> The problem is to
> fit qualia
> into a pure physicalistic ontology. Physical theories because of their
> success have become the measure of all things.

I understand your perspective, but mine is different.  I'm not so sure that
physical theories are the measure of all things.  Physicalistic reductionism
is just one among many useful views of the world.  Perhaps where qualia are
concerned, it's not the most important or useful view?

> The problem will not be/is not, in any case, whether qualia terms
> like 'red'
> and 'soft' need to be eliminated or not outof all talk, and be treated
> differently in the rough and tumble of daily life, with distrust, like
> putting 'darkness(' and ')' around it. Like many of the concepts and
> heuristics ('folk physics' 'folk psychology') we use in daily
> life we could
> be anti-realists about them, just instrumentalists. They are
> simply useful,
> but also lead to errors and are incomplete.

Agree, they're useful, erroneous and incomplete -- and there may be no other
useful tools for describing experiences that are less erroneous and
incomplete, without being immensely more complicated

I tend to take a Peircean pragmatist philosophy, in which "instrumentality"
is the crux of truth...

> But still this doesn't mean that one needs to be realist about qualia,
> instrumentalism is also an option. One can say: using the concept
> of qualia
> is practical in expressing myself and understanding other people (and I'm
> doomed to use qualia terms anyway), but there are better stories to tell,
> more complete with less (predictive) failure, like the
> neuroscience story.

Indeed, I think this is a correct perspective.

> But why don't we use physics all the time then? Because we can't,
> we don't
> have the thought and measuring capacity to use quantum field physics to
> calculate the best way to the supermarket (luckily we don't have
> to).

Exactly!

ben g

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, 
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to