On Saturday 06 September 2003 20:45, Jef Allbright wrote: > Of course the strong sense of immediacy and directness trumps logical and > philosophical arguments. In a very circular (and conventionally correct > way) we certainly are our feelings. And in the bigger picture, that self > is an illusion -- scary (or liberating, depending on your viewpoint.) > > Again and again, clarity is gained by broadening the context.
Yes, but what you do is sweep the problem of qualia under the carpet. Of course an illusion represents nothing or represents falsely, by definition, but that does not mean the illusion itself does not exist, actually the illusion itself must exist to be an illusion, like also for example a tiger must exist for it to be a tiger. Qualia give the illusion of there being things in the world with properties they describe, e.g. a black book that smells old etc etc.. With our modern scientific world view we know this naive realism is false. The book is made outof atoms with electrons, which don't have properties like color, smell etc.. So qualia are unreal? Well, in some sense yes, but not completely, they are real illusions, real seemings. To deny the existence of qualia, like Dennett, is making it yourself very easy, but you don't get the full ontological picture. (And there is a solution to fit qualia in a physicalistic world view) Arnoud ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
