Brent_Allsop replied 11 years ago (Jun 3rd 2012, 6:48:21 pm)
I've been researching some of Keith Frankish's work on this 'seeming' issue. He has lots of great information about stuff which he says is a 'common move in literature', and seems to be the same move James and Mike are attempting, when they talk about quale.
One of his papers was entitled: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810011001176 Quining diet qualia], in which he borrows the 'quining qualia' term from Dennett. Unfortunately, you have to pay to get that paper, but he has a great guest blog post [http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2007/07/qualia-real-thing-by-guest-blogger.html here] on this.
He refers to 'clasic qualia' as being 'ineffable, intrinsic, and private', which I seem to stress are important (although I prefer 'fundamental' to 'intrinsic'), which Mike and James seem to not consider are properties of what they think of as qualia?
Anyway, I wondered if Mike and James would agree that their definition of 'qualia is this same 'diet' definition that Frankish talks about?
It appears to me that Keith is a true qualophobe, and thinks we also don't have 'diet' qualia. So, perhaps, we'll need to come up with the following camp structure to include these types of people?
* Property Dualism / Classic Qualia
* Diet Qualia / Representational Functionalism