4 ms·

The essential feature is subjective experience of sensations, referred to as qualia. I've seen no debate about that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia https

The essential feature is subjective experience of sensations, referred to as qualia. I've seen no debate about that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
I'm not an expert, but I strongly suspect that you haven't looked for debate very hard. I strongly suspect that there is a fair amount of debate on that question. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen debate on that question, right here on HN.
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
The problem with that definition is that it’s subjective. You can only know for yourself, but not for anyone else. That makes it completely useless.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  Of course it's subjective. That's the whole point. And knowing for yourself still needs an explanation.
fatsdomino001 6y ago
Qualia is actually only a subset of consciousness, generally referring to the coarsest types of consciousness (i.e. that which is readily identifiable). But qualia is by no means the entirety of consciousness.
neonological 6y ago
The first sentence on that Wikipedia page: "In philosophy and certain models of psychology, qualia (/ˈkwɑːliə/ or /ˈkweɪliə/; singular form: quale) are defined as individual instances of subjective, conscious experience" Shows that qualia is defined in terms of "conscious experience." If qualia is an essential feature of consciousness then the Wikipedia definition is a recursive definition. The definition of the word "Sword" is "Sword" which is true but tells me nothing at the same time.
- Zuider 6y ago
  Ostensive definitions can be indistinguishable from tautologies. A definition which ultimately boils down to a formula such as: "The thing that is indicated when you say 'that thing there!'" appears linguistically empty, because its meaning is not found in the words, but in something extra-verbal that it is intended to point to. The problem in the debate surrounding consciousness is that there are two basic positions to hold, which are often talking past each other: 1) Oh yes, I see what is being indicated! There is something to discuss. 2) There is nothing here but a meaningless verbal tangle which will disappear when it is untangled. This problem is similar to, but more intractable than discussing the color blue with someone who has always been blind. The blind person may never actually experience what it is to see blue, the 'qualium,' but there are physical hooks such as the associated frequency of light, and a tangible consensus amongst those who are not blind as to whether an object can be called blue or not. The latter is missing from the problem of consciousness, which makes it a far more difficult and fascinating problem.
  - neonological 6y ago
    >and a tangible consensus amongst those who are not blind as to whether an object can be called blue or not. >The latter is missing from the problem of consciousness, which makes it a far more difficult and fascinating problem. You are talking about whether some topic can be observed. The example you cite is observation through sight. A blind person cannot observe color. Observation is the key to gathering evidence. The words an "observation" and a piece of "evidence" refer to the exact same concept. Thus your statement is equivalent to saying Blind men can only gain knowledge about color through evidence and that consciousness lacks any sort of evidence. Many things in this world lack evidence including Scientology and Creationism. We classify some of these things as absurd. Other things are classified as religion or something that is not absurd. In my mind the logic is equivalent. The vast number of possibilities of the unknown renders most unobserved theories to be by probability more likely to be absurd. Thus Christianity is just as absurd as Scientology. However extraneous factors influence Christianity to be perceived differently even though logically the foundations come from the same absurd unobservable arguments. Consciousness I believe is much of the same thing. A linguistic phenomenon lending weight to what is otherwise absurd by default. It is just a complicated category where the capability of being able to have certain thoughts is classified as conscious. Or should I say the ability to be aware of certain things? I'm not sure? Fascinating yes but if you look carefully at what I was actually fascinated about you'll see that I'm just talking about how to define a word. Is "consciousnesses" awareness or thought? A definition of a word is not profound. The profoundness you feel is again just a linguistic illusion. It's similar to the question: "What does it mean to be American?" American is purely a made up word and basically just a over complicated category with nothing intrinsically interesting about it outside of American culture. To sum it all up. A recursive definition and lack of evidence renders the whole quest to discover what consciousness is quite uninteresting.
dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
In Buddhism, there are separate words for consciousness and qualia. Moreover, many different consciousnesses are recognized.
pmcarlton 6y ago
Scroll down to the section "Critics of Qualia", and you will find a lot. I agree with Dennett and others that the concept does not make sense.

The essential feature is subjective experience of sensations, referred to as qualia. I've seen no debate about that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

I'm not an expert, but I strongly suspect that you haven't looked for debate very hard. I strongly suspect that there is a fair amount of debate on that question. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen debate on that question, right here on HN.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago

The problem with that definition is that it’s subjective. You can only know for yourself, but not for anyone else. That makes it completely useless.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
Of course it's subjective. That's the whole point. And knowing for yourself still needs an explanation.

fatsdomino001 6y ago

Qualia is actually only a subset of consciousness, generally referring to the coarsest types of consciousness (i.e. that which is readily identifiable). But qualia is by no means the entirety of consciousness.

neonological 6y ago

The first sentence on that Wikipedia page: "In philosophy and certain models of psychology, qualia (/ˈkwɑːliə/ or /ˈkweɪliə/; singular form: quale) are defined as individual instances of subjective, conscious experience" Shows that qualia is defined in terms of "conscious experience." If qualia is an essential feature of consciousness then the Wikipedia definition is a recursive definition. The definition of the word "Sword" is "Sword" which is true but tells me nothing at the same time.

Zuider 6y ago
Ostensive definitions can be indistinguishable from tautologies. A definition which ultimately boils down to a formula such as: "The thing that is indicated when you say 'that thing there!'" appears linguistically empty, because its meaning is not found in the words, but in something extra-verbal that it is intended to point to. The problem in the debate surrounding consciousness is that there are two basic positions to hold, which are often talking past each other: 1) Oh yes, I see what is being indicated! There is something to discuss. 2) There is nothing here but a meaningless verbal tangle which will disappear when it is untangled. This problem is similar to, but more intractable than discussing the color blue with someone who has always been blind. The blind person may never actually experience what it is to see blue, the 'qualium,' but there are physical hooks such as the associated frequency of light, and a tangible consensus amongst those who are not blind as to whether an object can be called blue or not. The latter is missing from the problem of consciousness, which makes it a far more difficult and fascinating problem.
- neonological 6y ago
  >and a tangible consensus amongst those who are not blind as to whether an object can be called blue or not. >The latter is missing from the problem of consciousness, which makes it a far more difficult and fascinating problem. You are talking about whether some topic can be observed. The example you cite is observation through sight. A blind person cannot observe color. Observation is the key to gathering evidence. The words an "observation" and a piece of "evidence" refer to the exact same concept. Thus your statement is equivalent to saying Blind men can only gain knowledge about color through evidence and that consciousness lacks any sort of evidence. Many things in this world lack evidence including Scientology and Creationism. We classify some of these things as absurd. Other things are classified as religion or something that is not absurd. In my mind the logic is equivalent. The vast number of possibilities of the unknown renders most unobserved theories to be by probability more likely to be absurd. Thus Christianity is just as absurd as Scientology. However extraneous factors influence Christianity to be perceived differently even though logically the foundations come from the same absurd unobservable arguments. Consciousness I believe is much of the same thing. A linguistic phenomenon lending weight to what is otherwise absurd by default. It is just a complicated category where the capability of being able to have certain thoughts is classified as conscious. Or should I say the ability to be aware of certain things? I'm not sure? Fascinating yes but if you look carefully at what I was actually fascinated about you'll see that I'm just talking about how to define a word. Is "consciousnesses" awareness or thought? A definition of a word is not profound. The profoundness you feel is again just a linguistic illusion. It's similar to the question: "What does it mean to be American?" American is purely a made up word and basically just a over complicated category with nothing intrinsically interesting about it outside of American culture. To sum it all up. A recursive definition and lack of evidence renders the whole quest to discover what consciousness is quite uninteresting.

dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago

In Buddhism, there are separate words for consciousness and qualia. Moreover, many different consciousnesses are recognized.

pmcarlton 6y ago

Scroll down to the section "Critics of Qualia", and you will find a lot. I agree with Dennett and others that the concept does not make sense.