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.
Site map: The Three Descriptive Axioms • The RO Formula • Consciousness & Experience • The God Trap & Propaganda • The Duck Test • Applications • FAQ • Examples & Case Studies • Glossary • Resources • Preprint: doi:10.5281/zenodo.17862910
The site is under construction. Please, be patient. And come later, if you want.
The site is under construction. Please, be patient. And come later, if you want.