Felt sense is a kind of experience of what it is like to experience things, or qualia of qualia. Their defining feature is perhaps that you’re noticing what it is like to exist in your present state, rather than simply and directly being without noticing that existence. Somewhat different from but related to our typical notions of self-awareness, which tend to be very focused on modeling the self, whereas felt sense is just about experiencing the self without a lot of modeling (though you might right away try to categorize the experience and thus apply a model to it by, say, putting a name to your felt sense or trying to describe what it is like in words).
Does it make sense to say that “felt senses” are qualia of meaning?
Felt sense is a kind of experience of what it is like to experience things, or qualia of qualia. Their defining feature is perhaps that you’re noticing what it is like to exist in your present state, rather than simply and directly being without noticing that existence. Somewhat different from but related to our typical notions of self-awareness, which tend to be very focused on modeling the self, whereas felt sense is just about experiencing the self without a lot of modeling (though you might right away try to categorize the experience and thus apply a model to it by, say, putting a name to your felt sense or trying to describe what it is like in words).
This definition is reasonable, but it contradicts to my understanding of what Kaj has agreed (??) in a comment below.
There are two things in my model of qualia:
“qualia of meaning”, which are a type of primary qualia of sensory objects, but the sensory objects here are ideas (apple, love etc).
“awareness of awareness”—the situation when I put my attention on my attention and feel it as a very special qualia of Self.
I don’t know, I guess yes? :)