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 can study your qualia via the objective signs of their existence, and when I do this, I can potentially learn as much about your qualia as I can learn about any physical object. To know all that can be known about a physical object is to know all of the publicly accessible signs of its existence. With sufficient technology, I can study my own qualia in the exact same way. But with the qualia composing my own experience, I have access to a unique perspective. To gain this perspective on the qualia composing my own experience, I don’t need any technology at all. Instead, I just need to recognize that, when tracking the signs that indicate the existence of objects, the buck has to stop somewhere, so to speak. If the signs by which I come to know about the existence of physical objects were, themselves, physical objects that I could only know via signs, we’d run into infinite regress and never know anything. What we need to realize is that the signs by which we know about the existence of objects are not always ordinary objects. The signs are physical entities – they have causal effects on the world, and thus they CAN be studied objectively - but they can also be experienced directly. Continuing with the “tracks in the snow” metaphor, we might say that, when you are tracking a quale, you have the option of grabbing hold of the beast with your bare hands (so to speak) – but only if the quale that you are tracking happens to be your own.
you are talking about indirect observation. They do it. If your quualia has cause and effect then "qualian family of particle's" maybe it's carrier. we may be surrounded by 6 time the amount of matter than you see. Maybe qualian particles are part of dark matter.
Your new way of thinking is not new. You are misunderstanding that we are discovering things as fast as we can. When we make the discovery then we make some statements about that discovery. But not much until then. What you are doing is describing "dark qaulia" with no observational data. Which is fine. At least you keep saying it to. Thats good.
I think you are ignoring the fact that "science" knows it does not know enough to predict how you "feel" about something like "red". But when (or if) they know every state of every molecule in your head they will know exactly your "quail" and will make some prediction on how it (you) will change over time.
Your "foot prints in the snow": They understand this. it called phycology. They have great trouble adjusting mental states because THEY KNOW they are trying to address mental illness by following these footprints. They just keep trying a mixture of medicines and treatments. NOT KNOWING if it will fix a "broken qualia".
Also personal quail. I call it personal experience. In a way people are proof of multiple universes because we can be loosely interprated as in our own universe. and we most certainly can discover, by observation, something about what other people are "thinking". And something about their "qualia". Meaning, how they think and feel.
Over all gray, the less we understand about science, the more solid we seem.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 11-20-2014 at 05:44 AM..
Reason: same ol'
I'm not looking for the definitions or models to provide “a complete description of everything they could possibly do.” I’m just aiming for the specific potential that is a problem for physicalism – namely, an explanation of the qualitative aspects of experience.
And it is in there. When the physical attributes of the brain are modified in certain ways, the qualitative aspects of experience change as well. What more do you need to see?
Quote:
But, historically, another concept has been attached to the word ‘physical’ that I think is not essential. This is the idea of physical entities being objectively observable, where “objective” stems from the idea that an “object” is an entity that can be observed from multiple perspectives. But why should all aspects of a physical entity have to be necessarily observable from multiple perspectives?The fact that some aspect of an entity is only observable from a single perspective should not necessarily lead us to believe that it can't be real.
Again, no one is claiming that people aren't conscious, so this has nothing to do with anything.
Quote:
Another way to think about this: Generally speaking, all of our knowledge about the physical entities that constitute our world comes to us through the causal effects that these entities have upon us. When I look at a coffee cup, there is presumably some physical entity that is affecting my body, but I only observe the entity via these effects. I experience signs of the existence of the cup; I don’t experience the cup directly, as such. Over time, as social creatures, we have compared our various individual perceptions and built up abstract concepts (objectively knowable rules, etc.) about the physical entities that constitute our world, and in this way we can gain knowledge about these entities that we might otherwise never know if we only had our own perspectives to rely on. But this doesn’t change the fact that our knowledge of most physical entities stems from the signs of their existence – “tracks in the snow” so to speak. We see the tracks, but never directly encounter the object making the tracks (i.e., the "thing in itself").
Or maybe realism is true. Or maybe it is a waste of time to worry about unprovable metaphysical distinctions without a difference when there's actual research that could be done.
Quote:
Traditionally, physicalism has become associated with the idea that the ONLY way to know about entities is via the objective signs of their existence. Why can’t physicalists accept the idea that there could be some physical entities that are known directly – not through the intermediate signs of their existence, but known, rather, just directly as they are?
It is like you don't realize that there are whole scientific disciplines that study human feelings and emotions. Why bother railing against strawmen like this?
Quote:
If the central aspect of the concept ‘physical’ is the idea of an entity having causal effects on the world, then why should we add this extra layer of definition that says: “Oh,and by the way, physical entities can only by known via these intermediate objective signs of their existence – they can never be known directly.”
This metaphysical belief isn't a requirement of physicalism.
Quote:
I’m suggesting that we drop the tag-along concept of “only knowable through objective signs” and adopt a leaner, meaner notion of ‘physical’. All that should be required in order for an object to count as a ‘physical entity’ is that it can have causal effects on the world. I would then say that a quale is a physical entity that can be known directly; we don’t have to use inductive logic to posit the existence of a quale based on signs of its existence.
Yeah, they're a feeling based on a feeling. I agree, that isn't logic at work.
Quote:
ALL physical entities can, in principle, be known via the objective signs of their existence. This goes for qualia too.
Again, you're acting as if there's anyone who denies that people feel things about things. Not sure why, but if this is one of the things you're objecting to you're fighting against a figment of your own imagination.
Quote:
Qualia – like all other physical entities – have objectively measurable causal effects on the world. But qualia are wild & crazy types of entities in one respect: In addition to being detected via the objective signs of their existence, they can also be known - to some extent - directly. Qualia are physical entities, but they are not ordinary objects. A physical object can only be known indirectly via the publicly accessible signs of its existence, whereas a quale can be known either indirectly via signs, or directly – if you happen to be a physical entity who has direct access to it.
Wait - wasn't the point of Mary's room that qualia could only be learned by direct experience? Now they've mutated to be able to known indirectly too? Interesting how quickly they change based on the needs of the argument at the moment. It is almost as if the people using them intentionally rely on them being vague to help them rationalize whatever they need to be in any possible context.
[QUTOE]I can study your qualia via the objective signs of their existence, and when I do this, I can potentially learn as much about your qualia as I can learn about any physical object.[/quote]
If qualia can be identified via behavior, pZombies aren't logically possible. Again, these ideas seem to be very adept at mutating to whatever is needed at a particular moment. They do seem to fare a bit worse in the consistency department, though. Makes you wonder if the people pimping them out actually believe they refer to real concrete things or are just a convenient fiction to use to prop up whatever faith they want to save.
Quote:
To know all that can be known about a physical object is to know all of the publicly accessible signs of its existence. With sufficient technology, I can study my own qualia in the exact same way. But with the qualia composing my own experience, I have access to a unique perspective. To gain this perspective on the qualia composing my own experience, I don’t need any technology at all. Instead, I just need to recognize that, when tracking the signs that indicate the existence of objects, the buck has to stop somewhere, so to speak. If the signs by which I come to know about the existence of physical objects were, themselves, physical objects that I could only know via signs, we’d run into infinite regress and never know anything. What we need to realize is that the signs by which we know about the existence of objects are not always ordinary objects. The signs are physical entities – they have causal effects on the world, and thus they CAN be studied objectively - but they can also be experienced directly. Continuing with the “tracks in the snow” metaphor, we might say that, when you are tracking a quale, you have the option of grabbing hold of the beast with your bare hands (so to speak) – but only if the quale that you are tracking happens to be your own.
I guess I don't share your faith that this approach adds anything to the discussion. Sure, there's lots of words here but essentially you're jumping to conclusions without much more than a gut feeling and some inconsistent word games to rationalize them. Maybe you'll get lucky and this approach will produce something (despite the long track record of failures) - let us know when you produce a working testable model. Meanwhile, the science you seem so convinced is doomed to failure will continue on making progress. Hopefully you don't fall too far behind in your trip down this rabbit hole.
Wait - wasn't the point of Mary's room that qualia could only be learned by direct experience?
A substance dualist might say yes, but I do not believe in substance dualism. I would say this: The point of Mary's room was that some aspects of qualia can only be learned by direct experience. This is why I keep referring to my approach as a type of dual aspect theory.
Why would you base a conclusion on a philosophy? That's like saying "I don't believe 2+2=4 because I am a monist.
yes, when you define qualia as you do, then some of it is learnt by direct experience. But If I align a group of atoms exactly as they are in Mary, then that person is now Mary and knows what she knows without ever being in the room.
What is your evidence that something is being "experienced" and then stored in something else that is not what we call "Mary"?. I actually have a way around for you. But it involves using what we do know. This ether of yours may very well be real. But pushing it off without a mechanisms is weird to me.
This "dual aspect" title you are giving this thing is what I would call components. There are a few things that are involved in making "you" up. You can even use the word percpective. Math would call "dual aspect" a two variable equation. The function it generates is dependent on the set up of the equation. x+y or xy kind of thing.
basely this quail is a blind belief. A "magical ether". How about it just being an unknown field? How come this ether of yours can't operate within (or with) he operators of our universe?
Why would you base a conclusion on a philosophy? That's like saying "I don't believe 2+2=4 because I am a monist.
At the heart of Analytic Philosophy (which is mostly the approach I am taking with this issue) is the idea of differentiating good arguments from bad arguments based on the formal rules of logic. You look at the premises of a argument or a theory (including the definitions of the key terms) along with the structure to see if the conclusion follows inductively, or deductively, or, perhaps, the conclusion does not follow at all - in fact, the premises might lead to contradiction. If the structure of the argument is sound and valid, but you don't believe the conclusion, then you look closely at the premises to see if you believe each of them. If you agree with the premises, and you agree that the structure is good, then you are pretty much forced to accept the conclusion (assuming you understand formal logic and accept the value of logical thinking). Of course this almost never happens. If someone doesn't like a conclusion, they will almost always find something wrong with a premise or the logical structure.
Another problem is that sometimes (fairly often, in fact) the ideas you are trying to express are extremely difficult to translate into the technical definitions and formal structure required for logical analysis. Any hint of vagueness leaves lots of room for endless arguments - as you've seen in this thread. I've been trying to work out the kinks and points of vagueness, but so far I have failed to nail everything down.
The formulation of scientific theories grew out of philosophy (hence philosophy is sometimes referred to as the "Queen of the Sciences") but science (which started out under the name "natural philosophy") starts with the assumption that true statements are statements that can be confirmed by repeated empirical testing. This is a metaphysical assumption, but historically it has proven to be an extremely powerful and useful approach. So, like it or not, every time you accept a conclusion that involves empirical knowledge, you are basing your conclusion on a philosophy.
BTW, a couple of major alternatives to Analytic Philosophy are "Continental Philosophy" aka "Phenomenology" and various sort of Eastern and/or Mystical philosophies. I do draw on some things from phenomenology and Buddhism, but mostly my approach is analytic - although you might think I'm failing at it rather badly at the moment.
No it is not incorrect, Arach. What you want to call some kind of material (particle, whatever) is consciousness itself which is a field phenomenon. I agree that there is one thing that comprises our material reality . . . but it is what we currently consider non-material (even illusory): consciousness. I agree it is "produced" (transformed) using the inputs from our material body and brain. But it is neither IN our brain nor any part of what we consider our "material" self. It is for want of a better term a "pure neural field phenomenon" resident within the unified field (consciousness field) that establishes our reality. We connect with it only while producing (transforming) consciousness and only after the fact as a "delayed playback."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
first of all: I actually half agree with you about this universal thing. But I say it would use the laws the rest of the universe does. Like dark energy we just do not know everything yet so we can only use what we do to talk about it.
you post is a belief. I can only base my beliefs on what we do know. Not what we don't know.
What you are eluding to is "energy" We do not know what it is, only that it can do work or cause change. How does it do work? It causes change through a distance. When you "love" that emotion is doing work. (W=fxd here) There is a force applied through a distance. It is done through the mechanism in the brain with things like "ion exchange" and the Fo/F1 pumps. and other voltage potentials operators in your cells. we don't understand how all of them do it but they seem to be doing it. 10^14 times persecond..
This in no way claims that they know what "feelings are" because they do not know all the pathways are yet. They will some day. but making stuff up outside of what is known is risky business. I happen to believe that the universe is more likely alive than not. But if it is, we are in its image. That image is the periodic table. And all it implies.
again I ask you. Name one event, like "loving" or "seeing red", that does not exchange "particles" or force carry particles. Both of which are frozen energy by the way. For you and i, lets treat these events as fields. The collection of fields that is me, love your collection of fields (car fields)). What happens in my field region. Whats happen in yours? what is moving around?
Just as a side note. Fields have no "real" boundaries do they. So our fields over lap. Giving the appearance of one field.... think heloshpere. And thats a truth, that can be measured just using heat. Thats where monism fits observation very well. But I do not do phylospy I do engineering.
sorry for the writing skills. (lmao ... poor that is) I am much better with diagrams.
did that make any sense? I left a lot of basic stuff out. I just assume you know it or you wouldn't accuse me of not knowing.
I understand what you wrote but it misrepresents the monism I am using. A unified field is ALL that there is and I experience it as a consciousness field. Our consciousness is a resonant neural field that resides within the overall unified field that establishes the parameters of our reality (constants, laws, forces, etc.). I have encountered opposition to my initial use of energy as the catch-all term because it is just one of the manifestations of field (energy/mass/momentum equivalence) . . . even though they are distinguishable only by how we measure. Measurement is the construct that makes discrete what is not discrete and creates the confusion and illusions that drive our macro experience. Measurements are not "things" . . . they are events. Everything is comprised of vibratory manifestations of field (events) and permanence exists only in the reiteration of events through what we experience as time (spherical standing wave phenomena).
At the heart of Analytic Philosophy (which is mostly the approach I am taking with this issue) is the idea of differentiating good arguments from bad arguments based on the formal rules of logic. You look at the premises of a argument or a theory (including the definitions of the key terms) along with the structure to see if the conclusion follows inductively, or deductively, or, perhaps, the conclusion does not follow at all - in fact, the premises might lead to contradiction. If the structure of the argument is sound and valid, but you don't believe the conclusion, then you look closely at the premises to see if you believe each of them. If you agree with the premises, and you agree that the structure is good, then you are pretty much forced to accept the conclusion (assuming you understand formal logic and accept the value of logical thinking). Of course this almost never happens. If someone doesn't like a conclusion, they will almost always find something wrong with a premise or the logical structure.
Another problem is that sometimes (fairly often, in fact) the ideas you are trying to express are extremely difficult to translate into the technical definitions and formal structure required for logical analysis. Any hint of vagueness leaves lots of room for endless arguments - as you've seen in this thread. I've been trying to work out the kinks and points of vagueness, but so far I have failed to nail everything down.
The formulation of scientific theories grew out of philosophy (hence philosophy is sometimes referred to as the "Queen of the Sciences") but science (which started out under the name "natural philosophy") starts with the assumption that true statements are statements that can be confirmed by repeated empirical testing. This is a metaphysical assumption, but historically it has proven to be an extremely powerful and useful approach. So, like it or not, every time you accept a conclusion that involves empirical knowledge, you are basing your conclusion on a philosophy.
BTW, a couple of major alternatives to Analytic Philosophy are "Continental Philosophy" aka "Phenomenology" and various sort of Eastern and/or Mystical philosophies. I do draw on some things from phenomenology and Buddhism, but mostly my approach is analytic - although you might think I'm failing at it rather badly at the moment.
You are not failing at it, Gaylen. You are an excellent teacher. The receivers are unprepared to receive. You are speaking a foreign language they do not know in a context they seldom if ever visit in their concrete existence. They are not receptive because they have significant negativity to what they perceive might be an attack on the soundness of their understanding of reality with no real payback potential in their daily lives. It seems to make them uncomfortable even to entertain such notions as having any real validity or value to our understanding of reality.
At the heart of Analytic Philosophy (which is mostly the approach I am taking with this issue) is the idea of differentiating good arguments from bad arguments based on the formal rules of logic. You look at the premises of a argument or a theory (including the definitions of the key terms) along with the structure to see if the conclusion follows inductively, or deductively, or, perhaps, the conclusion does not follow at all - in fact, the premises might lead to contradiction. If the structure of the argument is sound and valid, but you don't believe the conclusion, then you look closely at the premises to see if you believe each of them. If you agree with the premises, and you agree that the structure is good, then you are pretty much forced to accept the conclusion (assuming you understand formal logic and accept the value of logical thinking). Of course this almost never happens. If someone doesn't like a conclusion, they will almost always find something wrong with a premise or the logical structure.
I notice none of this attempts to relate premises with things that actually exist. Which means that the best logical argument still tells us absolutely zero about reality.
Quote:
The formulation of scientific theories grew out of philosophy (hence philosophy is sometimes referred to as the "Queen of the Sciences") but science (which started out under the name "natural philosophy") starts with the assumption that true statements are statements that can be confirmed by repeated empirical testing. This is a metaphysical assumption, but historically it has proven to be an extremely powerful and useful approach. So, like it or not, every time you accept a conclusion that involves empirical knowledge, you are basing your conclusion on a philosophy.
Nice attempt at equivocation here. "A philosophy" as in a particular view of the world isn't the same as "philosophy" in the sense of the academic pursuit. So yeah, my garbage man is committed to a particular type of metaphysical refuse indirect realism or some such nonsense, but that doesn't mean that trash collection is part of philosophy or that philosophy has any bearing on him doing his daily rounds. Same with science - it works just find without the help of the philosophy department.
You are not failing at it, Gaylen. You are an excellent teacher. The receivers are unprepared to receive. You are speaking a foreign language they do not know in a context they seldom if ever visit in their concrete existence. They are not receptive because they have significant negativity to what they perceive might be an attack on the soundness of their understanding of reality with no real payback potential in their daily lives. It seems to make them uncomfortable even to entertain such notions as having any real validity or value to our understanding of reality.
One has to wonder if you had anything of substance to add why you are limited to passive-aggressive sniping from the sidelines.
You are not failing at it, Gaylen. You are an excellent teacher. The receivers are unprepared to receive. You are speaking a foreign language they do not know in a context they seldom if ever visit in their concrete existence. They are not receptive because they have significant negativity to what they perceive might be an attack on the soundness of their understanding of reality with no real payback potential in their daily lives. It seems to make them uncomfortable even to entertain such notions as having any real validity or value to our understanding of reality.
I agree ... sort of. gray is doing a good job. Polite and professional. I was I could stay that course as well as gray does. And Kc is too for that matter.
But she is making a minor mistake that many people do. She is using philosophy to try and explain what we see going on around us. She is using things like monism, dualism, and my personal one, pluralism to describe the events she sees going on around us.
Actually using what you know to describe what you don't know is a great tactic. It is science really. The minor mistake is that we should use "science" to describe the events we see going on around us. Then fit philosophy to match that. What gray is doing is backwards. Matching philosophy to the universe. I think it is better to match the universe to a philosophy. That way we can stay as objective as possible.
Anti-religious people do the exact same thing many times. They try and match their "ban all religion" philosophy to the events we see and this approach leads to conflict because this stance does not match observations so many people can't buy into it.
We are far from concrete. We are more like a liquid. We can change to fit the container of knowledge. We dont have to stay in the shape of a book. Philosophy is a gas. If that lid aint on tight it slips away into the mist. I guess none of us perfect.
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.
