Darwinian advantage — Olivier5
think qualia are functional. If they exists, they exist for a reason. — Olivier5
But to get there, you claim we store particular qualia as memories. Really? Like, the whole thing, the exact smell of the rancid bacon? I'm skeptical. — Srap Tasmaner
Seems like it’s doing violence to ordinary language to deny there’s something it’s like to taste coffee. — Marchesk
we can’t communicate what it’s like — Marchesk
The important functional point is to be able to recognise a smell, to be able to connect it to another perceptive event(s) that happened in the past, because the whole point is to learn from past experience when interpreting new ones. — Olivier5
Intuition pump #1: watching you eat cauliflower.
There is a way this cauliflower tastes to you right now. Well, no. the taste changes even as you eat it, even as the texture changes as you chew. — Banno
The argument given, that there has to be a smell that we smell, is not convincing. — Srap Tasmaner
So why bother? — Banno
Nor is the name "Albert" a tag for something we share. By definition, Albert is only yours. You can talk about Albert, but like the beetle, what role can Albert possibly play in a language game? You can't order Albert at a coffee shop.
Albert's sole use seems to be in philosophical threads such as this.
So why bother? — Banno
Albert isn't the taste of coffee; it's how this coffee tastes to me, here, now... right?
So with my next sip of coffee, I won't become reacquainted with Albert. That will be a new, different something it’s like to taste coffee. — Banno
By definition, Albert is only yours. You can talk about Albert, but like the beetle, what role can Albert possibly play in a language game? — Banno
How exactly do you individuate Albert? — Banno
"...predict the phenomenal consciousness of a bee..."Chalmers said we might one day have a theory of consciousness that allows us to predict the phenomenal consciousness of a bee, — frank
A cup of coffee usually tastes pretty much the same throughout for me, unless I forget to stir it, then it tastes sweeter at the end of the cup than at the start (I have mine with sugar). — Luke
And if Albert is ineffable, then I can't talk about Albert - at least not in great detail. — Luke
Such a system cannot logically work without some ID system for tastes, some qualitative perceptual signal, recognisable somehow from the perceptual signals of other chemicals. — Olivier5
Consider that you can reliably identify the actual chemistry of your food by tasting it, at least for those chemicals who have a taste. You can decide: "there is too little salt in this soups to my taste", knowing reliably that with a pinch of salt or two your soup will taste just fine. A cook can adjust the level of his ingredients throughout the process, add more ginger or paprica if need be. — Olivier5
Yes. So identifying Albert fails. — Banno
And if Albert is ineffable, then I can't talk about Albert - at least not in great detail.
— Luke
I agree. So, to be consistent you should stop posting to this thread. — Banno
Indeed - so which is Albert?
SO much bad philosophy comes form folk 'effing the ineffable. Keep going - you are making my point better than I could. — Banno
You've already defined it: "how this coffee tastes to me, here, now", at one point in time. — Luke
I guess part of my resistance is that I assume the whole point of any encyclopedia compiling we do is to develop of repertoire of responses and options to consider as a response. That's pretty crudely put, but the point is I'm not sure you need the encyclopedia as a separate thing at all, when you could just have the responses. — Srap Tasmaner
Not my definition. I borrowed it in order to show that it is a nonsense - literally, it has no sense; except in extending philosophical threads beyond endurance. — Banno
78. Compare knowing and saying:
how many metres high Mont Blanc is —
how the word “game” is used —
how a clarinet sounds.
Someone who is surprised that one can know something and not be able to say it is perhaps thinking of a case like the first. Certainly not of one like the third.
I see the subjective experience as the font of all knowledge. — Olivier5
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.