Consciousness

[DBT]

You have made no argument. You have merely repeated an irrational idea as if it were a magic spell.
.

Do you type this stuff with a straight face? Can't you see the irony of your own position? It is you who is proposing an unfounded proposition, autonomous consciousness with brain as a receiver regardless of evidence to the contrary.

''Each conscious state comprises a single "scene" that cannot be decomposed into independent components (5). Integration is best appreciated by considering the impossibility of conceiving of a conscious scene that is not integrated, that is, one which is not experienced from a single point of view. A striking demonstration is given by split-brain patients performing a spatial memory task in which two independent sequences of visuospatial positions were presented, one to the left and one to the right hemisphere. In these patients, each hemisphere perceived a separate, simple visual problem and the subjects were able to solve the double task well. Normal subjects could not treat the two independent visual sequences as independent, parallel tasks.''

 

[Speakpigeon]

Let me finish your sentence: What Juma wrote is irrelevant.
EB

Just writing something doesnt make it so.
I thank you that acknowledge that my post is correct.

It was correct as to what fromderinside meant. But I don't need you to understand that.

Your post was irrelevant because fromderinside is wrong in his delusion that what he says somehow explains qualia. Making clear what he means is not going to change that.
EB

 

[ryan]

You have made no argument. You have merely repeated an irrational idea as if it were a magic spell.
.

Do you type this stuff with a straight face? Can't you see the irony of your own position? It is you who is proposing an unfounded proposition, autonomous consciousness with brain as a receiver regardless of evidence to the contrary.

''Each conscious state comprises a single "scene" that cannot be decomposed into independent components (5). Integration is best appreciated by considering the impossibility of conceiving of a conscious scene that is not integrated, that is, one which is not experienced from a single point of view. A striking demonstration is given by split-brain patients performing a spatial memory task in which two independent sequences of visuospatial positions were presented, one to the left and one to the right hemisphere. In these patients, each hemisphere perceived a separate, simple visual problem and the subjects were able to solve the double task well. Normal subjects could not treat the two independent visual sequences as independent, parallel tasks.''

DBT, this quote here exemplifies the unity problem. This is actually a reason why a pure correlation to components in the brain doesn't work.

This is one reason why I appeal to entanglement. It at least gives a unified physical correlate to the unified conscious "scene". Any other kind of known physical phenomena will only be in the form of individual components.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If the stuff you're talking about can't push anything around, it's not even stuff. It's a way of looking at stuff, or a particular description of stuff from a perspective, but it's not new stuff.

I don't see how qualia could be said to be able to push around anything like a trolley, for example, or even a feather. Yet, since I know my qualia they have to exist as I know them.

I'm not sure that the term "stuff" isn't loaded. Stuff really means something similar to matter. But who can be said to know matter? I certainly don't know matter. I only know my qualia and qualia are qualities, not stuff. Why should we assume that pushing matter around is essential to existence? We don't even know matter. Unless you and I are really different sort of beings.
EB

 

[Juma]

If the stuff you're talking about can't push anything around, it's not even stuff. It's a way of looking at stuff, or a particular description of stuff from a perspective, but it's not new stuff.

I don't see how qualia could be said to be able to push around anything like a trolley, for example, or even a feather. Yet, since I know my qualia they have to exist as I know them.

I'm not sure that the term "stuff" isn't loaded. Stuff really means something similar to matter. But who can be said to know matter? I certainly don't know matter. I only know my qualia and qualia are qualities, not stuff. Why should we assume that pushing matter around is essential to existence? We don't even know matter. Unless you and I are really different sort of beings.
EB

You dont know your qualia. You have qualia. You may now and remember that you experienced. But you dont know qualia.

 

[PyramidHead]

If the stuff you're talking about can't push anything around, it's not even stuff. It's a way of looking at stuff, or a particular description of stuff from a perspective, but it's not new stuff.

I don't see how qualia could be said to be able to push around anything like a trolley, for example, or even a feather. Yet, since I know my qualia they have to exist as I know them.

I'm not sure that the term "stuff" isn't loaded. Stuff really means something similar to matter. But who can be said to know matter? I certainly don't know matter. I only know my qualia and qualia are qualities, not stuff. Why should we assume that pushing matter around is essential to existence? We don't even know matter. Unless you and I are really different sort of beings.
EB

Heh, I was trying to pick the least loaded term. Maybe I should have called it 'interactabilium' or some fictional name to describe any phenomenon that can interact with another phenomenon. Basically, what I'm saying is that if qualia can't exert an influence on anything that is observable even in principle, it's not in the category of ontological objects of concern. The word must refer to something different, hence my suggestion of a perspective or an aspect.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't see how qualia could be said to be able to push around anything like a trolley, for example, or even a feather. Yet, since I know my qualia they have to exist as I know them.

I'm not sure that the term "stuff" isn't loaded. Stuff really means something similar to matter. But who can be said to know matter? I certainly don't know matter. I only know my qualia and qualia are qualities, not stuff. Why should we assume that pushing matter around is essential to existence? We don't even know matter. Unless you and I are really different sort of beings.
EB

Heh, I was trying to pick the least loaded term. Maybe I should have called it 'interactabilium' or some fictional name to describe any phenomenon that can interact with another phenomenon. Basically, what I'm saying is that if qualia can't exert an influence on anything that is observable even in principle, it's not in the category of ontological objects of concern. The word must refer to something different, hence my suggestion of a perspective or an aspect.

But qualia are observable. If anything they're the only kind of things truly observable.

We tend to reason in physical terms but we don't have any evidence that the physical would be somehow fundamental while qualia would be somehow epiphenomenal. Instead, we experience qualia without any mediation, meaning we do know them while we only have second-hand evidence of the material world, and then precisely through our qualia. We also understand that the material world is very unlikely to be the way we see it. So, we should be cautious about applying second-hand notions we now understand are in fact mental constructs tied up with our notion of the material, to qualia which are obviously not straightforwardly part of what we think of as the material world. To reunite the notions we have of these two worlds, we will have to evolve our perspective on the material world because our perspective on our qualia isn't going to change at all.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't see how qualia could be said to be able to push around anything like a trolley, for example, or even a feather. Yet, since I know my qualia they have to exist as I know them.

I'm not sure that the term "stuff" isn't loaded. Stuff really means something similar to matter. But who can be said to know matter? I certainly don't know matter. I only know my qualia and qualia are qualities, not stuff. Why should we assume that pushing matter around is essential to existence? We don't even know matter. Unless you and I are really different sort of beings.
EB

You dont know your qualia. You have qualia. You may now and remember that you experienced. But you dont know qualia.

Please, stop talking about a notion which you have shown yourself unable to understand. It is just ridiculous and really painful to watch.
EB

 

[Elixir]

But qualia are observable. If anything they're the only kind of things truly observable.

Y'all are talking past each other because although qualia are indeed " the only kind of things truly observable", those observations are not repeatable by anyone else, and are thus disqualified as observation in the scientific sense.

Sorry to interrupt... back your regularly scheduled programming....

 

[Speakpigeon]

But qualia are observable. If anything they're the only kind of things truly observable.

Y'all are talking past each other because although qualia are indeed " the only kind of things truly observable", those observations are not repeatable by anyone else, and are thus disqualified as observation in the scientific sense.

Sorry to interrupt... back your regularly scheduled programming....

It's not quite true that we talk past each other. I'm a hundred percent rationalist person and I understand what they are talking about. They on the other hand don't appear to understand what I and others are talking about. Maybe they just pretend. It's in fact likely that they just want to deny the reality of qualia because they just don't know how to explain them in materialist terms. It's a small-minded reaction but it seems consistent with how they often treat people who disagree with them. Or possibly, they effectively don't understand the notion of qualia. It's not impossible but I'd say less likely. Maybe they're just not very bright. I've seen people in my life who would argue along ideological lines and it makes people look invariably stupid. And this would be consistent with my experience of discussing pretty much anything on this forum.

I accept that qualia are probably not repeatable. However, this should be no obstacle. Presumably, and certainly if the materialist paradigm is correct, if one human being experiences qualia we should all experience qualia. It doesn't matter that they're not repeatable. What matters is that we probably all experience qualia and normally intelligent people should all recognise them for what they are, especially once it is explained to them. So although I accept that we probably can't do any science on qualia, they as individual human beings should be able to recognise for themselves that they experience qualia. Instead, they just pretend it doesn't exist (or just ignore what you say and deliberately give a different meaning to the notion of qualia and subjective experience - see above the last remark to that effect by Juma).

So, it seems quite likely that their attitude is deliberate. They just don't know how to explain qualia within the materialist paradigm and accepting qualia as real would be a major contradiction to their system of thought.

It's also probably a factor that many of them have been all their lives paid as scientists. Being a professional is in many ways like being in the priesthood or a member of a revolutionary party. You have emotional ties to the community and you're unlikely to consider lightly breaking ranks as a good idea.

Nearly all human beings are much less intelligent than is often suggested. Very few people ever offer any novel idea. Scientists, like most intellectuals since WWII, have been mass-produced and most work in teams. The links to the community of fellow scientists are very strong. This is what allow them to progress. Mostly it's crossing the t's and dotting the i's precisely because there are to few bright ideas being proposed. But you only need a bright idea once in a while and then you can run on it for a century. You learn the tricks of the trade, you apply what you've learn and you fail to find any new bright idea but you're still paid as a scientist because it's good enough for the system. So while we can only be impressed by the accumulated knowledge, there's really no reason to be impressed by most scientists. Those interviewed on radio or writing in the press don't seem to have understood much beyond their speciality. They are intellectual workers. They don't even have to be overly inquisitive by nature. They don't need to be bright. So it shouldn't come as a surprise to get the reaction we have here. But it doesn't make any less annoying. They are truly like the bureaucrats of science. It's the minimal service. If they were in a McDonald they would be fired.

There's also the inconsistencies in their message. Over the years, you can see how they evolve in spite of themselves and it's revelatory. So I tend to see the situation as a dogmatic denial motivated by an inability to explain what is said to exist within the framework of the dogma. Human beings avoid contradictions, one of them like to say.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You have made no argument. You have merely repeated an irrational idea as if it were a magic spell.
.

Do you type this stuff with a straight face? Can't you see the irony of your own position? It is you who is proposing an unfounded proposition, autonomous consciousness with brain as a receiver regardless of evidence to the contrary.

''Each conscious state comprises a single "scene" that cannot be decomposed into independent components (5). Integration is best appreciated by considering the impossibility of conceiving of a conscious scene that is not integrated, that is, one which is not experienced from a single point of view. A striking demonstration is given by split-brain patients performing a spatial memory task in which two independent sequences of visuospatial positions were presented, one to the left and one to the right hemisphere. In these patients, each hemisphere perceived a separate, simple visual problem and the subjects were able to solve the double task well. Normal subjects could not treat the two independent visual sequences as independent, parallel tasks.''

Are you that stupid?

I have not proposed anything.

Do you even have a clue what logical argument looks like? What using argument to make a point looks like?

You can't prove the brain isn't just a big receiver of consciousness. That doesn't mean I believe it is.

It is just a way to show your claims about consciousness are worthless. You don't have the slightest idea what it is. You have no way to limit it.

You don't know the difference between that which is aware of representations made by the brain and the representations themselves.

You could not be more lost.

 

[Elixir]

I accept that qualia are probably not repeatable. However, this should be no obstacle.

To what? It is an insurmountable obstacle to scientific examination.

So, it seems quite likely that their attitude is deliberate. They just don't know how to explain qualia within the materialist paradigm...

Not knowing how to do the impossible is no crime...

and accepting qualia as real would be a major contradiction to their system of thought.

That's the nut of it IMO. The solution is to stop requiring immediate explanation and categorization for every goddam sensory stimulus, be it internal or external, and instead simply appreciate the experience of being a sentient being for whom qualia is as "real" as anything else. Affronts to our prior beliefs and systems for filtering experiences to conform to those beliefs are universally opposed at the very basest level of our evolution. And all that separates us from "the animals" (if anything does) is our ability to at least make an effort to be aware of and counteract those instincts.

 

[untermensche]

Again, the term "qualia" is an unnecessary redundancy.

If there is experience there must be a quality to the experience.

The real question is, how does a brain create something that can experience?

Talking about "qualia" is a waste of time.

It is a given if there is experience.

 

[Elixir]

It is a given if there is experience.

Only if you can actively/consciously* consider it.

* Which does, as you imply, make the word "qualia" a circular reference.

 

[untermensche]

It is a given if there is experience.

Only if you can actively/consciously* consider it.

* Which does, as you imply, make the word "qualia" a circular reference.

I don't think you have to consider being cold to experience it.

But if there is the experience of being cold there must be a quality to the experience.

The idea of an experience without quality is irrational.

 

[George S]

But qualia are observable. If anything they're the only kind of things truly observable.

Y'all are talking past each other because although qualia are indeed " the only kind of things truly observable", those observations are not repeatable by anyone else, and are thus disqualified as observation in the scientific sense.

Sorry to interrupt... back your regularly scheduled programming....

Sorry, but knowledge of an observation only comes through qualia. Period. There is no telepathy. There is no way to measure, to observe, other than through sensory experience. Sight, sound, taste, odor, sensing hot or cold, all the kinesthetic senses from touch to knowledge of body position. The only way we might agree to agree on a measurement or observation is to ask "Do you <sense> it too?"
If a measurement is done by, say laser and recorded, the only way *you* have knowledge of that measurement is through your senses. Sensations of all kinds yield qualia. Red, loud, bitter, stinky, hot and smooth. Reading the measurement is done through experiencing qualia.
Qualia is the word to describe the personal experiences of sense data. There are indescribable internal states. I love, I care, to name two. The way I love may be different to you.

 

[untermensche]

...Sensations of all kinds yield qualia...

Experiences do not yield "qualia" they have "qualia".

If there is an experience it must have a quality to it.

Talking about qualia is not talking about anything beyond talking about experience.

It is a redundancy to even mention it.

 

[DBT]

Do you type this stuff with a straight face? Can't you see the irony of your own position? It is you who is proposing an unfounded proposition, autonomous consciousness with brain as a receiver regardless of evidence to the contrary.

''Each conscious state comprises a single "scene" that cannot be decomposed into independent components (5). Integration is best appreciated by considering the impossibility of conceiving of a conscious scene that is not integrated, that is, one which is not experienced from a single point of view. A striking demonstration is given by split-brain patients performing a spatial memory task in which two independent sequences of visuospatial positions were presented, one to the left and one to the right hemisphere. In these patients, each hemisphere perceived a separate, simple visual problem and the subjects were able to solve the double task well. Normal subjects could not treat the two independent visual sequences as independent, parallel tasks.''

Are you that stupid?

I have not proposed anything.

Stop acting the village idiot, or maybe it's not an act. I suspect that it's not. You are the one claiming that it's the agency of consciousness that initiates actions such as lifting your arm, etc, which ignores that it is the brain both initiating the motor action of lifting an arm and the conscious perception and experience of the action, functions which have been separated in experiments showing your claim of autonomous consciousness to be false, as is your allusions to brain as a receiver. Your claims have no merit.

 

[untermensche]

Are you that stupid?

I have not proposed anything.

Stop acting the village idiot, or maybe it's not an act. I suspect that it's not. You are the one claiming that it's the agency of consciousness that initiates actions such as lifting your arm, etc, which ignores that it is the brain both initiating the motor action of lifting an arm and the conscious perception and experience of the action, functions which have been separated in experiments showing your claim of autonomous consciousness to be false, as is your allusions to brain as a receiver. Your claims have no merit.

I am claiming consciousness as a product of brain activity can influence other brain activity.

If that is mystical to you then you are truly an idiot.

And there is not one experiment that even looks at consciousness except as subjective reporting.

Science does not know what it is.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I accept that qualia are probably not repeatable. However, this should be no obstacle.

To what? It is an insurmountable obstacle to scientific examination.

Probably yes and there's no harm in emphasising that but this is a forum to exchange views, not anything like a place where a scientific process would be carried out. Nobody is actually doing any science in here. So, the question remains whether these people can have an honest exchange of views. If all they do is pretend to somehow be doing science here, then, sure, they're going to talk past me. So if you can explain what they actually do on this forum and why they do it, then I'm listening.

So, it seems quite likely that their attitude is deliberate. They just don't know how to explain qualia within the materialist paradigm...

Not knowing how to do the impossible is no crime...

I agree but why don't they just acknowledge the problem?

A rational person would do that. But they choose instead to just deny having themselves anything like qualia, or, again, they just redefine the term in materialist terms, which amount to the same thing. They also choose to just deny other people's claim to have qualia. This is not even a rational attitude to have and they pretend to represent the scientific outlook?!

It's clearly not a crime in legal terms but it's a crime against rationality, unless they really wouldn't have qualia, which is highly unlikely if we are to be all issued from broadly the same physical phenomenon of the evolution of the species or some similar cause.

and accepting qualia as real would be a major contradiction to their system of thought.

That's the nut of it IMO. The solution is to stop requiring immediate explanation and categorization for every goddam sensory stimulus, be it internal or external, and instead simply appreciate the experience of being a sentient being for whom qualia is as "real" as anything else.

Who could prevent anybody from appreciating the experience? So, the solution to what exactly?

This is a forum where we expect people to present their views and offer reasonable arguments to defend them or to question those of other posters.

Instead, all we have is a pathological blanket denial. They make themselves out as seriously screwed up. They look no different in attitude from those terrible small-minded conservatives who are pleased to mouth utter bullshit in support of their position.

Affronts to our prior beliefs and systems for filtering experiences to conform to those beliefs are universally opposed at the very basest level of our evolution. And all that separates us from "the animals" (if anything does) is our ability to at least make an effort to be aware of and counteract those instincts.

Sure but how come that while science is the vehicle of choice for doing just that, these people, who insist they have been actual scientists or insist in making out themselves as having a scientific outlook, so abysmally fail to look critically at their own beliefs?! They just give science a bad name!
EB