On 1 Sep, 00:09, David Nyman <david.ny....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> 2009/8/31 Flammarion <peterdjo....domain.name.hidden>:
>
> > That says nothing about qualia at all.
>
> It would be helpful if we could deal with one issue at a time. Most
> of the passage you commented on was intended - essentially at your
> provocation - as a contextual exploration of possible conditions for
> recallable consciousness experience, not an explication of qualia per
> se.
But the context of the thread was you asking me about Chalmer's theory
of intrinsic qualia. I answered that relevantly. You appear to have
drifted off.
> But you haven't commented on this.
OK. Memory is relevant to consciousness. It is relevant
specifically to access consciousness. it is also easily explained
physically and not therefore part of the HP and not
therefore of much philosophical interest.
> By the way, if you have a
> simple extrinsic account of the phenomena of the specious present, I'd
> be genuinely interested in more detail.
I think I gave one. Slow communications in the brain=short term
information storage=specious present
You could hardly *not* have one.
>As to qualia, I've said
> before that I believe qualitative instantiation to be beyond extrinsic
> explanation (though not beyond indirect reference) for the simple
> reason that all explanation takes place in terms of it
That couldn't be more wrong. Mathematical/structural/functional
thinking
is qualia-free, and the HP is the problem of recovering qualia from a
description
in those terms
> (if you're
> wondering what this means I trust a little introspection will
> suffice).
Done that, came to opposite conclusion.
> > Do you think Chalmers suggestion that qualia are intrinsic properties
> > of fundamental particles is feasible or not?
>
> I doubt, despite standard usages suited to technical ends, that talk
> of properties is helpful in this regard.
Are you ever going to say what this problem with properties is?
> There are fundamental
> problems with any attempt to attach first-person consciousness to
> matter,
PM or material structures and processes?
>for the obvious reason that matter cannot be reduced to
> individually identifiable entities.
PM or material structures and processes?
> Consequently, the
> self-referential "I" is attachable only contextually to some overall
> schema in which fundamental differentiation - physical or otherwise
> (e.g. 'computational') can then play a processual role.
Can't matter have processes?
> I've remarked
> before that 'knowledge' must be regarded in the final analysis as
> ontic - i.e. we *instantiate* what we know - the subject-object
> distinction in mentality is merely a metaphor inferred from the
> polarisation of roles. When I've said this in other contexts you've
> usually reacted with bewilderment, so if this still seems opaque
> perhaps you could specify what is unclear. Anyway, on this basis we
> might think of qualitative instantiation as consisting in peculiarly
> differentiated ways-of-being, as distinct from the unbroken symmetry
> of the undifferentiated context. As an aid to intuition, you could
> think of this distinction in broadly similar terms to those you have
> proposed for 'property-less' materiality as an enduring existential
> substrate for extrinsic physical properties.
Err yeah. How about you explain this property issue.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Sep 01 2009 - 01:49:04 PDT