TBH I could do with less suffering. https://twitter.com/laurilove/status/960992268596514816 …
-
-
I do agree that a lot of western philosophers' idea of "qualia" is pretty confused - David Chalmers avoids using the word for that precise reason - but that doesn't mean that the crude analytic functionalism/illusionism of Dennett is correct
-
Basically I think it's clear there's *something* there - otherwise you couldn't do phenomenology in the first place - even if the western term "qualia" as it's often defined doesn't quite capture it
-
Chalmers I think does a good job of providing an alternative framework in which phenomenology is fundamentally representational, and things like occurrent thoughts can count as "phenomenal" despite not having an obvious sensory quality
-
I suspect that the main confusion/incoherence in the idea of "qualia" comes from the stipulation that they're non-representational and completely separate from what we would call "thinking" - which I agree is a pretty confusing and counterintuitive way of looking at things
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.
