that true? If not, what do you think is left to be better understood?
Russ asserts the existence of qualia. Qualia are things about the objects of our experience that are not themselves part of the objects of our experience. That is, Russ admits that we taste salt through the physical/physiological process indicated by "taste salt", but asserts that the taste of salt itself is not a property of salt, nor even of salt in relation to ourselves.
I have no idea what you mean by saying that I assert that the taste of salt is not a property of salt, nor even of salt in relation to ourselves. Please don't misrepresent what I said.
Nick asserts that what you taste when tasting salt... is salt. Thus Nick denies the existence of qualia, in so much as the term refers to something apart from the events themselves. Whatever people are referring to when they say "qualia", Nick believes it must be either something about the physical object itself or something objectively present in the relation between the perceiver and the object, and thus it is not otherworldly or additional in any way.
Thus, both Russ and Nick taste salt, that is NOT the point of disagreement! Nick's position is a modern version of the ancient one - a monistic-realist stance. Russ's position is the traditional western-philosophy one - a dualistic-idealist stance.
As I said, I'm sure you feel righteous arguing against dualism. And to do that you have to paint whatever it is you are arguing against as dualism. How about giving up the labels and discussing the actual issues.
It usually takes at least a little effort to convince people to take up the dualistic position, sometimes a lot of effort. (Did you know that before Western Philosophy was introduced to Japan in the 1870's, there were no words with which to express a subjective-objective distinction?!? Once the terms were introduced, the public had to be actively lobbied to accept the distinction. Takasuna, 2007) However, the dualistic position is considered such a basic unit of philosophical discourse today, that most learned men and woman in have been convinced of it at some point in their schooling. I know from my own experience that, once convinced, it is a difficult thought to let go of. However, just because the realist position it is hard to (re)accept, should not mean that it is this hard to understand.
Eric
Takasuna, M. (2007). Proliferation of Western methodological thought in psychology in Japan: Ways to objectification. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 41
Russ Abbott wrote:
I agree with you absolutely. This is not a meta issue. Qualia are not claims about meta-anything. You keep trying to pin that label on it. But it's not. Qualia is your experience as the tongue comes in contact with salt. You cannot tell me with a straight face that you don't have an experience of salt when that happens. More is happening than your tongue physically touching salt. It wouldn't be the same if one cut out your tongue and touched it to salt.
It seems to me that you are mis-representing me when you say
* "The [between us] question is, "Does one need to know "salty" to know salt: R says, " Yes"; Nick says "No"**"*
**
You are playing with words. You seems to want the high ground of direct experience. Well you can't have it. Whatever it is that happens in your awareness as your tongue touches salt and you are alive and alert is the quale of salt. I imagine you can twist that around to make it sound meta. If you do, you are being dishonest. Unless you can say that nothing happens in your awareness as your tongue touches salt, then you know what qualia are. To deny it is to be a dishonest conversational partner,
-- Russ
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org