Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

16
  • 2
    @keshlam, I didn't ask why you deny qualia if you accept physicalism as an axiom. It's completely different question. Commented Mar 28, 2025 at 15:47
  • 2
    @user339172 -- I don't think you understand what actually is happening in those goggle experiments. The experience adapts that is it reverts back to the "normal" experience -- meaning, there is no subjective experienced difference anymore with the "native" (non-manipulated) experience. Commented Mar 28, 2025 at 15:47
  • 2
    The question would be improved by spelling out Dennett's argument that the cable inversion thought problem was intended to then support. As currently posted, Dennett's argument is not stated. Commented Mar 28, 2025 at 17:19
  • 3
    Having read the sections where this was written, and struggling unsuccessfully to extract a straightforward summary of Dennett's argument in his own words, and ultimately having to summarize it myself, I understand why the OP originally did not post Dennett's actual argument. Commented Mar 28, 2025 at 23:14
  • 5
    My overwhelming impression on reading Daniel Dennett is that he is not, in fact, conscious. Nothing less would explain the nonsense that he writes! If this is correct, then he is right to reject qualia, as he doesn't experience them. Commented Mar 29, 2025 at 20:47