If someone were to invent a test for qualia, perhaps we couldn’t even tell if it works properly without solving the hard problem of consciousness.
Even without solving the hard problem of consciousness, as long as we agree that consciousness is a property the human mind has, the test can be administered by a paramedic with a flashlight.
Qualiaphiles don’t think qualia are something other than a property the mind has, they think they are not open to any obvious third-party inspection, like shining a flashlight.
If you define consc. as the thing EMT’s can check with a flashlight, all you have done is left qualia out of the definition: you haven’t solved any problem of qualia.
Qualiaphiles don’t think qualia are something other than a property the mind has, they think they are not open to any obvious third-party inspection, like shining a flashlight.
If you define consc. as the thing EMT’s can check with a flashlight, all you have done is left qualia out of the definition: you haven’t solved any problem of qualia.
Yes. Once I define qualia as “conscious experience”, I necessarily have to leave it out of the definition of “consciousness” (whatever that may be).
My point is that only the question of consciousness remains. And consciousness is worth talking about only if human brains exhibit it.
I am not trying to solve the question of qualia, I am trying to dissolve it as improper.
P.S. Do you mind tabooing “qualia” in any further discission? This way I can be sure we are talking about the same thing.