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.
I have the impression that you think that you are the one being scientific about this while I am the one being speculative.
A few points of order here. Firstly it was YOU who openly admitted your tirades on here were "wildly speculative" not me. You even admitted they are "outlandish". So do not try to shift this over as if I was the only one who noticed this. You also openly admitted it yourself and I simply agree.
Secondly if you have to decry the people who disagree with you as being "Whacky" then you do little but call your own position into more suspicion. To me all you are saying when you say "Qualia Exist" is that subjective experience exists and I never once called that into doubt. If you mean something more by "Qualia" than that then by all means define your terms but often with hypothesis as outlandish as yours it serves to keep the definitions vague.
The point where I diverge from you is where you point out that since we have not totally explained the "NCC" set that therefore there must be something more to it. You say "If neural correlates alone cannot solve the hard problem, then what will it take?" and then go off once again on your path of wild speculation. The path that both you and I have acknowledged is wild speculation together.
Hammer this one sentence into your head and I think it will have a cascade effect throughout your entire system "If X does not currently explain Y that in NO way licenses you to say that X can not, will not, or will never explain Y".
Essentially you are moving from "god of the gaps" to "conscious phenomenon of the gaps" here in that you are basically saying "Well since we have not explained X I am going to insert all kinds of explanations, unsubstantiated as they are, into those gaps and just run with them".
As I said when we have gaps like this, fantasy, wild speculation, hypothesis and so forth are all GREAT things to put in there. Wild speculation is the basis for everything we as a species are today and it is GREAT stuff and I would never condemn it. We need people like you doing this all the time, non stop, every time a gap in our knowledge is identified.
But the NEXT step is to then try to substantiate those wildly speculative things you inserted into the gaps and take them out of the realm of fantasy and into the realm of substantiated Theory. It is that I am waiting for from you... not simply a wall of text that does nothing more than essentially restate your position. A position I am already aware of and understand just fine.
Keep at it lads. So far I have noted two points put by our erudite philosophical masters
(1) 'Yet given the properties of this God and a lack of any coherent extra-natural process to bridge the gap between them - creatio ex nihilo fails.'(Shiloh1) 'Interpreted' by Citizen401 as '• There is no 'explanatory theory' for "immaterial causation".
• Therefore "immaterial causation" is metaphysically impossible.
This is the very same formally fallacious argument that you explicitly deny appealing to barely moments earlier .'
So it is, but it is NOT the argument that Shiloh was making which is that that the argument for Goddunnit or the enternal existence of God fails, not that it is impossible either metaphysically or physically. This sort of mental clumsiness not to mention deliberate dishonesty, hardly impresses.
The other point is this idea that Qualia exist and so must be explained in materialist terms or somehow dualism has to be regarded as proven. Not only does materialism's 'promissory note' on this deserve to be regarded as good credit but there seems this failure to even consider that the existence of qualia as a subjective perception as distinct from the behavioural aspects (where the failure of the zombie to react emotionally was cited) and the physical aspect where the effect of atoms on our brain produces a perception of blue, which is not considered to be 'Qualia'.
I can get an inkling of the idea that there is something in the perception of blue apart from the physical and the emotional reaction (perhaps) to a colour, but - even apart from a rather sweeping claim (so it seems) that this can never be proven by materialism, which suggests that the phenomenon itself doesn't exist in materialistic terms, there remains this nagging doubt whether qualia - apart from how and why - both of which seem amenable to materialist explanations - are anything but giving substance to an idea...or what..it is really hard for me to understand 'what', which is why I remain of the view that there is Why and How but no 'What'.
1) Either pro's today respect the SM and knowledge or sit around playing with whatever keeps the flashlight on.
2) Larry King to S Hawking :
LK....what is needed for a universe ?
SH...gravity
LK....what is needed for gravity ?
SH....an environment allowing for equation 2+2=4
An environment of order is required for a universe. All maths, the language and common ground understanding with reality which includes all reason demonstrates order in existence allowing for everything we know.
All ancient philosophy is now in the bin. Because this knowledge is superior to all philosophy, plain and simple. No one can challenge a more pure access to the requisites in order for a universe. Otherwise 'stand up' and make your argument, otherwise this above translation stands.
Whatever is understood as order, or whatever is understood as cause, or nothing , nobody cares.
Whatever monism, dualism......nobody cares.
Whatever way...if something strange created the universe, material is enjoyed throughly by whatever and is into order. Other then that who cares ..? The universe does nothing but translate energy in a setting of order. The expression is infinity in both the facts in mathematics and the nature of how energy is held in an experience of infinity, energy cannot be created or destroyed. If there is some other translation in these raw facts that can be juggled however, and nobody cares...then stand up and make your superior arguement.
Until then...now both these scientifically gained insights into these issues 'stands.
The hard problem of consciousness as a feasible quest and suggested unknown, is a trick of modern day Philosophers because they are useless, too lazy and cannot do anything to enhance their trade. Why.. because there is no talent. There is no creative ability. There is no training in general translation approaches. They are rudely taught and produce nonsense that would put thinkers of all century's in a tailspin ...with the amount of progress in science.
The philosophers have failed new knowledge in science. They are improperly trained from the bottom up and do not know how, to problem solve.
Eying a target is the donkey's way of solving a problem and gaining access to hidden information. No different then the scientists who leave their God jacket at the door, but even more important. The philosopher must leave his human jacket at the door .
The only people that have showed creative ability and respectable savvy are the un-pro trained philosophers bringing along. common sense, natural talent and ability and most important
They brought along their self respect in giving an example to these weak puppets, in the order of not allowing an obsession to interfere with common sense, known as reason.
This thread is all about the natural teaching the tainted. The disturbed and obsessive in the fixation of trying to sound important with garbage. Nothing creative aside from the one post by Mystic which quickly and decisively dismantled an issue,which was very insightful , accurate and helpful.
The world is built party on BS...no more could BS be contained then in this thread.
Rest assured the HP...other then knowing all there is to know, is what it is and solved. Any kangaroo, and sharp 19 yr old could easily go through this thread and justify putting their nose up to suggestion by contemporary philosophers.
It is a trick....if they keep it going....they keep each other in business...well Ive got news for this crowd. Were on to walmart in this grab and go culture...and you guys are less skilled in a rip off then walmart.
Things have changed. In fact...there is NO WAY...in the quaila discussing that it could be said with certainty... that ALL discussion from the very active contributing pro's was an experiment in mind control using a suggested OBSESSION
If anyone see's where this is not a rational possibility and therefore suspicion., this final observation stands. Opinion and I'm good and PO.
Last edited by stargazzer; 04-24-2013 at 01:00 PM..
A few points of order here. Firstly it was YOU who openly admitted your tirades on here were "wildly speculative" not me. You even admitted they are "outlandish". So do not try to shift this over as if I was the only one who noticed this. You also openly admitted it yourself and I simply agree.
Yes, my specific attempts to bridge the gap between subjective experience and fundamental physics by positing a "qualitative map" which then plays a role in predicting deviations from QM statistics in a living brain - all that stuff is wildly speculative. But the need for some sort of bridge between the subjectivity-friendly terms of psychology and neuroscience, and the purely objective terminology of physics is not speculative. My suggestion was that a "qualitative map" built up from neural correlates could be the sort of thing that could provide such a bridge. ("Red", for example, would then be a set of coordinates on a mathematical landscape, and physics can happily deal with mathematical coordinates.) There might be other ways, but this is the only way I can think of at the moment. Anywayz, what I was attempting to do in my last post was distinguish the parts of my hypothesis that are speculative, from the parts that are not.
Quote:
Hammer this one sentence into your head and I think it will have a cascade effect throughout your entire system "If X does not currently explain Y that in NO way licenses you to say that X can not, will not, or will never explain Y".
I think this is one place where we have failed to understand each other. I totally agree with you on this. I'm not claiming that the absence of a materialist explanation for qualia means that there can't be a materialist explanation for qualia. Oddly enough, I see myself as trying to construct a materialist explanation of qualia, insofar as materialism is understood as deriving everything from the unified energy proposed to exist at the moment of the Big Bang. There is a hitch, of course, because of what I see as the need for a bridge between subjective experience and the purely objective theoretical constructs of physics. This is a crucial point that you seem to be missing, so I want to try again.
My claim is that subjectivity cannot be modeled by a theory that is composed of purely objective theoretical constructs and laws. I’m NOT basing my claim on the fact that this has never been done before. The fact that it has never been done before is, as you point out, irrelevant. My claim is that we are dealing with a matter of principle. (Just as, for example, it is impossible to draw a square circle. It’s true that no one has ever drawn a square circle, but my claim “You can’t draw a square circle†is not based on this mere fact of history.) Unfortunately it seems that the principle involved is harder to grasp than the obvious problem with drawing a square circle.
At some point a theory of consciousness capable of solving the hard problem must incorporate some subjective terms. A perfect example of this sort of theory can be found in the efforts to find the neural correlates of consciousness. Neural processes can be objectively described and mathematically modeled, but the meanings of these descriptions and models come directly from subjective experience. If we find a neural correlate for qualitative blue, the meaning of the correlation stems from our experience of qualitative blue. You can’t say: “This process is a neural correlate of blue†without in some way or other referencing the subjective feeling of blue. The whole meaning of a “correlation†hinges on at least two things being correlated, and in this case one of the correlates is the subjective feeling of blue.Goshdarnitalltahell, I sure hope this makes sense because I’m seriously running out of ways to explain it!
Anyways, what I’m aiming for is not just a list of neural correlates, but a fundamental theory of physics that has some ability to reference subjective terms. (A theory doesn't just list a bunch of correlations; a theory explains correlations in a way that allows us to predict correlations - ideally is should predict correlations that we have no yet discovered by experimental means.)
(BTW, I accept a lot of the responsibility for whatever confusion we are running into, and I want to thank all of you for discussing this. I need to be able to explain these ideas as clearly and concisely as possible, and you folks are all helping me clarify both my thoughts and my writing. I sincerely do appreciate that.)
The other point is this idea that Qualia exist and so must be explained in materialist terms or somehow dualism has to be regarded as proven.
Just to be clear: Subjectivity does not imply a dualism of substance, it only implies a dual “way of knowing,” or dual aspects. Subjectivity arises from the indexical nature of quantitative identity. No "other" rock can BE this rock. Other rocks can be qualitatively identical to this rock, but only this rock can be quantitatively identical to this rock. I presume that, as a materialist, you will want to say that I am a physical process. You will also want to say that my experience of blue is a physical process, and that this experience of blue is part of the process that we have agreed is "me." So, what I'm saying is that this subjective experience of blue is part of what it is like to BE me at this moment of time. The subjective experience of blue is, thus, not the sort of thing that can be observed objectively in some other physical process. In fact, your subjective experience of blue - as such - cannot even be objectively observed by you. Now, of course you could observe your brain and study your own neural processes objectively. You could even watch a computer screen while a neuroscientist points and says: "Here, this is your neural correlate of blue." But when you do this, what you see on the computer monitor won't necessarily appear to be blue. There is nothing inherently "blue" about the behavior of the neural correlates of blue. This is because the subjective experience of blue is not just a neural correlate. Subjective experience is an aspect of BEING a physical process. Every physical process has multiple aspects (e.g., tall, fast, slippery, etc.). Having more than one aspect does not threaten materialism. If subjectivity is an aspect of materialism, this does not have to threaten materialism. It only seems threatening to those who think that materialistic theory must be purely objective.
The subjective experience of blue is the experience of what it is like to BE a particular physical process, and no other process can BE this process. The only way to know the subjective experience of blue is to be a physical system in the process of subjectively experiencing blue.
Ok, thanks for that. believe me I am trying to get my head round it but it is like trying to wrestle an eel marinaded (live) in olive oil...without using my hands.
Perhaps the problem is that that I am always presupposed to think that even subjective experiences come from the brain by physical processes and there is a sort of mental shimmer when I am asked to think that the experience (perception is of course the atoms - the How) which is the same to my way of thinking is somehow different just because it is experiencing different things.
Yes, my specific attempts to bridge the gap between subjective experience and fundamental physics by positing a "qualitative map" which then plays a role in predicting deviations from QM statistics in a living brain - all that stuff is wildly speculative. But the need for some sort of bridge between the subjectivity-friendly terms of psychology and neuroscience, and the purely objective terminology of physics is not speculative. My suggestion was that a "qualitative map" built up from neural correlates could be the sort of thing that could provide such a bridge. ("Red", for example, would then be a set of coordinates on a mathematical landscape, and physics can happily deal with mathematical coordinates.) There might be other ways, but this is the only way I can think of at the moment. Anywayz, what I was attempting to do in my last post was distinguish the parts of my hypothesis that are speculative, from the parts that are not.
I think this is one place where we have failed to understand each other. I totally agree with you on this. I'm not claiming that the absence of a materialist explanation for qualia means that there can't be a materialist explanation for qualia. Oddly enough, I see myself as trying to construct a materialist explanation of qualia, insofar as materialism is understood as deriving everything from the unified energy proposed to exist at the moment of the Big Bang. There is a hitch, of course, because of what I see as the need for a bridge between subjective experience and the purely objective theoretical constructs of physics. This is a crucial point that you seem to be missing, so I want to try again.
My claim is that subjectivity cannot be modeled by a theory that is composed of purely objective theoretical constructs and laws. I’m NOT basing my claim on the fact that this has never been done before. The fact that it has never been done before is, as you point out, irrelevant. My claim is that we are dealing with a matter of principle. (Just as, for example, it is impossible to draw a square circle. It’s true that no one has ever drawn a square circle, but my claim “You can’t draw a square circle” is not based on this mere fact of history.) Unfortunately it seems that the principle involved is harder to grasp than the obvious problem with drawing a square circle.
At some point a theory of consciousness capable of solving the hard problem must incorporate some subjective terms. A perfect example of this sort of theory can be found in the efforts to find the neural correlates of consciousness. Neural processes can be objectively described and mathematically modeled, but the meanings of these descriptions and models come directly from subjective experience. If we find a neural correlate for qualitative blue, the meaning of the correlation stems from our experience of qualitative blue. You can’t say: “This process is a neural correlate of blue” without in some way or other referencing the subjective feeling of blue. The whole meaning of a “correlation” hinges on at least two things being correlated, and in this case one of the correlates is the subjective feeling of blue.Goshdarnitalltahell, I sure hope this makes sense because I’m seriously running out of ways to explain it!
Anyways, what I’m aiming for is not just a list of neural correlates, but a fundamental theory of physics that has some ability to reference subjective terms. (A theory doesn't just list a bunch of correlations; a theory explains correlations in a way that allows us to predict correlations - ideally is should predict correlations that we have no yet discovered by experimental means.)
(BTW, I accept a lot of the responsibility for whatever confusion we are running into, and I want to thank all of you for discussing this. I need to be able to explain these ideas as clearly and concisely as possible, and you folks are all helping me clarify both my thoughts and my writing. I sincerely do appreciate that.)
You bastd...now your changing the subject to your now specific idea to chop the head up with a calculator... don't even think of anything like thanking anything from this end.
Last edited by stargazzer; 04-24-2013 at 08:40 PM..
T.. Arequipa is ... trying to see it but admits he sees reality far too concretely to contemplate the content of his own thoughts as substance. ....
Yes. That seems to be it. And I am far from convinced that I am wrong to do so. Thing is, I am sure that reality is not abstract not to say solipsistic, because it is both predictable (because what it does is predictably repeatable) and unexpected (because we perceive it from a limited human perspective) so, while our perception is reasonably to be derived from the workings of the brain, atoms and electrical impulses, even if we can't -yet - explain in detail just How, the individual realisation or understanding or interpretation or experience (Qualia) of these brain -presented results doesn't look to me at all like 'substance'. Perhaps I do get an inkling of an inexplicable element to perception and experience: why do these images or sounds or tastes mean anything to us? Immediately I am thinking in terms of behaviour - the Why. We are evolved to make sense of them. It is - or was - important to our survival that we should.
Between the Why and the How..what?. The content of my own thoughts is not substance. It is certainly not reality but interpretation, and that we know can often be wrong. Subjective, personal and not Universal except in a common genetically -planned machine that does the same job in the different models.
Of course we are made of star and even Big Bang matter and in that sense we are all part of the greater reality, but as i said in my sheepdip example, what has evolved in not the same thing or does the same job as the star matter from which it was made.
Now i am sure you will disagree. That is your right. I am still waiting for this Ah-ha that will put me on the same page as Gaylen at least, but so far all the Ah -has are putting me on the monist/materialist default page.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-24-2013 at 10:59 PM..
Yes. That seems to be it. And I am far from convinced that I am wrong to do so. Thing is, I am sure that reality is not abstract not to say solipsistic, because it is both predictable (because what it does is predictably repeatable) and unexpected (because we perceive it from a limited human perspective) so, while our perception is reasonably to be derived from the workings of the brain, atoms and electrical impulses, even if we can't -yet - explain in detail just How, the individual realisation or understanding or interpretation or experience (Qualia) of these brain -presented results doesn't look to me at all like 'substance'. Perhaps I do get an inkling of an inexplicable element to perception and experience: why do these images or sounds or tastes mean anything to us? Immediately I am thinking in terms of behaviour - the Why. We are evolved to make sense of them. It is - or was - important to our survival that we should.
Between the Why and the How..what?. The content of my own thoughts is not substance. It is certainly not reality but interpretation, and that we know can often be wrong.
I understand. Try this perspective. EVERYTHING that exists (in whatever shape or form or lack thereof) in this universe MUST be some form of energy (that is its substance). That means that what you produce in the way of thoughts and feelings are not "will-o-the-wisps." They exist and have to be accounted for as "something" within the universe at large. When your "instantaneous awareness" is produced . . . it is real and it interacts with the universe in a very identifiable way . . . we here would call it "Arequipa consciousness" . . . NOT your body because we do not interact with it. There is no other form of energy like it and it puts together very unique thoughts and communicates them to us in the form of writing. It forms "ideas" and "concepts" that are real and exist as evidenced by your using them and communicating them to us. Step back from BEING the producer and try to see them as the universe sees them from afar . . . as energy composites. Try to visualize them coming from your head as energy forms within a Matrix-like view of our reality . . . a cool movie, but not very realistic.
I understand. Try this perspective. EVERYTHING that exists (in whatever shape or form or lack thereof) in this universe MUST be some form of energy (that is its substance). That means that what you produce in the way of thoughts and feelings are not "will-o-the-wisps." They exist and have to be accounted for as "something" within the universe at large. When your "instantaneous awareness" is produced . . . it is real and it interacts with the universe in a very identifiable way . . . we here would call it "Arequipa consciousness" . . .
I believe that Gaylen would call that the How - not atomic particles perhaps. And specific to me. Where the Dualistic theory falls , it seems to me, is insisting that they can never be accounted for in the monist sense. That just seems to be jumping the gun.
Quote:
NOT your body because we do not interact with it.
Don't we? I though I did. If I didn't I wouldn't know they were there, would I?
Quote:
There is no other form of energy like it and it puts together very unique thoughts and communicates them to us in the form of writing. It forms "ideas" and "concepts" that are real and exist as evidenced by your using them and communicating them to us. Step back from BEING the producer and try to see them as the universe sees them from afar . . . as energy composites. Try to visualize them coming from your head as energy forms within a Matrix-like view of our reality . . . a cool movie, but not very realistic.
Sorry mate, you accurately described concrete and material ways in which we developed a faculty from an instinct (writing from leaving handprints in the mud to show I was there) and then leaped to an entity that 'sees our thoughts from afar'. I see no logical, rational nor evidential reason to suppose that the dumbly rotating atomic particles of which everything was made or the unthinking forces that have them combine or repel can ever think or perceive other than through the long evidentially - supported process of particles, matter, minerals, planets, biochemicals, blobs, fish, dinosaurs, mammals, primates and us.
Leave the sci fi to hollywood and the fiction shelves.
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.
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.
