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.
Actually, it might not be so pointless. If you finally understand the pointlessness of trying to give a complete description of qualia via purely objective means (which, I think, maybe you now do - qualia being "inside the box" that "outside the room"), then we could, potentially, move on to discuss what type of contribution phenomenology might make to science without forfeiting the objectivity of science. Maybe sometime in a different thread.
No, it is a problem for materialism insofar as materialism keeps itself yoked to the methodological constrains of purely objective data. But it is not a problem for us - nor is it necessarily an insurmountable problem for science, more broadly construed.
Probably no need to torture yourself with that again. I think you understand the law of identity just fine. X is X. Anything that is not-X is not X. Pretty mundane, really. I offered the video mostly for comic relief. I would only add that a significant number of important proofs in logic and math probably could not be composed without using the law of identity as a premise.
So pleased that you two seem to be finding agreement in denying the existence of Self. Until you explain WHO OR WHAT is subjectively experiencing and WHERE it resides within the "basic stuff" that comprises our Reality, you are just spinning your wheels in self-congratulation while pinning your hopes on some ill-defined phenomenology. Our thoughts are not individual "mental particles" or individual ANYTHING. They are a unique resonant neural composite manifesting within the unified field that has a center or ground of Being (Self) that DOES the thinking, feeling and subjectively experiencing. Your efforts to deny its existence while retaining its output is why your efforts to reduce everything to "physicality" will fail.
a person has to participate in the process to know it more fully.
that's why reading about something or studying facts about something is not the same as first hand experience.
Yes, exactly. In the tradition of phenomenology, this is called "lived experience" and a fundamental claim is that lived experience cannot be fully reduced to "book learning," so to speak.
Quote:
"understanding a process" and "using the process" are not the same thing.
I can fly in a jet (use it) without understanding how it works.
True. A dog can have lived experience without understanding any of the technicalities of how that experience comes to be.
Quote:
A person can understand how a jet works without ever flying in a jet or building a jet.
But knowing how a jet works involves objective knowledge, and flying in a jet involves mostly objectively describable phenomena, so the analogy is a bit weak. Reducing objective to objective is not major conceptual problem.
So I would rephrase: A person cannot subjectively experience what it is like to fly in a jet without, in some sense, comprehending information that cannot be fully reduced to book learning. (If he has ridden in a car or on a roller coaster before, he can probably conjure, subjectively in his imagination, what it like to fly in a jet by reading the literarily evocative words of someone who is describing what it is like to fly in a jet, but this exercise of subjective imagination is, ultimately, ground on his own subjective lived experiences of some relevant sorts. Even the most poetically evocative words will fall short if they fall on the ears of someone who does not have the subjective capacity to imagine the lived experiences that the writer is trying to convey.)
Actually, it might not be so pointless. If you finally understand the pointlessness of trying to give a complete description of qualia via purely objective means (which, I think, maybe you now do - qualia being "inside the box" that "outside the room"), then we could, potentially, move on to discuss what type of contribution phenomenology might make to science without forfeiting the objectivity of science. Maybe sometime in a different thread.
No, it is a problem for materialism insofar as materialism keeps itself yoked to the methodological constrains of purely objective data. But it is not a problem for us - nor is it necessarily an insurmountable problem for science, more broadly construed.
Probably no need to torture yourself with that again. I think you understand the law of identity just fine. X is X. Anything that is not-X is not X. Pretty mundane, really. I offered the video mostly for comic relief. I would only add that a significant number of important proofs in logic and math probably could not be composed without using the law of identity as a premise.
Thankx Tzaph and Gaylen both. I completed the vid and was surprised that it ended up with a roundabout way of saying 'avoid equivocations'. Perhaps identity -characteristics is a philosophical grammar of what we know is wrong because informal logical fallacy lists say 'this is invalid'. But that hasn't relevance to subjectivity - at least the kinds i was trying to cover in my posts. Yes. I am not you and certainly not It is something that causes us to see through a glass darkly when trying to construct models of reality using scientific method applied to raw data.
It is not something that requires materialist explanation however, nor is it a problem that we can do anything about.
And i don't see how it relates to qualia as we each have our own individual qualia (product of the mind) and the only problem was 'Your red may not be the dame as mine' (which is say is an unnecessary multiplication entities bearing in mind that we use the same circumstantial descriptions of color (warm or cool) and the same mechanism ought to produce consistent results in different human machines. So the 'problem' of subjectivity (e.g i am looking at my own consciousness although I am One with it as much as I can be with anything, and that is a limitation we have to live with.
So pleased that you two seem to be finding agreement in denying the existence of Self. Until you explain WHO OR WHAT is subjectively experiencing and WHERE it resides within the "basic stuff" that comprises our Reality, you are just spinning your wheels in self-congratulation while pinning your hopes on some ill-defined phenomenology. Our thoughts are not individual "mental particles" or individual ANYTHING. They are a unique resonant neural composite manifesting within the unified field that has a center or ground of Being (Self) that DOES the thinking, feeling and subjectively experiencing. Your efforts to deny its existence while retaining its output is why your efforts to reduce everything to "physicality" will fail.
And i don't see how it relates to qualia as we each have our own individual qualia (product of the mind) and the only problem was 'Your red may not be the same as mine'...
Actually, I have not been think of that as a problem at all. As a physicalist, I believe that you and I FAPP see "the same red" insofar as anyone could have any practical concerns about it. I'm not concerned about radical skepticism, although it is true that subjectivity leaves some glimmer of possible doubt. It is not a doubt that I care about for any practical purpose.
Quote:
...and the same mechanism ought to produce consistent results in different human machines.
Yes. We agree on that.
Quote:
So the 'problem' of subjectivity (e.g i am looking at my own consciousness although I am One with it as much as I can be with anything, and that is a limitation we have to live with.
Yes, it is a limitation that we have to live with. But when dealing, philosophically, with the theoretical mechanisms of consciousness, it is not a limitation that we can simply ignore. And we don't have to ignore it. We can actually deal with it head-on. According to physicalism, there probably ought to be objective truths about inter-subjective experiences. This is the foot-in-the-door for science to investigate consciousness - including its subjective aspects - in a primarily (tho, of course, not purely) objective way. We are not completely stuck. We have options. We are simply not yet using all of our options.
Yes, exactly. In the tradition of phenomenology, this is called "lived experience" and a fundamental claim is that lived experience cannot be fully reduced to "book learning," so to speak.
True. A dog can have lived experience without understanding any of the technicalities of how that experience comes to be.
But knowing how a jet works involves objective knowledge, and flying in a jet involves mostly objectively describable phenomena, so the analogy is a bit weak. Reducing objective to objective is not major conceptual problem.
So I would rephrase: A person cannot subjectively experience what it is like to fly in a jet without, in some sense, comprehending information that cannot be fully reduced to book learning. (If he has ridden in a car or on a roller coaster before, he can probably conjure, subjectively in his imagination, what it like to fly in a jet by reading the literarily evocative words of someone who is describing what it is like to fly in a jet, but this exercise of subjective imagination is, ultimately, ground on his own subjective lived experiences of some relevant sorts. Even the most poetically evocative words will fall short if they fall on the ears of someone who does not have the subjective capacity to imagine the lived experiences that the writer is trying to convey.)
i disagree on this part. if we can't experience or learn or feel something that we don't already know, then we would never learn anything new or feel anything new or experience anything new. So I don't buy that.
look at MPD, a lifelong diehard atheist whose entire focus is on secular meditation since he dismissed the non secular parts as vacuous nonsense. and what does he encounter? "the Divine." he had no framework for that and considers it woo and poppycock. (he still does for the most part.) yet he nevertheless heard and felt and got the "message" and the "experience."
so I disagree.
someone in the most abject circumstances for their whole entire life can hear a piece of music, or feel the kindness in the eyes of a stranger, or read words of encouragement that resonate with absolutely nothing in their life, and it can change their world. Many people have had this happen. That is the power of art and music and kindness, to evoke feelings, ignite hope, fuel inspiration. it takes only a tiny match to bring light to a very dark cavern. To say light can only exist where there is already light is not the case.
i disagree on this part. if we can't experience or learn or feel something that we don't already know, then we would never learn anything new or feel anything new or experience anything new. So I don't buy that.
Me neither. I don't think we actually disagree here. I believe that we can and do spontaneously learn new qualitative information. In fact, we have to. I don't believe that I started out in the womb always already knowing what it is like to see sky blue or smell cheese, and I certainly didn't know what it feels like to know that 2+3=5. These qualitative experiences had to emerge, but they emerged from the qualitative (or proto-qualitative) essence of Reality. You can see blue for the first time, but it won't be just because you were reading about blue, even if the writing is poetic. Qualitative lived experiences of some relevant sorts will need to play a precursor role. Poetry works precisely because the reader brings to the table some sorts of relevant lived experiences to relate to the poetically-rendered words. And since each listener brings a different history, each will experience the poem in a different way. Music, even more so. My dog refuses to dance to even the catchiest tune.
Actually, I have not been think of that as a problem at all. As a physicalist, I believe that you and I FAPP see "the same red" insofar as anyone could have any practical concerns about it. I'm not concerned about radical skepticism, although it is true that subjectivity leaves some glimmer of possible doubt. It is not a doubt that I care about for any practical purpose.
Yes. We agree on that.
Yes, it is a limitation that we have to live with. But when dealing, philosophically, with the theoretical mechanisms of consciousness, it is not a limitation that we can simply ignore. And we don't have to ignore it. We can actually deal with it head-on. According to physicalism, there probably ought to be objective truths about inter-subjective experiences. This is the foot-in-the-door for science to investigate consciousness - including its subjective aspects - in a primarily (tho, of course, not purely) objective way. We are not completely stuck. We have options. We are simply not yet using all of our options.
Yeah, that makes sense. But I think this is one for science. Perhaps philosophy have identified problems or possible problems, but it's a bit like quantum. It is a problem that it seems not to mesh with the physics of Newton and Einstein. The connecting rods and cogs so to speak are not known. It would obviously be premature for philosophy to say that this can never be resolved and obvious to say that it's a problem.
However, I don't see the qualia mechanism question as in the same league. input brain signals and output brain signals are far more similar than classic physics and quantum, and it how they connect and work together is the Question, and it's hard enough. That my qualia are not yours is obvious and hardly a problem at all. That they are mechanically the same is a first choice and knowing what mine are like is as near to knowing what yours are like as makes no difference.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-07-2018 at 03:47 PM..
Me neither. I don't think we actually disagree here. I believe that we can and do spontaneously learn new qualitative information. In fact, we have to. I don't believe that I started out in the womb always already knowing what it is like to see sky blue or smell cheese, and I certainly didn't know what it feels like to know that 2+3=5. These qualitative experiences had to emerge, but they emerged from the qualitative (or proto-qualitative) essence of Reality. You can see blue for the first time, but it won't be just because you were reading about blue, even if the writing is poetic. Qualitative lived experiences of some relevant sorts will need to play a precursor role. Poetry works precisely because the reader brings to the table some sorts of relevant lived experiences to relate to the poetically-rendered words. And since each listener brings a different history, each will experience the poem in a different way. Music, even more so. My dog refuses to dance to even the catchiest tune.
you are still saying the reader brings "relevant lived experiences" and I disagree.
you are still saying "relevant lived experiences need to play a precursor role" and I totally disagree.
a life of utter bleakness and despair that encounters kindness has no relevant lived experiences to that whatsoever. someone for decades who has been oppressed and beaten down and humiliated that encounters being treated with dignity and respect, has no relevant experience that is a precursor.
so I disagree with what you are saying.
and I have no idea what you mean by this: "they emerged from the qualitative (or proto-qualitative) essence of Reality."
So pleased that you two seem to be finding agreement in denying the existence of Self. Until you explain WHO OR WHAT is subjectively experiencing and WHERE it resides within the "basic stuff" that comprises our Reality, you are just spinning your wheels in self-congratulation while pinning your hopes on some ill-defined phenomenology. Our thoughts are not individual "mental particles" or individual ANYTHING. They are a unique resonant neural composite manifesting within the unified field that has a center or ground of Being (Self) that DOES the thinking, feeling and subjectively experiencing. Your efforts to deny its existence while retaining its output is why your efforts to reduce everything to "physicality" will fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Will you take that O Master, or shall I?
That you think you are remotely up to the task is the single most frustrating aspect of your mindset, Arq.
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.
Will you take that O Master, or shall I?