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'm not sure who/what you are responding to here, so it might have nothing to do with me, but nonetheless I'm going to use your comments as a way to springboard into a clarification that might be needed (and might not be related at all to anything you said). Emotions are certainly linked to instincts and chemical reactions, but I don't think the qualitative aspects of emotions are epistemologically reducible to chemistry (at least not in its current form, where there is no built-in theoretical potential for qualia). Ontologically speaking, an emotion might be a chemical processes, but our understanding of physics (upon which chemistry presumably depends) is inadequate to explain the emergence of qualia - i.e., the subjective feeling aspects of complex physical systems. We can, in principle, explain the emergence of complex patterns of chemical activity (e.g., instinctive drives for food, sex, self-defense, etc.), but we can't explain why any of these patterns should "feel like" anything when they emerge.
What worries me at the moment is that I am in danger of contradicting myself. Over the past few posts I've said some things that might be seen as logically incompatible:
(1) Qualia are non-computable.
(2) Qualia are physical (i.e., they play a causal role in the dynamics of physical states).
(3) An important feature of "being physical" is "being computable."
I've hinted at a potential resolutions to this threat of contradiction:
(A) I've explained that, to the extent that qualia are non-computable, qualia are fundamental and thus qualia (or, at least, some qualia or proto-qualia) get a "get out of jail free card" because the fundamental elements of Reality cannot, by definition, be explained in terms of anything "more fundamental". And we can't fault "physical" theories for having fundamental elements because physical theories are intended to be logical, and logic itself presupposes "given" premises.
I will also add a second resolution (which is sorta related to the first):
(B) The concept of "physical" is broader than just being computable. For example, another way to think about "being physical" is to specify that some entity, X, is physical if X plays a measurable role in causal chains and/or is an essential theoretical element in well-confirmed physical theories. So an abstract concept like, say, the number 3, could be considered to be "non-physical" insofar as it - in itself as an abstract concept - does not play a causal role in the physical world. (Only particular entities are causal; abstract universals are not causal.) But this sense in which "3" is non-physical is not a threat to physicalist theories of mind. The threats to physicalism are non-physical entities or "forces" (like "souls" or "God's will" or "prayer" or "wishing really, really hard and clicking your red slipper together") that can effect physical processes without being explainable in terms of computable natural laws.
So, bottom line, are qualia a threat to physical theories? I say NO because qualia, even thought they are "universals" like the number 3 (and thus "sorta like" non-physical), they are causally relevant, and thus not just abstract. They are fundamental / particular elements of Reality that have the uniquely weird and confusing property of being both "universals" (i.e., in some sense "repeatable") and "particulars" (causally relevant and, in some sense non-repeatable). We may need to resolve this tension with something like quantum "complimentarity" of the sort we see with "wave/particle" complimentarity.
That probably just confused the heck out of everybody.
I was responding to Tzaph's ideas mainly, but open to everyone.
I'd say that qualia are physiical or perhaps what physical stuff does physically, but 'non -computable' which i take to mean we we don't know how it is working and don't understand it so we can't measure, test or describe it. That gives it a Mysterious quality, but like a number of things that aren't understood, they may be in time.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-06-2017 at 04:26 PM..
...Science is a different approach, and it is the approach that I prefer.
you are correct in saying that science addresses only the superficial, and never the "inner essence" . Thus you are saying you have chosen to limit yourself to the superficial. Unless and until a person has a desire and willingness to learn more about the "inner reality" of anything, then they don't and they won't. your choice. free will.
you acknowledge and admit that science can never explore or address the inner reality. you seem to be saying the inner essence does not matter, only the superficial. curious. does it matter? does it have any value? why bother? what difference does it make?
"Science can only explore the "superficial." Never, even in principle, can science say anything about the essence or inner reality of anything which is deeper. It is this "intrinsic essence" that is deeper, that is behind and back of the superficial. It is the "inner essence" below appearances that animates "ordinary reality" (that which is superficial and can be measured by "science.") So science is very useful in measuring things at a purely superficial level. Which makes it handy and excellent at what it does, but very limited. Because it tells us nothing about the "essence" or "inner reality" of....anything.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-06-2017 at 06:26 PM..
...I WANT to believe "they're out there," but even more strongly I want to believe what's true, even if sometimes the truth is not quite as fun as I would like it to be. (Although, realistically, I suspect that the truth is far stranger and more interesting than anything any of us are imagining at the moment.)
this is a fascinating statement.
it's like there are many parts of yourself holding very different views , that are sort of arguing with each other and in disagreement. how would you describe those different parts of yourself? what is the conflict and why don't they agree?
if the truth is stranger and more interesting
then how are you going to explore it
if you only address the superficial, and ignore or exclude your investigation of the inner essence?
again....why not thoroughly investigate and explore both?
would you say "the truth" about someone, a person for instance, is revealed through their superficial characteristics?
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-06-2017 at 06:26 PM..
...If, in fact, we are essentially non-physical souls, then why bother to have physical bodies at all?
that's a really good question. worthy of a thread on its own,
probably not in this section of the forum though (atheism/agnosticism).
you could try it in different sections and see what responses you get. (eastern thought, pagan, new age, religion and spirituality)
why does a person take different types of classes at university? why does a person have different hobbies for instance sailboarding and counted cross stitch and opera? why bother to have children if you already have a bicycle?
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-06-2017 at 07:58 PM..
this is a fascinating statement.
it's like there are many parts of yourself holding very different views , that are sort of arguing with each other and in disagreement. how would you describe those different parts of yourself? what is the conflict and why don't they agree?
if the truth is stranger and more interesting
then how are you going to explore it
if you only address the superficial, and ignore or exclude your investigation of the inner essence?
again....why not thoroughly investigate and explore both?
would you say "the truth" about someone, a person for instance, is revealed through their superficial characteristics?
I take that to mean that reality turns out to be more fascinating than speculation. The scientific explanations we have for weather phenom now is way more interesting than Gods throwing lightening bolts. We know things about how the brain works that can explain demonic possession or how disease is spread and it's not witches casting spells. What exactly is consciousness may be far more interesting than the soul.
I take that to mean that reality turns out to be more fascinating than speculation. The scientific explanations we have for weather phenom now is way more interesting than Gods throwing lightening bolts. We know things about how the brain works that can explain demonic possession or how disease is spread and it's not witches casting spells. What exactly is consciousness may be far more interesting than the soul.
science quantum mechanics and physics tell us nothing about the "essence" or "inner reality" of things. Physics can only reveal Nature as She is "exposed to our method of observing and measuring" - not as She is "in Herself". Sciences describes the observable properties of things, not the inner reality of things.
there is a "superficial" aspect to anything we see. And there is an "inner reality" also to each thing we see.
Do you care what the inner essence of weather is?
Do you care about the inner essence of disease and symptoms?
Does it matter to you? why or why not?
is the planet a bunch of dirt and rocks and leaves and trees?
or is the planet a living communicating responsive interactive intelligence?
is a woman a bunch of bones and teeth and blood and guts?
or is she a living communicating responsive interactive intelligence?
science quantum mechanics and physics tell us nothing about the "essence" or "inner reality" of things. Physics can only reveal Nature as She is "exposed to our method of observing and measuring" - not as She is "in Herself". Sciences describes the observable properties of things, not the inner reality of things.
there is a "superficial" aspect to anything we see. And there is an "inner reality" also to each thing we see.
Do you care what the inner essence of weather is?
Do you care about the inner essence of disease and symptoms?
Does it matter to you? why or why not?
is the planet a bunch of dirt and rocks and leaves and trees?
or is the planet a living communicating responsive interactive intelligence?
is a woman a bunch of bones and teeth and blood and guts?
or is she a living communicating responsive interactive intelligence?
Yet. I think someday it will be understood. I'm not saying there aren't such things just that we don't know how to explain it. I don't think it's a good idea to try and jump to a conclusion until we have more information. Wondering, speculating and discussing are all fine as long as we don't try and lock ourselves into an explanation that we can't demonstrate. A soul is a possibility because we don't know, it's just not a certainty.
There is where I disagree (until I see strong enough evidence to convince me otherwise).... simply believing the traditional non-physical soul conceptwithout critical examination is simply a form of ignorance, plain and simple.
how can a person "critically examine" the "inner essence" of anything
if they exclude it from their area of investigation or exploration?
ignorance (of anything) is a lack of knowledge, information, experience
to remedy ignorance (of anything) requires investigation, exploration, education, participation
person A investigates reality only through exploring the superficial
person B investigates reality through exploring both the superficial and the inner essence of reality.
......we might consider this: I'm not convinced that the past is always "entirely fixed" in stone. Some facts are fixed (determinate), whereas others might be indeterminate. (This follows from "delayed choice experiments" in QM where, for example, the "path" of a photon from some distant galaxy is apparently not determinate in our universe until the photon is "observed" on earth.)
yup, that is correct.
the past is not fixed in stone. we can change it. just like we can change the future.
the "superficial" observed aspect of time is that it is "linear" with past present and future
the "inner essence" of time is that there is no such thing. there is only now (see post #273) all events are simultaneous. since all our lifetimes are happening at the same time, then what we do in one lifetime simultaneously affects what happens in the other lifetimes. since past present and future are all happening at the same time then what we do now changes our past and changes our future.
yup, you got it Gaylen.
you're preaching to the choir.
eternity is self-evident therefore. good news for the people who resist eternity. all they have to be OK with instead is now. most people can deal with now this moment just fine.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-06-2017 at 09:45 PM..
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.
