Dennett - Quining qualia

8/10/2019 Dennett - Quining qualia

1/24

Quining Qualiain A. Marcel and E. Bisiach, eds, Consciousness in Modern Science, Oxford University Press 1988.

Reprinted in . !ycan, ed.,Mind and Cognition: A Reader, M"# Press, 199$, A. %old&an, ed.

Readings in Philosophy and Cognitive Science, M"# Press, 199'.

Quining Qualia

1. Corralling the Quicksilver

()*alia( is an *nfa&iliar ter& for so&ethin+ that co*ld not e &ore fa&iliar to each of *s- the ways

things seem to us. As is so often the case ith philosophical /ar+on, it is easier to +ive exa&ples

than to +ive a definition of the ter&. !oo0 at a +lass of &il0 at s*nset the way it looks to you22the

partic*lar, personal, s*/ective vis*al 3*ality of the +lass of &il0 is the ualeof yo*r vis*al

experience at the &o&ent. #he way the milk tastes to you thenis another, +*statory uale, and how

it sounds to youas yo* sallo is an a*ditory uale #hese vario*s (properties of conscio*s

experience( are pri&e exa&ples of ualia. 4othin+, it see&s, co*ld yo* 0no &ore inti&ately than

yo*r on 3*alia let the entire *niverse e so&e vast ill*sion, so&e &ere fi+&ent of 5escartes6 evilde&on, and yet hat the fi+&ent is made o!7for yo* ill e the ualiaof yo*r hall*cinatory

experiences. 5escartes clai&ed to do*t everythin+ that co*ld e do*ted, *t he never do*ted that

his conscio*s experiences had 3*alia, the properties y hich he 0ne or apprehended the&.

#he ver (to 3*ine( is even &ore esoteric. "t co&es fro& "he Philosophical #e$icon75ennett

198c, 8th edn., 198, a satirical dictionary of epony&s- (3*ine, v. #o deny resol*tely the existence

or i&portance of so&ethin+ real or si+nificant.( At first l*sh it o*ld e hard to i&a+ine a &ore

3*ixotic 3*est than tryin+ to convince people that there are no s*ch properties as 3*alia hence the

ironic title of this chapter. B*t " a& not 0iddin+.

My +oal is s*versive. " a& o*t to overthro an idea that, in one for& or another, is (ovio*s( to

&ost people22to scientists, philosophers, lay people. My 3*arry is fr*stratin+ly el*sive no soonerdoes it retreat in the face of one ar+*&ent than (it( reappears, apparently innocent of all char+es, in

a ne +*ise.

hich idea of 3*alia a& " tryin+ to extirpate: Everythin+ real has properties, and since " don6t deny

the reality of conscio*s experience, " +rant that conscio*s experience has properties. " +rant

&oreover that each person6s states of conscio*sness have properties in virt*e of hich those states

have the experiential content that they do. #hat is to say, henever so&eone experiences so&ethin+

as ein+ one ay rather than another, this is tr*e in virt*e of so&e property of so&ethin+ happenin+

in the& at the ti&e, *t these properties are so *nli0e the properties traditionally i&p*ted to

conscio*sness that it o*ld e +rossly &isleadin+ to call any of the& the lon+2so*+ht 3*alia. )*alia

are s*pposed to especialproperties, in so&e hard2to2define ay. My clai&22hich can only co&e

into foc*s as e proceed22is that conscio*s experience has noproperties that are special in anyof

the ays 3*alia have een s*pposed to e special.

#he standard reaction to this clai& is the co&placent ac0noled+&ent that hile so&e people &ay

indeed have s*cc*&ed to one conf*sion or fanaticis& or another, one6s on appeal to a &odest,

innocent notion of properties of s*/ective experience is s*rely safe. "t is /*st that pres*&ption of

innocence " ant to overthro. " ant to shift the *rden of proof, so that anyone ho ants to

appeal to private, s*/ective properties has to prove first that in so doin+ they are not&a0in+ a

&ista0e. #his stat*s ofguilty until proven innocentis neither *nprecedented nor indefensile 7so

lon+ as e restrict o*rselves to concepts. #oday, no iolo+ist o*ld drea& of s*pposin+ that it as

3*ite all ri+ht to appeal to so&e innocent concept of lan vital. Of co*rse one could*se the ter& to

&ean so&ethin+ in +ood standin+ one co*ld *se lan vitalas one6s na&e for 54A, for instance, *tthis o*ld e foolish no&enclat*re, considerin+ the deserved s*spicion ith hich the ter& is

noadays *rdened. " ant to &a0e it /*st as *nco&fortale for anyone to tal0 of 3*alia22or (ra


2/24

feels( or (pheno&enal properties( or (s*/ective and intrinsic properties( or (the 3*alitative

character( of experience22ith the standard pres*&ption that they, and everyone else, 0nos hat

on earth they are tal0in+ ao*t. Endnote 1

hat are 3*alia, e$actly: #his ostrepero*s 3*ery is dis&issed y one a*thor 7(only half in /est( y

invo0in+ !o*is Ar&stron+6s le+endary reply hen as0ed hat /a;; as- ("f yo* +ot to as0, yo* ain6t

never +onna +et to 0no.( 7Bloc0, 198, p.ar etter, tactically, to declare that there

si&ply are no 3*alia at all. Endnote


3/24

p*rification ith certainty, *t the &ore f*nda&ental &ista0e of s*pposin+ that there is s*ch a

resid*al property to ta0e serio*sly, hoever *ncertain o*r act*al atte&pts at isolation of instances

&i+ht e.

#he exa&ples that sed*ce *s are a*ndant in every &odality. " cannot i&a+ine, ill never 0no,

co*ld never 0no, it see&s, ho Bach so*nded to %lenn %o*ld. 7" can arely recover in &y

&e&ory the ay Bach so*nded to &e hen " as a child. And " cannot 0no, it see&s, hat it is

li0e to e a at 74a+el, 19?, or hether yo* see hat " see, colorise, hen e loo0 *p at a clear(l*e( s0y. #he ho&ely cases convince *s of the reality of these special properties22those s*/ective

tastes, loo0s, aro&as, so*nds22that e then apparently isolate for definition y this philosophical

distillation.

#he specialness of these properties is hard to pin don, *t can e seen at or0 in intuition pump

'%: the wine,tasting machine. Co*ld %allo Brothers replace their h*&an ine tasters ith a

&achine: A co&p*ter2ased (expert syste&( for 3*ality control and classification is proaly

ithin the o*nds of existin+ technolo+y. e no 0no eno*+h ao*t the relevant che&istry to

&a0e the transd*cers that o*ld replace taste *ds and olfactory or+ans 7delicate color vision

o*ld perhaps e &ore prole&atic, and e can i&a+ine *sin+ the o*tp*t of s*ch transd*cers as

the ra &aterial22the (sense data( in effect22for elaorate eval*ations, descriptions, classifications.Po*r the sa&ple in the f*nnel and, in a fe &in*tes or ho*rs, the syste& o*ld type o*t a che&ical

assay, alon+ ith co&&entary- (a fla&oyant and velvety Pinot, tho*+h lac0in+ in sta&ina(22or

ords to s*ch effect. *ch a &achine &i+ht ell perfor& etter than h*&an ine tasters on all

reasonale tests of acc*racy and consistency the ine&a0ers co*ld devise Endnote ',*tsurelyno

&atter ho (sensitive( and (discri&inatin+( s*ch a syste& eco&es, it ill never have, and en/oy,

hat wedo hen e taste a ine- the 3*alia of conscio*s experience= hatever infor&ational,

dispositional, f*nctional properties its internal states have, none of the& ill e special in the ay

3*alia are. "f yo* share that int*ition, yo* elieve that there are 3*alia in the sense " a& tar+etin+ for

de&olition.

hat is special ao*t 3*alia: #raditional analyses s*++est so&e fascinatin+ second2order propertiesof these properties. >irst, since one cannot sayto another, no &atter ho elo3*ent one is and no

&atter ho cooperative and i&a+inative one6s a*dience is, exactly hat ay one is c*rrently seein+,

tastin+, s&ellin+ and so forth, 3*alia are ine!!a-le22in fact the paradi+& cases of ineffale ite&s.

Accordin+ to tradition, at least part of the reason hy 3*alia are ineffale is that they are intrinsic

properties22hich see&s to i&ply inter aliathat they are so&eho ato&ic and *nanaly;ale. ince

they are (si&ple( or (ho&o+eneo*s( there is nothin+ to +et hold of hen tryin+ to descrie s*ch a

property to one *nac3*ainted ith the partic*lar instance in 3*estion.

Moreover, veral co&parisons are not the only cross2chec0s r*led o*t.Anyo/ective, physiolo+ical

or (&erely ehavioral( test22s*ch as those passed y the i&a+inary ine2tastin+ syste&22 o*ld of

necessity &iss the tar+et 7one can pla*sily ar+*e, so all interpersonal co&parisons of these ays2

of2appearin+ are 7apparently syste&atically i&possile. "n other ords, 3*alia are essentially

privateproperties. And, finally, since they areproperties of my e$periences7they6re not chopped

liver, and they6re not properties of, say, &y cereral lood flo22or haven6t yo* een payin+

attention:, 3*alia are essentially directly accessile to the conscio*sness of their experiencer

7hatever that &eans or 3*alia are properties of one6s experience ith hich one is inti&ately or

directly ac3*ainted 7hatever that &eans or (i&&ediate pheno&enolo+ical 3*alities( 7Bloc0,

198 7hatever that &eans. #hey are, after all, the very properties the appreciation of hich

per&its *s to identify o*r conscio*s states. o, to s*&&ari;e the tradition, 3*alia are s*pposed to e

properties of a s*/ect6s &ental states that are

71 ineffale

7


4/24

7? directly or i&&ediately apprehensile in conscio*sness

#h*s are 3*alia introd*ced onto the philosophical sta+e. #hey have see&ed to e very si+nificant

properties to so&e theorists eca*se they have see&ed to provide an ins*r&o*ntale and

*navoidale st*&lin+ loc0 to f*nctionalis&, or &ore roadly, to &aterialis&, or &ore roadly

still, to any p*rely (third2person( o/ective viepoint or approach to the orld 74a+el, 198D.

#heorists of the contrary pers*asion have patiently and in+enio*sly 0noc0ed don all the

ar+*&ents, and said &ost of the ri+ht thin+s, *t they have &ade a tactical error, " a& clai&in+, ofsayin+ in one ay or another- (e theorists can handle those ualiayo* tal0 ao*t /*st fine e ill

sho that yo* are /*st sli+htly in error ao*t the nat*re of 3*alia.( hat they o*+ht to have said is-

(hat 3*alia:(

My challen+e stri0es so&e theorists as o*tra+eo*s or &is+*ided eca*se they thin0 they have a

&*ch lander and hence less v*lnerale notion of 3*alia to e+in ith. #hey thin0 " a& settin+ *p

and 0noc0in+ don a stra&an, and as0, in effect- (ho said 3*alia are ineffale, intrinsic, private,

directly apprehensile ays thin+s see& to one:( ince &y s*++ested fo*rfold essence of 3*alia

&ay stri0e &any readers as tendentio*s, it &ay e instr*ctive to consider, riefly, an appparently

&ilder alternative- 3*alia are si&ply (the 3*alitative or pheno&enal feat*res of sense experiencesF,

in virt*e of havin+ hich they rese&le and differ fro& each other, 3*alitatively, in the ays theydo.( 7hoe&a0er, 198


5/24

exe+esis, *t rather than *nderta0in+ to referee this ar of the #itans, " choose to ta0e hat &ay

ell e a &ore radical stand than itt+enstein6s. Endnote @)*alia are not even (so&ethin+ ao*t

hich nothin+ can e said( (3*alia( is a philosophers6 ter& hich fosters Endnote Dnothin+ *t

conf*sion, and refers in the end to no properties or feat*res at all.

. "he "raditional Parado$ Regained

)*alia have not alays een in +ood odor a&on+ philosophers. Altho*+h &any have tho*+ht, alon+ith 5escartes and !oc0e, that it &ade sense to tal0 ao*t private, ineffale properties of &inds,

others have ar+*ed that this is strictly nonsense22hoever nat*rally it trips off the ton+*e. "t is orth

recallin+ ho 3*alia ere pres*&aly rehailitated as properties to e ta0en serio*sly in the a0e

of itt+ensteinian and verificationist attac0s on the& as pse*do2hypotheses. #he ori+inal version of

intuition pump ': the inverted spectrum7!oc0e, 1D9$- "", xxxii, 1@ is a spec*lation ao*t to

people- ho do " 0no that yo* and " see the sa&e s*/ective color hen e loo0 at so&ethin+:

ince e oth learned color ords y ein+ shon p*lic colored o/ects, o*r veral ehavior ill

&atch even i! we e$perience entirely di!!erent su-(ective colors. #he int*ition that this hypothesis is

syste&atically *nconfir&ale 7and *ndisconfir&ale, of co*rse has alays een 3*ite ro*st, *t

so&e people have alays een te&pted to thin0 technolo+y co*ld 7in principle rid+e the +ap.

*ppose, in intuition pump '/: the 0rainstorm machine, there ere so&e ne*roscientific apparat*s

that fits on yo*r head and feeds yo*r vis*al experience into &y rain 7as in the &ovie, 0rainstorm,

hich is not to e conf*sed ith the oo0,0rainstorms. ith eyes closed " acc*rately report

everythin+ yo* are loo0in+ at, except that " &arvel at ho the s0y is yello, the +rass red, and so

forth. o*ld this not confir&, e&pirically, that o*r 3*alia ere different: B*t s*ppose the

technician then p*lls the pl*+ on the connectin+ cale, inverts it 18$ de+rees and reinserts it in the

soc0et. 4o " report the s0y is l*e, the +rass +reen, and so forth. hich is the (ri+ht( orientation of

the pl*+: 5esi+nin+ and *ildin+ s*ch a device o*ld re3*ire that its (fidelity( e t*ned or

calirated y the nor&ali;ation of the to s*/ects6 reports22so e o*ld e ri+ht ac0 at o*r eviden

tial startin+ point. #he &oral of this int*ition p*&p is that no inters*/ective co&parison of 3*alia is

possile, even ith perfect technolo+y.o &atters stood *ntil so&eone drea&t *p the pres*&aly i&proved version of the tho*+ht

experi&ent- the intra2personal inverted spectr*&. #he idea see&s to have occ*rred to several

people independently 7%ert, 19D@, P*tna&, 19D@, #ayler, 19DD, hoe&a0er, 19D9, 19@, !ycan,

19'. Proaly Bloc0 and >odor 719


6/24

7" "nvert one of the (early( 3*alia2prod*cin+ channels, e.+., in the optic nerve, so that all relevant

ne*ral events (donstrea&( are the (opposite( of their ori+inal and nor&al val*es. 3$ hypothesithis

inverts yo*r 3*alia.

7"" !eave all those early pathays intact and si&ply invert certain &e&ory2access lin0s22hatever

it is that acco&plishes yo*r tacit 7and even *nconscio*s= co&parison of today6s h*es ith those of

yore.3$ hypothesithis does notinvert yo*r 3*alia at all, *t /*st yo*r &e&ory2anchored

dispositions to react to the&.

On a0in+ *p and findin+ yo*r vis*al orld hi+hly ano&alo*s, yo* sho*ld exclai& (E+ad=

Somethinghas happened= Either &y 3*alia have een inverted or &y &e&ory2lin0ed 3*alia2

reactions have een inverted. " onder hich=(

#he intrapersonal inverted spectr*& tho*+ht experi&ent as idely s*pposed to e an

i&prove&ent, since it &oved the needed co&parison into one s*/ect6s head. B*t no e can see

that this is an ill*sion, since the lin0 to earlier experiences, the lin0 via &e&ory, is analo+o*s to the

i&a+inary cale that &i+ht lin0 to s*/ects in the ori+inal version.

#his point is ro*tinely22one &i+ht say traditionally22&issed y the constr*ctors of (intras*/ective

inverted spectr*&( tho*+ht experi&ents, ho s*ppose that the s*/ect6s noticing the di!!erence22s*rely a vivid experience of discovery y the s*/ect22o*ld have to e an instance of 7directly:

incorri+ily: reco+ni;in+ the difference as a shi!t in ualia. B*t as &y exa&ple shos, e co*ld

achieve the sa&e startlin+ effect in a s*/ect itho*t ta&perin+ ith his pres*&ed 3*alia at all.

ince e$ hypothesithe to different s*r+ical invasions can prod*ce exactly the sa&e introspective

effects hile only one operation inverts the 3*alia, nothin+ in the s*/ect6s experience can favor one

of the hypotheses over the other. o *nless he see0s o*tside help, the state of his on 3*alia &*st e

as *n0noale to hi& as the state of anyone else6s 3*alia. Hardly the privile+ed access or i&&ediate

ac3*aintance or direct apprehension the friends of 3*alia had s*pposed (pheno&enal feat*res( to

en/oy=

#he o*tco&e of this series of tho*+ht experi&ents is an intensification of the (verificationist(

ar+*&ent a+ainst 3*alia.&!there are 3*alia, they are even less accessile to o*r 0en than e had

tho*+ht. 4ot only are the classical inters*/ective co&parisons i&possile 7as the Brainstor&

&achine shos, *t e cannot tell in o*r on cases hether o*r 3*alia have een inverted22at least

not y introspection. "t is s*rely te&ptin+ at this point22especially to non2philosophers22to decide

that this paradoxical res*lt &*st e an artifact of so&e philosophical &isanalysis or other, the sort of

thin+ that &i+ht ell happen if yo* too0 a perfectly +ood pre2theoretical notion22o*r everyday

notion of 3*alia22and illicitly stretched it eyond the rea0in+ point. #he philosophers have &ade a

&ess let the& clean it *p &eanhile e others can +et ac0 to or0, relyin+ as alays on o*r

soer and *n&etaphysical ac3*aintance ith 3*alia.

Overco&in+ this *i3*ito*s te&ptation is the tas0 of the next section, hich ill see0 to estalish

the *nsalva+eale incoherence of the h*nches that lead to the paradox y loo0in+ &ore closely attheir so*rces and their &otivation.

/. Making Mistakes A-out Qualia

#he idea that people &i+ht e &ista0en ao*t their on 3*alia is at the heart of the on+oin+

conf*sion, and &*st e explored in &ore detail, and ith so&ehat &ore realistic exa&ples, if e

are to see the delicate role it plays.

&ntuition pump '4: Chase and San-orn. Once *pon a ti&e there ere to coffee tasters, Mr. Chase

and Mr. anorn, ho or0ed for Maxell Ho*se Endnote Alon+ ith half a do;en other coffee

tasters, their /o as to ens*re that the taste of Maxell Ho*se stayed constant, year after year. One

day, ao*t six years after Mr. Chase had co&e to or0 for Maxell Ho*se, he confessed to Mr.anorn-

" hate to ad&it it, *t "6& not en/oyin+ this or0 any&ore. hen " ca&e to Maxell Ho*se six
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/quinqual.htm#7.http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/quinqual.htm#7.


7/24

years a+o, " tho*+ht Maxell Ho*se coffee as the est2tastin+ coffee in the orld. " as pro*d to

have a share in the responsiility for preservin+ that flavor over the years. And e6ve done o*r /o

ell the coffee tastes /*st the sa&e today as it tasted hen " arrived. B*t, yo* 0no, " no lon+er li0e

it= My tastes have chan+ed. "6ve eco&e a &ore sophisticated coffee drin0er. " no lon+er li0e that

tasteat all.

anorn +reeted this revelation ith considerale interest. ("t6s f*nny yo* sho*ld &ention it, ( he

replied, (for so&ethin+ rather si&ilar has happened to &e.( He ent on-

hen " arrived here, shortly efore yo* did, ", li0e yo*, tho*+ht Maxell Ho*se coffee as tops in

flavor. And no ", li0e yo*, really don6t care for the coffee e6re &a0in+. B*t mytastes haven6t

chan+ed &y . . .tastershave chan+ed. #hat is, " thin0 so&ethin+ has +one ron+ ith &y taste

*ds or so&e other part of &y taste2analy;in+ percept*al &achinery. Maxell Ho*se coffee doesn6t

taste to &e the ay it *sed to taste if only it did, "6d still love it, for " still thin0 that tasteis the est

taste in coffee. 4o "6& not sayin+ e haven6t done o*r /o ell. Go* other tasters all a+ree that the

taste is the sa&e, and " &*st ad&it that on a day2to2day asis " can detect no chan+e either. o it

&*st e &y prole& alone. " +*ess "6& no lon+er c*t o*t for this or0.

Chase and anorn are ali0e in one ay at least- they oth *sed to li0e Maxell Ho*se coffee, and

no neither li0es it. B*t they clai& to e different in another ay. Maxell Ho*se tastes to Chase

/*st the ay it alays did, *t not so for anorn. B*t can e ta0e their protestations at face val*e:

M*st e: Mi+ht one or oth of the& si&ply e ron+: Mi+ht their predica&ents e i&portantly the

sa&e and their apparent disa+ree&ent &ore a difference in &anner of expression than in

experiential or psy cholo+ical state: ince oth of the& &a0e clai&s that depend on the reliaility

of their &e&ories, is there any ay to chec0 on this reliaility:

My reason for introd*cin+ to characters in the exa&ple is not to set *p an interpersonal

co&parison eteen ho the coffee tastes to Chase and ho it tastes to anorn, *t /*st to exhiit,

side2y2side, to poles eteen hich cases of intraper sonal experiential shift can ander. *ch

cases of intrapersonal experiential shift, and the possiility of adaptation to the&, or interference

ith &e&ory in the&, have often een disc*ssed in the literat*re on 3*alia, *t itho*t s*fficientattention to the details, in &y opinion. !et *s loo0 at Chase first. >allin+ in for the nonce ith the

received &anner of spea0in+, it appears at first that there are the folloin+ possiilities-

7a Chase6s coffee2taste23*alia have stayed constant, hile his reactive attit*des to those 3*alia,

devolvin+ on his canons of aesthetic /*d+&ent, etc., have shifted22hich is hat he see&s, in his

infor&al, cas*al ay, to e assertin+.

7 Chase is si&ply ron+ ao*t the constancy of his 3*alia they have shifted +rad*ally and

i&perceptily over the years, hile his standards of taste haven6t *d+ed22in spite of his del*sions

ao*t havin+ eco&e &ore sophisticated. He is in the state anorn clai&s to e in, *t /*st lac0s

anorn6s self20noled+e.

7c Chase is in so&e predica&ent inter&ediate eteen 7a and 7 his 3*alia have shifted so&e

andhis standards of /*d+&ent have also slipped.

anorn6s case see&s a&enale to three co*nterpart versions-

7a anorn is ri+ht his 3*alia have shifted, d*e to so&e sort of deran+e&ent in his percept*al

&achinery, *t his standards have indeed re&ained constant.

7 anorn6s standards have shifted *ne0nonst to hi&. He is th*s &isre&e&erin+ his past

experiences, in hat e &i+ht call a nostal+ia effect. #hin0 of the fa&iliar experience of ret*rnin+

to so&e o/ect fro& yo*r childhood 7a classroo& des0, a tree2ho*se and findin+ it &*ch s&aller

than yo* re&e&er it to have een. Pres*&aly as yo* +re lar+er yo*r internal standard for hat

as lar+e +re ith yo* so&eho, *t yo*r &e&ories 7hich are stored as fractions or &*ltiples ofthat standard didn6t co&pensate, and hence hen yo* cons*lt yo*r &e&ory, it ret*rns a distorted

/*d+&ent. anorn6s nostal+ia2tin+ed &e&ory of +ood old Maxell Ho*se is si&ilarly distorted.


8/24

7#here are ovio*sly &any different ays this i&pressionistic s0etch of a &e&ory &echanis&

co*ld e i&ple&ented, and there is considerale experi&ental or0 in co+nitive psycholo+y that

s*++ests ho different hypotheses ao*t s*ch &echanis&s co*ld e tested.

7c As efore, anorn6s state is so&e co&ination of 7a and 7.

" thin0 that everyone ritin+ ao*t 3*alia today o*ld a+ree that there are all these possiilities for

Chase and anorn. " 0no of no one these days ho is te&pted to defend the hi+h line oninfalliility or incorri+iility that o*ld declare that alternative 7a is22and &*st e22the tr*th in each

case, since people /*st cannot e ron+ ao*t s*ch private, s*/ective &atters. Endnote 8

ince 3*andaries are ao*t to arise, hoever, it &i+ht e ise to revie in o*tline hy the

attractiveness of the infalliilist position is only s*perficial, so it on6t recover its ersthile all*re

hen the +oin+ +ets to*+h. >irst, in the a0e of itt+enstein 719@8 and Malcol& 719@D, 19@9 e

have seen that one ay to *y s*ch infalliility is to ac3*iesce in the co&plete evaporation of

content 75ennett, 19D.("&a+ine so&eone sayin+- 6B*t " 0no ho tall " a&=6 and layin+ his hand

on top of his head to prove it.( 7itt+enstein, 19@8, p.9D By di&inishin+ one6s clai& *ntil there is

nothin+ left to e ri+ht or ron+ ao*t, one can achieve a certain e&pty invinciility, *t that ill

not do in this case. One of the thin+s e ant Chase to e ri+ht ao*t 7if he is ri+ht is that he is not

in anorn6s predica&ent, so if the clai& is to e vieed as infallile, it can hardly e eca*se it

declines to assert anythin+.

#here is a stron+ te&ptation, " have fo*nd, to respond to &y clai&s in this paper &ore or less as

follos- (B*t after all is said and done, there is still so&ethin+ " 0no in a special ay- " 0no how

it is with me right now.( B*t if asol*tely nothin+ follos fro& this pres*&ed 0noled+e22nothin+,

for instance, that o*ld shed any li+ht on the different psycholo+ical clai&s that &i+ht e tr*e of

Chase or anorn22hat is the point of assertin+ that one has it: Perhaps people /*st ant to

reaffir& their sense of proprietorship over their on conscio*s states.

#he infalliilist line on 3*alia treats the& as properties of one6s experience one cannot in principle

&isdiscover, and this is a &ysterio*s doctrine 7at least as &ysterio*s as papal infal liility *nless

e shift the e&phasis a little and treat 3*alia as logical constructso*t of s*/ects6 3*alia2/*d+&ents-

a s* /ect6s experience has the 3*ale5if and only if the s*/ect /*d+es his experience to have 3*ale

5. e can then treat s*ch /*d+in+s as constit*tive acts, in effect, rin+in+ the 3*ale into existence

y the sa&e sort of license as novelists have to deter &ine the hair color of their characters y fiat.

e do not as0 ho 5ostoevs0i 0nos that Ras0olni0ov6s hair is li+ht ron.

#here is a li&ited *se for s*ch interpretations of s*/ects6 protocols, " have ar+*ed 75ennett 198a

199, esp., pp.1$9211$ 198


9/24

lind tastin+s, and exhiits considerale 0noled+e ao*t the canons of coffee style 7if s*ch there

e, his clai& to have eco&e a &ore sophisticated taster ill e s*pported. Exploitation of the

standard principles of ind*ctive testin+22asically Mill6s &ethod of differences22can +o a lon+ ay

toard indicatin+ hat sort of chan+e has occ*rred in Chase or anorn22a chan+e near the r*te

percept*al processin+ end of the spectr*& or a chan+e near the *lti&ate reactive /*d+ &ent end of

the spectr*&. And as hoe&a0er 7198or instance, the ell2st*died pheno&enon of ind*ced ill*sory o*ndaries 7see

>i+*re 1 has

"4ER# >"%URE 1 ABOU# HERE

often een clai&ed to e a partic*larly (co+nitive( ill*sion, dependent on (top don( processes, and

hence, pres*&aly, near the reactive /*d+&ent end of the spectr*&, *t recent experi&ental or0

7Jon der Heydt et al., 198? has revealed that (ed+e detector( ne*rons relativelylo in the vis*al

pathays22in area 18 of the vis*al cortex22are as responsive to ill*sory ed+es as to real li+ht2dar0

o*ndaries on the retina, s*++estin+ 7*t not 3*ite provin+, since these &i+ht so&eho still e

(descendin+ effects( that ill*sory conto*rs are not i&posed fro& on hi+h, *t +enerated 3*ite early

in vis*al processin+. One can i&a+ine discoverin+ a si&ilarly (early( ano&aly in the pathays

leadin+ fro& taste *ds to /*d+&ent in anorn, for instance, tendin+ to confir& his clai& that he

has s*ffered so&e chan+e in his asic percept*al22as opposed to /*d+&ental22&achinery.

B*t let *s not overesti&ate the resolvin+ poer of s*ch e&pirical testin+. #he space eteen the

to poles represented y possiility 7a and possiility 7 o*ld e occ*pied y pheno&ena that

ere the prod*ct, so&eho, of to factors in varyin+ proportion- ro*+hly, dispositions to +enerate

or prod*ce 3*alia and dispositions to react to the 3*alia once they are prod*ced. 7#hat is ho o*r

int*itive pict*re of 3*alia o*ld envisa+e it. )*alia are s*pposed to affect o*r action or eha vior

only via the inter&ediary of o*r /*d+&ents ao*t the&, so any ehavioral test, s*ch as adiscri&ination or &e&ory test, since it ta0es acts ased on /*d+&ents as its pri&ary data, can +ive

*s direct evidence only ao*t the resultantof o*r to factors. "n extre&e cases e can have indirect

evidence to s*+ +est that one factor has varied a +reat deal, the other factor hardly at all, and e can

test the hypothesis f*rther y chec0in+ the relative sensitivity of the s*/ect to variations in the

conditions that pres*&aly alter the to co&ponent factors. B*t s*ch indirect testin+ cannot e

expected to resolve the iss*e hen the effects are relatively s&all22hen, for instance, o*r rival

hypotheses are Chase6s preferred hypothesis 7a and the &inor variant to the effect that his 3*alia

have shifted a littleand his standards less than he thinks. #his ill e tr*e even hen e incl*de in

o*r data any *nintended or *nconscio*s eha vioral effects, for their i&port ill e a&i+*o*s.

7o*ld a lon+er response latency in Chase today e indicative of a process of (atte&pted 3*alia

renor&ali;ation( or (extended aesthetic eval*ation(:

#he li&ited evidential poer of ne*rophysiolo+y co&es o*t partic*larly clearly if e i&a+ine a

case of adaptation. *ppose, in intuition pump '6: the gradual post,operative recovery, that e

have so&eho (s*r+ically inverted( Chase6s taste *d connections in the standard i&a+inary ay-

post2operatively, s*+ar tastes salty, salt tastes so*r, etc. B*t s*ppose f*rther22 and this is as realistic a

s*pposition as its denial22that Chase has s*se3*ently co&pensated22as revealed y his ehavior. He

nosaysthat the s*+ary s*stance e place on his ton+*e is seet, and no lon+er favors +ravy on

his ice crea&. !et *s s*ppose the co&pensation is so thoro*+h that on all ehavioral and veral tests

his perfor&ance is indistin+*ishale fro& that of nor&al s*/ects22and fro& his on pre2s*r+ical

perfor&ance.

"f all the internal co&pensatory ad/*st&ent has een acco&plished early in the process22int*itively,

pre23*alia22then his 3*alia today are restored to /*st as they ere 7relative to external so*rces of

sti&*lation efore the s*r+ery. "f on the other hand so&e or all of the internal co&pensatory


10/24

ad/*st&ent is post23*alia, then his 3*alia have not een renor&ali;ed even i! he thinks they have.

B*t the physiolo+ical facts ill not in the&selves shed any li+ht on here in the strea& of

physiolo+ical process tixt tastin+ and tellin+ to dra the line at hich the p*tative 3*alia appear as

properties of that phase of the process. #he 3*alia are the (i&&ediate or pheno&enal( properties, of

co*rse, *t this description ill not serve to locate the ri+ht phase in the physiolo+ical strea&, for,

echoin+ int*ition p*&p ID, there ill alays e at least to possile ays of interpretin+ the

ne*rophysiolo+ical theory, hoever it co&es o*t. *ppose o*r physiolo+ical theory tells *s 7in as&*ch detail as yo* li0e that the co&pensatory effect in hi& has een achieved y an ad(ustment in

the memory,accessing processthat is re3*ired for o*r victi& to co&pare today6s h*es to those of

yore. #here arestillto stories that &i+ht e told-

7" Chase6s c*rrent 3*alia are still anor&al, *t than0s to the revision in his &e&ory2accessin+

process, he has in effect ad/*sted his &e&ories of ho thin+s *sed to taste, so he no lon+er notices

any ano&aly.

7"" #he &e&ory2co&parison step occ*rs /*st prior to the 3*alia phase in taste perception than0s to

the revision, it noyieldsthe sa&e old 3*alia for the sa&e sti&*lation.

"n 7" the 3*alia contri*te to the inp*t, in effect, to the &e&ory2co&parator. "n 7"" they are part of

the o*tp*t of the &e&ory2co&parator. #hese see& to e to s*stantially different hypotheses, *t

the physiolo+ical evidence, no &atter ho ell developed, ill not tell *s on hich side of &e&ory

to p*t the 3*alia. Chase6s introspective evidence ill not settle the iss*e eteen 7" and 7"" either,

since e$ hypothesithose stories are not relialy distin+*ishale y hi&. Re&e&er that it as in

order to confir& or disconfir& Chase6s opinion that e t*rned to the ne*rophysiolo+ical evidence in

the first place. e can hardly *se his opinion in the end to settle the &atter eteen o*r rival

ne*rophysiolo+ical theories. Chase &ay thin0 that he thin0s his experiences are the sa&e as efore

-ecausethey really are 7and he re&e&ers acc*rately ho it *sed to e, *t he &*st ad&it that he

has no introspective reso*rces for distin+*ishin+ that possiility fro& alternative 7", on hich he

thin0s thin+s are as they *sed to e -ecausehis &e&ory of ho they *sed to e has een distorted

y his ne co&pensatory haits.>aced ith their s*/ect6s syste&atic ne*trality, the physiolo+ists &ay have their on reasons for

preferrin+ 7" to 7"" or vice versa, for they &ay have appropriatedthe ter& (3*alia( to their on

theoretical ends, to denote so&e fa&ily of detectale properties that stri0e the& as playin+ an

i&portant role in their ne*rophysiolo+ical theory of percept*al reco+nition and &e&ory. Chase or

anorn &i+ht co&plain22in the co&pany of &ore than a fe philosophical spo0es&en22that these

properties the ne*rophsyiolo+ists choose to call (3*alia( are not the 3*alia they are spea0in+ of. #he

scientists6 retort is- ("f e cannot distin+*ish 7" fro& 7"", e certainly cannot s*pport either of yo*r

clai&s. "f yo* ant o*r s*pport, yo* &*st relin3*ish yo*r concept of 3*alia.(

hat is stri0in+ ao*t this is not /*st that the e&pirical &ethods o*ld fall short of distin+*ishin+

hat see& to e s*ch different clai&s ao*t 3*alia, *t that they o*ld fall short in spite o! -eing-etter evidence than the su-(ect*s own introspec tive convictions. >or the s*/ect6s on /*d+&ents,

li0e the ehaviors or actions that express the&, are the res*ltant of o*r to post*lated factors, and

cannot discern the co&ponent propor tions any etter than external ehavioral tests can. "ndeed, a

s*/ect6s (introspective( convictions ill +enerally e worseevidence than hat o*tside oservers

can +ather. >or if o*r s*/ect is22as &ost are22a (naive s*/ect(, *nac3*ainted ith statistical data

ao*t his on case or si&ilar cases, his i&&e diate, fran0 /*d+&ents are, evidentially, li0e any

naive oserver6s percept*al /*d+&ents ao*t factors in the o*tside orld. Chase6s int*itive

/*d+&ents ao*t his 3*alia constancy are no etter off, episte&ically, than his int*itive /*d+&ents

ao*t, say, li+htin+ intensity constancy or roo& te&perat*re constancy22or his on ody

te&perat*re constancy. Movin+ to a condition inside his ody does not chan+e the inti&acy of the

episte&ic relation in any special ay. "s Chase r*nnin+ a fever or /*st feelin+ feverish: Unless hehas ta0en steps to calirate and cross2chec0 his on perfor&ance, his opinion that his fever2

perception apparat*s is *ndist*red is no etter than a h*nch. i&ilarly, Chase &ay have a stron+ly


11/24

held opinion ao*t the de+ree to hich his taste2perceivin+ apparat*s has &aintained its inte+rity,

and the de+ree to hich his /*d+&ent has evolved thro*+h sophistication, *t pendin+ the res*lts of

the sort of laorio*s third2person testin+ /*st i&a+ined, he o*ld e a fool to clai& to 0no22

especially to 0no directly or i&&ediately22 that his as a p*re case 7a, closer to 7a than to 7, or

a case near 7.

He is on 3*ite fir& +ro*nd, episte&ically, hen he reports that the relationeteen his coffee2

sippin+ activity and his /*d+in+ activity has chan+ed. Recall that this is the factor that Chase andanorn have in co&&on- they *sed to li0e Maxell Ho*se no they don6t. B*t *nless he carries

o*t on hi&self the sorts of tests others &i+ht carry o*t on hi&, his convictions ao*t hat has

stayed constant 7or nearly so and hat has shifted must -e sheer guessing.

B*t then 3*alia22s*pposin+ for the ti&e ein+ that e 0no hat e are tal0in+ ao*t22&*st lose

one of their (essential( second2order properties- far fro& ein+ directly or i&&ediately

apprehensile properties of o*r experience, they are properties hose chan+es or constancies are

either entirely eyond o*r 0en, or inferrale 7at est fro& (third2person( exa&inations of o*r

ehavioral and physiolo+ical reaction patterns 7if Chase and anorn ac3*iesce in the

ne*rophysiolo+ists6 sense of the ter&. On this vie, Chase and anorn sho*ld e vieed not as

introspectors capale of a privile+ed vie of these properties, *t as a*topsycholo+ists, theoristshose convictions ao*t the properties of their on nervo*s syste&s are ased not only on their

(i&&ediate( or c*rrent experiential convictions, *t also on their appreciation of the i&port of

events they re&e&er fro& the recent past.

#here are, as e shall see, +ood reasons for ne*rophysiolo+ists and other (o/ective, third2person(

theorists to sin+le o*t s*ch a class of properties to st*dy. B*t they are not 3*alia, for the si&ple

reason that one6s episte&ic relation to the& is e$actlythe sa&e as one6s episte&ic relation to s*ch

external, *t readily22if fallily22detectale, properties as roo& te&perat*re or ei+ht. #he idea that

one sho*ld cons*lt an o*tside expert, and perfor& elaorate ehavioral tests on oneself in order to

confir& hat 3*alia one had, s*rely ta0es *s too far aay fro& o*r ori+inal idea of 3*alia as

properties ith hich e have a partic*larly inti&ate ac3*aintance.o perhaps e have ta0en a ron+ t*rnin+. #he doctrine that led to this e&arrassin+ res*lt as the

doctrine that sharply distin+*ished 3*alia fro& their 7nor&al effects on reactions. Consider Chase

a+ain. He clai&s that coffee tastes (/*st the sa&e( as it alays did, *t he ad&its22nay insists22that

his reaction to (that taste( is not hat it *sed to e. #hat is, he pretends to e ale to divorce his

apprehension 7or recollection of the 3*ale22the taste, in ordinary parlance22fro& his different

reactions to the taste. B*t this apprehension or recollection is itself a reaction to the pres*&ed 3*ale,

so so&e slei+ht2of2hand is ein+ perpetrated22innocently no do*t22y Chase. o s*ppose instead

that Chase had insisted that precisely -ecausehis reac tion as no different, the taste had chan+ed

for hi&. 7hen he told his ife his ori+inal tale, she said (5on6t e silly= Once yo* add the disli0e

yo* chan+e the experience=(22and the &ore he tho*+ht ao*t it, the &ore he decided she as ri+ht.

&ntuition pump '7: the e$perienced -eer drinker. "t is fa&iliarly said that eer, for exa&ple, is an

ac3*ired taste one +rad*ally trains oneself22or /*st co&es22to en/oy that flavor. hat flavor: #he

flavor of the first sip: 4o one co*ld li0e thatflavor, an experienced eer drin0er &i+ht retort-

Beer tastes different to the experienced eer drin0er. "f eer ent on tastin+ to &e the ay the first

sip tasted, " o*ld never have +one on drin0in+ eer= Or to p*t the sa&e point the other ay

aro*nd, if &y first sip of eer had tasted to &e the ay &y &ost recent sip /*st tasted, " o*ld never

have had to ac3*ire the taste in the first place= " o*ld have loved the first sip as &*ch as the one "

/*st en/oyed.

"f e let this speech pass, e &*st ad&it that eer is notan ac3*ired taste. 4o one co&es to en/oy

the way the !irst sip tasted. "nstead, prolon+ed eer drin0in+ leads people to experience a taste theyen/oy, *t precisely their en/oyin+ the taste +*arantees that it is not the taste they first experienced.

Endnote 9


12/24

B*t this concl*sion, if it is accepted, rea0s havoc of a different sort ith the traditional

philosophical vie of 3*alia. >or if it is ad&itted that one6s attit*des toards, or reactions to,

experiences are in any ay and in any de+ree constit*tive of their experiential 3*alities, so that a

chan+e in reactivity amounts toorguaranteesa chan+e in the property, then those properties, those

(3*alitative or pheno&enal feat*res,( cease to e (intrinsic( properties, and in fact eco&e

paradi+&atically extrinsic, relational properties.

Properties that (see& intrinsic( at first often t*rn o*t on &ore caref*l analysis to e relational.Bennett 719D@ is the a*thor of intuition pump '18: the world,wide eugenics e$periment. He dras

o*r attention to phenol2thio2*rea., a s*stance hich tastes very itter to three2fo*rths of h*&anity,

and as tasteless as ater to the rest. "s it itter: ince the reactivity to phenol2thio2*rea is +enetically

trans&itted, e co*ld &a0e it paradi+&atically itter y perfor&in+ a lar+e2scale reedin+

experi&ent- prevent the people to ho& it is tasteless fro& reedin+, and in a fe +enerations

phenol o*ld e as itter as anythin+ to e fo*nd in the orld. B*t e co*ld also 7in principle=

perfor& the contrary feat of &ass (e*+enics( and therey &a0e phenol paradi+&atically tasteless22

as tasteless as ater22itho*t ever to*chin+ phenol. Clearly, p*lic itterness or tastelessness is not

an intrinsic property of phenol2thio2*rea *t a relational property, since the property is chan+ed y a

chan+e in the reference class of nor&al detectors.#he p*lic versions of percept*al (3*alia( allseemintrinsic, in spite of their relationality. #hey are

not alone. #hin0 of the (felt val*e( of a dollar 7or hatever yo*r native c*rrency is. (Ho &*ch is

that in real&oney:( the A&erican to*rist is rep*ted to have as0ed, hopin+ to translate a forei+n

price onto the scale of (intrinsic val*e( he 0eeps in his head. As Elster 7198@ clai&s (there is a

tendency to overloo0 the i&plicitly relational character of certain &onadic predicates.( al;er

7198@ points o*t that (. . . a ten2dollar ill &i+ht see& to have a life of its on as a thin+ of val*e,

*t, as Elster s*++ests, its val*e i&plicitly depends on 6other people ho are prepared to accept

&oney as pay&ent for +oods.6( B*t even as one concedes this, there is still a tendency to reserve

so&ethin+ s*/ective, felt val*e, as an (intrinsic( property of that ten2 dollar ill. B*t as e no

see, s*ch intrinsic properties cannot e properties to hich a s*/ect6s access is in any ay

privile+ed.

hich ay sho*ld Chase +o: ho*ld he ta0e his ife6s advice and declare that since he can6t stand

the coffee any&ore, it no lon+er tastes the sa&e to hi& 7it *sed to taste +ood and no it tastes ad:

Or sho*ld he say that really, in a certain sense, it does taste the ay it alays did, or at least it sort

of does22hen yo* s*tract the fact that it tastes so ad no, of co*rse:

e have no reached the heart of &y case. #he fact is that e have to as0 Chase hich ay he

ants to +o, and there really are to drastically different alternatives availale to hi& i! we !orce

the issue. hich ay o*ldyou+o: hich concept of 3*alia did yo* (alays have in the ac0 of

yo*r &ind,( +*idin+ yo*r i&a+ination as yo* tho*+ht ao*t theories: "f yo* ac0noled+e that the

anser is not ovio*s, and especially if yo* co&plain that this forced choice drives apart to

aspects that yo* had s*pposed *nited in yo*r pretheoretic concept, yo* s*pport &y contention that

there is no sec*re fo*ndation in ordinary (fol0 psycholo+y( for a concept of 3*alia. e normally

thin0 in a conf*sed and potentially incoherent ay hen e thin0 ao*t the ays thin+s see& to *s.

hen Chase thin0s of (that taste( he thin0s e3*ivocally or va+*ely. He har0ens ac0 in &e&ory to

earlier experiences *t need not try22or e ale22to settle hether he is incl*din+ any or all of his

reactions or excl*din+ the& fro& hat he intends y (that taste(. His state then and his state no

are different22 thathe can avo ith confidence22*t he has no (i&&ediate( reso*rces for &a0in+ a

finer distinction, nor any need to do so. Endnote 1$

#his s*++ests that 3*alia are no &ore essential to the professional voca*lary of the

pheno&enolo+ist 7or professional coffee taster than to the voca*lary of the physiolo+ist 75en nett,

198. #o see this, consider a+ain the exa&ple of &y disli0e of ca*lifloer. "&a+ine no, in

intuition pump '11: the cauli!lower cure, that so&eone offers &e a pill to c*re &y loathin+ for

ca*lifloer. He pro&ises that after " sallo this pill ca*lifloer ill taste exactly the sa&e to &e


13/24

as it alays has, *t " ill li0e that taste= (Han+ on,( " &i+ht reply. (" thin0 yo* &ay have /*st

contradicted yo*rself.( B*t in any event " ta0e the pill and it or0s. " eco&e an instant ca*lifloer2

appreciater, *t if " a& as0ed hich of the to possile effects 7Chase2type or anorn2type the

pill has had on &e, " ill e p*;;led, and ill find nothin+ in my e$perienceto shed li+ht on the

3*estion. Of co*rse " reco+ni;e that the taste is 7sort of the sa&e22the pill hasn6t &ade ca*lifloer

taste li0e chocolate ca0e, after all22*t at the sa&e ti&e &y experience is so different no that "

resist sayin+ that ca*li floer tastes the ay it *sed to taste. #here is in any event no reason to ecoed into s*pposin+ that &y ca*lifloer experiences have so&e intrinsic properties ehind, or in

addition to, their vario*s dispositional, reaction2provo0in+ properties.

(B*t in principle there has to e a ri+ht anser to the 3*estion of ho it is, intrinsically, ith yo*

no, even if yo* are *nale to say ith any confidence=( hy: o*ld one say the sa&e ao*t all

other properties of experience: Consider intuition pump '1%: visual !ield inversion created -y

wearing inverting spectacles, a pheno&enon hich has een e&pirically st*died for years. 7%. M.

tratton p*lished the pioneerin+ or0 in 189D, and K. K. %ison and "vo ohler ere a&on+ the

principal investi+ators. >or an introd*ctory acco*nt, see %re+ory, 19. After earin+ invertin+

spectacles for several days s*/ects &a0e an astonishin+ly s*ccessf*l adaptation. *ppose e

pressed on the& this 3*estion- (5oes yo*r adaptation consist in yo*r re2 invertin+ yo*r vis*al field,or in yo*r t*rnin+ the rest of yo*r &ind *pside2don in a host of co&pensations:( "f they de&*r,

&ay e insist that there has to e a ri+ht anser, even if they cannot say ith any confidence hich

it is: *ch an insistence o*ld lead directly to a ne version of the old inverted spectr*& tho*+ht

experi&ent- (Ho do " 0no hether so&e people see thin+s *pside2don 7*t are perfectly *sed

to it, hile others see thin+s ri+ht2side2*p:(

Only a very naive vie of vis*al perception co*ld s*stain the idea that one6s vis*al field has a

property of ri+ht2side2 *pness or *pside2donness independent o! one*s dispositions to react to

it22(intrinsic ri+ht2side2*pness( e co*ld call it. 7ee &y disc*ssion of the properties of the

(i&a+es( processed y the root, HAEG, in 5ennett, 198


14/24

"t is not eno*+h to ithhold o*r theoretical alle+iances *ntil the s*nny day hen the philosophers

co&plete the tric0y tas0 of p*rifyin+ the everyday concept of 3*alia. Unless e ta0e active steps to

shed this so*rce concept, and replace it ith etter ideas, it ill contin*e to cripple o*r i&a+inations

and syste&atically distort o*r atte&pts to *nderstand the pheno&ena already enco*ntered.

hat e find, if e loo0 at the act*al pheno&ena of ano&alies of color perception, for instance,

a&ply ears o*t o*r s*spicions ao*t the inade3*acy of the traditional notion of 3*alia. everal

varieties of cere-ral achromatopsia7rain ased i&pair&ent of color vision have een reported,and hile there re&ains &*ch that is *nsettled ao*t their analysis, there is little do*t that the

philosophical tho*+ht experi&ents have *nderesti&ated or overloo0ed the possiilities for co*nter2

int*itive collections of sy&pto&s, as a fe very rief excerpts fro& case histories ill reveal.

O/ects to the ri+ht of the vertical &eridian appeared to e of nor&al h*e, hile to the

left they ere perceived only in shades of +ray, tho*+h itho*t distortions of for&. . .

He as *nale to reco+ni;e or na&e any color in any portion of the left field of either

eye, incl*din+ ri+ht reds, l*es, +reens and yellos. As soon as any portion of the

colored o/ect crossed the vertical &eridian, he as ale to instantly reco+ni;e and

acc*rately na&e its color. 75a&asio et al, 198$

#his patient o*ld see& at first to e *nprole&atically descriale as s*fferin+ a shift or loss of

color 3*alia in the left he&ifield, *t there is a prole& of interpretation here, ro*+ht ao*t y

another case-

#he patient failed in all tas0s in hich he as re3*ired to &atch the seen color ith its

spo0en na&e. #h*s, the patient failed to +ive the na&es of colors and failed to choose a

color in response to its na&e. By contrast, he s*cceeded on all tas0s here the &atchin+

as either p*rely veral or p*rely nonveral. #h*s, he co*ld +ive verally the na&es of

colors correspondin+ to na&ed o/ects and vice versa. He co*ld &atch seen colors to

each other and to pict*res of o/ects and co*ld sort colors itho*t error. 7%eschind

and >*sillo 719DD

#his patient as 3*ite *naare of any deficit. He (never replied ith a si&ple 6" don6t 0no6( to the

de&and for na&in+ a color.( 7%eschind and >*sillo, 19DD, p. 1?$ #here is a stri0in+ contrast

eteen these to patients oth have i&paired aility to na&e the colors of thin+s in at least part of

their vis*al field, *t hereas the for&er is ac*tely aare of his deficit, the latter is not. 5oes this

difference &a0e all the difference ao*t 3*alia: "f so, hat on earth sho*ld e say ao*t this third

patient:

His other &ain co&plaint as that (everythin+ loo0ed lac0 or +rey( and this ca*sed

hi& so&e diffic*lty in everyday life. . . . He had considerale diffic*lty reco+ni;in+ and

na&in+ colo*rs. He o*ld, for exa&ple, *s*ally descrie ri+ht red o/ects as either red

or lac0, ri+ht +reen o/ects as either +reen, l*e or lac0, and ri+ht l*e o/ects as

lac0. #he diffic*lty appeared to e percept*al and he o*ld &a0e re&ar0s s*++estin+

this for exa&ple hen shon a ri+ht red o/ect he said (a dirty s&*d+y red, not as red

as yo* o*ld nor&ally see red.( Colo*rs of lesser sat*ration or ri+htness ere

descried in s*ch ter&s as (+rey( (off2hite( or (lac0,( *t if told to +*ess at the

colo*r, he o*ld e correct on ao*t @$ per cent of occasions, ein+ notaly less

s*ccessf*l ith l*es and +reens than reds. 7Meados, 19?

#his &an6s aareness of his deficit is prole&atic to say the least. "t contrasts rather sharply ith

yet another case-

One &ornin+ in 4ove&er 19, *pon aa0enin+, she noted that altho*+h she as aleto see details of o/ects and people, colors appeared (drained o*t( and (not tr*e.( he

had no other co&plaint . . . her vision as +ood,


15/24

color perception persisted, and she had to see0 the advice of her h*sand to choose hat

to ear. Ei+ht ee0s later she noted that she co*ld no lon+er reco+ni;e the faces of her

h*sand and da*+hter . . . o inF addition to achro&atopsia, the patient had

prosopa+nosia, *t her lin+*istic and co+nitive perfor&ances ere otherise

*naffected. #he patient as ale to tell her story co+ently and to have re&ar0ale

insi+ht ao*t her defects. 75a&asio et al, 198$

As Meados notes, (o&e patients th*s co&plain that their vision for colo*rs is defective hile

others have no spontaneo*s co&plaint *t sho stri0in+ anor&alities on testin+.(

hat sho*ld one say in these cases: hen no co&plaint is vol*nteered *t the patient shos an

i&pair&ent in color vision, is this a si+n that his 3*alia are *naffected: 7(His capacities to

discri&inate are terrily i&paired, *t l*c0ily for hi&, his inner life is *nto*ched y this &erely

p*lic loss=( e co*ld line *p the 3*alia this ay, *t e3*ally e co*ld clai& that the patient has

si&ply not noticed the perhaps +rad*al drainin+ aay or inversion or &er+in+ of his 3*alia revealed

y his poor perfor&ance. 7(o sloly did his inner life lose its co&plexity and variety that he never

noticed ho i&poverished it had eco&e=( hat if o*r last patient descried her co&plaint /*st as

she did aove, *t perfor&ed nor&ally on testin+: One hypothesis o*ld e that her 3*alia hadindeed, as she s*++ested, eco&e ashed o*t. Another o*ld e that in the li+ht of her sterlin+

perfor&ance on the color discri&ination tests, her 3*alia ere fine she as s*fferin+ fro& so&e

hysterical or depressive ano&aly, a sort of color2vision hypochondria that &a0es her co&plain

ao*t a loss of color perception. Or perhaps one co*ld clai& that her 3*alia ere *nto*ched her

disorder as p*rely veral- an ano&alo*s *nderstandin+ of the ords she *ses to descrie her

experience. 7Other startlin+ly specific color2 worddisorders have een reported in the literat*re.

#he traditional concept leads *s to overloo0 +en*ine possiilities. Once e have learned of the

c*rio*s deficit reported y %eschind and >*sillo, for instance, e reali;e that o*r first patient as

never tested to see if he co*ld still sort colors seen on the left or pass other non2na&in+, non2veral

color2lindness tests. #hose tests are y no &eans s*perfl*o*s. Perhaps he o*ld have passed the&

perhaps, in spite o! what he sayshis 3*alia are as intact for the left field as for the ri+ht=22if e ta0ethe capacity to pass s*ch tests as (criterial(. Perhaps his prole& is (p*rely veral.( "f yo*r reaction

to this hypothesis is that this is i&possile, that &*st &ean yo* are &a0in+ his veral, reportin+

ehavior soverei+n in settlin+ the iss*e22*t then yo* &*st r*le o*t a priorithe possiility of the

condition " descried as color2vision hypochondria.

#here is no prospect of!indingthe ansers to these rain teasers in o*r everyday *sa+e or the

int*itions it aro*ses, *t it is of co*rse open to the philosopher to createan edifice of theory

defendin+ a partic*lar set of interloc0in+ proposals. #he prole& is that altho*+h nor&ally a certain

fa&ily of sti&*l*s and odily conditions yields a certain fa&ily of effects, any partic*lar effect can

e disconnected, and o*r int*itions do not tell *s hich effects are (essential( to 3*ale identity or

3*alia constancy 7Cf. 5ennett, 198a, chapter 11.. "t see&s fairly ovio*s to &e that none of thereal prole&s of interpretation that face *s in these c*rio*s cases are advanced y any analysis of

ho the concept of ualiais to e applied22*nless e ish to propose a novel, technical sense for

hich the traditional ter& &i+ht e appropriated. B*t that o*ld e at least a tactical error- the

int*itions that s*rro*nd andpurportto anchor the c*rrent *nderstandin+ of the ter& are revealed to

e in *tter disarray hen confronted ith these cases.

My infor&al sa&plin+ shos that so&e philosophers have stron+ opinions ao*t each case and ho

it sho*ld e descried in ter&s of 3*alia, *t they find they are in strident 7and *lti&ately co&ic

disa+ree&ent ith other philosophers ao*t ho these (ovio*s( descriptions sho*ld +o. Other

philosophers discover they really don6t 0no hat to say22not eca*se there aren6t eno*+h facts

presented in the descriptions of the cases, *t eca*se it e+ins to dan on the& that they haven6treally 0non hat they ere tal0in+ ao*t over the years.

2. 5illing the vacuum


16/24

"f 3*alia are s*ch a ad idea, hy have they see&ed to e s*ch a +ood idea: hy does it see& as if

there are these intrinsic, ineffale, private, (3*alitative( properties in o*r experience: A revie of

the pres*&ptive second2order properties of the properties of o*r conscio*s experiences ill per&it

*s to dia+nose their attractiveness and find s*itale s*stit*tes. 7>or a si&ilar exercise see itcher,

199.

Consider (intrinsic( first. "t is far fro& clear hat an intrinsic property o*ld e. Altho*+h the ter&

has had a certain vo+*e in philosophy, and often see&s to sec*re an i&portant contrast, there hasnever een an accepted definition of the second2order property of intrinsicality. "f even s*ch a

rilliant theory2&on+er as 5avid !eis can try and fail, y his on ad&ission, to define the

extrinsicLintrinsic distinction coherently, e can e+in to onder if the concept deserves o*r f*rther

attention after all. "n fact !eis 7198' e+ins his s*rvey of versions of the distinction y listin+ as

one option- (e co*ld )*ine the lot, +ive over the entire fa&ily as *nintelli+ile and dispensale,(

*t he dis&isses the s*++estion i&&ediately- (#hat o*ld e as*rd.( 7p.19 "n the end, hoever,

his effort to salva+e the acco*nts of Chishol& 719D and i& 7198


17/24

discri&inale2y2&e possiilities ithin hich the act*ality lies hidden fro& &e li0e a needle in a

haystac0.

#hen one day, ar&ed ith oth &y veral description and &y inoc*lars, " identify an osprey

vis*ally, and then hear its cry. o that*shat it so*nds li0e, " say to &yself, ostendin+22it see&s22a

partic*lar &ental co&plex of intrinsic, ineffale 3*alia. " d* the co&plex (S( 7paceitt+enstein,

rehearse it in short ter& &e&ory, chec0 it a+ainst the ird oo0 descriptions, and see that hile the

veral descriptions are tr*e, acc**rate and even poetically evocative22" decide " co*ld not do etterith a tho*sand ords22they still fall short of capturingthe 3*alia2co&plex " have called S. "n fact,

that is hy " need the neolo+isi&, ((, to refer directly to the ineffale property " cannot pic0 o*t y

description. My percept*al experience has pinpointed for &e the location of the osprey cry in the

lo+ical space of possiilities in a ay veral description co*ld not.

B*t te&ptin+ as this vie of &atters is, it is overstated. >irst of all, it is ovio*s that fro& a sin+le

experience of this sort " don6t22can6t220no ho to +enerali;e to other osprey calls. o*ld a cry that

differed only in ein+ half an octave hi+her also e an osprey call: #hat is an e&pirical,

ornitholo+ical 3*estion for hich &y experience provides scant evidence. B*t &oreover22and this is

a psycholo+ical, not ornitholo+ical &atter22" don6t and can6t 0no, fro& a sin+le s*ch experience,

hich physical variations and constancies in sti&*li o*ld prod*ce an indistin+*ishale experiencein &e. 4or can " 0no hether " o*ld react the sa&e 7have the sa&e experience if " ere

presented ith hat as, y all physical &eas*res, a re2 sti&*lation identical to the first. " cannot

0no the &od*latin+ effect, if any, of variations in &y ody 7or psyche.

#his inscr*taility of pro/ection is s*rely one of the so*rces of pla*siility for itt+enstein6s

s0epticis& re+ardin+ the possiility of a private lan+*a+e.

itt+enstein e&phasi;es that ostensive definitions are alays in principle capale of

ein+ &is*nderstood, even the ostensive definition of a color ord s*ch as (sepia(.

Ho so&eone *nderstands the ord is exhiited in the ay so&eone +oes on, (the *se

that he &a0es of the ord defined(. One &ay +o on in the ri+ht ay +iven a p*rely

&ini&al explanation, hile on the other hand one &ay +o on in another ay no &atterho &any clarifications are added, since these too can e &is*nderstood . . . 7rip0e,

198


18/24

constr*ction. 7C*ttin+ the Kello ox ith strai+ht ed+e and ra;or o*ld entirely defeat the p*rpose.

#he partic*lar /a++ed ed+e of one piece eco&es apractically*ni3*e pattern2reco+nition device for

its &ate it is an apparat*s for detectin+ the shape propertM, hereMis *ni3*ely instantiated y its

&ate. "t is of the essence of the tric0 that e cannot replace o*r d*&&y predicate (M( ith a

lon+er, &ore co&plex, *t acc*rate and exha*stive description of the property, for if e co*ld, e

co*ld *se the description as a recipe or feasile al+orith& for prod*cin+ another instance of Mor

anotherM2detector. #he only readily availa-leay of sayin+ hat propertyMis is /*st to point too*rM2detector and say thatMis the shape property detected y this thin+ here.

And that is /*st hat e do hen e see& to ostend, ith the &ental fin+er of inner intention, a

3*ale or 3*alia2co&plex in o*r experience. e refer to a property22a p*lic property of *ncharted

o*ndaries22via reference to o*r personal and idiosyncratic capacity to respond to it. #hat

idiosyncracy is the extent of o*r privacy. "f " onder hether yo*r l*e is &y l*e, yo*r &iddle2C

is &y &iddle2C, " can coherently e onderin+ hether o*r discri&ination profiles over a ide

variation in conditions ill e approxi&ately the sa&e. And they &ay not e people experience the

orld 3*ite differently. B*t that is e&piricially discoverale y all the *s*al o/ective testin+

proced*res. Endnote 1


19/24

anorn (access( to the deliverances of their individ*al property2detectors.

e &ay (point inardly( to one of the deliverances of o*r idiosyncratic, proprietary property2

detectors, *t hen e do, hat are e pointin+ at: hat does that deliverance itself consist o!: Or

hat are its conscio*sly apprehensile proper ties, if not /*st o*r anished friends the 3*alia: e

&*st e caref*l here, for if e invo0e an inner percept*al process in hich e oserve the

deliverance ith so&e inner eye and therey discern its properties, e ill e steppin+ ac0 into

the fryin+ pan of the vie accordin+ to hich 3*alia are /*st ordinary properties of o*r inner states.

B*t nothin+ re3*ires *s to &a0e s*ch an invocation. e don6t have to 0no ho e identify or re2

identify or +ain access to s*ch internal response types in order to e ale so to identify the&. #his is

a point that as forcef*lly &ade y the pioneer f*nctionalists and &aterialists, and has never een

re*tted 7>arrell, 19@$, &art, 19@9. #he properties of the (thin+ experienced( are not to e

conf*sed ith the properties of the event that reali;es the experiencin+. #o p*t the &atter vividly,

the physical difference eteen so&eone6s i&a+inin+ a p*rple co and i&a+inin+ a +reen co

mighte nothin+ &ore than the presence or asence of a partic*lar ;ero or one in one of the rain6s

(re+isters(. *ch a r*te physical presence is all that it o*ld ta0e to anchor the sorts of

dispositional differences eteen i&a+inin+ a p*rple co and i&a+inin+ a +reen co that co*ld

then flo, ca*sally, fro& that (intrinsic( fact. 7" do*t that this is hat the friends of 3*alia have hadin &ind hen they have insisted that 3*alia are intrinsic properties.

Moreover, it is o*r very inaility to expand on, or &odify, these r*te dispositions so to identify or

reco+ni;e s*ch states that creates the doctrinal ill*sion of (ho&o+eneity( or (ato&icity to analysis(

or (+rainlessness( that characteri;es the 3*alia of philosophical tradition.

#his p*tative +rainlessness, " hypothesi;e, is nothin+ *t a sort of f*nctional invariaility- it is close

0in to hat Pylyshyn 7198$, 198? calls cognitive impenetra-ility. Moreover, this f*nctional

invariaility or i&penetraility is not asol*te *t itself plastic over ti&e. K*st as on the efferent side

of the nervo*s syste&, -asic actions22in the sense of 5anto 719D', 19D@ and others 7see %old&an,

19$22have een discovered to e variale, and s*/ect *nder trainin+ to deco&position 7one can

learn ith the help of (iofeedac0( to ill the firin+ of a partic*lar &otor ne*ron (directly(, sohat co*nts for an individ*al as the si&ple or ato&ic properties of experienced ite&s is s*/ect to

variation ith trainin+. Endnote 1'

Consider the res*lts of (ed*catin+( the palate of a ine taster, or (ear trainin+( for &*sicians. hat

had een (ato&ic( or (*nanaly;ale( eco&es noticealy co&po*nd and descriale pairs that had

een indistin+*ishale eco&e distin+*ishale, and hen this happens e say the e$perience

chances. A sift and stri0in+ exa&ple of this is ill*strated in intuition pump '1: the guitar string.

Pl*c0 the ass or lo E strin+ open, and listen caref*lly to the so*nd. 5oes it have descriale parts

or is it one and hole and ineffaly +*itarish: Many ill opt for the latter ay of tal0in+. 4o

pl*c0 the open strin+ a+ain and caref*lly rin+ a fin+er don li+htly over the octave fret to create a

hi+h (har&onic(. *ddenly a newso*nd is heard- (p*rer( so&eho and of co*rse an octave hi+her.o&e people insist that this is an entirely novel so*nd, hile others ill descrie the experience y

sayin+ (the otto& fell o*t of the note(22leavin+ /*st the top. B*t then on a third open pl*c0in+ one

can hear, ith s*rprisin+ distinctness, the har&onic overtone that as isolated in the second

pl*c0in+. #he ho&o+eneity and ineffaility of the first experience is +one, replaced y a d*ality as

(directly apprehensile( and clearly descriale as that of any chord.

#he difference in experience is stri0in+, *t the co&plexity apprehended on the third pl*c0in+ as

thereall alon+ 7ein+ responded to or discri&inated. After all, it as y the co&plex pattern of

overtones that yo* ere ale to reco+ni;e the so*nd as that of a +*itar rather than a l*te or

harpsichord. "n other ords, altho*+h the s*/ective experience has chan+ed dra&atically, thepip

hasn6t chan+ed yo* are still respondin+, as efore, to a co&plex property so hi+hly infor&ative that

it practically defies veral description.

#here is nothin+ to stop f*rther refine&ent of one6s cap acity to descrie this heretofore ineffale


20/24

co&plexity. At any ti&e, of co*rse, there is one6s c*rrent hori;on of distin+*isha ility22and that

hori;on is hat sets, if anythin+ does, hat e sho*ld call the pri&ary or ato&ic properties of hat

one con scio*sly experiences 7>arrell, 19@$. B*t it o*ld e a &ista0e to transfor& the fact that

inevitaly there is a li&it to o*r capacity to descrie thin+s e experience into the s*pposition that

there are asol*tely indescriale properties in o*r experience.

o hen e loo0 one last ti&e at o*r ori+inal characteri;ation of 3*alia, as ineffale, intrinsic,

private, directly apprehensile properties of experience, e find that there is nothin+ to fill the ill."n their place are relatively or practically ineffale p*lic properties e can refer to indirectly via

reference to o*r private property2detectors22 private only in the sense of idiosyncratic. And insofar

as e ish to clin+ to o*r s*/ective a*thority ao*t the occ*rrence ithin *s of states of certain

types or ith certain properties, e can have so&e a*thority22not infalliility or incorri+iility, *t

so&ethin+ etter than sheer +*essin+22*t only if e restrict o*rselves to relational, extrinsic

properties li0e the poer of certain internal states of o*rs to provo0e acts of apparent re2

identification. o contrary to hat see&s ovio*s at first l*sh, there si&ply are no 3*alia at all.

Endnote 1?

Endnotes

1. A representative sa&ple of the &ost recent literat*re on 3*alia o*ld incl*de Bloc0 198$

hoe&a0er, 1981, 198


21/24

. #his exa&ple first appeared in print in &y Reflections on &*llyan in "he Mind*s &, Hofstadter

and 5ennett, 1981, pp.?


22/24

pp.1@9281.

Chishol&, R. 719D.Person and =-(ect. !a alle, "llinois- Open Co*rt Press.

Ch*rchland, P.M. 7198@. (Red*ction, )*alia and the 5irect "nspection of Brain tates,(+ournal o!

Philosophy, !"", pp.82eurology, '$, pp.1$D?21.

5anto, A. 719D'. (hat e Can 5o,(+ournal o! Philosophy, !, pp.?'@2?@.

5anto, Arth*r 719D@. (Basic Actions,(American Philsophical Quarterly, pp.1?12?8.

5avis, !. 7198*nctionalis& and Asent )*alia,(Philosophical Studies, ?1, 4o. . %*stafson and B.!. #apscott,

eds.0ody Mind and Method. 7>estschrift for Jir+il Aldrich. 5ordrecht- Reidel. pp.9'211?.

5ennett, 5. C. 7198a0rainstorms, Ca&rid+e, MA- #he Mit PressL A Bradford Boo0.

5ennett, 5.C. 7198 (#o Approaches to Mental "&a+es,( in 5ennett 198a.

5ennett, 5. C. 7198c "he Philosophical #e$icon, 7privately printed, availale fro& the A&erican

Philosophical Association. #he 8th edition ill e availale in 198.

5ennett, 5. C. 71981. (onderin+ here the Gello ent,( "he Monist, D?, pp.1$. 71981.?nowledge and the 5low o! &n!ormation. Ca&rid+e MA- BradfordLM"#.

Elster, K. [email protected] Sense o! Mar$. Ca&rid+e, En+land- Ca&rid+e University Press.

>arrell 719@$. (Experience,(Mind, @9, pp.1$298.

%ert, B. 719D@. ("&a+ination and Jerifiaility,(Philosophical Studies, J", pp.??2?.%eschind, 4. and >*sillo, M. 719DD. (Color24a&in+ 5efects in Association ith Alexia,(

Archives o! >eurology, 1@, pp.1'2?D.

%old&an, A. 719$.A "heory o!


23/24

!ehrer, A. 7198', ;ine and Conversation, Bloo&in+ton, "ndiana- Univ. of "ndiana Press.

!eis, 5. 7198'. (Extrinsic Properties,(Philosophical Studies, ??, pp.192*nctionalis& and )*alia,(Philosophical Studies,


24/24

Studies, ?, pp.'D928'.

itt+enstein, !. 719@8. %.E.M. Ansco&e, ed.Philosophical &nvestigations. Oxford- Blac0ell.

Dennett - Quining qualia

Documents

Transcript of Dennett - Quining qualia