William writes:
> 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
>
Look again at my posting re Google. I agree there are many hare-brained
remarks findable on Google. But I specifically said go the Wikipedia entry on
'qualia': "Just go to 'qualia' on Google and see the Wikipedia entry. But
most of
the commentators seem to have a narrower notion of qualia than you convey
here. Which is okay because the notions are all fuzzy -- to a degree! Still,
they
largely tend to think of qualia as -- if this conveys it -- the immediate raw
conscious "experience", like, say, your experience of red. In other words the
raw consciousness stirred via the five senses."
So when you note that Lyons "explains qualia as subjective conscious
experience associated with the five senses," You don't cite something contra
to what I
suggested, but an "explanation" quite the "same". Your posting on 'qualia'
described them as going far beyond raw immediate five-sense sensations.
**************
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money &
Finance.
(http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolcmp00300000002850)
