I tiakina i:
| Kaituhi matua: | |
|---|---|
| Hōputu: | Recurso digital |
| Reo: | Ingarihi |
| I whakaputaina: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Ngā marau: | |
| Urunga tuihono: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20159918 |
| Ngā Tūtohu: |
Tāpirihia he Tūtohu
Kāore He Tūtohu, Me noho koe te mea tuatahi ki te tūtohu i tēnei pūkete!
|
Rārangi ihirangi:
- <p class="MsoNormal"><span>The problem of qualitative character concerns why specific experiences have the particular character they do, such as why one visual state is experienced as red rather than some other quality. Standard approaches treat physical or structural descriptions as complete and then seek an account of how experiential character is added to or derived from them, leaving the relation between structure and experience unexplained. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>This paper rejects that starting point. It argues that purely formal structure does not by itself fix a realised world, and that qualitative character belongs to structure only in its realised form. On this view, experience is not something mapped onto structure, but what it is for structure to occur in a determinate way. Differences in qualitative character therefore track differences in realised states rather than requiring an additional explanatory layer. The familiar question of why a given state feels like red presupposes a separation between structure and experience that this account denies, and so does not arise once that assumption is removed. This reframing locates the source of qualitative character in realisation itself and shifts explanatory focus to the conditions under which distinct configurations are stably realised.</span></p>