I propose that “qualia” is a word that, like “microevolution”, is mainly used by people who are very confused (and dissolving the question is the appropriate approach).
Could you expand on this? I’ve seen before here the notion that the term “qualia” should be gotten rid of entirely, but I’ve never really understood it.
For instance, asking what kinds of processes are capable of producing qualia, in order to figure out which animals are capable of feeling pain, certainly seems relevant for utilitarian ethics. (You could reword the question as “which animals can feel pain”, which avoids using the term ‘qualia’, but you’re at heart still referring to the same concept.)
Could you expand on this? I’ve seen before here the notion that the term “qualia” should be gotten rid of entirely, but I’ve never really understood it.
For instance, asking what kinds of processes are capable of producing qualia, in order to figure out which animals are capable of feeling pain, certainly seems relevant for utilitarian ethics. (You could reword the question as “which animals can feel pain”, which avoids using the term ‘qualia’, but you’re at heart still referring to the same concept.)
It’s also pretty difficult to describe phenomena like synaesthesa without terms like qualia.