Analytic vs Continental Philosophy

[fast]

Well, some scientists would say that in any case you cannot really understand things, [...]

Would they now! I agree, they would, and I would not agree with them. If a scientist would tag on "really", as if to think that was different than "we cannot understand," I would speculate that there is a truth behind what they're thinking and a falsehood in what they're saying--seeing as what they're really saying is so dissimilar to what they're saying. That was a joke on my part. The accentuation of adding "really" doesn't actually change the mathematical meaning (as if there was such a thing), but it comes across (to me) as a tell-tale sign that articulating what they have in mind is problematic. That's partially the reason for my speculation. Notice what I did? Why did I say "actually?" Is change changed by saying actually?

So, what's this hidden truth that they can see but not articulate? It could be any variety of things. For instance, our size can influence our perspective of the things we observe. Our senses can obscure aspects of things we see. Our very own nature (and notice the needless use of "very") can limit the extent of our observations. This all coupled together gives rise to the notion that we do not have a complete thorough (hopefully spelled correctly this time) understanding, meaning in part that we do not grasp every nuance leaving us with an incomplete understanding.

To which I say two things: 1) ok and 2) so what. The truth that they see, I agree with. Thus, I say okay. Yet, I do understand, and yes, I really understand. I'm thankful for the "really." It clues me in to look harder at what was meant. I remain reluctant, however, to accept what is being said.

 

[fromderinside]

What question?!

Philosophers use, depend on, an easy chair and peep (Clouseau) to do their work.

That must be very profound and so true. You're obviously talking from your own experience. I am sooo impressed.

What other jewel you haven't revealed to the world? Come on! You have to tell us mortals!
EB

Meooow. Pfssst.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Well, some scientists would say that in any case you cannot really understand things, [...]

Would they now! I agree, they would, and I would not agree with them. If a scientist would tag on "really", as if to think that was different than "we cannot understand," I would speculate that there is a truth behind what they're thinking and a falsehood in what they're saying--seeing as what they're really saying is so dissimilar to what they're saying. That was a joke on my part. The accentuation of adding "really" doesn't actually change the mathematical meaning (as if there was such a thing), but it comes across (to me) as a tell-tale sign that articulating what they have in mind is problematic. That's partially the reason for my speculation. Notice what I did? Why did I say "actually?" Is change changed by saying actually?

So, what's this hidden truth that they can see but not articulate? It could be any variety of things. For instance, our size can influence our perspective of the things we observe. Our senses can obscure aspects of things we see. Our very own nature (and notice the needless use of "very") can limit the extent of our observations. This all coupled together gives rise to the notion that we do not have a complete thorough (hopefully spelled correctly this time) understanding, meaning in part that we do not grasp every nuance leaving us with an incomplete understanding.

To which I say two things: 1) ok and 2) so what. The truth that they see, I agree with. Thus, I say okay. Yet, I do understand, and yes, I really understand. I'm thankful for the "really." It clues me in to look harder at what was meant. I remain reluctant, however, to accept what is being said.

Yeah, I had noticed your "actually", actually. And your previous, mispelt --ah, misspelled--, "thourough". I do it, too. Actually.

I agree things like 'really' and 'actually' cue us as to the discombobulated thoughts of the speaker. Not always, but quite often. There's a justified use, for example for prosodic reasons, and an abusive use, when the speaker is trying to conceal the confusion of his ideas.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sure, we agree on that.

I was responding to your initial statement here:


I fail to see what would be preventing the philosopher from testing his ideas against new observations of the real world.

There is nothing preventing a philosopher from testing their ideas but it would be a small step toward the scientific method and away from the typical philosophical methodology of staunch argumentative defense.

It's really the scale of this effort which is different. And the reason that the scale is different seems to me to be essentially that scientists are people who are working in those areas where they can use technological means to make observations while philosophers are those people who are working on issues where they only have their own eyes and ears as means of observation.
EB

It isn't so much a difference in available resources as it is a difference in methodology and mindset.

To illustrate the methodologies and mindsets, lets look at a very simple and ancient example. Ancient Greek philosophers concluded that there were four elements; fire, air, water, and earth. This is actually fairly insightful for the time - it categorizes the four states of matter commonly recognized today; plasma, gas, liquid, and solid. However through the many, many observations of nature of always seeing that rocks sink to the bottom in water, air always bubbles up through water, and fire always rises through air, philosophers of the time concluded that "each element always seeks its level of tranquility" - earth at the bottom, then water above the earth but below air, then air above water but below fire, then fire at the top. This philosophical view of elements always trying to get to where they are happy or content was accepted as the explanation for quite a few observed phenomena for many centuries.

If there had been someone with a scientific mindset of questioning and testing explanatory models at the time then I can imagine some of the tests they could have done. Do all stones sink in water? Try several types of stone. Do all shape stones sink in water? Try different shapes. If one of these shapes happened to be a bowl carved from marble then the model would have been falsified since the bowl would have floated and certainly marble would be earth under the model but it acted like air. In science, such tests that end up falsifying models are the springboard to expanded understanding of nature as they lead to more new questions and suggested answers to be further tested. In this example, those new questions and suggested answers could have led to an understanding of gravity, density, bouncy, displacement, etc. much, much earlier than they were eventually explored and understood.

Then apply this scientific mindset to the so-called 'hard problem' of consciousness. What's keeping you?

I think your example about the Ancient Greeks is confusing the distinction between science and philosophy with the distinction between Ancient and Modern times. If you want to illustrate convincingly your point, you would need to take a modern example, like, say, the so-called 'hard problem' of consciousness. What does the scientific mindset tell us we should we be doing in this respect that philosophers are not doing?
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

There is nothing preventing a philosopher from testing their ideas but it would be a small step toward the scientific method and away from the typical philosophical methodology of staunch argumentative defense.

It isn't so much a difference in available resources as it is a difference in methodology and mindset.

To illustrate the methodologies and mindsets, lets look at a very simple and ancient example. Ancient Greek philosophers concluded that there were four elements; fire, air, water, and earth. This is actually fairly insightful for the time - it categorizes the four states of matter commonly recognized today; plasma, gas, liquid, and solid. However through the many, many observations of nature of always seeing that rocks sink to the bottom in water, air always bubbles up through water, and fire always rises through air, philosophers of the time concluded that "each element always seeks its level of tranquility" - earth at the bottom, then water above the earth but below air, then air above water but below fire, then fire at the top. This philosophical view of elements always trying to get to where they are happy or content was accepted as the explanation for quite a few observed phenomena for many centuries.

If there had been someone with a scientific mindset of questioning and testing explanatory models at the time then I can imagine some of the tests they could have done. Do all stones sink in water? Try several types of stone. Do all shape stones sink in water? Try different shapes. If one of these shapes happened to be a bowl carved from marble then the model would have been falsified since the bowl would have floated and certainly marble would be earth under the model but it acted like air. In science, such tests that end up falsifying models are the springboard to expanded understanding of nature as they lead to more new questions and suggested answers to be further tested. In this example, those new questions and suggested answers could have led to an understanding of gravity, density, bouncy, displacement, etc. much, much earlier than they were eventually explored and understood.

Then apply this scientific mindset to the so-called 'hard problem' of consciousness. What's keeping you?

Me? I'm not in neuroscience so I am doing nothing. But, as I understand, they are still in the data collection stage of research. The fact that they don't yet have an answer means very little. Science is about research into areas where there is not yet a definitive answer.

I think your example about the Ancient Greeks is confusing the distinction between science and philosophy with the distinction between Ancient and Modern times. If you want to illustrate convincingly your point, you would need to take a modern example, like, say, the so-called 'hard problem' of consciousness. What does the scientific mindset tell us we should we be doing in this respect that philosophers are not doing?
EB

There is little difference that I am aware in philosophical methodology (not conclusions) between the ancient Greeks and current common philosophy. The ancient Greeks did exactly what you have described of a lot of observation of nature leading to a conclusion (or model). They took what they have observed and developed a model that "explained" what they observed. The primary difference is that the mindset and methodology of science did not exist at the time. The primary difference in philosophy is that the base knowledge or understanding of nature (given to us by science) has changed significantly so the philosophical models are now shaped by a different mental model of nature.

The difference in mindset between the philosopher and the scientist is that philosophers accept their base understanding as "truth" while the scientists ask themselves if their understanding is valid, which is why they use the methodology of testing their conclusions.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Then apply this scientific mindset to the so-called 'hard problem' of consciousness. What's keeping you?

Me? I'm not in neuroscience so I am doing nothing. But, as I understand, they are still in the data collection stage of research. The fact that they don't yet have an answer means very little. Science is about research into areas where there is not yet a definitive answer.

Sure, I fully agree.

So, what should philosophers do meanwhile? Become scientists? Go back to the countryside? The fact that scientists don't have an answer as to te hard problem of consciousness might well be because science won't be able to find one.

I think your example about the Ancient Greeks is confusing the distinction between science and philosophy with the distinction between Ancient and Modern times. If you want to illustrate convincingly your point, you would need to take a modern example, like, say, the so-called 'hard problem' of consciousness. What does the scientific mindset tell us we should we be doing in this respect that philosophers are not doing?
EB

There is little difference that I am aware in philosophical methodology (not conclusions) between the ancient Greeks and current common philosophy. The ancient Greeks did exactly what you have described of a lot of observation of nature leading to a conclusion (or model). They took what they have observed and developed a model that "explained" what they observed. The primary difference is that the mindset and methodology of science did not exist at the time. The primary difference in philosophy is that the base knowledge or understanding of nature (given to us by science) has changed significantly so the philosophical models are now shaped by a different mental model of nature.

Sure, followers can benefit from the work of their forebears. Scientists did, too.

The difference in mindset between the philosopher and the scientist is that philosophers accept their base understanding as "truth" while the scientists ask themselves if their understanding is valid, which is why they use the methodology of testing their conclusions.

I don't buy your notion of a "mindset of the philosopher", not least because "the philosopher" just doesn't exist. Different philosophers, different people, different experiences, different mindsets. What's broadly the same would be the means and resources. The methods need not be the same at all. Each philosopher is his own man, for better or worse.
EB

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Then apply this scientific mindset to the so-called 'hard problem' of consciousness. What's keeping you?

EB

It is obviously that mind and consciousness are phenomena that are dependent on the operation of our brains. These things are what our brains do. But the fine details will have to wait until science has figured out how the brain works in far more detail than we know today. Until then trying to finesse that understanding with metaphysics and philosophical theorizing will get us nowhere. It is in the final analysis, a scientific problem. Theology is right out. How many souls can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Then apply this scientific mindset to the so-called 'hard problem' of consciousness. What's keeping you?

EB

It is obviously that mind and consciousness are phenomena that are dependent on the operation of our brains. These things are what our brains do. But the fine details will have to wait until science has figured out how the brain works in far more detail than we know today. Until then trying to finesse that understanding with metaphysics and philosophical theorizing will get us nowhere. It is in the final analysis, a scientific problem. Theology is right out. How many souls can dance on the head of a pin?

And how many pins must have been dancing inside your head right when you were choosing your words there?!

Please tell me what it is that I said that made you think I had this idea you're clearly ascribing to me here that "theology" is somehow the proper method to solve the hard problem of consciousness?

Beats me.

That being said, while I would agree that our mind, including certainly the logic of qualia and possibly their quality, are phenomena that are dependent on the operation of our brain, I certainly don't think the same is true of subjective experience outside the qualia. And clearly, I'm not the only one of that opinion since it's not me who coined the expression "the hard problem of consciousness", if you understand what it means at all. So, your claim here that it's "obviously" the brain doing it is just factually wrong and rather idiotic.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

Sure, I fully agree.

So, what should philosophers do meanwhile? Become scientists? Go back to the countryside?

Both possibilities but it isn't my place to tell philosophers what they should do. However it seems to me that to maintain (or generate) their credibility, they would want to focus on human created concepts such as "morality", "fairness", etc. rather than anything to do with nature where, historically, philosophy's record is fairly poor

The fact that scientists don't have an answer as to te hard problem of consciousness might well be because science won't be able to find one.

I think that it is quite possible that they will eventually formulate an "answer" but that it will be a big disappointment and so rejected by metaphysicists much as the heliocentric solar system model was a big disappointment and rejected by theists of the time. I have a feeling that the answer metaphysicists are looking for (expecting) is a category error.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sure, I fully agree.

So, what should philosophers do meanwhile? Become scientists? Go back to the countryside?

Both possibilities but it isn't my place to tell philosophers what they should do. However it seems to me that to maintain (or generate) their credibility, they would want to focus on human created concepts such as "morality", "fairness", etc. rather than anything to do with nature where, historically, philosophy's record is fairly poor

Let me repeat that there's no such thing as "the philosopher". Each of these people decides for himself what's best.

And me, I'd rather have at least some people looking at odd angles rather than everyone goose-walking in lockstep. I hope you realise there's perhaps one philosopher for every one thousand scientists, if that.

As to the historical record, the reality never was so manichean as you say implies.

The fact that scientists don't have an answer as to te hard problem of consciousness might well be because science won't be able to find one.

I think that it is quite possible that they will eventually formulate an "answer" but that it will be a big disappointment and so rejected by metaphysicists much as the heliocentric solar system model was a big disappointment and rejected by theists of the time. I have a feeling that the answer metaphysicists are looking for (expecting) is a category error.

Anyway, thank you for sharing your perspective on things with me.
EB

 

[Juma]

Then apply this scientific mindset to the so-called 'hard problem' of consciousness. What's keeping you?

EB

It is obviously that mind and consciousness are phenomena that are dependent on the operation of our brains. These things are what our brains do. But the fine details will have to wait until science has figured out how the brain works in far more detail than we know today. Until then trying to finesse that understanding with metaphysics and philosophical theorizing will get us nowhere. It is in the final analysis, a scientific problem. Theology is right out. How many souls can dance on the head of a pin?

And how many pins must have been dancing inside your head right when you were choosing your words there?!

Please tell me what it is that I said that made you think I had this idea you're clearly ascribing to me here that "theology" is somehow the proper method to solve the hard problem of consciousness?

Beats me.

That being said, while I would agree that our mind, including certainly the logic of qualia and possibly their quality, are phenomena that are dependent on the operation of our brain, I certainly don't think the same is true of subjective experience outside the qualia. And clearly, I'm not the only one of that opinion since it's not me who coined the expression "the hard problem of consciousness", if you understand what it means at all. So, your claim here that it's "obviously" the brain doing it is just factually wrong and rather idiotic.
EB

What subjective experience outside qualia? Qualia IS the subjective experience.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Sure, I fully agree.

So, what should philosophers do meanwhile? Become scientists? Go back to the countryside?

Both possibilities but it isn't my place to tell philosophers what they should do. However it seems to me that to maintain (or generate) their credibility, they would want to focus on human created concepts such as "morality", "fairness", etc. rather than anything to do with nature where, historically, philosophy's record is fairly poor

The fact that scientists don't have an answer as to te hard problem of consciousness might well be because science won't be able to find one.

I think that it is quite possible that they will eventually formulate an "answer" but that it will be a big disappointment and so rejected by metaphysicists much as the heliocentric solar system model was a big disappointment and rejected by theists of the time. I have a feeling that the answer metaphysicists are looking for (expecting) is a category error.

Why do you say philosophy's record is poor? Do you think it just teensy bit ironic that this 'hard problem of consciousness' was introduced by a philosopher in the early nineties.

http://www.philosophy.uw.edu.pl/wp-...rs-Facing-Up-the-Problem-of-Consciousness.pdf

Ironically, he was pimping a panpsychic model at the time.

The very project you are holding up as a scientific project was recently limned by philosophy. Working out what questions to ask and how to ask them is one part of philosophy's job. The other part gave you paradigms, falsification and the move from correspondence to coherence models of verification. All the major adjustments to the methodology and reach of science have been undertaken by philosophers.

What exactly do you think philosophy does?

 

[Speakpigeon]

And how many pins must have been dancing inside your head right when you were choosing your words there?!

Please tell me what it is that I said that made you think I had this idea you're clearly ascribing to me here that "theology" is somehow the proper method to solve the hard problem of consciousness?

Beats me.

That being said, while I would agree that our mind, including certainly the logic of qualia and possibly their quality, are phenomena that are dependent on the operation of our brain, I certainly don't think the same is true of subjective experience outside the qualia. And clearly, I'm not the only one of that opinion since it's not me who coined the expression "the hard problem of consciousness", if you understand what it means at all. So, your claim here that it's "obviously" the brain doing it is just factually wrong and rather idiotic.
EB

What subjective experience outside qualia? Qualia IS the subjective experience.

Lesson No. 45344: Qualia ARE. It's a plural. Singular Quale.

And beware that "quale" may mean something else altogether:

Quale n. "death, destruction," Old English cwalu, cognate with Old Norse kval "torment, torture," from a variant of the root of quell.

We're talking about something else here and it was Alphonse Allais, a renown French poet (1854-1905), who was the first to depict a quale in his masterpiece, Apoplectic Cardinals Harvesting Tomatoes on the Shore of the Red Sea (Study of the Aurora Borealis:
View attachment 15495

Surprisingly, he did so even before some dude called Clarence Irving Lewis could coin the term to establish his own reputation.

Qualia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

Clarence Irving Lewis, in his book Mind and the World Order (1929), was the first to use the term "qualia" in its generally agreed upon modern sense.

Still with me here?

So, Qualia IS the subjective experience?

If so, wherefore are we all stupidly using two different expressions where one would be enough?

I'll tell you why. People have brains and brains do things people don't even understand.

In this case, it just happens that different people, you and me at least apparently, have different opinions as to whether subjective experience is the same as qualia. Language is a reflection of that difference in opinions. If I thought subjective experience is the same as qualia I would drop one of these two expressions from my vocabulary. I would assume other intelligent people to do the same and so I have to assume many intelligent people are at least semantically undecided on this matter.

Me, I take "the subjective character of experience is a term in psychology and the philosophy of mind denoting that all subjective phenomena are associated with a single point of view".

I'm agnostic as to whether this would also apply to qualia.

I use the expression "subjective experience" to refer to the subjective action, the experiencing from a subjective point of view.

I use "qualia" to refer to the contents of this experience, when there is one.

Now, if you really want me to change my mind about this, just prove to me these things are one and the same.

Take your time. There's no rush.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Bloody Hell, I just learnt a new word!

Right there!

was recently limned by philosophy

Thanks, Sub,
EB

 

[Subsymbolic]

Bloody Hell, I just learnt a new word!

Right there!

was recently limned by philosophy

Thanks, Sub,
EB

Ironically, I was literally just scrolling down to say exactly the same thing about that wonderful image. The best sort of profound and funny at the same time. We got off to a bad start. This, this, is a much better one.

And it's actually God's own little apostrophe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quail

My head is fucking stuffed with them, squawking and shitting everywhere. It's a wonder I ever get any sleep.

 

[Juma]

So, Qualia IS the subjective experience?

If so, wherefore are we all stupidly using two different expressions where one would be enough?

I'll tell you why. People have brains and brains do things people don't even understand.

In this case, it just happens that different people, you and me at least apparently, have different opinions as to whether subjective experience is the same as qualia. Language is a reflection of that difference in opinions. If I thought subjective experience is the same as qualia I would drop one of these two expressions from my vocabulary. I would assume other intelligent people to do the same and so I have to assume many intelligent people are at least semantically undecided on this matter.

Me, I take "the subjective character of experience is a term in psychology and the philosophy of mind denoting that all subjective phenomena are associated with a single point of view".

I'm agnostic as to whether this would also apply to qualia.

I use the expression "subjective experience" to refer to the subjective action, the experiencing from a subjective point of view.

I use "qualia" to refer to the contents of this experience, when there is one.

Now, if you really want me to change my mind about this, just prove to me these things are one and the same.

Take your time. There's no rush.

if you read the wikipedia definition of qualia:

In philosophy and certain models of psychology, qualia (/ˈkwɑːliə/ or /ˈkweɪliə/; singular form: quale) are defined to be individual instances of subjective, conscious experience.

and besides:

how could qualia and subjective experience be separated?

if you separate them you immediately have the problem of the ”inner theatre”: that you are somehow detached from what you experience.

to me it is obvious that qualia is how we experience. there is no red stuff in our brain: there is states of neurons that reacts as if there are something red. theese neurons take part in the process that is/are our subjective experience.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, Qualia IS the subjective experience?

If so, wherefore are we all stupidly using two different expressions where one would be enough?

I'll tell you why. People have brains and brains do things people don't even understand.

In this case, it just happens that different people, you and me at least apparently, have different opinions as to whether subjective experience is the same as qualia. Language is a reflection of that difference in opinions. If I thought subjective experience is the same as qualia I would drop one of these two expressions from my vocabulary. I would assume other intelligent people to do the same and so I have to assume many intelligent people are at least semantically undecided on this matter.

Me, I take "the subjective character of experience is a term in psychology and the philosophy of mind denoting that all subjective phenomena are associated with a single point of view".

I'm agnostic as to whether this would also apply to qualia.

I use the expression "subjective experience" to refer to the subjective action, the experiencing from a subjective point of view.

I use "qualia" to refer to the contents of this experience, when there is one.

Now, if you really want me to change my mind about this, just prove to me these things are one and the same.

Take your time. There's no rush.

if you read the wikipedia definition of qualia:

In philosophy and certain models of psychology, qualia (/ˈkwɑːliə/ or /ˈkweɪliə/; singular form: quale) are defined to be individual instances of subjective, conscious experience.

Good for them but I'm not a member of those sectarian cults and I do as I please, which is really just listening only to rational arguments, if you had one.

and besides:

how could qualia and subjective experience be separated?

if you separate them you immediately have the problem of the ”inner theatre”: that you are somehow detached from what you experience.

You are somehow detached from what you experience?!. You?! No. Think again.

I can assure you that, if you think rationally about it, you should see that there's no "you" "somehow detached from what you experience".

There's experience on one side and the qualia are all on the other side.

Take your time.

to me it is obvious that qualia is how we experience.

Yeah, sure, loosely speaking that's true. Now, try to look just a little bit beyond what's so obvious. I'd like you to try and think about that. I'd say it's not terribly difficult. You already have the idea. All you have to do is connect the dots.

there is no red stuff in our brain: there is states of neurons that reacts as if there are something red. theese neurons take part in the process that is/are our subjective experience.

You should publish right there before somebody else steals your discovery! Go, go now!!!

You will need evidence to support your claim, though. Hmm, not so easy, that! Keep me in the loop, I'm really curious to see how it goes.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Bloody Hell, I just learnt a new word!

Right there!

was recently limned by philosophy

Thanks, Sub,
EB

Ironically, I was literally just scrolling down to say exactly the same thing about that wonderful image. The best sort of profound and funny at the same time. We got off to a bad start. This, this, is a much better one.

The picture had just been posted by William, there:

I think this is one of the funniest things I've ever seen. It's by Alphonse Allais (1854-1905). Perhaps you know of it. I think it's every bit a poem as it is a work of visual art. I found it while researching Sound poetry and all things avant garde, just now. Ha!

View attachment 15495

English: Apoplectic Cardinals Harvesting Tomatoes on the Shore of the Red Sea (Study of the Aurora Borealis)

I couldn't possibly resist it.

And it's actually God's own little apostrophe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quail

It shows it's quails all the way down.

My head is fucking stuffed with them, squawking and shitting everywhere. It's a wonder I ever get any sleep.

Nah, it's just a quail quale you have. Just ignore them.

Or count them. All the way down.
EB

 

[Juma]

if you read the wikipedia definition of qualia:

Good for them but I'm not a member of those sectarian cults and I do as I please, which is really just listening only to rational arguments, if you had one.

and besides:

how could qualia and subjective experience be separated?

if you separate them you immediately have the problem of the ”inner theatre”: that you are somehow detached from what you experience.

You are somehow detached from what you experience?!. You?! No. Think again.

I can assure you that, if you think rationally about it, you should see that there's no "you" "somehow detached from what you experience".

There's experience on one side and the qualia are all on the other side.

Take your time.

to me it is obvious that qualia is how we experience.

Yeah, sure, loosely speaking that's true. Now, try to look just a little bit beyond what's so obvious. I'd like you to try and think about that. I'd say it's not terribly difficult. You already have the idea. All you have to do is connect the dots.

there is no red stuff in our brain: there is states of neurons that reacts as if there are something red. theese neurons take part in the process that is/are our subjective experience.

You should publish right there before somebody else steals your discovery! Go, go now!!!

You will need evidence to support your claim, though. Hmm, not so easy, that! Keep me in the loop, I'm really curious to see how it goes.
EB

1. That is the definition for that word. Use another word if you mean something else.

2. What other side is there for the qualia to be on?

3. What claim is it that you dispute?

 

[Speakpigeon]

1. That is the definition for that word.

Provide the evidence for that.

Use another word if you mean something else.

"Qualia" is good.

2. What other side is there for the qualia to be on?

The side of qualia. There's one side for subjective experience and one side for qualia.

3. What claim is it that you dispute?

???

Sorry, I had understood you disputed something I said.

Never mind.
EB