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.
All I'm seeing is latching onto a flavour of the month apologetic (NDEs, in fact) and rummaging around for "evidence" to persuade us to accept it before we know what it is.
So we are supposed to be impressed by a "resurrected" millionaire who changes froma Scrooge to a philanthropist. Is that any more remarkable than tens of thousands that gave all they had to the church 1n 1,000 AD anticipating the end of the world (the Church never gave it back when it didn't happen) or indeed an conversion (or deconversion) experience?
And we have done qualia (oh boy have we ever done qualia) but in the end it comes down to nothing more than appeal to unknowns; no more than those religious apologists who try to find gaps for god in Quantum incomprehensibility or unexplained indications of ancient technological abilities.
In a Qualiasoup video on open -mindedness, the point was made - if the argument made was used in favour of some claim that wasn't believed - say technologically advanced aliens watching us - would it be accepted? If not, then perhaps it isn't the skeptic who should require less evidence, but the believer who should require more.
"disappears" is a rather loaded word, I would not use it. Maybe you meant "begins to disappear," instead?
No, I stand by what I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
The philosophical case of "Mary" as far as I know it, is not about by what mechanism she sees color, but by what "quality" does she see it. Does red look green to her? Does red look red to everyone? Or is it merely "properly distinguished" from the other colors arbitrarily by the brain, rather than concretely being red and experienced exactly the same visually by everyone.
Then you misunderstand the thought experiment. It is not that Mary sees colours differently, it is that she has not seen colours at all until she is let out of her grey world. When she experiences red for the first time, then she has learnt something new. This allegedly means physicalism is false for some reason, but ignores that that experience could be, and probably is, a product of the brain.
Which is one of the problems with old, philosophical arguments, they tend to be ignorant of the actual science.
The hard problem disappears when you realize the different qualia are shared between some neurons and not others.
[...] I stand by what I said.
Then I don't understand it. It would be helpful if you explained further. Imaginative Qualia cannot be accounted for merely by the separate anatomical locations at which they are correlated with. I'm sure the computer I am typing on has separate locations and transistor types for different functions, that wouldn't mean that the computer is experiencing them as qualia, would it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Then you misunderstand the thought experiment. It is not that Mary sees colours differently, it is that she has not seen colours at all until she is let out of her grey world. When she experiences red for the first time, then she has learnt something new. This allegedly means physicalism is false for some reason, but ignores that that experience could be, and probably is, a product of the brain.
Which is one of the problems with old, philosophical arguments, they tend to be ignorant of the actual science.
Then its an idiotic thought experiment with no point. If she "learns something new" that has nothing to do with whether physicalism is true or not. I learn something new all the time.
Spoiler
[edit: I read up again on the Mary Thought Experiment. It was merely about saying that there were non-physical qualities (qualia) that had to be accounted for and could not be accounted for by physicalism. Since Mary already knew everything describable about red yet hadn't "experienced it"] You can program and design a computer to detect "red" versus "green" wavelengths, it would not mean the computer could "imagine them" and thus experience them as qualia.
The problem was and is that it has not been shown HOW the brain could produce qualia experience.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 03-25-2018 at 10:02 AM..
Then I don't understand it. It would be helpful if you explained further. Imaginative Qualia cannot be accounted for merely by the separate anatomical locations at which they are correlated with. I'm sure the computer I am typing on has separate locations and transistor types for different functions, that wouldn't mean that the computer is experiencing them as qualia, would it?
The problem is our brain is far more complex than a computer, and one that evolved to use basic rules to solve problems quickly. It does this by filtering an enormous amount of information every second, with only relevant information causing certain brain neurons to fire. Some of these neurons will also fire given a different set of information, while none of them may fire given a third set of information..
n1.n2.n3.n4.n5.n6.n7.n8.n9 <- seeing something red
n1.n2.n3.n4.n5.n6.n7.n8.n9 <- seeing my grandma
n1.n2.n3.n4.n5.n6.n7.n8.n9 <- taste of beer
That's how the simple 'problems' are solved, except in the case of the 'hard' problem, qualia follows from that. But it still reduces to our physical brains. And while the problem of qualia is interesting, at the end of the day it will probably be just an extension of the same problem, how our brains function.
Qualia may just be an illusion in the machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Then its an idiotic thought experiment with no point. If she "learns something new" that has nothing to do with whether physicalism is true or not. I learn something new all the time.
I wouldn't call it idiotic, the person who thought of it probably didn't realize they were creating a fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Spoiler
[edit: I read up again on the Mary Thought Experiment. It was merely about saying that there were non-physical qualities (qualia) that had to be accounted for and could not be accounted for by physicalism. Since Mary already knew everything describable about red yet hadn't "experienced it"] You can program and design a computer to detect "red" versus "green" wavelengths, it would not mean the computer could "imagine them" and thus experience them as qualia.
You can even get computers to react to a colour as if it was good or bad. But that is down to training the computer brain to react that way. Our brains are different, we are connected to organs that produce chemicals when required. I suspect qualia is a brains way of dealing with those chemicals and what our brain is seeing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
The problem was and is that it has not been shown HOW the brain could produce qualia experience.
True. But to me that is not important. I build and train computer 'brains' to discover hidden data. I may even build one to test how lead poisoning or dementia affects a brain. I find these sort of problems far more interesting.
The hard problem disappears when you realize the different qualia are shared between some neurons and not others.
The problem of Mary in that video is begging the question, it presumes experiencing colour is not a property of the brain. Try Mary's problem with a heart and see where that gets you.
This reveals a very shallow misunderstanding of the hard problem of consciousness and subjectivity that is all too typical of those who use computer-like analogies to brain function. They do not see a fundamental difference between physically registering a signal in the sensory system and consciously experiencing it. The difference is most profoundly seen in the difference between merely registering pain and consciously experiencing it as suffering.
This reveals a very shallow misunderstanding of the hard problem of consciousness and subjectivity that is all too typical of those who use computer-like analogies to brain function. They do not see a fundamental difference between physically registering a signal in the sensory system and consciously experiencing it. The difference is most profoundly seen in the difference between merely registering pain and consciously experiencing it as suffering.
Except your previous BS about my work (modelling brain functions (for which I get paid good money for)) said neither I nor brain surgeons know anything about how a brain functions. Step functions and parallel processing, remember.
Telling me I don't see something I do is just you pretending to be better than you are. A verbose straw man.
Just like you arguing physics and chemistry doesn't happen unless we exist. Like your creationist argument wasn't a creationist argument because you made it.
This reveals a very shallow misunderstanding of the hard problem of consciousness and subjectivity that is all too typical of those who use computer-like analogies to brain function. They do not see a fundamental difference between physically registering a signal in the sensory system and consciously experiencing it. The difference is most profoundly seen in the difference between merely registering pain and consciously experiencing it as suffering.
Pain is qualia, it can't be registered by machines yet. Pain (the subjective manifestation) is registered through neurons that are responsive to various changes (the physical manifestation).
There are six paths of suffering:
gods, angels, ghosts, humans, animals, and demons.
None of them are fulfilled. All of them are wanting and/or missing something.
Our future robot overlords will happily end the six paths of suffering in whatever dimensions they chose to hide in. What a happy thought, when you have faith.
Shallow understanding in the philosophy of mind, metaphysics, and aesthetics is hardly consequential to a Right Livelihood.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 03-25-2018 at 08:20 PM..
[...] But to me that is not important. I build and train computer 'brains' to discover hidden data. I may even build one to test how lead poisoning or dementia affects a brain. I find these sort of problems far more interesting.
I would have thought that how lead poisoning or dementia affects a brain has already been heavily studied and ascertained.
Dementia is, of course, just a symptom and sign of damage. But lead displaces calcium, does it not? And calcium ion's charge is very important for neuronal signaling. The Romans became lead-poisoned and psychotic because of their use of the metal as both ducts for water and an artificial wine sweetener; Americans used it in their gasoline and walls in the 70's I believe. They breathed it instead of drinking it. Now there is where I wonder about the difference in effect.
Nothing changes the minds of people who have already made them up.
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.
What a happy thought, when you have faith.
