Talk:Qualia

message: Almost all entries on the talk page were discussions of the qualia concept, not discussion about improving this article. Look at the header for this talk page: don't do that.
I archived the entire talk page using the manual method outlined in Help:Archiving a talk page. Its most recent entry was from 2015. -Arch dude (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk archive 

message: This article appears to primarily place citations in footnotes, but with a sprinkling of attempts at "Harvard" citations, done in a non-standard manner. I converted one "Harvard" ref to a footnote ref while removng a "pagenumber needed" template, but the whole article is a mess in this regard. The Wikipedia manual of style permits any of several citation conventins, but an article is supposed to use exactly one style, not a mix. If anyone strongly prefers "Harvard" style, then th entire article should be fixed up. Otherwise, we should convert all of them to footnote style. -Arch dude (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation convention 

message: "The inverted spectrum thought experiment, originally developed by John Locke invites us to imagine that we wake up one morning and find that for some unknown reason all the colors in the world have been inverted."
The reason this sentence does not mean anything is that the reference to "inverted colors" doesn't mean anything (at least to 99.99% of all English speakers).
So if whoever wrote that would like people to understand what they are talking about, they will have to use language that people will understand. Like "Everything that used to look red now looks green," or something that communicates an idea instead of being meaningless.2600:1700:E1C0:F340:15C5:97ED:7A4:E9F2 (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. The references describe "inverted qualia" as a 180º shift in a color wheel, so I'll add that as a clarification (here and at Inverted spectrum). Diego (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sentence doesn't mean anything 

message: "the zombie can only exist if subjective consciousness is causally separate from the physical brain."
I don't understand how this statement relates to the rest of the article. It seems to rely on the premise that "subjective consciousness is causally separate from the physical brain" in order to conflate "A does not give rise to B" with "A and B are mutually independent". Regardless of which definition of p-zombie or whose brain, this seems like circular logic? I think that this only applies to solipsism and atemporal reality. I prefer the case where a person is taught to believe they possess qualia thus by definition their corresponding p-zombie is taught to believe they possess qualia. This is the absurdism counter-argument. Yet I believe that the concept of p-zombies becomes less absurd by our ability to conceptualize the, because it follows that if we can conceptualize p-zombies then our corresponding p-zombie can conceptualize its own existence! At this point, the p-zombie could assert that it is self-aware of its own existence. And if that's not sufficient criterion for consciousness then the p-zombie can invoke positive-nihilism to self-validate existentialism in order to define its own traits as personhood. Like dualism, a person and their corresponding p-zombie can conceptualize that people and p-zombies are equivalent. For example, a p-zombie lacking qualia can by definition conceptualize that having qualia and lacking qualia are equivalent. I'll also mention some opinions: that neural networks are observable, that some organisms can process stimuli without a neural network, and that p-zombies have thoughts and beliefs and can philosophize about themselves. FakerFangirl (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non sequitur 

message: Hello
Reading the article, I was a bit surprised to find Schrödinger listed in the "analytical philosophers" section. Does anyone know what motivated this decision (I didn't find it in the archive talk) ? It's not about knowing if he was for or against the qualia or if he could qualified as a philosopher (which he could very well be) but more specifically why as an analytical philosopher ? I know little about his philosophical work, but from what I read, I see little to link him with this precise movement/group of philosophers. Thank you if you have elements pointing toward this, otherwise I would suggest to remove him from the section. Alexandriasecretary (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why "analytical" needs to be specified, for that matter, and the division into pro and anti sections is against wikipedia practice. 1Z (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erwin Schrödinger in the "analytical philosophers" section 

message: Second highest contributor shares a name with one of the WP:UNDUE people heavily covered on this page  - car chasm (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: All the time I spent chasing citations and I missed that  ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 05:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI tag (July 2023) 

message: The term “subjective experience” redirects here. I would like to see separate article addressing subjective experience. For one thing, no one disputes the existence of subjective experience, yet the existence of qualia is disputed. Also, a description of subjective experience could be simpler than what appears here. Lbeaumont (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate this from Subjective Experiences