U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-05-2013, 06:41 AM
 
39,207 posts, read 10,887,543 times
Reputation: 5096

Advertisements

Now I am really bothered, KC. I could have almost sworn that Gaylen was talking about 'How', which I thought he assured us was not qualia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-05-2013, 06:46 AM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,681,102 times
Reputation: 478
hes playing everyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2013, 06:47 AM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,681,102 times
Reputation: 478
a fraud
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2013, 06:51 AM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,681,102 times
Reputation: 478
same ole thing $$$$$$$$....bottom line. Will do anything and a control freak.

physics and philo is art....I know a fraud when in the room. A taker will tell...they are taking, remember...' I am using you....its all a fraud....thats why I laughed in my entry ha ha ha with the j nicholson deal...he's mocking everyone..then he made that completely stupid post....the dumb ones wanna get caught. Sloppy. The whole thing reeks of distrust. ...acting overly innocent...two extremes...i know everything and i don't know all over the place...and i'm using you... How can yuh get a degree in two science's with that deal and have posts in one thread riddled with contradictions....they are all over the place....he's taunting, looking for idea's, getting the ego buffed. $$$$$$$$....all the incentives have nothing to do with the study...its all engineered for I want I want... theory, big discovery...a looser wanna be that hasn't got a clue about how the magic thats trying to be thieved comes about. ok ...its been a slice....good days ahead.

Last edited by stargazzer; 04-05-2013 at 07:32 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2013, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,424 posts, read 2,118,111 times
Reputation: 1638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof: I think of subjectivity (or, at least, the potential for subjective awareness) to be an attribute of energy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
If you mean "certain brain like collections of matter and energy", then I agree. If we're talking about particles having a specific amount of kinetic, potential and "subjectivity" energy, then I think you've got a lot of work to do to establish that this idea is even meaningful.
When I talk about the potential for subjectivity as an attribute of energy, what I have in mind is what I've referred to as the "pure state" (for lack of a better term) of the BB singularity. Basically everything that exists today can be traced back to the BB. If qualia exist today, then in principle we ought to be able to trace the ultimate origins of qualia back to the big bang. This does NOT mean that qualia, as such, had to exist in the BB singularity. (Thus I'm not implying that the BB singularity was conscious, or felt lonely, or craved sweets, or anything like that.) Unlike MysticPhD, I do believe that emergence is a useful concept, and I believe with moderately high confidence that qualia emerged from the BB (after billions of years) just as virtually everything that exists today emerged from the BB. (The abstract laws of logic, math, etc. are non-temporal and thus didn't emerge.)


Hydrogen atoms, for example, did not exist in the BB singularity; they emerged after the universe expanded and cooled a bit. We don't understand the physics of the BB singularity very well, but we understand the first moment after the BB well enough to model the emergence of hydrogen. My point, however, is that we could not model the emergence of hydrogen atoms from the BB if our model for the state of the universe BEFORE the emergence of hydrogen did not, in some logical way, imply the potential for the emergence of hydrogen. You cannot, for example, model the emergence of hydrogen if your theory does not involve quarks because quarks constitute the building blocks of protons and neutrons, and without protons and neutrons, you can't have hydrogen atoms. In other words, quarks in our model count as part of the "potential for hydrogen" because they are necessay for hydrogen, and they are part of the model that describes how the universes was before hydrogen emerged. Quarks are not sufficient for hydrogen, thus some other "potential-for-hydrogen" elements are needed in our model of the pre-hydrogen universe, but hopeful now I have sufficiently explained the concept of "potential for".

Hydrogen emerged shortly after the BB, qualia took billions of years to emerge, but the same basic principles apply. Let's take an example closer to the "era" of qualia: Walnut trees exist today, so in principle we ought to be able to trace back the potential-for-walnut-trees back to the BB. Carbon is an essential component of trees, but carbon did not exist in the universe until stars started going supernova (billions of years after the BB). So prior to the existence of carbon, there had to be elements of the universe serving as "the-potential-for-carbon" and these elements were, therefore, also playing the role of "potential-for-walnut-trees" billions of years before carbon existed, and even more billions of years before walnut trees existed. My point is that qualia exist, but we can't trace the potentials-for-qualia back to the BB because we don't have anything in our theories of physics that can even play the role of potentials-for-qualia. I believe that in order to put the potentials-for-qualia into our scientific theories, we will need to expand at least a few of our theories of physics to include qualitative elements. We already have some examples of ways in which science can approach qualia. In a previous post I mentioned psychology. We've seen some impressive ways in which psychology can incorporate qualia into scientific theories. What's hard is trying to imagine how this sort of thing can be done with fundamental physics. Once we do this, however, we ought to be able to trace the potentials-for-qualia all the way back to the BB, just as we can trace the potentials-for-walnut-trees all the way back to the BB. I don't know exactly how to do it, but I'm saying that something more or less roughly like this has to be done if we ever want to make any significant progress on the hard problem.

Quote:
Can you expand on this - what qualia are generated showing what x-rays "look like" when they're directly confronted, for example?
I'm not comfortable with the term "generated" (it forces us into a dualism of the sort I'm trying to avoid), but I'll let it slide. As to the core of your question: I do not think that every form or arrangement of energy "feels like" something. Hopefully the stuff I said in the previous paragraph will make this easy to explain. The potentials-for-a-walnut-tree exist, in some way, in every electron. Electrons existed for billions of years before walnut trees, and the universe could have evolved in such a way that walnut trees never even emerged, but none of this changes the fact that, in some sense, every electron essentially is a potential-for-walnut-tree element. Electrons, as such, are not sufficient to build trees, but the energy of the BB singularity is sufficient for the building of trees (so long as we take as given some abstract laws of logic, math, etc.) My point is that not every arrangement of energy is a walnut tree, even though energy, in its more primordial senses, contains the potential-for-walnut-trees within it. So, just because the potential-for-subjectivity is intrinsic to the BB energy, it does not follow that there is something it is like to be any particular form or arrangement of energy.


Furthermore, the qualitative feeling of seeing red is not what 460 nm photons "look like." The experience of red is a form of direct experience of one manifestation of an attribute of the primordial BB energy, but this manifestation is a holistic property of the energy composing the nervous system of a person. The 460 nm photons are part of the larger story, but they are not the essences of "red". If x-rays were to play a similar role in triggering the nervous system of some being (perhaps a robot, or some sort of Star Trek alien) who can sense patterns of x-rays, then they would play a role in some sort of holistic experience that we cannot currently imagine.

Quote:
I don't see why - even if subjectivity is one of the observable properties of energetic particles, as long as it is observable then there's no issue. If you're claiming that it isn't observable, then the obvious question becomes how do you know it is there?
Qualia are what we directly experience, so in that sense they are observable. Subjectivity is an abstract concept - sorta like the laws of logic or math. You can see the numeral 2, and you can see two apples, but you can't observe the number 2. You can directly experience, via introspection, what it feels like for you to think about the number 2 (and you can notice that what it feels like to think of 2 is different than what it feels like to think of 3), but you cannot observe the number 2, as such, because the number 2 is an abstract categorical concept - not an existing object. 'Subjectivity' is an abstract term that we use in order to reference the unique, non-repeatable nature of any particular qualitative moment of being. These moments are empirical (indeed, they are the essence of experience), but we can't hold them up and compare them to one another. Subjectivity thus stands in contrast to objectivity, which depends on what we interpret as the repeatable, inter-subjective (i.e., "universal") aspects of experience.


Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 04-05-2013 at 09:54 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2013, 09:21 AM
 
Location: Lower east side of Toronto
10,586 posts, read 10,781,413 times
Reputation: 9293
Religion has had the effect of giving God a horrible reputation that resulted in a credibility gap. If theists and atheists want to discuss God - the existence or non-existence then religion should be avoided...and only logic should be use...along with science. Religion has little to do with GOD. This is the glitch in all of these arguments. Christopher Hitichens the arch and now departed atheists was brilliant. He could not stand man made religion..but secretly I don' believe that he had a problem with God...Of course he could not state that because near the end he was making a good living being an atheist..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2013, 10:23 AM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,424 posts, read 2,118,111 times
Reputation: 1638
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
Sure, no theory has a complete explanation of the origin of subjective thought right now (materialist or otherwise), but that's far different from saying that nothing can ever explain it. Unless you have some pretty compelling research to present, the best we can say right now is that it is an open question.
Hopefully, in light of my previous tirade, my position on this should already be obvious, but just to be sure: I'm not saying that "nothing can ever explain it." I'm not even saying that materialism* can never explain it. What I am saying is that the potential for qualia, like everything else, should be, in principle, traceable back to the BB, which means that fundamental physics will someday have to address these potentials-for-qualia in some fundamental way if we ever want to solve the hard problem (or if we want a genuine "theory of everything"). I'm also saying that the way to incorporate the potential-for-qualia into physics is to find some scientifically plausible way to introduce qualitative terms into the equations of fundamental physics. I gave psychology as an example of a type of science that can deal with qualitative terms. I don't know how physics will do it, but I'm saying that it eventually needs to.


*Earlier in this tread I think I did say "materialism can't solve..." but at that point I had "purely objective-materialism" in mind, and I was not taking into account that materialism, in its most basic form, does not necessarily have to be limited to purely objective terms. My suggestion for how materialism can address the metaphysical role of subjectivity is contained in my discussion of "the attributes of energy".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2013, 12:17 PM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,941,688 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
I'm also saying that the way to incorporate the potential-for-qualia into physics is to find some scientifically plausible way to introduce qualitative terms into the equations of fundamental physics.
Yep, much like it does now when objectively studying the causes of subjective feelings and opinions in other areas. This is nothing new, and since purely materialist theories have no problem with it now, I don't see the issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2013, 12:18 PM
 
40,112 posts, read 26,772,494 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
Here's a classic example of the difference between [sorta] memorizing and repeating snappy sounding science buzzwords and understanding the meaning behind the magical-looking letters and numbers.
Along with a nice example of attempts to deflect and condescend rather than understand or admit error. All in all a good summary of my objections to the posts coming from this particular poster.
Actually it is the classic example of not having a clue about the mathematical underpinnings of non-Euclidean Minkowski space and confusing a trivial understanding of three dimensional metrical invariance with the four dimensional topological invariance of Minkowski's "world interval" in a pseudo-Riemannian manifold. I suggest you seek out the original derivation before proclaiming my presentation of the equation to be in error.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2013, 12:42 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,252,936 times
Reputation: 1317
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post

Distance and time are measures that derive from our experience of reality sequentially through our thoughts. Minkowski's Constancy of the World Interval reveals this and implicates our thoughts (as the "measurer") in the experience of distance and time.

I = Squareroot [S^2 – C^2(T2 - T1)]

where S = spatial distance; T2 - T1 = time interval; and C = speed of light. In words, the spatial separation of events is altered by a continuum of C^2 for any "measured" temporal separation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Actually it is the classic example of not having a clue about the mathematical underpinnings of non-Euclidean Minkowski space and confusing a trivial understanding of three dimensional metrical invariance with the four dimensional topological invariance of Minkowski's "world interval" in a pseudo-Riemannian manifold. I suggest you seek out the original derivation before proclaiming my presentation of the equation to be in error.
Mystic, I understand that you don't like it when people snipe at you, but seriously! You made an error. Period. You evidently cannot find it, and have for several posts tried to put it off on other people being to stupid to understand your original equation, or being easily flustered by big words. This, not your religious beliefs or dualistic philosophy is why you garner so much animosity on this board. It isn't a stye thing, it isn't a professor thing. It is an inability to examine your own assertions, and check your own work!

I will spell it out for you. You have left out the square on the time term. You can either write it as:

I = Squareroot [S^2 – C^2](T2 - T1)

or

I^2 = S^2 – C^2T^2 ( assuming S and T are both vectors of the appropriate dimensions)

What you cited is just plain incorrect.

While the square on the time term is not essential to your arguments, it does demonstrate KC's point that you are either not paying attention to what you are saying, or you do not understand it. In defending an error repeatedly by insulting those who pointed it out without actually verifying it, you devalue anything else you are trying to say. I am interested in your point of view, find the current discussion of qualia fascinating, and wouldn't mind further discussion of the physics sort of stuff (on another thread, though), but this kind of attitude is incredibly offputting. When you screw up, admit it, and move on.


Now, can we please go back to Qualia?
-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top