Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-30-2018, 03:51 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,082 posts, read 20,548,531 times
Reputation: 5927

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by granpa View Post
There are many definitions of #qualia, which have changed over time.
One of the simpler, broader definitions is:
"The 'what it is like' character of mental states. The way it feels to have mental states such as pain, seeing red, smelling a rose, etc."
Examples of qualia include the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, or the perceived redness of an evening sky.

I believe that there are two types of qualia.
The first type only conveys information.
For example a black and white image or the sensation of touch or a pure tone (without harmonics)
The second type conveys a pleasant or unpleasant sensation.
For example a beautiful color image of a rainbow or the taste of something sweet.

The first type gives us information that we can use to make decisions toward achieving our goals (for example to satisfy our curiosity)
The second type becomes a goal unto itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reward_system

Imagine a computer capable of recognizing shapes and objects and of recognizing actions performed by thoses objects and capable of creating and analyzing complex simulations.
Clearly it is aware of and perceiving some sort of sensation which conveys Information to it.
But it is just information.
Until we figure out how the second type of qualia works our computers will only be able to experience the first type of qualia


Yellow = pleasant white
Red = pleasant grey
Blue = pleasant black

Orange = red + yellow
Purple = red + blue
Green = blue + yellow
I don't myself think that's it exactly. Though I think I know what you mean. The information transmission or presentation is the nuts and bolts that can be explained in physical terms. The like or dislike reaction is more to do with evolved genetic instructions, though the experience of the like or dislike reaction does sound like qualia.

 
Old 01-30-2018, 03:54 PM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,504,854 times
Reputation: 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by granpa View Post
Saying atoms can't explain Consciousness because atoms aren't conscious is like saying atoms can't explain life because atoms aren't alive.
what are atoms?
 
Old 01-30-2018, 04:04 PM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,504,854 times
Reputation: 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
Trans, Mystic, and I and a few others have had 100s of pages of debates on this. And I'm still fascinated by what appears to be my on-going failure to explain the central concepts in a way that we can agree upon.

Personally, I do not consider it to be a debate over emergence. I accept emergence. In fact my own theory requires emergence. (Mystic, on the other hand, thinks that emergence is a misguided concept.) But for emergence to occur, the logical possibilities for the emergence must be built into the concepts used when referring to the emergence. The fluidity of water is a classic example. An individual atom does not have most of the properties of water. For "water" to emerge, you need lots of atoms, and those atoms need to be interconnected in the right ways. For example: you need bonds between atoms that can break and re-form relatively easily so that atoms can "slide over" each other (fluidity) or remain intact in the presence of light pressure (surface tension) or become relatively rigid in the absence of sufficient energy (ice), and so on. Atoms and physical laws pertaining to inter-atomic bonding are sufficient to explain the possibility of the emergence of the properties of water.

But notice what you say here: "Atoms are not wet, but when combined, they become 'wet'. That is merely our sensory perception of the way the atoms work together." On a purely behavioral level, sensory perception can (in principle) be explained by the physical properties of atoms. You can (in principle) tell a story that starts with the atomic bonds in oxygen and hydrogen and continues though the biological properties of neurons from skin to brain, etc., until you end up with my lips moving and my lungs expelling air, etc., - all of this has to do with the emergent patterns of multiple atoms. No problem at all. My body moves in certain ways that constitute saying "The water is wet" - thus my body "detects" water, sorta like a thermostat "detects" that the temperature has dropped below 72 degree. If sentience was nothing but behavior, the all would be well. If we use the word 'perceiving' in such a way that my perceiving water was fundamentally no different than a thermostat "perceiving" air temperature, then all would be well. If my pain was just the atoms constituting my body moving in certain ways (frowning, cussing, salty water dripping from my eyes, etc.) - if that was all that pain was, then all would be fine with materialism. But I think that pain is more than pain behavior. Pain is the subjective qualitative feeling of being in pain. And herein lurks the problem. There is nothing in the objective material nature of atoms and physical forces to account for the emergence of the subjective qualitative feeling of pain. The complex biological behaviors associated with feeling pain can be explained by materialism, but the subjective feelings of pain, itself, cannot. Notice that I DO believe that qualia are probably emergent. Yes! Qualia are emergent properties. But to explain this emergence, we need something in physical theory that addresses the logical possibilities for this emergence. Current physics has no conceptual resources for this. It's sorta like trying to derive odd numbers from a mathematics that only allows even numbers.

we can't agree on it because of the many "if's" that you use.

I think you are making "qualia" more than it is. "emergent" is just an unpredicted property. after the property is understood then the explanation/math will follow.

I look at it like this. A self driving car can drive. That computer that played that asian game, won that game. they are both "aware" of the conditions they are programed for. But neither can do anything else but those two things.

Our brains, have many more programs, all running at once. it seems to you as "qualia". to me its just a lot of subroutines. To know 'red' is dependant on the processes, well, processing the information. The universe is already quantum computing. "red" is known as much as the energy doing the knowing can know.

we are just a subset of that information. Can the Knowing how to drive understand the knowing how to write? Well, the brain can. not the knowing how to drive.

the story doesn't start at the "atoms", so starting it there leaves a woefully incomplete story. as you know. and said. Also only going "down" powers of ten without going "up" powers of ten leaves us out of focus.

Last edited by Arach Angle; 01-30-2018 at 04:16 PM..
 
Old 01-30-2018, 04:09 PM
 
63,499 posts, read 39,795,158 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
You ought to know better than this Whether or not you used those exact words, that was the argument being made,
And what the devil is this reference to my NAME? I am referring to you argument (in the Matrix thread) that human perception is unreliable (in fact you said so in the previous post, while claiming that you had said something else) and while that gave the background to the 'revelation' thread -argument, my point was more that this is irrelevant and the scientific methods is intended to counter that. Again, you may not agree, but you seem incapable of referring to points actually being made.
You STILL do not understand. YOUR description of the unreliability of human perception I referred to was false. It misrepresented my view significantly, especially by adding that divine revelation was superior. That is preposterous since our human perception of ANY divine revelation is perforce IMPERFECT. You are really beginning to annoy me with your presumptuous ignorance of my views.
Quote:
And you an claim as much as you like that I 'misunderstand'. I certainly didn't misunderstand the attempt to reverse the burden of proof because of belief in a god A priori, And I didn't misunderstand the dropping of a universal cosmic field in our of individual consciousness for each human.
Whatever the hell you think is changed in my universal field view is WRONG. There is no change and whatever your "human clumps" BS is referring to is all in your addled mind. I do not reverse the burden of proof, I merely point out that our reality indisputably exists and we can not account for it using your materialist default because we "DO NOT KNOW." You want to pretend that your default accounts for it when it clearly does NOT.
Quote:
Anyway, old mate I didn't expect that you accept what I say, and people will have to make up their own minds, whether I really haven't the expertise to understand your arguments or whether i understand only too well and you are simply dismissing that as you dismissed every other poster who engaged with you and concluded that your hypothesis was so much bunk.
I am coming to the conclusion that your ignorance (lack of knowledge) about the extant science and your lack of understanding is beyond redemption. Gaylen, the best expositor I have ever encountered, continues to fail to dent it so I do not feel bad about my failure to penetrate your lack of understanding.
 
Old 01-30-2018, 04:28 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,082 posts, read 20,548,531 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You STILL do not understand. YOUR description of the unreliability of human perception I referred to was false. It misrepresented my view significantly, especially by adding that divine revelation was superior. That is preposterous since our human perception of ANY divine revelation is perforce IMPERFECT. You are really beginning to annoy me with your presumptuous ignorance of my views. Whatever the hell you think is changed in my universal field view is WRONG. There is no change and whatever your "human clumps" BS is referring to is all in your addled mind. I do not reverse the burden of proof, I merely point out that our reality indisputably exists and we can not account for it using your materialist default because we "DO NOT KNOW." You want to pretend that your default accounts for it when it clearly does NOT. I am coming to the conclusion that your ignorance (lack of knowledge) about the extant science and your lack of understanding is beyond redemption. Gaylen, the best expositor I have ever encountered, continues to fail to dent it so I do not feel bad about my failure to penetrate your lack of understanding.
Your wriggling does you no good. While you are perhaps understandably conflating your argument that human perception was unreliable with the argument (in the matrix thread - and it may have been his) that we evolved to survive not to know the truth. But divine input gave us the truth (and your input on the revelation thread endorsed that view), my point was that you were making an invalid point, because the scientific method counters the imperfect perceptions.

That was my argument and you have strawmanned it - twice now.

If you stopped to think instead of doing blind denial, you'd see that divine input is intended to circumvent imperfect human perception that works out the best attempt at truth that it can manage.
If that is not a match to your hypothesis then pray why should anybody believe in divine input revelation at all? And don't even think of denying that is what you argue, as your 'radio -mind' argument (if your leaky memory can even recall that one) was making that exact point.

I'll see how you field that one before deciding whether to even bother with the rest of the evasion and denial, with a rather amusing attempt to use Gaylen as an Authority to try to beat me with, since yours is now in tatters. No wonder I'm 'beginning to annoy you'.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-30-2018 at 04:37 PM..
 
Old 01-30-2018, 04:36 PM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,504,854 times
Reputation: 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You STILL do not understand. YOUR description of the unreliability of human perception I referred to was false. It misrepresented my view significantly, especially by adding that divine revelation was superior. That is preposterous since our human perception of ANY divine revelation is perforce IMPERFECT. You are really beginning to annoy me with your presumptuous ignorance of my views. Whatever the hell you think is changed in my universal field view is WRONG. There is no change and whatever your "human clumps" BS is referring to is all in your addled mind. I do not reverse the burden of proof, I merely point out that our reality indisputably exists and we can not account for it using your materialist default because we "DO NOT KNOW." You want to pretend that your default accounts for it when it clearly does NOT. I am coming to the conclusion that your ignorance (lack of knowledge) about the extant science and your lack of understanding is beyond redemption. Gaylen, the best expositor I have ever encountered, continues to fail to dent it so I do not feel bad about my failure to penetrate your lack of understanding.
its not ignorance mystic. It is knowingly, and willfully following "my belief that religion is so dangerous I am justified in denying anything/everything that I deem unfit for that belief". its just like any other fundy-think type really. a statement of belief is more important than, well, anything, to them. ultimately they are dishonest.

remember, your field, runs his volume of space too. Or is it that some volumes are just not tuned properly?

How does your field explain him? and the rest of the 20% literal thinkers running around?
 
Old 01-30-2018, 04:41 PM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,504,854 times
Reputation: 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
Your wriggling does you no good. While you are perhaps understandably conflating your argument that human perception was unreliable with the argument (in the matrix thread - and it may have been his) that we evolved to survive not to know the truth. But divine input gave us the truth (and your input on the revelation thread endorsed that, my point was that you were making an invalid point, because the scientific method counters the imperfect perceptions.

That was my argument and you have strawmanned it - twice now.

If you stopped to think instead of blind denial, you'd see that divine input is intended to circumvent imperfect human perception that works out the best attempt at truth that it can manage.
If that is not a match to your hypothesis then pray why should anybody believe in divine input revelation at all? And don't even think of denying that is what you argue as you 'radio -mind' argument was making that exact point.

I'll see how you field that one before deciding whether to even bother with the rest of the evasion and denial, with a rather amusing attempt to use Gaylen as an Authority to try to beat me with, since yours is now in tatters. No wonder I'm 'beginning to annoy you'.
You are number one at blind denial. infact, I would classify your sect of atheism as the "deny anything and everything" sect. Observations mean nothing to you, well, unless they support your blind faith statement.

All in all, just another fundy. deny anything that doesn't fit my belief system.
 
Old 01-30-2018, 04:42 PM
 
63,499 posts, read 39,795,158 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
This, as you know, is a point on which you and I mostly agree. Insofar as materialism defines the fundamental stuff of reality in terms of objectively measurable properties, it - for profoundly logical reasons - can never fully explain the subjective aspects of experience. I say that you and I "mostly" agree because I do allow for a somewhat broader conception of "physicalism" in which we can accept "dual-aspect theory" - allowing the subjective aspects of reality to be fundamental - i.e., "brute facts". But then you and I part company (I think?) when I insist (as implied by dual-aspect theory) that there are no subjective properties that are not subjective aspects of a physical system. Thus I reject any ontology that allows thoughts or feelings to float around that are not the subjective aspects of a physical system. Thoughts or feeling that are not the mental properties of a physical system would be "non-physical" and I'm basically saying that I do not believe in non-physical things (for lots of various reasons that I have tried to explain in lots of threads here in C-D).

In light of some recent posts about critical thinking, I'd like to take a moment to tie these ideas together.

Do people who believe in non-physical things necessarily expose themselves as lacking critical thinking skills? No! Personally, I don't think their arguments in favor of non-physical entities is as strong as my arguments against them, but this doesn't mean they are being completely illogical or uncritical.

Could I someday change my mind and accept the existence of non-physical entities or properties? Yes! But here is a crucial point: Unless they prove logically that there must be non-physical stuff, then I will probably never believe with certainty that that non-physical stuff exists. In other words, I might someday come to believe that non-physical stuff exists, but I probably won't believe it with certainty - unless, of course, my conversion was based on a realization that the existence of non-physical stuff is logically provable. I'm elaborating on this point because I want to relate all of this to my #1 criteria for critical thinking (see post #2626). I currently feel with high confidence that non-physical entities do not exist, but I'm still open to arguments and evidence. I could still change my mind.
Perhaps a further explanation of the universal field will help to remove the physical/nonphysical confusion. Everything "physical" is some manifestation of the universal field. That is what being "physical" actually is. There are ONLY manifestations of the universal field in various "vibratory energy forms," including our consciousness. The limitations of our senses and the created extensions along with the mandatory formation of the very consciousness we use to employ them place limits on our measurements of those vibratory manifestations. That is why we resort to referring to some unmeasurable manifestations as dark energy or dark matter (including our unmeasurable consciusness). It is ALL physical but not in the limited way Arq sees physicality.
Quote:
Can I be certain about my belief in the subjective aspects of reality? Yes, but certain subtle distinctions are required: I mostly accept Descartes' proof (concluding with "I think, therefore I am") because of a logical issue: For self-referential reasons, the thought "I don't exist" is, in itself, proof that the thought exists and thus the claim "I don't exist" is logically self-refuting. (There's a bit of wiggle room concerning the nature of the "I", but I'll skip over that for the sake of brevity.) So I feel certain that the contents of my immediate experience exist, and I feel certain that they are in some sense "mine". But the concept of subjectivity implies that these immediate experiences are only "mine". Here things get a bit more messy, and that is how Arq and others (E.g., "eliminative materialists" like Daniel Dennett, Paul Churchland, etc.) can claim that materialism is still a logical possibility. I believe with 99.999% certainty that materialism is wrong, but I have not yet been able to prove, with certainty, that materialism is logically impossible, so I can't say, with certainty, that I will never become a materialist.
As long as our conditioned associations with physicality remain dominant, it will be difficult if not impossible to accept those aspects of physical reality that elude our measures and senses despite our undeniable experiences of the subjectivity that demands it.
 
Old 01-30-2018, 04:48 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,082 posts, read 20,548,531 times
Reputation: 5927
Well, Gaylen, if you can stomach the woo -ish stuff about 'vibrations', see whether you can read that and not see 'If we can't explain it, "God" is the only explanation.' underpinning the whole jargon -laden exposition.

The use of dark matter as Proof that science doesn't know everything' is quite familiar in theist apologetics where 'Quantum - Woo' in various forms is used to show that science really can't explain It All and therefore God must be the default explanation.

Mystic dresses it up in sciencey jargon very well, but effectively, that's It.
 
Old 01-30-2018, 05:10 PM
 
21,960 posts, read 19,083,870 times
Reputation: 18067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
...All in all, just another fundy. deny anything that doesn't fit my belief system.
and you do get that you are describing exactly what Mystic does?

Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-30-2018 at 05:22 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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top