Quining qualia.

  • Thread starter Thread starter wittgenstein
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wittgenstein

Guest
ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/quinqual.htm
In a nutshell Dennett’s argument is,
  1. Qualia by definition are ineffable.
  2. Qualia are shown (via “intuition pumps”. Intuition without qualia?!) to not be merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intersubjective
  3. To lack intersubjectivity is to be ineffable.
  4. Therefore, qualia do not exist because they are ineffable.
    Dennett’s “argument” is a proposition not an argument. Or at best a tautology, "the ineffable does not exist because the ineffable does not exist.” Or at worst a circular argument. Note that, ineffable does not mean supernatural. One cannot describe (in words) how to move one’s thumb.
    Ironically Dennett uses “Quine” in the title of his paper. Quine advocated en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_of_translation In other words, since there is an “indeterminacy of translation” there is no intersubjectivity! As for his “intuition pumps” plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-inverted/ is better. It deals more directly with qualia’s lack of intersubjectivity. However, like Dennett’s “intuition pumps” it has nothing to do with the existence of qualia. It only helps us understand what qualia are.
 
wittgenstein said:
ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/quinqual.htm
In a nutshell Dennett’s argument is,
  1. Qualia by definition are ineffable.
  2. Qualia are shown (via “intuition pumps”. Intuition without qualia?!) to not be merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intersubjective
  3. To lack intersubjectivity is to be ineffable.
  4. Therefore, qualia do not exist because they are ineffable.
    Dennett’s “argument” is a proposition not an argument. Or at best a tautology, "the ineffable does not exist because the ineffable does not exist.” Or at worst a circular argument. Note that, ineffable does not mean supernatural. One cannot describe (in words) how to move one’s thumb.
    Ironically Dennett uses “Quine” in the title of his paper. Quine advocated en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_of_translation In other words, since there is an “indeterminacy of translation” there is no intersubjectivity! As for his “intuition pumps” plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-inverted/ is better. It deals more directly with qualia’s lack of intersubjectivity. However, like Dennett’s “intuition pumps” it has nothing to do with the existence of qualia. It only helps us understand what qualia are.
Click to expand...
2 and 3 seem to be the premises for 1. “(2) Qualia are shown to not be intersubjective. (3) To lack intersubjectivity is to be ineffable. Therefore (1) Qualia are by definition ineffable.” And when it is read that way, it leads to question-begging: Qualia are by definition ineffable, therefore qualia do not exist, because they are ineffable. (But who said something ineffable cannot exist? Where was that in the premises?)
 
Exactly! As I said in the OP Dennett’s “argument” is at best not an argument and only a proposition. Or,at worst circular. (invalid, and even worse obviously invalid).
 
Dennett is a heavy weight philosopher. I know that pride is a sin. However, I must confess that I feel pride knocking out one of his most famous arguments.🙂 However, my refutation is not rocket science. I am amazed no one thought of it before.
 
wittgenstein said:
Dennett is a heavy weight philosopher. I know that pride is a sin. However, I must confess that I feel pride knocking out one of his most famous arguments.🙂 However, my refutation is not rocket science. I am amazed no one thought of it before.
Click to expand...
If you’re the one who came up with the numbered presentation, he would probably simply protest that you misarranged it or got some of the premises wrong or should have included some other ones. He would claim straw-man.
 
He can claim anything he wants. But anyone familiar with his argument would know that his possible objections to my refutation that you mention are invalid. Actually, I presented my refutation at university seminar and there were no objections. If you can show how my refutation is a strawman, go for it! Nothing wrong with civilized debate!😉
To be fair to myself, my presentation at seminar was far more sophisticated then what I posted here. However, the points in my post (tho not in perfect syllogism form) are still irrefutable.
 
wittgenstein said:
He can claim anything he wants. But anyone familiar with his argument would know that his possible objections to my refutation that you mention are invalid. Actually, I presented my refutation at university seminar and there were no objections. If you can show how my refutation is a strawman, go for it! Nothing wrong with civilized debate!😉
To be fair to myself, my presentation at seminar was far more sophisticated then what I posted here. However, the points in my post (tho not in perfect syllogism form) are still irrefutable.
Click to expand...
Hey, I’ve got no bone to pick with it. I’ve never even heard of qualia before, I was just browsing, and then when I saw you said YOU came up with the syllogism I thought “Oh well the author would probably just claim it’s a strawman.” That’s what they usually do to me. But I think it’s great that you refuted it. (Whatever it is, if it’s from Daniel Dennett it probably needs refuting. lol)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top