--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "BruceD" <blroadies@...> wrote: > > --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@> wrote: > > > Can we just call them our experiences or must we say our experiences > consist of something else, some mental property called "qualia"? > > I'm happy with "just our experiences" option. Isn't Gordon? We should > ask? > I guess you just have! The question, then, is whether an agreement that that term is okay will also include a recognition that, in denying "qualia", Dennett isn't denying experiences. > > I don't think Dennett is arguing that we do away with mental talk, > > only that we not rely on it exclusively in accounting for the > occurrence of mental phenomena qua experiences. > > I agree. Not exclusively. But the tricky part is relating the mental to > the physical. > I think he does it pretty well. At least I have no problem with it. > > When talking about brains and minds we speak one way, > > Yep. That's where our difference lies. What way. Notice the research > Posted does not talk the "causal way." > To amend the title of the Post. D throws out the Baby when he related > the mind to the body. > > bruce > > The use of "causal" is Searle's though I have no problem with it once one recognizes the way it is being employed. Dennett never speaks of "causal" as I recall though I think his approach is certainly consistent with that usage. (And perhaps he does actually use the term at some point. I don't have a photographic memory nor have I read everything he's ever written so I will not affirm a negative. Note that I say this just in case friend Joe -- or someone of the same mindset -- now rushes out and manages to find just such a usage somewhere in order to cite it and crow "see, you're wrong, you're wrong!" I'm rather tired of that kind of exchange at this point.) SWM ========================================= Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/