Guest guest Posted January 22, 2004 Report Share Posted January 22, 2004 Namaste Vishal and all Advaitins, Qualia is a very interesting study and philosophers given to devising thought experiments can have great fun in considering the possibility not only of my 'red' being different from your 'red' but of my 'red' occilating in intensity and mutating back and forth. However Vishal's concern was the relation of qualia to maya. I don't think it has any. Phenomanalism is the mansion where qualia dwells along with its sibling sense-data. It represents itself as a third way and preens itself on its scientific credentials however the irreducibility of the object very soon becomes apparent. I may be corrected when I say that 'I see a rose' and be told that I in fact have sense-data which include red, infolding, layering etc. My answer to that is that all of these categories are drawn from other instances of the same and applied to this unitry situation. Moreover I do not include the table on which it lies as part of the data. One begins where the other leaves off. I do not see a strange vegatable with 4 legs and a roseate nodule on it. I have the concept of a natural kind and a world that is full of discontinuous and distinguishable objects. Sankara was inclined to view this as the primitive, irreducible given of our existence. Maya/Avidya has a different genesis from the epistemological concerns of Qualia. Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2004 Report Share Posted January 22, 2004 Namaste Sadaji, >Suppose for the time being you are right, then how can you tell that >every body has divergent color sensations - is it not an assumption on >your part, even if they are conditioned to say that it is red even >though they see green ness in the red! Yes it is an assumption or we may call it inference...in the sense that there is no direct pramaNA to tell that everybody has divergent color sesation...But then, when we say everybody has same color sesation, is it also not an assumption ? or inference? >Is it not your first sentence an assumption on your part? Is it >possible >to prove that it isn’t the same? It is an inference. it can be proved by the example of Night blind person who sees color during the day and does not see colors during night. Also evolutionarily if our eyes would have developed in such a way as to capture the frequencies outside the 'visible spectrum' the world would have looked much different. >Independence of 'red' from 'Green' comes from the difference in >frequencies. Now if monochromatic 'red' color is shown to different >subjects, you feel that their subjective senses are greenish for one >and >bluish for the other. And they are different when the monochromatic >blue is shown for the same subjects they may see reddish or brownish >-Let us say you are right even though you cannot prove that the >individual sensations are different. Now if they see every time >'monochromatic red' is shown the same identical sensations - call them >whatever you want' and is independent of palce and time but always the >same sensation, then that sensation is independent of the subject - is >it not? As long as that exclusive sensation associated with >'monochromatic red' which is different from exclusive sensation with >'monochromatic blue', that exclusiveness is independent of the subject >in the sense the same object gives the same sensation of that subject. >That is what vastu tantra means. In that case perception is still >independent of the subject - is it not. That independent sensation >related the object is what is named after that object by a language >convention. Partially agree on this....the same object gives the same sensation of that subject evrytime... But ONLY for a particular subject only. for a different subject....the same object may be giving a different sesation everytime this only shows that the sensations are nothing but creations of our mind..like sight, smell, touch, taste etc.... the world outside 'I' is just an illusion (including mind-intellect) > It is impossible to prove or disprove since for >a proof a conscious entity has to step in. Hence it is called >'anirvacaniiyam' or inexplicable or indeterminate. agree >real. This does not mean that there is no objectification at the >vyavahaara level. Vedantic analysis only points out that the object >perception is in consciousness and the subject who perceives is also in >consciousness and from consciousness there are no real divisions but >only apparent divisions. Apparent is not real but not unreal either >since it is real at transactional level. Our problem is taking the >transactional reality as absolutely real and suffer the consequences of >that misunderstanding. agree >we may have to agree to disagree - discarding the parenthetic title >opening the discussion to others who may have different opinion from >both of us. we agree to disagree or disagree to agree !!! just kidding . >Thank you too for the lovely discussions. As Benjamin said these are >getting addictive. I still have to work on my Manjari-6. what is Manjari ? are you writing a book or something ? i am sure i will get a complementary copy !!! again kidding PraNAms Om tat-sat Vishal SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2004 Report Share Posted January 22, 2004 Thanks Michaelji for the thoughtful comments. ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:Namaste Vishal and all Advaitins, Qualia is a very interesting study and philosophers given to devising thought .... SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 --- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote: > Namaste Vishal and all Advaitins, > > Qualia is a very interesting study and philosophers given to devising > thought > experiments . Phenomanalism is the > mansion where > qualia dwells along with its sibling sense-data. Thanks Michael - I did not know what is this 'qualia' and could not find a meaning to the word in the dictionary either. That does not mean that I know now what is this 'qualia' means. My ignorance seem to remain along with maaya, although I understand from your mail that qualia is not that same as maaya. Even if it is not the same, is not the concept of qualia like all other concepts which are notions at the level of intellect within the realm of 'maaya'? Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting./ps/sb/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > > --- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > > Namaste Vishal and all Advaitins, > > > > Qualia is a very interesting study and philosophers given to devising > > thought > > experiments . Phenomanalism is the > > mansion where > > qualia dwells along with its sibling sense-data. > > Thanks Michael - I did not know what is this 'qualia' and could not find > a meaning to the word in the dictionary either. Namaste, Curiosity sent me on a search for this too! http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/ discusses the context fairly thoroughly. Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.