View source for Q8: Elimination of qualia

You argue that the concept of '''qualia''' is unnecessary within RF.

Is their elimination:

* '''descriptive''' — the term adds no functional precision, or  
* '''normative''' — continuing to use the concept actively obstructs understanding and accountability?

One sentence is enough.

===== Is already described in the article. But I can add yet one point of view. Does it create true understanding to discuss what is rozumness (qualia is an attempt to describe it) without rozum itself? =====

That addition answers Question 8 — and it does so '''at the right level'''.

=== '''Q8 — closed''' ===

So, within RF, the elimination of ''qualia'' is '''both descriptive and normative''', but for a deeper reason than economy of terms.

What you’re adding is this:

* ''Qualia'' is an '''attempt to talk about rozumness from outside rozum'''  
* It tries to describe ''being a rozum'' '''without exercising rozumness'''  
* That move is structurally flawed  
* True understanding of rozumness '''requires participation''', not observation  
* Qualia-talk simulates understanding while '''bypassing accountability and dialogue'''  
* It creates the illusion that subjective experience is a mysterious object, rather than a '''state of S ∪ A inside a functioning rozum'''

So qualia are not just redundant — they are '''a category error born of non-participation'''.

That closes Question 8.

{{sitemap}}