That is NOT what that word is generally used to refer to.
Why, because it’s a meaningful definition—and people are generally referring to something utterly meaningless? If you want me to define what people, in general, are talking about then of course I can’t give a meaningful definition.
But I contend that this is meaningful, and it is what people are referring to—even if they don’t know how to properly talk about it.
Imagine person A says that negative numbers are not even conceptually possible, or that arithmetic or whatever can’t be performed with them. Person B contends otherwise. Person A asks how one could possibly add negative numbers, and B responds with a lecture about algebraic structures. A objects, “But people aren’t generally referring to algebraic structures when they talk about maths, etc. I wasn’t talking about that, I was talking about (4-7) and (-2*14) and how these things make no sense.”
Well I contend that even if people don’t know what they’re talking about when they say “qualia this” or “qualia that”—and, in general, they’re using gibberish definitions and speech—they’re actually trying to talk about something close to the definition I’ve given.
you’re using the word incorrectly
Again, if the only “correct” way to use the word is in the same manner as it is generally thought of, then of course you will never find a sensible definition because none of the sensible definitions are in common use—so you’ve ruled them out a priori, and are touting a tautology. But I’m not going to define what other people think they mean by a word—I’m going to define the ontology of the situation. If that’s at odds with what people think they’re talking about, then so what? People talk about God and think they’re referring to this guy in the sky who is actually real—doesn’t mean it’s what’s really going on, or that that’s a really accurate definition of God (which would lead to the ontological argument being sound).
That is NOT what that word is generally used to refer to.
Why, because it’s a meaningful definition—and people are generally referring to something utterly meaningless? If you want me to define what people, in general, are talking about then of course I can’t give a meaningful definition.
But I contend that this is meaningful, and it is what people are referring to—even if they don’t know how to properly talk about it.
Imagine person A says that negative numbers are not even conceptually possible, or that arithmetic or whatever can’t be performed with them. Person B contends otherwise. Person A asks how one could possibly add negative numbers, and B responds with a lecture about algebraic structures. A objects, “But people aren’t generally referring to algebraic structures when they talk about maths, etc. I wasn’t talking about that, I was talking about (4-7) and (-2*14) and how these things make no sense.”
Well I contend that even if people don’t know what they’re talking about when they say “qualia this” or “qualia that”—and, in general, they’re using gibberish definitions and speech—they’re actually trying to talk about something close to the definition I’ve given.
you’re using the word incorrectly
Again, if the only “correct” way to use the word is in the same manner as it is generally thought of, then of course you will never find a sensible definition because none of the sensible definitions are in common use—so you’ve ruled them out a priori, and are touting a tautology. But I’m not going to define what other people think they mean by a word—I’m going to define the ontology of the situation. If that’s at odds with what people think they’re talking about, then so what? People talk about God and think they’re referring to this guy in the sky who is actually real—doesn’t mean it’s what’s really going on, or that that’s a really accurate definition of God (which would lead to the ontological argument being sound).