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 still haven't heard an explanation of where the unknown 95% measurement came from. The more I don't hear that figure validated, the less I shall believe it.
And of course, should "metaphor for a great amount" or "I don't care whether you believe it or not" pop their heads up, that will do for the whole claim of it being "a fact" .
I still haven't heard an explanation of where the unknown 95% measurement came from. The more I don't hear that figure validated, the less I shall believe it.
I believe Mystic is simply referring to the percentage of dark matter/energy:
Mystic is simply speculating that some of this extra/unknown mass in the universe will eventually play a role in explaining consciousness. I suspect he could be right about that, but it is, of course, highly speculative at this point.
BTW: If I am right about the causal role of qualia, then it follows that there should be some mass associated with qualia, so some portion of dark matter/energy could, indeed, be tied up in the qualitative aspect of Reality. Basically, a "zombie" universe (i.e., a universe that is atom-for-atom identical to our actual universe, but without qualia) should have less mass than our actual universe. And, if I am right when I claim that qualia are not "in the head" (i.e., qualia are aspects of Reality as a whole, such that it is Reality Itself that is the one and only Experiencer of qualia - not individual brains), then we would not expect to find the extra "qualitative mass" in the mass of individual brains so, once again, the indication is that dark matter/energy could be the hiding place for this qualitative mass.
And, another thing: Suppose, for the fun of it, you were to scramble every conscious brain in our universe so that there were no longer any qualitative experiences whatsoever. Ordinarily, we would expect the total mass of the universe to remain constant. After all, you have the same number of atoms swirling around; the only difference is that none of them are contributing to any of the dynamics typically associated with qualitative experience. But if am right, this unconscious universe should have less mass (seemingly in contradiction to the thermodynamic principle that total mass is a mathematical constant). This suggests a testable prediction associated with my theory (in principle, at least). Contrary to our current understanding of thermodynamics, our universe might have actually gained mass over eons as conscious systems evolved. This might be thought of as something like "organizational mass" - i.e., a type of mass associated specifically with systems organized in such a way as to experience subjective/qualitative content. That's a totally wild speculation, but I find it interesting. If we can figure out how to look for it, perhaps cosmologists could find it. Of course it is also possible that "unconscious" is just a "hidden" form of consciousness (something Mystic might favor), in which case the total mass wouldn't change, and we'd be back to square one insofar as our ability to identify a testable hypothesis is concerned.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 08-30-2017 at 10:00 AM..
Thank you. so 95% of the universe is unknown, just as he says, and the existence of Dark matter and (or) energy) is postulated rather than known. I must say I though we knew more than that. However, taking that as the case, it serves as no moire than a 'Darkest Africa' argument (1) If my own hypothesis is correct - that qualia and all the rest of it can be made up of the stuff we have and does not require a new Particle' or new anything, then of course looking for a mass beyond what there already is, together with "something more", or a a zombie universe, is simply not necessary. Dark Matter would then be like quantum. Mysterious, unexplained (which is nit the same as forever unexplainable, and really academic as regards the reliable everyday way our world works.
You may recall that, post original discussion, I doubted that there was such a thing as a "Quale" (your talk of Mass implies such a postulated new particle) and if anything I am more inclined to put weight on it being eventually explainable in terms of the stuff we already have, though it may require a bunch of new physics.
(1) This sorta died out in the 70's, the last manifestation being for crackpots to claim that the secrecy of the CCCP was a where all their looney ideas were hiding out and if we did not believe them we would all be sorry. The term stems from the unexplored Africa as a place to claim lost civilizations and the like, deriving from the "Here be Dragons" marking on the blank parts of Renaissance maps. Gaps for God just works the same way.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-30-2017 at 10:40 AM..
Reason: how did I ever survive without spellcheck?
Contrary to our current understanding of thermodynamics, our universe might have actually gained mass over eons as conscious systems evolved. This might be thought of as something like "organizational mass" - i.e., a type of mass associated specifically with systems organized in such a way as to experience subjective/qualitative content. That's a totally wild speculation, but I find it interesting. If we can figure out how to look for it, perhaps cosmologists could find it. Of course it is also possible that "unconscious" is just a "hidden" form of consciousness (something Mystic might favor), in which case the total mass wouldn't change, and we'd be back to square one insofar as our ability to identify a testable hypothesis is concerned.
I'd think it more likely that any aspect of the universe that supports or acts as some sort of substrate for consciousness simply provides consciousness "potential" or, if you will, matter / energy to be organized in particular ways for that purpose. I would look for such substrates to be organized in new or increased ways but not for new substate to be generated. Besides, that would beg the question of whether this currently undetected "je n'sais quoi" is produced by consciousness or is a prerequisite for it or simply some kind of catalyst. If consciousness forms your hypothetical "organizational mass", then it's a byproduct, not a prerequisite. And that, I think would raise bigger questions than the answers it would provide.
Thank you. so 95% of the universe is unknown, just as he says, and the existence of Dark matter and (or) energy) is postulated rather than known.
Just for clarity: We know it's out there because we can measure its effects. We just don't know what it is.
Quote:
... I doubted that there was such a thing as a "Quale"...
I still think that is cognitively impossible to doubt the existence of qualia, once the meaning of the term is correctly understood.
A bit of elaboration: 'Qualia' are the direct, raw qualities of experience, as such. Even the experience of "doubting qualia" has qualitative aspects (e.g., what it feels like to doubt X vs. what it is like to believe X, or love X, or hate X, etc. and, along another dimension: what it is like to doubt X vs. what it is like to doubt Y, or doubt Z, etc. These are all complex experiences and the concept of complexity implies constitutive elements that constitute the complexity. Qualia are the elements that constitute the complexity. Also, these are all different experience that can be distinguished from one another. The differences between complex experiences implies differences in their constituent elements. So, for example, the qualia constituting what it feels like to doubt X would have to be different, to some extent, than the qualia constituting what it feels like to believe X, or what it feels like to doubt Y. If the qualia constituting the feeling of doubting X were identical to the qualia constituting what it's like to believe X, then there would be no way for you to know whether you were "doubting" or "believing". If two experiences are qualitatively identical (i.e., composed of the same qualia) then, epistemologically, speaking you would have one experience, not two. (Ontologically speaking, there could be two experiences, even if they are epistemologically indistinguishable).
Anyway, doubting the existence of qualia is, essentially, doubting the existence of your own experience - which includes the very act of doubting. The roots are in Descartes' insight about the self-contradictory nature of a thinker doubting his own existence. What you can, doubt, of course, is almost any specific claim about the nature of qualia, e.g., "Qualia are non-physical" or "Qualia are physical" or "Qualia are brain processes" or "Qualia are brain-world interactions", etc. Qualia are a bit like dark matter: We know "something's there" but we don't know exactly "what it is" or how to characterized it, beyond the direct subjective experience of "that" (an inner subjective "pointing" at "what if feels like to see red" etc.).
Quote:
...(your talk of Mass implies such a postulated new particle) and if anything I am more inclined to put weight on it being eventually explainable in terms of the stuff we already have, though it may require a bunch of new physics.
I agree. The idea that qualia (as such) has mass is a speculation that I find interesting, but I'm not necessarily trying to defend it.
Consider this: I claim that qualia are physical:
To be physical is to be composed of matter/energy and/or some aspect or property of reality that must be postulated in order to account for the behavior of matter/energy. This is a broad definition of 'physical' that allows things like the truths of mathematics to be "physical" even though they are not, strictly speaking, material. I think that we will eventually discover that certain ways of thinking about qualia will turn out to be logically necessary in order to account for the measurable behaviors of matter. Thus I say that qualia are "physical" even if, like the truths of math, they are not material.
Suppose, for a moment, that you were to stumble upon a primitive group of people who have never learned the concept of math. They never even count anything, let alone perform calculations of any sort. If you start to teach them math, you will be introducing them to a whole fundamental realm of Reality about which, previously, they had no clue. They could learn truths that they never even imagined before. I suspect that, with regard to qualia, we are in a similar position as this primitive tribe. There is some entire fundamental realm of experience/thinking about which we currently have no clue. A whole different way of "counting" and "calculating" (so to speak) that would allow us to grasp truths that we currently can't grasp. Just as we can't explain "atoms" without some reference to math (e.g., the number electrons, protons, etc.), we can't (per my hypothesis) really explain "qualia" without reference to some currently mysterious "quath", let's say - a means of thinking that is perhaps a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative or, perhaps, an entirely new dimension of thought altogether. (Consider an analogy: If "quantitative" and "qualitative" are "red and yellow" then quath might introduced "green" or, perhaps, a whole new "primary color" like "blue".) Once we learn "quath" we can "measure the relationship" (so to speak) between "seeing a blue wall" and "that annoying feeling of hitting my funny bone". Perhaps we could also calculate various dimensions of experiences that no human has ever had.
My job, simply put, is to invent or discover "quath".
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
I'd think it more likely that any aspect of the universe that supports or acts as some sort of substrate for consciousness simply provides consciousness "potential" or, if you will, matter / energy to be organized in particular ways for that purpose.
I agree. But figuring out the nature of "potential" is very tricky. I had a thread on that somewhere over in the philosophy forum. Loosely, I draw a parallel between "potential-for-consciousness" and "unconscious." A mind in deep dreamless sleep is potentially conscious, even though no qualia, as such, are being experienced at the moment. But, via holism, I expand this concept. Reality Itself (Being...Existence...whatever you like to call it) just is "potential-for-consciousness" (like a sleeping mind). Mystic argues that Reality, at its ontological core, is conscious whereas I argue that it is unconscious as a matter of logical priority (which is not necessarily the same as "temporal priority"). Or, more likely, conscious/unconscious is like a yin/yang affair. Each implies the other and each is equally fundamental. Perhaps "quath" will help us sort out these relationships and the nature of the transition from one to another.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 08-31-2017 at 10:10 AM..
Your argument is, as always, excellent. I accept that Qualia exists as an effect rather than exist as a discrete new thing in matter (e.g an unknown particle). They are physical of course as an effect. But saying that the is within the physical rather tends to eliminate it as subjective, does it not? Unexplainable in terms of physicalism is not the same as saying it is not physical - which you may not be doing in any case.
To put the point plainly, experience is in the physical, but I so not believe we should be looking for an experience -particle. I tend to think it is just the present matter doing stuff in a way that we can't explain.
Subjective, in that case means that we are not consciously aware of what's is going on. Instinct is part subjective in the sense that we are aware of the effect or reaction, but we do not consciously initiate it. Though of often have an idea why and even how it happens.
Subjective/subjectivity in the sense of matter/energy taking a form (say a soul, or consciousness outside of the physical mind and body) is not something I am persuaded of. I followed your argument for perpetuation of consciousness, and I concede that it is not logically impossible (Indeed I believe I argued against your suggestion that it was logically not possible), but I have to admit I couldn't follow your argument showing that it was logically likely because of the nature of consciousness/experience.
So subjective can be subconscious or unconscious, unexplained in term of human physicality and beyond present beliefs about matter/energy and the physical.
I accept the first as true, the second meaning as plausible or probable and the third as unproven and speculative. However it depends on how uses uses the term.
Mystic is simply speculating that some of this extra/unknown mass in the universe will eventually play a role in explaining consciousness. I suspect he could be right about that, but it is, of course, highly speculative at this point.
BTW: If I am right about the causal role of qualia, then it follows that there should be some mass associated with qualia, so some portion of dark matter/energy could, indeed, be tied up in the qualitative aspect of Reality. Basically, a "zombie" universe (i.e., a universe that is atom-for-atom identical to our actual universe, but without qualia) should have less mass than our actual universe. And, if I am right when I claim that qualia are not "in the head" (i.e., qualia are aspects of Reality as a whole, such that it is Reality Itself that is the one and only Experiencer of qualia - not individual brains), then we would not expect to find the extra "qualitative mass" in the mass of individual brains so, once again, the indication is that dark matter/energy could be the hiding place for this qualitative mass.
And, another thing: Suppose, for the fun of it, you were to scramble every conscious brain in our universe so that there were no longer any qualitative experiences whatsoever. Ordinarily, we would expect the total mass of the universe to remain constant. After all, you have the same number of atoms swirling around; the only difference is that none of them are contributing to any of the dynamics typically associated with qualitative experience. But if am right, this unconscious universe should have less mass (seemingly in contradiction to the thermodynamic principle that total mass is a mathematical constant). This suggests a testable prediction associated with my theory (in principle, at least). Contrary to our current understanding of thermodynamics, our universe might have actually gained mass over eons as conscious systems evolved. This might be thought of as something like "organizational mass" - i.e., a type of mass associated specifically with systems organized in such a way as to experience subjective/qualitative content. That's a totally wild speculation, but I find it interesting. If we can figure out how to look for it, perhaps cosmologists could find it. Of course it is also possible that "unconscious" is just a "hidden" form of consciousness (something Mystic might favor), in which case the total mass wouldn't change, and we'd be back to square one insofar as our ability to identify a testable hypothesis is concerned.
I really admire your explanatory skill, Gaylen. It is clear from your posts that you DO understand where I am coming from. I understand your resistance to my ultimate conclusion because you lack the experience of it. I assure you, if you DO experience it, you will have no further doubts about it whatsoever.
Anyway, doubting the existence of qualia is, essentially, doubting the existence of your own experience - which includes the very act of doubting. The roots are in Descartes' insight about the self-contradictory nature of a thinker doubting his own existence. What you can, doubt, of course, is almost any specific claim about the nature of qualia, e.g., "Qualia are non-physical" or "Qualia are physical" or "Qualia are brain processes" or "Qualia are brain-world interactions", etc. Qualia are a bit like dark matter: We know "something's there" but we don't know exactly "what it is" or how to characterized it, beyond the direct subjective experience of "that" (an inner subjective "pointing" at "what if feels like to see red" etc.).
....
or, to paraphrase:
"Anyway, doubting the existence of God is, essentially, doubting the existence of your own experience - which includes the very act of doubting. The roots are in Descartes' insight about the self-contradictory nature of someone with a soul doubting his own source of life. What you can doubt, of course, is almost any specific claim about the nature of God, e.g., "God is non-physical" or "God is physical" or "God is in here" or "God is out there", etc. God is a bit like dark matter: We know "God is there" but we don't know exactly "what God is" or how to characterize God, beyond the direct subjective experience of "connection to God" (an inner subjective "pointing" at what if feels like to experience the Divine etc.)."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
...
Suppose, for a moment, that you were to stumble upon a primitive group of people who have never learned the concept of math. They never even count anything, let alone perform calculations of any sort. If you start to teach them math, you will be introducing them to a whole fundamental realm of Reality about which, previously, they had no clue. They could learn truths that they never even imagined before. I suspect that, with regard to qualia, we are in a similar position as this primitive tribe. There is some entire fundamental realm of experience/thinking about which we currently have no clue. A whole different way of "counting" and "calculating" (so to speak) that would allow us to grasp truths that we currently can't grasp. Just as we can't explain "atoms" without some reference to math (e.g., the number electrons, protons, etc.), we can't (per my hypothesis) really explain "qualia" without reference to some currently mysterious "quath", let's say - a means of thinking that is perhaps a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative or, perhaps, an entirely new dimension of thought altogether. (Consider an analogy: If "quantitative" and "qualitative" are "red and yellow" then quath might introduced "green" or, perhaps, a whole new "primary color" like "blue".) Once we learn "quath" we can "measure the relationship" (so to speak) between "seeing a blue wall" and "that annoying feeling of hitting my funny bone". Perhaps we could also calculate various dimensions of experiences that no human has ever had.
My job, simply put, is to invent or discover "quath".
.
or to paraphrase:
"Suppose, for a moment, that you were to stumble upon a primitive group of people who have never understood the concept of God. They never know about their own soul, let alone consider the roles of their own soul within the physical body. If you start to teach them about God, you will be introducing them to a whole fundamental realm of Reality about which, previously, they had no clue. They could learn truths that they never even imagined before. I suspect that, with regard to God, we are in a similar position as this primitive tribe. There is some entire fundamental realm of experience/thinking about which we currently have no clue.
"A whole different way of "soul" and "body" (so to speak) that would allow us to grasp truths that we currently can't grasp. Just as we can't explain "soul" without some reference to God (e.g., the soul before it enters the body, during a physical lifetime, after it leaves the body) , we can't (per my hypothesis) really explain "God" without reference to some currently mysterious "soul", let's say - a means of thinking that is perhaps a synthesis of physical finite body and eternal non-physical soul, perhaps, an entirely new dimension of thought altogether for this primitive tribe.
"(Consider an analogy: If "body" and "soul" are "many different physical bodies worn by one eternal soul" then God might be introduced through "reincarnation" or, perhaps, a whole new "primary experience" like "accumulated growth over dozens of lifetimes" .) Once we learn "God" we can "measure the growth and progress of our soul" (so to speak) between "why is this happening to me its not fair" and "that annoying experience is perfect for my soul growth and makes perfect sense" . Perhaps we could also recognize and appreciate various dimensions of insight into experiences that we have never had.
"Our job, simply put, is to invent or discover our connection to "God".
A bit of elaboration: 'Qualia' are the direct, raw qualities of experience, as such. Even the experience of "doubting qualia" has qualitative aspects (e.g., what it feels like to doubt X vs. what it is like to believe X, or love X, or hate X, etc. and, along another dimension: what it is like to doubt X vs. what it is like to doubt Y, or doubt Z, etc. These are all complex experiences and the concept of complexity implies constitutive elements that constitute the complexity. Qualia are the elements that constitute the complexity. Also, these are all different experience that can be distinguished from one another. The differences between complex experiences implies differences in their constituent elements. So, for example, the qualia constituting what it feels like to doubt X would have to be different, to some extent, than the qualia constituting what it feels like to believe X, or what it feels like to doubt Y. If the qualia constituting the feeling of doubting X were identical to the qualia constituting what it's like to believe X, then there would be no way for you to know whether you were "doubting" or "believing". If two experiences are qualitatively identical (i.e., composed of the same qualia) then, epistemologically, speaking you would have one experience, not two. (Ontologically speaking, there could be two experiences, even if they are epistemologically indistinguishable).
Anyway, doubting the existence of qualia is, essentially, doubting the existence of your own experience - which includes the very act of doubting. The roots are in Descartes' insight about the self-contradictory nature of a thinker doubting his own existence. What you can, doubt, of course, is almost any specific claim about the nature of qualia, e.g., "Qualia are non-physical" or "Qualia are physical" or "Qualia are brain processes" or "Qualia are brain-world interactions", etc. Qualia are a bit like dark matter: We know "something's there" but we don't know exactly "what it is" or how to characterized it, beyond the direct subjective experience of "that" (an inner subjective "pointing" at "what if feels like to see red" etc.).
nipped for space
The first bold kind of seems self evident. You show me a picture of something and I believe you. If I never heard of the event "X" before then I might not believe you. your qualia, I call my "brain state" is different with the two events.
No, Doubting qualia is not doubting our existence of our experience. Doubting qualia is doubting the application of it a it relates to our experiences as explained by you. I think, , I think.
Mystic is simply speculating that some of this extra/unknown mass in the universe will eventually play a role in explaining consciousness. I suspect he could be right about that, but it is, of course, highly speculative at this point.
BTW: If I am right about the causal role of qualia, then it follows that there should be some mass associated with qualia, so some portion of dark matter/energy could, indeed, be tied up in the qualitative aspect of Reality. Basically, a "zombie" universe (i.e., a universe that is atom-for-atom identical to our actual universe, but without qualia) should have less mass than our actual universe. And, if I am right when I claim that qualia are not "in the head" (i.e., qualia are aspects of Reality as a whole, such that it is Reality Itself that is the one and only Experiencer of qualia - not individual brains), then we would not expect to find the extra "qualitative mass" in the mass of individual brains so, once again, the indication is that dark matter/energy could be the hiding place for this qualitative mass.
And, another thing: Suppose, for the fun of it, you were to scramble every conscious brain in our universe so that there were no longer any qualitative experiences whatsoever. Ordinarily, we would expect the total mass of the universe to remain constant. After all, you have the same number of atoms swirling around; the only difference is that none of them are contributing to any of the dynamics typically associated with qualitative experience. But if am right, this unconscious universe should have less mass (seemingly in contradiction to the thermodynamic principle that total mass is a mathematical constant). This suggests a testable prediction associated with my theory (in principle, at least). Contrary to our current understanding of thermodynamics, our universe might have actually gained mass over eons as conscious systems evolved. This might be thought of as something like "organizational mass" - i.e., a type of mass associated specifically with systems organized in such a way as to experience subjective/qualitative content. That's a totally wild speculation, but I find it interesting. If we can figure out how to look for it, perhaps cosmologists could find it. Of course it is also possible that "unconscious" is just a "hidden" form of consciousness (something Mystic might favor), in which case the total mass wouldn't change, and we'd be back to square one insofar as our ability to identify a testable hypothesis is concerned.
I agree, I think dark matter must play a role. Every part of the universe play, plays, and played a role in us and how behave today. How may be speculative, but that it did is not speculative to me.
A claim lost, shunned, and dehumanized, by many of the hard core anti-religious type.
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.
.
, I think. 
