Re: Epipenominal Qualia 1 - The knowledge Argument

["David Saitch" <philosophy@saitch.net>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org



1. A physicalist would say "I am not saying they are one and the same, they
are not. But seeing red is physical, so that should be in a set of physical
facts".

2. No, I think Jackson appropriated it in his attempt to smuggle in his
argument. What would you say was a physical fact? Can you tell me in what way
a description of a process is more physical than the process itself?

I realise this is hard to see, but I will attempt to expand it in my paper.


Felicity Graham <graham.felicity@gmail.com> wrote:

> 1. A non-pysicalist might ask the physicalist on what basis are you claiming
> seeing red one is one and the same with the hard facts about red?
> 
> 2. Do you not think you have merely appropriated the definition of
> 'physical'?
> 
> On 10/21/05, David Saitch <philosophy@saitch.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > What I am saying is:
> >
> > 1. From a Physicalists point of view, seeing red is physical, and the
> > experience is physical, so from a physicalist point of view it must be
> > included in the set of physical facts. How can you argue that they should
> > not
> > be from a PHYSICALIST point of view. You could say it if you were some for
> > of
> > dualist, but for a physicalist they are physical and Jackson must include
> > them
> > if he is going to refute physicalism...which he then can't.
> >
> > 2. The HARD scientific facts are descriptionss of the process of seeing,
> > they
> > are explanatory facts. Seeing is the physical fact!
> >
> > The Dualist Intuition blocks our view of this and I am expanding my paper
> > to
> > explain it more.
> >
> >
> > Felicity Graham <graham.felicity@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > David,
> > >
> > > 1) How do you know the seeing and experiencing of red MUST be included
> > in
> > > any subset of facts that is supposed to include all the physical facts
> > about
> > > seeing red, unless you are happy to say the scientific facts about red
> > and
> > > the "what it is like to see red" are one and the same, which cannot
> > > plausibly be said to be the case?
> > >
> > > 2) On what basis do you claim that seeing and experiencing
> > > red are the ONLY physical facts over say the hard scientific facts about
> > > red, without a simple appropriation of the definition of 'physical'.
> > >
> > > Felicity
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 





Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm