Matt_Simpson comments on Rationality Quotes: October 2009 - Less Wrong

7 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 22 October 2009 04:06PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (276)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 23 October 2009 03:42:45AM 2 points [-]

It seems thus impossible that any question about the nature or character of particular sensory qualities should ever arise which is not a question about the differences from (or relations to) other sensory qualities; and the extent to which the effects of its occurrence differ from the effects of the occurrence of any other qualities determines the whole of its character.

To ask beyond this for the explanation of some absolute attribute of sensory qualities seems to be to ask for something which by definition cannot manifest itself in any differences in the consequences which will follow because this rather than any other quality has occurred. Such a factor, however, could by definition not be of relevance to any scientific problem. The 'absolute' quality seems to be unexplainable because there is nothing to explain, because absolute, if it has any meaning at all, can only mean that the attribute which is so described has no scientific significance.

--F. A. Hayek, The Sensory Order (never terse)

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 23 October 2009 07:46:36PM 0 points [-]

I guess Hayek is to opaque here to be quotable?

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 23 October 2009 11:13:52PM 1 point [-]

It is opaque. If I'm reading it right, it's a functionalist argument against the concept of qualia, much as Dennett makes here.

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 24 October 2009 12:44:06AM 1 point [-]

More or less. It's about a half-step away from invoking occam's razor to finish the job.