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 sorry if I am frustrating but repeatedly warning lights go on. " Using just the abstract concepts of current physics, color-deprived Mary will never fully comprehend red, " sounds like a statement that is falling apart even before you unpack it. We can never fully comprehend what love or hate or music does with us, but material biology and physics look very likely to understand it, and knowing what all of our atoms are doing at the time is not where to look, it is in evolution and genetics. So it doesn't matter that mary doesn't understand the seeing of red, or any other colour, or just black for that matter, unless she understands the mechanism if bio mechanics ever explains it, and frankly if you say that will not convey the experience of it to someone who has never seen it, I'll shrug and say that it is irrelevant to discovering and explaining the mechanism of qualia. The experience of colour or taste of pain is what it is and I can already see how the explanation of the experience in mechanical terms, and the experience of the experiencer looking at the experience could be explained by that, too.
I don't find anything more that I need to worry about and anything More than cannot possibly (in theory) be explained by this is just not something that materialism needs to worry about any more than we need to worry about evolution never being able to explain what meaning our lives have in the universal scheme of things.
You English have some awesome shows. If they ran something like this over here people's heads would implode.
The energy is neither created nor destroyed principle has been established by scientific method.
This is one of the most misunderstood Laws of all time. People use this Law to wishfully think that it means when we die our conscious energy lives on.
Hint: Your statement is only accurate for closed systems. What do you think happens to the energy of a candle flame once the candle flame has been extinguished?
And I am bewildered that you seemingly don't grasp the arguments, which seem so obvious to me that I don't see how anyone can possibly miss the point of them. And you are not alone, which deepens the puzzle to a fascinating level. There are innumerable complex and highly controversial arguments in philosophy and science, but at the moment I can't think of a single other debate that has this level of bafflement for me. In every other debate, I can always see the other side well enough that I could do a fairly good devil's advocate argument. But with this, I'm not sure that I could do a good devils advocate. The Hard Problem seems to be unique in this respect (for me, at least).
I used the "you can't derive an even number from odd numbers" as a way to express how the debate over the HP feels to me. I think you might have mistaken my intention when I offered that analogy - seemingly thinking (if I recall correctly) that I was offering an argument for something, but instead, I was simply trying to express/evoke my feeling of frustration with the HP debate.
Here if you can, for a moment, switch from "discussion" mode to "evoke a feeling" mode. (If I could do this as a poem, that would be great, but...) Imagine, for a moment, that you meet an intelligent person who insists that mathematicians will someday show how to derive even from odd. (They use the "promissory note" response, as it were.) Anyone with even a fairly basic understanding of math can easily intuitively see that, as a matter of principle, that promissory note can never be paid off. To me, the logic of subjectivity is just as obvious as the logic of the even/odd challenge, so I am continuously shocked by my inability to explain why, in principle, the abstract concepts of current physics will never be sufficient to reductively explain the concrete "raw feels" of qualia.
In other words: Using just the abstract concepts of current physics, color-deprived Mary will never fully comprehend red, even if she has infinite ability to track the movements of every subatomic particle, every wave of energy, every higher-level emergent pattern of activity, etc. In the even/odd analogy, the objective/quantitative concepts of physics are the "odd numbers" (so to speak) and the "raw feels" of qualia are the "even numbers" (as it were).
I keep hoping that someone who can clearly see both sides of this discussion will eventually fall into these threads and explain to me how you are looking at this, such that you can't see that which I find so obvious. And it would be super-duper extracalifragilistically cool if they could show me that my intuitions are actually wrong about this, despite my feelings of certainty. Wow! That, for me, would be like winning the Powerball - maybe even better.
You express my frustration perfectly, as well, Gaylen. We see it, but for some Godforsaken (pun) reason they can't! I attributed it to a concrete mindset but that clearly is insufficient to explain it.
Thank you, old mate. you are now back on my ****-list.
As I say, I am contending against my feeling that the pair of you 'see' something that isn't really there ; call it "Abstract" and then ferret about for anaologies (that fall apart under examination) to try to validate it. I am of course aware that Gaylen has a masters' degree in this stuff so he ought to know what he is talking about, but try as i might I feel I'm trying to grasp at mental mist.
I used the "you can't derive an even number from odd numbers" as a way to express how the debate over the HP feels to me.
Of course I totally screwed up that post. I said it backwards. "Even from odd" is easy (e.g., 3+3=6). I meant to say "odd from even" throughout the post. Silly goose, I am.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I'm sorry if I am frustrating...
No need to be sorry. It is not a bad sort of frustration for me, but wonderfully delicious, in a weirdly annoying sorta way. It's a puzzle, and I love puzzles. It's also an excellent opportunity for me to learn something, if I could just climb out of whatever hole I'm stuck in. It's also an opportunity to pad my retirement nest with a bit of fame and fortune. You are in a minority position here, but it's not a minority of one. A few highly influential philosophers agree with you (thus the "Hard Problem Debate" rather than the Hard Problem Consensus"), so anyone who can figure out how to break the ice between us will probably gain immortality, of sorts, in the history of philosophy (and, depending on the nature of the problem/solution it could have impact far beyond mere academic philosophy). Aside from the sheer joy of trying to solve a puzzle, this is another reason why I am so tireless and tenacious about this. It's like a billion-dollar gemstone in the gutter, just inches from my grasp. I'm looking for a tool to extend my reach, but - so far - keep coming up short.
Quote:
...but repeatedly warning lights go on. " Using just the abstract concepts of current physics, color-deprived Mary will never fully comprehend red, " sounds like a statement that is falling apart even before you unpack it.
I want to understand those "warning lights" because I suspect they at the core of the problem. "Mary" just a variation of the old classic "How to explain color to a blind person." No combination of words and numbers will do it because the experience of color is subjective (and concrete/qualitative) whereas words and numbers are objective (abstract/quantitative). Words and numbers can evoke qualitative experience (e.g., poetry, etc.), but they can only evoke qualitative experiences in people who already have qualitative experiences of a relevant sort. The words and number merely have to bring previously experienced qualia "into focus" - they don't have pull qualia out of a void.
...I used the "you can't derive an even number from odd numbers" as a way to express how the debate over the HP feels to me. ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
Of course I totally screwed up that post. I said it backwards. "Even from odd" is easy (e.g., 3+3=6). I meant to say "odd from even" throughout the post
Of course we can get an odd number from an even number. Take the even number 10. Break it in half = 5. There is your odd number.
Of course we can get an odd number from an even number. Take the even number 10. Break it in half = 5. There is your odd number.
Yeah, sorry. In the earlier post I was referring to addition and multiplication and in this post I just used the lazy shorthand "odd from even". I try to be careful with these posts but, realistically, due to time constraints, I do them rather quickly on the fly, so I guess stupid mistakes and lazy shortcuts will creep in. And when these mistakes happen, I find that it creates a wide pathway for people to go off on tangents and completely miss the point I was aiming at. There is no "principle of charity" in these threads. Instead of looking for the central point and trying to interpret statements in a way that make the perspective as strong as possible, most people swoop in on every possible technicality in order to find the worst possible interpretation, and then the whole discussion sails off into technical detours that completely sidetrack from the core issue. I'm not saying that details are not ultimately important, but they too often get used as an excuse to go on irrelevant side ventures.
And a reminder: My "odd from even" example was not meant as an argument for anything. It was just my (apparently bad) way of trying to express a feeling that I have. One of my actual "arguments" (which is more like what philosophers call an "intuition pump") is the "Mary" example, that (as I see it) clearly demonstrates that there is knowledge that is inaccessible to current physics, insofar as current physics is driven solely by objective/abstract/quantifiable data, and that kind of data - by itself - can't fully convey the subjective/concrete/qualitative aspects of experience. Once Mary leaves her colorless environment, she learns something about red that she could not have learned by just reading about red. And what she learns it NOT trivial and should not be ignored. On the contrary, what she learns about red by subjectively experiencing red is ultimately the most important thing to know about red for the purposes of any discussion about spirituality, because THAT is the "fire in the equations."
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 05-04-2018 at 10:19 AM..
Yeah, sorry. In the earlier post I was referring to addition and multiplication and in this post I just used the lazy shorthand "odd from even". I try to be careful with these post but, realistically, due to time constraints, I do them rather quickly on the fly, so I guess stupid mistakes and lazy shortcuts will creep in. And when these mistakes happen, I find that it creates a wide pathway for people to go off on tangents and completely miss the point I was aiming at. There is no "principle of charity" in these threads. Instead of looking for the central point and trying to interpret statements in a way that make the perspective as strong as possible, most people swoop in on every possible technicality in order to find the worst possible interpretation, and then the whole discussion sails off into technical detours that completely sidetrack from the core issue. I'm not saying that details are not ultimately important, but they too often get used as an excuse to go on side ventures....
it's about clear communication that is effective in conveying a message.
"muddy" (not clear) communication gives the appearance of "muddy" (not clear) thinking and "muddy" (not clear) logic.
it has nothing to do with "worst possible interpretation"
it is reflecting back what was said and pointing out what is problematic.
if someone is not clear in their thinking, logic, and communication it erodes credibility and reliability of (a) the message and (b) the source of the message. If someone wants to "make the perspective as strong as possible" that is their job through effective communication, not the reader's job to unearth or figure out what they are trying to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
...And a reminder: My "odd from even" example was not meant as an argument for anything. It was just my (apparently bad) way of trying to express a feeling that I have. One of my actual "arguments" (which is more like what philosophers call an "intuition pump") is the "Mary" example, that (as I see it) clearly demonstrates that there is knowledge that is inaccessible to current physics, insofar as current physics is driven solely by objective/abstract/quantifiable data, and that kind of data can't fully convey the subjective/concrete/qualitative aspects of experience. Once Mary leaves her colorless environment, she learns something about red that she could not have learned by just reading about red. And what she learns itNOT trivial and should not be ignored. On the contrary, what she learns about red by subjectively experiencing red is ultimately the most important thing to know about red for the purposes of any discussion about spirituality, emotional meanings, etc.
this "grouping" you use causes confusion because you use "abstract" and "concrete" in the opposite way that they are generally used, in common usage.
you use:
objective/abstract/quantifiable
subjective/concrete/qualitative
however generally people group these together:
objective /a̶b̶s̶t̶r̶a̶c̶t concrete / quantifiable -------> can be verified, agreed upon, measured, repeated. same for everyone.
subjective /c̶o̶n̶c̶r̶e̶t̶e abstract / qualitative -------> private, individual, can not be seen or verified or validated by others, not the same for everyone
using "what a poem means" or "what a piece of art evokes" is an example. That is not concrete, it is abstract. It is a real and genuine meaning or response for the person, but it varies from person to person and can not be quantified or measured objectively.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-04-2018 at 11:34 AM..
Thank you, old mate. you are now back on my ****-list.
As I say, I am contending against my feeling that the pair of you 'see' something that isn't really there ; call it "Abstract" and then ferret about for anaologies (that fall apart under examination) to try to validate it. I am of course aware that Gaylen has a masters' degree in this stuff so he ought to know what he is talking about, but try as i might I feel I'm trying to grasp at mental mist.
My post was not dig at anyone (honestly). The frustration and inadequacy is with me, now.
...and knowing what all of our atoms are doing at the time is not where to look, it is in evolution and genetics.
Yes, I tried to cover that by referring to "higher level emergent patterns" etc. But since these emergent patterns are still abstract/quantitative, they don't fully explain the concrete/qualitative aspects of experience.
Quote:
So it doesn't matter that mary doesn't understand the seeing of red, or any other colour, or just black for that matter, unless she understands the mechanism if bio mechanics ever explains it, and frankly if you say that will not convey the experience of it to someone who has never seen it, I'll shrug and say that it is irrelevant to discovering and explaining the mechanism of qualia.
I mostly agree. If, as you and I agree, qualia are essentially physical processes, then the mechanisms of qualia are going to be understandable in terms of abstract/quantitative concepts, so science can convey this information. Mary can know way, way, way more about red than us average folks will ever know. The "Hard Problem" is no barrier here. But this doesn't change the fact that there is still this one thing that she does not know (and cannot know, by just studying her objective data) - and this bit of knowledge is something at an average child knows.
Quote:
I don't find anything more that I need to worry about and anything More than cannot possibly (in theory) be explained by this is just not something that materialism needs to worry about any more than we need to worry about evolution never being able to explain what meaning our lives have in the universal scheme of things.
Yes. There is nothing, in principle, that prevents Reality from being essentially physical (i.e., the ontology of physicalism remains in good standing, despite the Hard Problem). The problem is not physicality, as such; the problem is the all-too-prevalent devotion to objective descriptions as the sole path to "truth". Being physical does not have to imply "being fully explainable by objective data alone." Subjectivity is a brute fact of life, and the logic of subjectivity puts certain limits on the types of knowledge that can be conveyed by objective concepts and data.
Ontologically: Physicalism is ok. Epistemologically: Physicalism needs to "expand it horizons" and realize that subjectivity requires some paradigm-level changes if we want to really get hold of a theory of consciousness. I think that something along the lines a Husserlian type of phenomenology needs to play a role. This would tease out the objective aspects of subjectivity, and thereby help us uncover the underlying qualitative structures of consciousness - i.e., the foundational conditions for possibility of consciousness, including its subjective/qualitative nature.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 05-04-2018 at 11:03 AM..
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.
