It might help considerably if (1) you explained a bit more about the terminology instead of assuming the readers will know what you're talking about and (2) maybe give an illustration or an example which would suggest what this 'undiscovered physical communication' may or may not be responsible for.

(Personally, I had promised myself not to get involved in arguments where anyone uses the word 'qualia' but as you're new I will make an exception.:bigsmile:)

Hi jeeprs,

I've also assumed that other people will most likely assume that I've assumed what others know or have assumed

This subject is hard to talk about.
One reason for this is that it seems (to me) that what I am trying to talk about is part of what enables me to talk about it.
I've tried to "define" what I am trying to talk about (here) many times, and this has so far shown to produce nothing "interesting". It all would sooner or later boil down to some sort of an "inefficient" semantic argument.
So, recently, I've been trying to "steer" other people's minds to the "proper impression"/state of my thoughts, by bombarding them laterally with certain mental constructs, hoping to keep the mind of the listener "in-line", or rather - in the "proper channel", which will (hopefully) inevitably lead him or her to my kind of thoughts. I guess this might be seen as a form of psychological manipulation, but I've found no other way to usefully talk about such things.

I don't see how "qualia" (along with some other "concepts") can be initially "defined" and "pre-cooked" productively, so I've chosen to take the "risk", and assume that other people's "understandings" or "impressions" of this concept would be "approximate" enough to allow for, at least moderately "interesting", philosophical development and construction.

So, I can keep on talking about it, but it might be much more "effective" if we simply started a discussion, thus hoping that your mind will be "stochastically" "steered" into a state "approximate" enough to mine to allow for the invitation of insights!

Thanks for the input, but I am finding it very hard to understand. So maybe we should start from considering this peculiar word, 'qualia'. I have noticed that it is never used outside of the debate with "philosophers" such as Daniel Dennett. Apparently it means a "sense-datum or feeling having a distinctive quality". At issue is whether one's subjective sense of being is real or simply a byproduct of cellular reactions in the mind and body.

Now I have always thought that the idea that we are simply the epiphenomena of matter was a bad argument. I don't see why it is worth arguing against. I know am familiar with the arguments of Dennett and Churchland, but I don't find them credible.

Let's close this thread
Currently I think that it might be extremely hard, if not impossible, to "define" the fundamental concepts of this subject well enough to warrant a non-trivial discussion.
Thank you for participating!