-->
@3RU7AL
I've never seen qualia used in the way you just used it. Care to elaborate?
Is there truth to Nihilism and if so, which version is the most accurate?
Posts
Total:
131
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I've never seen qualia used in the way you just used it. Care to elaborate?
In philosophy and certain models of psychology, qualia (/ˈkwɑːliə/ or /ˈkweɪliə/; singular form: quale) are defined to be individual instances of subjective, conscious experience. The term qualia derives from the Latin neuter plural form (qualia) of the Latin adjective quālis (Latin pronunciation: [ˈkʷaːlɪs]) meaning "of what sort" or "of what kind" in a specific instance like "what it is like to taste a specific apple, this particular apple now".
Examples of qualia include the perceived sensation of pain of a headache, the taste of wine, as well as the redness of an evening sky. As qualitative characters of sensation, qualia stand in contrast to "propositional attitudes",[1] where the focus is on beliefs about experience rather than what it is directly like to be experiencing.
Philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett once suggested that qualia was "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us".[2]
Much of the debate over their importance hinges on the definition of the term, and various philosophers emphasize or deny the existence of certain features of qualia. Consequently, the nature and existence of various definitions of qualia remain controversial because they are not verifiable. [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
Your definition seems a bit problematic.
propositional attitudes, as you say, come from beliefs as you say. But the description you gave of Qualia also seems to match propositional attitudes in at least some, if not all cases.
I understand what your definition entails, but I don't think that's how the term is used in the modern era and I don't really care about how it was used in the past except to get context.
Qualia tends to be a term to describe our experiencing of agency. That's similar to what you said, but I feel like yours wasn't restrictive enough.
Nihilism is true if humanity is the byproduct of mindlessness.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Qualia tends to be a term to describe our experiencing of agency. That's similar to what you said, but I feel like yours wasn't restrictive enough.
I've found this framework to be extremely durable.
In reference to "nihilism" this dichotomy (quanta versus qualia) highlights the common tendency for people to commit a serious category error when attempting to speak about "meaning" (axiology).
QUANTA: emotionally meaningless.
QUALIA: emotionally meaningful.
Please provide a specific example that illustrates your objection or alternatively suggest terms that you believe to be superior.
-->
@Fallaneze
Nihilism is true if humanity is the byproduct of mindlessness.
If you can imagine a god, you are indirectly imagining meaningfulness.
-->
@3RU7AL
Sure, but you can imagine meaningfulness in a nihilistic universe .
.
-->
@Fallaneze
Sure, but you can imagine meaningfulness in a nihilistic universe .
Were you born with a survival instinct?
Do you enjoy food?
Do you love your friends and family?
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, yes, yes. None of those things make nihilism false.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I don't think we can say which version is correct. However, thanks to Omar's site, i would say it's either metaphysical or existential. I personally favor metaphysical if i had to pick one.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I know what meta means and that's the problem. You don't apply it's etymology correctly. You say it means "beyond" but it doesn't. it means "at or beyond the limits of"
Huh, your very confused person and spinning truth to be false. Sad ;--(
That means that something meta could also be within the observation realm as well. If we know something 100% then it's metaphysical regardless of what it is.
Huh? I have no idea whay concept your attempting to conjour with this above
Whatever a rock actually is, that's what it is metaphysically.
Huh? A rock is not metaphysical. Are you on prescription medication? Are you not taking your prescribed medicines?
That's why I asked you about your comments about the 4 kind of metas that you stated and an honest person would have explained it because it's arrogant and ignorant of you to think that people know the same words the same way you do ESPECIALLY when you don't use the definitions in a traditional way.
And I gave you the answers. You are a very confused person whose ego{ * i * } keeps you from playing fair. When you have actually have any shred of rational, logical comment sense that address my comments as stated, please share.
You dont to that because you have no sincerity and no rational logical common sense that adds to or detracts to my comments as stated. Sad lack of morals on you part. You have no desire to find truth. :--(
-->
@mustardness
Stop that pettiness. My claim is verifiable as opposesed to your made up, cherry picked, half definitions.Huh, your very confused person and spinning truth to be false
Huh? A rock is not metaphysical. Are you on prescription medication? Are you not taking your prescribed medicines?
This shows that you don't know what meta means and proves my point.
Yes, beyond is one of the interpretations of meta. However, the concept of a meta relates directly to what we know. So if we know 50% then the meta is beyond us. But if we know 100% of something. Then we are at the meta and it's observable.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Yes, beyond is one of the interpretations of meta
Thats correct and I have repeatedly given you other in various threads, my four uses of "meta" and your ego cannot handle any them. Sad :--(
My first definit is in all dictionaries and your ego is has been working overtime again to fight the most common definition.
Please share when you have any shred of sincerity and rational, logical common sense in understanding any of clarifications, definitions etc of any of my comments as stated.
You do not not because you have not anything of significance to add to, or detract { invalidate } from any of my comments as stated. Please check you ego { * i * } and short-sideded{ narrow-mindedness } at the door before approaching me again and save your hot air balloon for those around here who have earned it.
-->
@mustardness
That's convenient, ignore my source completely.
Read the source and respond to it or you're just making mouth noise.
FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
#72...W-Ralph....Yes, beyond is one of the interpretations of meta.
Get beyond your ego{ * i * } W-Ralph. Aka Meta-W-Ralph.
Your ego is the primary problem here. Your stuck in a rut because of your ego { * i * }. Sad :--(
Please share when you actually have any shred of sincerity and rational logical common sense that addresses my comments as stated.
You rarely ever have done that because of your ego.
-->
@mustardness
You're not listening. I can't address your comments because you refuse to clarify them.
You insulting my ego isn't going to change that.
Please set aside your ego and explain your argument in plain English.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
You're not listening. I can't address your comments because you refuse to clarify them.
False/bogus. You rarely choose to address them because;
1} you ego based mental blockage will not allow you to,
2} specific comment by me,
3} offer rational logical common sense, that,
4} adds to or detracts{ invalidates ] my comments, as presented.
And this has been going on for weeks now, and that is more evidence of how huge a problem your ego is.
You insulting my ego isn't going to change that.
False/bogus. You insult yourself by allowing youer ego run you show immorally unfair behavour. Ditto the above that have ignored for weeks now.
Please set aside your ego and explain your argument in plain English.
"argument"? What is it think I have argued? Your confusion appears to be a ego based mental blockage to anything M-Tard states. Sad :--(
-->
@mustardness
That's because you state the same thing no matter what I say. If I agree with you, then you say Win/win. Otherwise, you insult my ego and say it's my fault that we're disagreeing. Seriously an AI could argue like this. Are you an AI? I think you're an AI.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
that's because you state the same thing no matter what I say.
Bogus/false claim.
Duhh yeah, why would state anything else? Your ego seems to be creating confusion again.If I agree with you, then you say Win/win.
Otherwise, you insult my ego and say it's my fault that we're disagreeing.
Otherwise you rarely offer a specific quote by me that you want a clarification on. And when you have I addressed those concerns.
This again is because of your ego. If you allow your ego to take charge its make you look foolish, there is nothing I can do to to change that.
All I can do is respond to specifics that you rarely offere, instead your ego just blows bogus/false hot air. Foolish and not productive to finding truth.
-->
@mustardness
That's false, I've addressed specific parts of your arguments and told you the problems with them, you just don't address it afterwards. You know who you remind me of? Darth Dawkins. That crazy apologist who doesn't let people rebut his position and then insults the people who try.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
That's false, I've addressed specific parts of your arguments and told you the problems with them, you just don't address it afterwards.
False/bogus claims, unless it was a post Ive missed. As if that never happens to all of us with so many threads and posts flying around. Address me when you have something specific Ive presented, and you have sincerity of heart along with rational, logical common sense.
You know who you remind me of? Darth Dawkins. That crazy apologist who doesn't let people rebut his position and then insults the people who try.
And you remind me of many people on the net, who allow ego based mental blockages to truth, run their show of foolishness.
So here we are how many weeks later and you have offere may be two specific comments by me that you asked for clarification on and I provided.
-->
@mustardness
Does me not understanding your words makes me illogical? If so, then why?
Could it be possible that I'm logical at least to mediocre extent, but I simple can't understand you?
Don't you think that it would be more productive to speak in a way that I can understand you instead of trying to make me do all the leg work?
Why don't you have to make any effort to understand me?
Why is this a one way street?
Why do you accuse me of having ego problems when you're ironically doing that very thing to yourself?
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Lol anytime you challenge his posts or say you they don't make any sense he claims you have an ego problem (when he starts that I just ignore him), ever noticed the ones that claim somebody has an ego issue are the ones who have the biggest egos?
-->
@EtrnlVw
Can't say I have, no.ever noticed the ones that claim somebody has an ego issue are the ones who have an ego problem?
-->
@keithprosser
Well follow this thread.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Nah. Or as musty might say, *(*)*/\/\ ^6.Well follow this thread.
-->
@keithprosser
Nah. Or as musty might say
Actually yah.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Yeah and my ego is intent explorations for truth based on observational facts and truths.ever noticed the ones that claim somebody has an ego issue are the ones who have the biggest egos?
Et-Vw truth, facts, truth and rational logical common sense are not involved.
W-Ralph, may like that kind of mind goop, others find it waste of valuable mind resources.
-->
@keithprosser
Nah Musty never stated that. Most people make false/bogus comments regarding what Musty has stated. Go figure that one and you will have some insights into truth based observed facts and truths.Nah. Or as musty might say, *(*)*/\/\ ^6
But who in this thread is actually interested in facts, truths or rational, logical common sense? Not many from what I can see/read.
Peoples ego are so much in fear of what Musty has stated that the repeatedly create bogus false presentations regarding Musty.
Yeah tho the ego walks in fear of an ego death, the truth and facts eternally present themselves to the ego.