I'm kinda partial to my own view... ;)https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/colour-vision-2 …
-
-
I imagine if we check in with all the new theories of color that come and go over the next 300 years, the one thing they'll all have in common is the kinds of experiences to which they refer.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I think colours are ineliminably experiential (so I'm not an objectivist) but I also think they aren't sensational properties (qualia), so I'm not a subjectivist. I think they're relational and ecological properties (hence the Merleau-Ponty quote)
3 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
As a non-professional with merely a slightly above average intelligence, I'd forced to reduce my question to this: In your opinion what does count as a sensational property?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Well, in the technical sense in which philosophers use the term, I'm not sure there are any. But in everyday speech, shine a bright light up close and right into your eye and you will suffer from a visual sensation
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Okay, yeah. I just wanted to know if color was a special 'thing' that you denied was a qualia or if you denied anything was a qualia. It sounds your rejection of color is part of a universal doubt you have about qualia.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tonofbuns @evantthompson and
If so, then I'm inclined to think that it is really a certain formulation of 'qualia' that you reject. After a lot of reading, I've started to see that illusionists are mostly just rejecting theories of experience but have no problem recognizing what's unique.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tonofbuns @evantthompson and
I'm not calling you an illusionist! But in this context I'm mainly trying to understand the role language is playing in creating the illusion of disagreement :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm not an illusionist because I don't think cognitive access is all there is to consciousness (sentience), but I also think that the notion of qualia is a theoretical term that distorts/reifies experience -- this all comes more-or-less from Phenomenology (esp Merleau-Ponty)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I've never grasped the technical meaning of 'qualia,' so I've just used it to refer to qualities. And just as I see a certain kind gap in trying to find the math equation for what a horse is, I see the same kind of gap from getting red from 'spin' or some other basic quantity.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It can be used that way, of course. But then why not just say "qualities"? "Qualia" contains sedimented assumptions -- qualities are intrinsic (nonrelational), directly revealed subjectively as what they are, etc -- that are heavily theoretical (not theory-neutral data)
-
-
Yes, thanks for that. That is exactly what I've slowly come to see in unpacking what illusionists really mean when they make their most sexy claims. "misguided" is a much more accurate way to make their point than 'illusion,' but I fully see why illusion packs such a punch.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @tonofbuns @evantthompson and
In other words, so far I don't see anybody even trying to say how we can derive qualities (not qualia) from quantities.Which makes sense because I don't think we can derive in that direction. The other direction seems more promising. Or: just be functionalists :)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.