Talk:Qualia

RFC: split off proponents and critics

This article is long and those sections are technical. The question already came up regarding for/against and WP:NPOV and while I do feel that those sections are pretty balanced now, it might make more sense to split them off and include a "brief history of" here. Options:

1. Leave it alone
2. Split off with only minor changes
3. Split into something resembling a timeline

For 2 or 3:

1. Add a brief history here
2. Add only a link

~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 22:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose splitting off to a single article such as "Expert opinions on Qualia" - if this content should be moved anywhere then it should be moved to each of the individual philosophers' articles. Support cutting away these sections even if the content isn't moved though as excessive detail. A philosophy article should never go into detail on the opinions of every single philosopher who has published on the topic. Shapeyness (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• I think I prefer Shapeyness's proposal. Change it to "Proponents like Chalmers blah blah and include others such as [litany]. Critics like Dennett blah blah and include others such as [litany]." Perhaps a sentence on neuroscience as well. One can then link to the relevant sections of the individual philosophers' articles. Cake (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the Definitions section could be retitled History? Then material from Proponents and Critics could be moved either to History or Arguments[...].

Anything left over probably does not need to be in this article (especially all the blockquotes and the mini-essay/summary of Dennett). If someone's views don't currently rise to the level of making the cut here or in an article of their own, we probably don't need to preserve them in a second Qualia article.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose splitting - this article needs a healthy dose of WP:OR-removal, scientists like Schrodinger shouldn't be stated as to having an opinion on a philosophical debate that mostly postdates them, especially with only primary sources cited. Once the original and otherwise dubious claims are purged, the whole article should probably be refactored to explain the concept and some common conceptions rather than presenting each philosopher's view in a doxographical manner. - car chasm (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Having looked closer at the article and removed a bit, I'm confident that once all of the non-encyclopedia and poorly sourced material is removed we will have a much more manageable article. - car chasm (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't have time to look at it now, but the Dennett section also probably needs to be trimmed down a lot. He certainly is one of the most prominent critics, but we can summarize his arguments in much less prose than is there now. - car chasm (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

So consensus is against splitting and in favor of serious pruning? ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 23:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

That's my vote. This is an important topic that poses many provocative philosophical questions. But I think all readers would be best served by just one accessibly good article. Those who want more can go procure their choice of books from the bibliography. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I've started a "draft" in my user space (it’s a subpage, with talk page in case anyone has any comments) ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 00:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Separate this from Subjective Experiences

The term “subjective experience” redirects here. I would like to see separate article addressing subjective experience. For one thing, no one disputes the existence of subjective experience, yet the existence of qualia is disputed. Also, a description of subjective experience could be simpler than what appears here. Lbeaumont (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you! However, I noticed that there IS a page called “Subjective character of experience” – so, I wonder if it would be possible to redirect any searches of ‘subjective experience’ to this “Subjective character of experience” page, (instead of to the ‘Qualia’ page)? If you are able edit this redirect, please go ahead. If not, I will try to do it sometime soon. Sandyshore (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Lbeaumont I managed to do the edit. Now, the search words 'subjective experience', redirects to the 'Subjective character of experience' page. Sandyshore (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly I think that page should be merged into this one. Any distinctions between the concepts could be discussed in a single article. --Trovatore (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

My thinking is that, since "Subjective experience" is a much broader term (encompassing issues such as the 'present moment' and the ways in which past conditioning affects experience, etc.) the content of this article on Qualia might be better merged into "Subjective character of experience", rather than the other way around. Sandyshore (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Per length and audience stats, the article "Subjective character of experience" is relatively minor, so I would lean toward a merge from "Subjective character of experience" to "Qualia". Alenoach (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Although the page "Subjective character of experience" is relatively short right now, I think it has considerable potential for further development. In addition to discussing topics like the present moment, and the influence of past conditioning on experience, etc., future expansion of that page could also cover topics such as self-knowledge, wisdom, and related topics. One possible reason for the higher pageview statistics of the "Qualia" article is most probably because searches for the term "Subjective experience" have long been redirected there. In addition, "subjective experience" is a term that is likely to be more familiar to general readers, whereas "Qualia" is a more specialized philosophical and neuroscientific term and, as noted in the article itself, is regarded by some authors as controversial. Anyway, I would be interested to hear the views of other editors on this question. Sandyshore (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You may be able to make a distinction between subjective experience and qualia, but it's not clear to me that subjective-experience-as-distinct-from-qualia is a well-defined "notable" topic worthy of a page. Is there really a significant literature that treats "subjective experience" as its own thing, an object of study, in a way that isn't just talking about qualia?

Wikipedia should not be making up subject areas. You may be able to write a well-sourced essay on subjective experience as distinct from qualia, but if this isn't a recognized object of study, we shouldn't have an article on it, whether or not general readers would recognize the content. --Trovatore (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that "subjective experience" is a recognized topic in its own right and is not merely synonymous with qualia. There is a body of literature that explicitly treats subjective experience as what is encountered from the first-person perspective and examines methods for studying and characterizing such experiences.

For example, Lumma and Weger (2023), in "Looking from within: Comparing first-person approaches to studying experience", discuss different approaches to investigating first-person experience itself. Similarly, Sikes and Dunn (2020), in the Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences, devote an entry specifically to "Subjective Experiences". Oluka (2025) also discusses phenomenological approaches aimed at describing and interpreting subjective experience.

These sources suggest that subjective experience is treated in the literature as an object of inquiry in its own right and not simply as another term for qualia. Consequently, I do not think that a page on the topic would constitute Wikipedia creating a new subject area. Rather, it would summarize an existing body of scholarship concerning first-person experience and methods for investigating it.

Lumma, A. L., & Weger, U. (2023). Looking from within: Comparing first-person approaches to studying experience. Current Psychology, 42(12), 10437–10453.

Sikes, L.M., Dunn, S.M. (2020). Subjective Experiences. In: Zeigler-Hill, V., Shackelford, T.K. (eds) Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer.

Oluka, A. (2025). Phenomenological research strategy: descriptive and interpretive approaches. F1000Research, 14, 725. Sandyshore (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

While I don't personally see how that's any different from qualia, you do seem to have the sources lined up and I'm clearly out of my depth in terms of knowledge of the literature. --Trovatore (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Horrible multiref

Never seen this bizarre thing before, and I can only imagine there must theoretically be some legitimate use for it somewhere on the site, but the dozens of refs crammed into a single cite for one paragraph was EPA Superfund-tier WP:OVERCITE. Deleted all but the first ref, if anybody wants to add more back, try and make it make sense first. 47.208.130.197 (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Una foto en la ventana de Rorty en Barcelona.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)