[Serious Phil] Two More Q-Predicates/Properties

[walto]

--- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, Joseph Polanik <Philscimind at ...> wrote:
>
> larry_tapper_2 wrote:
> 
>  >JP: ...my argument is based on the arbitrary nature of selecting one of
>  >transient-# as to precisify 'transient' when using that predicate as a
>  >Q-predicate. doing that makes an important philosophical question (the
>  >existence or non-existence of qualia) a matter of whim.
> 
>  >JP: choose transient-3 as to precisify 'transient' and an after image
>  >is not transient; and, therefore, an afterimage is not a quale or does
>  >not have qualia.
> 
>  >The flaw in this argument is that the selection of the value of '#' in
>  >'transient-#' is *not* arbitrary.
> 
>  >When we say that afterimages are 'transient', we obviously mean that
>  >the duration of an afterimage is short on a human scale, not a
>  >geological scale or a microphysical scale. That means that before
>  >precisification, the value of '#' has upper and lower bounds. It has to
>  >be large enough to allow afterimages to be perceptible (e.g. more than
>  >a nanosecond) and small enough so that a 30-year afterimage (say)
>  >wouldn't count as 'transient'.
> 
>  >In other words, there is no reasonable assignment of a value to '#' ---
>  >that is, a value consistent with the idea of transience on a human
>  >scale --- according to which afterimages are anything other than
>  >transient.
> 
> okay; so, according to you, afterimages pass the 'transient' criterion
> of the definition of 'quale' that Walter constructed to represent the
> views of well known philosopher whom he refuses to cite:
> 

Please.  If you don't know of any philosophers who have claimed that "the objects of acquaintance" (your qualiotrons) are transient, you have read very few philosophers.  You can start with Russell and go from there.



W