I don't think it's very helpful to go to google every time a complex idea if fuzzied. Anything can be put on google, any definition, any unsupported, fanciful notion is equal to any other. This is a bad turn.
For instance Cheerskep says qualia is found on google as such and such. I turn to a marvelous book by William Lyons, Matters of the Mind, Edinburgh Univ. Press 2001. Lyons is Professor at Trinity College, Dublin and editor of Modern Philosophy of Mind. He explains qualia as subjective conscious experience associated with the five senses. pp. 168-172 Because qualia is subjective it must be interpreted as being like something to be objective. Thus the only way to speak of qualia is to make believe it is material, as if something in the world. It leaves unexplained how something material, physical, such as the brain and its functions give rise to something immaterial, such as mind. This is, I think, the biggest philosophical, biological, ontological problem of all and the expert opinion is that no one has a fully satisfactory answer. Super materialists seem to imply that they don't think the aesthetic can exist simply because it can't be found in brain physiology. Nor can Beauty be proven as material. To say that it exists wholly outside of brain physiology would be to declare everything as idea only, and further, as solipsism. In that case there's nothing to discuss since pure subjectivity can't be shared. At any rate, turning to google and its "anything goes" references is no better than turning to any person in the street for an authoritative comment. I think vetted expertise is needed and it is available (if we are readers and not merely scanners of googles). WC
