Qualia, Robots and Complementarity of Subject and Object
The Paideia Archive: Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 1998 DOI: 10.5840/wcp20-paideia199835580 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Key points | Argues that Jackson's knowledge argument and Nagel's 'what it is like' argument fail to refute physicalism, yet this does not compel qualia-reductionism. Proposes a non-reductionist view, informed by German philosophy, phenomenology, and Marxist dialectics, that treats subjectivity and objectivity as complementary. |
Abstract
Jackson claims that a person who sees colors for the first time by this very fact acquires a certain knowledge which she or he could not have learned in a black and white world. This argument can be generalized to other secondary qualities. I argue that this claim is indefensible without implicit recourse to the first-person experience; also Nagel’s "what it is like" argument is polemically weak. Hence, we have no argument able to dismiss physicalism by consideration of first-person qualia (contra Jackson); however, it does not force us to endorse qualia-reductionism. In the second part of my paper I defend non-reductionism in a different way. Following Nagel and Harman, I try to avoid criticisms usually presented against Nagel, seeing subjectivity and objectivity as two complementary structures of the subjective and objective element of our language. I refer to classical German philosophy, phenomenology and Marxist dialectics which have developed a complementary approach crucial in the reductionist/anti-reductionist controversy in the philosophy of mind.