
''This article is about the philosophical concept. For the electronics brand, see Qualia (Sony)'' Qualia (singular: "quale", pronounced KWAHL-ay) are most simply defined as the property (philosophy) of perception by virtue of which there is something it is like to have them. These properties are, by definition, epistemically unknowable in the absence of direct experience of them; as a result, they are also incommunicable. The existence or lack of these properties is a hotly debated topic in contemporary philosophy of mind. Qualia have played a major role in contemporary philosophy of mind, largely because they are often seen as being a ''de facto'' refutation of physicalism. There is some debate over the precise definition of qualia, as various philosophy emphasize or deny the existence of certain properties. ==Definition of qualia== Daniel Dennett identifies four properties which are commonly ascribed to qualia; that is, qualia are: #''ineffable''; that is, they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any other means than direct experience. #''intrinsic''; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things. #''private''; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible. #''directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness''; that is, to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale. It is important to note that qualia do not have the status of observed properties, which we are sure exist but might be wrong about; rather, the concept of qualia is first and foremost dependent on its definition, and the existence of qualia is predicated on the existence of properties which fit that definition. Thus if we were to discover that there is such a property as "what it is like to have a certain experience", but that this property was in fact knowable to others, it would not be a quale. Thus the contemporary debate over whether or not qualia exist is largely centered on whether or not experiences do in fact have properties that fit this definition. At the present time, there is little consensus over whether or not this is indeed the case. If qualia exist, a normally-sighted person who is able to see red is unable to describe the experience of such a perception in such a way that a listener who has never experienced color will be able to know everything there is to know about that experience. Though it is possible to make an analogy, such as "red looks hot", or to provide a description of the conditions under which the experience occurs, such as "it's the color you see when light of such-and-such wavelength is directed at you," supporters of qualia contend that such a description is incapable of providing a complete description of the experience. C. I. Lewis, in his book ''Mind and the World Order'' published in 1929, was the first to use the term "qualia" in its generally agreed modern sense. (His original definition was that qualia are the "recognizable qualitative characters of the given.") There is an ancient Sufi parable about coffee which nicely expresses the concept: "He who tastes, knows; he who tastes not, knows not." == Arguments for qualia == Arguments for qualia generally come in the form of thought experiments which are designed to lead one to the conclusion that qualia exist. For example, the inverted spectrum thought experiment invites us to imagine that we wake up one morning, and find that for some unknown reason all the colors in the world have been reversed. Furthermore, we discover that no physical changes have occurred in our brains or bodies that would explain this phenomenon. Supporters of qualia argue that since we can imagine this happening without contradiction, it follows that we are imagining a change in a property which determines the way things look to us, but which has no physical basis. The argument thus claims that if we find the inverted spectrum plausible, we must admit that qualia exist. ===The knowledge argument=== In Frank Jackson’s “Epiphenomenal Qualia” (Jackson 1982), Jackson offers what he calls the “Knowledge Argument” for qualia. The clearest example of this argument runs as follows: :Mary the color scientist knows all the physical facts about color, including every ''physical'' fact about the experience of color in other people, from the behavior a particular color is likely to elicit to the specific sequence of neurology firings that register that a color has been seen. However, she has been confined from birth to a room that is black and white, and is only allowed to observe the outside world through a black and white monitor. When she is allowed to leave the room, it must be admitted that she learns something about the color red the first time she sees it—specifically, she learns what it is like to see that color. This thought experiment has two purposes. First, it is intended to show that qualia—the properties of experiences which determine what it is like to have those experiences—exist. If we agree with the thought experiment, we believe that Mary gains something after she leaves the room—that she acquires knowledge of a particular thing that she did not possess before. That knowledge, Jackson argues, is knowledge of the quale that corresponds to the experience of seeing red, and it must thus be conceded that qualia are real properties, since there is a difference between a person who has access to a particular quale and one who does not. The second purpose of this argument is to refute the physicalist account of the mind. Specifically, the Knowledge Argument is an attack on the physicalist claim about the completeness of physical truths. The challenge the Knowledge Argument poses to physicalism runs as follows: # Before her release, Mary was in possession of all the physical information about color experiences of other people. # After her release, Mary learns something about the color experiences of other people.
Therefore, # Before her release, Mary was not in possession of all the information about other people’s color experiences, even though she was in possession of all the physical information.
Therefore, # There are truths about other people’s color experience which are not physical.
Therefore, # Physicalism is false. Finally, Jackson argues that qualia are epiphenomenalism: that is, that they are causality inefficacious with respect to the physical world. Jackson does not give a positive justification for this claim—rather, he seems to assert it simply because it defends qualia against the classic problem of dualism. Our natural assumption would be that qualia must be causally efficacious in the physical world—however, if qualia are to be non-physical properties (which they must be in order to constitute an argument against physicalism), it is almost impossible to imagine how they could have a causal effect on the physical world. By redefining qualia as epiphenomenal, Jackson is thus able to protect them from the demand of playing a causal role. ==Arguments against qualia== ===Daniel Dennett=== In his paper "Quining Qualia" and his book ''Consciousness Explained'', Daniel Dennett offers an argument against qualia which attempts to show that the above definition breaks down when we try to make a practical application of it. In a series of thought experiments which he calls “intuition pumps”, he brings qualia into the world of neurosurgery, clinical psychology, and psychological experimentation. His argument attempts to show that once the concept of qualia is so imported, it turns out that we can either make no use of it in the situation in question, or that the questions posed by the introduction of qualia are unanswerable precisely because of the special properties of qualia. In Dennett’s updated version of the "inverted spectrum" thought experiment, “the neurosurgical prank”, you again awake to find that your qualia have been inverted—grass appears blue, the sky appears green, etc. According to the classical account, you should be immediately aware that something has gone horribly wrong. Dennett argues, however, that it is impossible to know whether the diabolical neurosurgeons have indeed inverted your qualia (by tampering with your optic nerve, say), or have simply inverted your connection to memories of past qualia. Since both operations would produce the same result, you would have no means on your own to tell which operation has actually been conducted, and you are thus in the odd position of not knowing whether there has been a change in your “immediately apprehensible” qualia. Dennett's argument revolves around the central objection that, for qualia to be taken seriously as a component of experience—for them to even make sense as a discrete concept—it must be possible to show that :a) it is possible to know that a change in qualia has occurred, as opposed to a change in something else; or that :b) there is a difference between having a change in qualia and not having one. Dennett attempts to show that we cannot satisfy (a) either through introspection or through observation, and that qualia's very definition undermines its chances of satisfying (b). Dennett also has his own response to Mary's room. He argues that Mary would not, in fact, learn something new if she stepped out of her black and white room to see the color red. Dennett asserts that if she already truly knew "everything about color", that knowledge would include a deep understanding of why and how human neurology causes us to sense the "qualia" of color. Mary would therefore already know exactly what to expect of seeing red, before ever leaving the room. Dennett argues that although we cannot conceive of such a deep knowledge, if a premise of the thought experiment is that Mary knows all there is to know about color, we cannot assume that we can fathom or even describe such knowledge -- or that such knowledge doesn't exist. Hence, as a true physicalist, Dennett leaves open the possibility that scientists may one day understand exactly how the brain creates the illusion of qualia, a finding which would destroy the plausibility of qualia as a real entity. ==Further reading and bibliography== * Daniel Dennett 1988. "Quining qualia". In (A. Marcel & E. Bisiach, eds) ''Consciousness in Contemporary Science''. Oxford University Press. * Dennett, D.C. 1991. ''Consciousness Explained''. Little, Brown, and Company. * Gerald Edelman. ''The Remembered Present: A Biological Theory of Consciousness''. * Kitcher, P.S. 1979. ''Phenomenal qualities''. American Philosophical Quarterly 16:123-9. * Horgan, T. 1987. ''Supervenient qualia''. Philosophical Review 96:491-520. * Frank Jackson. 1982. “Epiphenomenal Qualia.” Reprinted in Chalmers, David ed. 2002. ''Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings''. Oxford University Press. * David Lewis (philosopher) 1995. ''Should a materialist believe in qualia?'' Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73:140-44. * C. I. Lewis (1929) ''Mind and the world order''. New York: C. Scribner's Sons. ==External links== *[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/ Qualia at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] Perception Philosophy of mind
This article has problems. First of all, these lists are terrible. Entries like "8. Junction points between being and experiencing" and "9. Starting points of becoming" are so vague as to be meaningless, and the entries under "Qualia in Practice" are completely unexplained. (I think that the reference to Sony might be nothing more than a poor pun.) Would anyone object if I deleted these? --User:Adam Conover 05:27, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC) Do it... User:Evercat 11:27, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) :Done and done. --User:Adam Conover 20:12, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC) ---- ==Giant Rewrite== I just did a giant rewrite of this article. I tried to keep everything I could, but unfortunately a large part of the previous version struck me as unsalvagable. Of course, I admit that I could be wrong about a lot of it, so I encourage everyone to check [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Qualia&oldid=3078881 the last version of the page] and integrate anything you think worth keeping. Also, I am concerned that the explanation of Jackson and Dennett's arguments may have gone on a little long to be truly encyclopedaic. If necessary, they could be moved to the pages of the philosophers themselves, or to specific pages about their arguments. What does everyone think? --User:Adam Conover 23:32, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC) ---- ==Bizarre definition== The article begins: ''Qualia (singular: "quale") are most simply defined as the properties of sensory experiences by virtue of which there is something it is like to have them.'' ...What on earth does that mean? --User:Jorend 21:55, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) : it (above) is a fairly classic philosophical definition. Qualia are what distinguish the various types of sensations that we experience. Your personal experience of the "redness" of red differs from your experience of the "blueness" of blue.....red and blue objects act by way of your visual system to produce different qualia. Some people deny that the "redness" of red can be accounted for in terms of physical brain activity. Biologists like Gerald Edelman propose theories of mind in which qualia do result from brain activity. User:JWSchmidt 18:54, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) :: This current definition is supposed to be less "vague" (quoting Conover) than its previous definitions!? -- User:198.166.58.45 04:27, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) :::It's true that this definition is vague, but unfortunately that problem comes with the territory. I have thoroughly researched the definition of qualia, and this much is widely agreed-upon. User:Adam Conover — User:Adam Conover User talk:Adam Conover 20:53, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC) : The problem is that if you aren't familiar with the phrase "something it is like to ..." (ie, if you haven't read much philosophy of mind), then the sentence is impossible to parse. ---- == Qualia vs. Experiences == Aren't qualia the same thing as experiences? If not, what's the difference? — User:Monedula 09:16, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) :In a nutshell, qualia are ''properties of'' experiences, just like colors are properties of objects. Specifically, qualia are the properties of experiences which describe ''what it is like to have'' that particular experience. User:Adam Conover — User:Adam Conover User talk:Adam Conover 20:53, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC) ::Then, what aspect of experiences is not covered by qualia? If we know ''what it is like to have'' a particular experience, then we know everything about that experience, isn't it? — User:Monedula 21:25, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) :::Well, first I should tell you to go read the primary source material, just as Frank Jackson's "Epiphenomenal Qualia" and Dennett's "Quining Qualia" -- both should be available in any good phil mind compilation. But in a nutshell, no -- even if we knew the qualia of an experience, we would not thereby know anything about its other properties, such as its intentional properties, its causal properties, and its capacity to cause certain behavioral responses. User:Adam Conover — User:Adam Conover User talk:Adam Conover 23:39, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC) ::::I would rather say that qualia are not properties of experiences, but the material they are made of, a sort of "mental substance". And the intentional and casual properties have more to do with the "outside world" than with experiences themselves. — User:Monedula 11:31, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC) == Larger scale phenomena - refactoring == I'm not certain what happened, but I signed up for an account, logged in, and the bottom section of the article is no longer visible. It was fascinating, talking about how qualia could be experienced differently at higher metabolic rates. I was going to ask if anyone could provide references to this idea. Now it's gone. I think it also talked about the idea of 'refactoring'. Can anyone help? Scroll up the page to the link to the old page before the large rewrite.Second section. ---User:Steenies 16:59, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:A | B | C | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | R | S | T | U | V | X | Y | Z |
Qualia
''This article is about the philosophical concept. For the electronics brand, see Qualia (Sony)'' Qualia (singular: "quale", pronounced KWAHL-ay) are most simply defined as the property (philosophy) of perception by virtue of which there is something it is like to have them. These properties are, by definition, epistemically unknowable in the absence of direct experience of them; as a result, they are also incommunicable. The existence or lack of these properties is a hotly debated topic in contemporary philosophy of mind. Qualia have played a major role in contemporary philosophy of mind, largely because they are often seen as being a ''de facto'' refutation of physicalism. There is some debate over the precise definition of qualia, as various philosophy emphasize or deny the existence of certain properties. ==Definition of qualia== Daniel Dennett identifies four properties which are commonly ascribed to qualia; that is, qualia are: #''ineffable''; that is, they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any other means than direct experience. #''intrinsic''; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things. #''private''; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible. #''directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness''; that is, to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale. It is important to note that qualia do not have the status of observed properties, which we are sure exist but might be wrong about; rather, the concept of qualia is first and foremost dependent on its definition, and the existence of qualia is predicated on the existence of properties which fit that definition. Thus if we were to discover that there is such a property as "what it is like to have a certain experience", but that this property was in fact knowable to others, it would not be a quale. Thus the contemporary debate over whether or not qualia exist is largely centered on whether or not experiences do in fact have properties that fit this definition. At the present time, there is little consensus over whether or not this is indeed the case. If qualia exist, a normally-sighted person who is able to see red is unable to describe the experience of such a perception in such a way that a listener who has never experienced color will be able to know everything there is to know about that experience. Though it is possible to make an analogy, such as "red looks hot", or to provide a description of the conditions under which the experience occurs, such as "it's the color you see when light of such-and-such wavelength is directed at you," supporters of qualia contend that such a description is incapable of providing a complete description of the experience. C. I. Lewis, in his book ''Mind and the World Order'' published in 1929, was the first to use the term "qualia" in its generally agreed modern sense. (His original definition was that qualia are the "recognizable qualitative characters of the given.") There is an ancient Sufi parable about coffee which nicely expresses the concept: "He who tastes, knows; he who tastes not, knows not." == Arguments for qualia == Arguments for qualia generally come in the form of thought experiments which are designed to lead one to the conclusion that qualia exist. For example, the inverted spectrum thought experiment invites us to imagine that we wake up one morning, and find that for some unknown reason all the colors in the world have been reversed. Furthermore, we discover that no physical changes have occurred in our brains or bodies that would explain this phenomenon. Supporters of qualia argue that since we can imagine this happening without contradiction, it follows that we are imagining a change in a property which determines the way things look to us, but which has no physical basis. The argument thus claims that if we find the inverted spectrum plausible, we must admit that qualia exist. ===The knowledge argument=== In Frank Jackson’s “Epiphenomenal Qualia” (Jackson 1982), Jackson offers what he calls the “Knowledge Argument” for qualia. The clearest example of this argument runs as follows: :Mary the color scientist knows all the physical facts about color, including every ''physical'' fact about the experience of color in other people, from the behavior a particular color is likely to elicit to the specific sequence of neurology firings that register that a color has been seen. However, she has been confined from birth to a room that is black and white, and is only allowed to observe the outside world through a black and white monitor. When she is allowed to leave the room, it must be admitted that she learns something about the color red the first time she sees it—specifically, she learns what it is like to see that color. This thought experiment has two purposes. First, it is intended to show that qualia—the properties of experiences which determine what it is like to have those experiences—exist. If we agree with the thought experiment, we believe that Mary gains something after she leaves the room—that she acquires knowledge of a particular thing that she did not possess before. That knowledge, Jackson argues, is knowledge of the quale that corresponds to the experience of seeing red, and it must thus be conceded that qualia are real properties, since there is a difference between a person who has access to a particular quale and one who does not. The second purpose of this argument is to refute the physicalist account of the mind. Specifically, the Knowledge Argument is an attack on the physicalist claim about the completeness of physical truths. The challenge the Knowledge Argument poses to physicalism runs as follows: # Before her release, Mary was in possession of all the physical information about color experiences of other people. # After her release, Mary learns something about the color experiences of other people.
Therefore, # Before her release, Mary was not in possession of all the information about other people’s color experiences, even though she was in possession of all the physical information.
Therefore, # There are truths about other people’s color experience which are not physical.
Therefore, # Physicalism is false. Finally, Jackson argues that qualia are epiphenomenalism: that is, that they are causality inefficacious with respect to the physical world. Jackson does not give a positive justification for this claim—rather, he seems to assert it simply because it defends qualia against the classic problem of dualism. Our natural assumption would be that qualia must be causally efficacious in the physical world—however, if qualia are to be non-physical properties (which they must be in order to constitute an argument against physicalism), it is almost impossible to imagine how they could have a causal effect on the physical world. By redefining qualia as epiphenomenal, Jackson is thus able to protect them from the demand of playing a causal role. ==Arguments against qualia== ===Daniel Dennett=== In his paper "Quining Qualia" and his book ''Consciousness Explained'', Daniel Dennett offers an argument against qualia which attempts to show that the above definition breaks down when we try to make a practical application of it. In a series of thought experiments which he calls “intuition pumps”, he brings qualia into the world of neurosurgery, clinical psychology, and psychological experimentation. His argument attempts to show that once the concept of qualia is so imported, it turns out that we can either make no use of it in the situation in question, or that the questions posed by the introduction of qualia are unanswerable precisely because of the special properties of qualia. In Dennett’s updated version of the "inverted spectrum" thought experiment, “the neurosurgical prank”, you again awake to find that your qualia have been inverted—grass appears blue, the sky appears green, etc. According to the classical account, you should be immediately aware that something has gone horribly wrong. Dennett argues, however, that it is impossible to know whether the diabolical neurosurgeons have indeed inverted your qualia (by tampering with your optic nerve, say), or have simply inverted your connection to memories of past qualia. Since both operations would produce the same result, you would have no means on your own to tell which operation has actually been conducted, and you are thus in the odd position of not knowing whether there has been a change in your “immediately apprehensible” qualia. Dennett's argument revolves around the central objection that, for qualia to be taken seriously as a component of experience—for them to even make sense as a discrete concept—it must be possible to show that :a) it is possible to know that a change in qualia has occurred, as opposed to a change in something else; or that :b) there is a difference between having a change in qualia and not having one. Dennett attempts to show that we cannot satisfy (a) either through introspection or through observation, and that qualia's very definition undermines its chances of satisfying (b). Dennett also has his own response to Mary's room. He argues that Mary would not, in fact, learn something new if she stepped out of her black and white room to see the color red. Dennett asserts that if she already truly knew "everything about color", that knowledge would include a deep understanding of why and how human neurology causes us to sense the "qualia" of color. Mary would therefore already know exactly what to expect of seeing red, before ever leaving the room. Dennett argues that although we cannot conceive of such a deep knowledge, if a premise of the thought experiment is that Mary knows all there is to know about color, we cannot assume that we can fathom or even describe such knowledge -- or that such knowledge doesn't exist. Hence, as a true physicalist, Dennett leaves open the possibility that scientists may one day understand exactly how the brain creates the illusion of qualia, a finding which would destroy the plausibility of qualia as a real entity. ==Further reading and bibliography== * Daniel Dennett 1988. "Quining qualia". In (A. Marcel & E. Bisiach, eds) ''Consciousness in Contemporary Science''. Oxford University Press. * Dennett, D.C. 1991. ''Consciousness Explained''. Little, Brown, and Company. * Gerald Edelman. ''The Remembered Present: A Biological Theory of Consciousness''. * Kitcher, P.S. 1979. ''Phenomenal qualities''. American Philosophical Quarterly 16:123-9. * Horgan, T. 1987. ''Supervenient qualia''. Philosophical Review 96:491-520. * Frank Jackson. 1982. “Epiphenomenal Qualia.” Reprinted in Chalmers, David ed. 2002. ''Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings''. Oxford University Press. * David Lewis (philosopher) 1995. ''Should a materialist believe in qualia?'' Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73:140-44. * C. I. Lewis (1929) ''Mind and the world order''. New York: C. Scribner's Sons. ==External links== *[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/ Qualia at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] Perception Philosophy of mind
Qualia
This article has problems. First of all, these lists are terrible. Entries like "8. Junction points between being and experiencing" and "9. Starting points of becoming" are so vague as to be meaningless, and the entries under "Qualia in Practice" are completely unexplained. (I think that the reference to Sony might be nothing more than a poor pun.) Would anyone object if I deleted these? --User:Adam Conover 05:27, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC) Do it... User:Evercat 11:27, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) :Done and done. --User:Adam Conover 20:12, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC) ---- ==Giant Rewrite== I just did a giant rewrite of this article. I tried to keep everything I could, but unfortunately a large part of the previous version struck me as unsalvagable. Of course, I admit that I could be wrong about a lot of it, so I encourage everyone to check [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Qualia&oldid=3078881 the last version of the page] and integrate anything you think worth keeping. Also, I am concerned that the explanation of Jackson and Dennett's arguments may have gone on a little long to be truly encyclopedaic. If necessary, they could be moved to the pages of the philosophers themselves, or to specific pages about their arguments. What does everyone think? --User:Adam Conover 23:32, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC) ---- ==Bizarre definition== The article begins: ''Qualia (singular: "quale") are most simply defined as the properties of sensory experiences by virtue of which there is something it is like to have them.'' ...What on earth does that mean? --User:Jorend 21:55, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) : it (above) is a fairly classic philosophical definition. Qualia are what distinguish the various types of sensations that we experience. Your personal experience of the "redness" of red differs from your experience of the "blueness" of blue.....red and blue objects act by way of your visual system to produce different qualia. Some people deny that the "redness" of red can be accounted for in terms of physical brain activity. Biologists like Gerald Edelman propose theories of mind in which qualia do result from brain activity. User:JWSchmidt 18:54, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) :: This current definition is supposed to be less "vague" (quoting Conover) than its previous definitions!? -- User:198.166.58.45 04:27, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) :::It's true that this definition is vague, but unfortunately that problem comes with the territory. I have thoroughly researched the definition of qualia, and this much is widely agreed-upon. User:Adam Conover — User:Adam Conover User talk:Adam Conover 20:53, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC) : The problem is that if you aren't familiar with the phrase "something it is like to ..." (ie, if you haven't read much philosophy of mind), then the sentence is impossible to parse. ---- == Qualia vs. Experiences == Aren't qualia the same thing as experiences? If not, what's the difference? — User:Monedula 09:16, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) :In a nutshell, qualia are ''properties of'' experiences, just like colors are properties of objects. Specifically, qualia are the properties of experiences which describe ''what it is like to have'' that particular experience. User:Adam Conover — User:Adam Conover User talk:Adam Conover 20:53, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC) ::Then, what aspect of experiences is not covered by qualia? If we know ''what it is like to have'' a particular experience, then we know everything about that experience, isn't it? — User:Monedula 21:25, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) :::Well, first I should tell you to go read the primary source material, just as Frank Jackson's "Epiphenomenal Qualia" and Dennett's "Quining Qualia" -- both should be available in any good phil mind compilation. But in a nutshell, no -- even if we knew the qualia of an experience, we would not thereby know anything about its other properties, such as its intentional properties, its causal properties, and its capacity to cause certain behavioral responses. User:Adam Conover — User:Adam Conover User talk:Adam Conover 23:39, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC) ::::I would rather say that qualia are not properties of experiences, but the material they are made of, a sort of "mental substance". And the intentional and casual properties have more to do with the "outside world" than with experiences themselves. — User:Monedula 11:31, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC) == Larger scale phenomena - refactoring == I'm not certain what happened, but I signed up for an account, logged in, and the bottom section of the article is no longer visible. It was fascinating, talking about how qualia could be experienced differently at higher metabolic rates. I was going to ask if anyone could provide references to this idea. Now it's gone. I think it also talked about the idea of 'refactoring'. Can anyone help? Scroll up the page to the link to the old page before the large rewrite.Second section. ---User:Steenies 16:59, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Qualia
See other meanings of words starting from letter:A | B | C | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | R | S | T | U | V | X | Y | Z |
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
