Skip to content

Qualia, Robots and Complementarity of Subject and Object

Piotr Bołtuć

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.