The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE

[Darat]

We don't know what they are. We know what we mean by the term Qualia, but we do not know what their nature is.a

That’s just an assertion, and there is no we that includes me as I do not know what their “nature” is.

As for how I know that everyone has them, I use induction : The only particular example that I know of (me) has qualia . I can use induction to establish that probably all humans have qualia.. Then say that if I meet another human, he probably (only probably) has qualia. Therefore, solipsism is probably false.

By analogy , when scientists find a fossil with a small skull, they say that probably this is average size of these species. Because the odds of it being a deformed skull are very tiny. It's more meet people with an average height, than exceptions. So, Probably what I see is the norm.

I can use the same induction to claim there are no qualia as the only particular example I know of (me) doesn’t seem to have this thing (a thing that apparently can’t even be defined in a non circular way).

 

[MRC_Hans]

Failing a Turing test would not prove a lack of intelligence, but being able to consistently pass one would be another matter.

To the first: Certainly not. I have met people who would probably fail a Turing test, but to say they were not intelligent would be unreasonable. Just not very much so.

To the second: The basic problem with the Turing test is that it is subjective. It is one human's assessment of whether the other part is ... human. First of all, a different intelligence, - a porpoise, a dog, a space alien, all of which are arguably intelligent, might not pass. Therefore, an intelligent computer might also not pass.

In essence, the only thing the Turing test can do is assess if a computer successfully emulates a human, and that might not imply intelligence on the part of the computer (but certainly on the part of the programmer).


Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I just don't agree with you. We do not FULLY know what physical laws are, what physics is all about. There is a reason why there is a branch called "Metaphysics" in philosophy. We know how things present themselves, but not what their nature is.

And we do not fully know what consciousness is. I mean its nature, what is the nature of qualia? this is the reason there is another branch : Philosophy of Mind.

I still object to your assumption that "we do not fully know X" and "we do not fully know Y" in any way in itself puts X and Y on the same level.

This may not be so important for your own argumentation, but it is very important when debating dualists.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Qualia exist .. because : the term "exist" is in our language. I mean, we understand what "exists" mean, we invented the word.
Therefore, it follows that the semantics of "exist" denote something that matches that.

What I mean is that without Qualia, we would not invent the term "exist" in the first place. And since it happens that we understand what we mean by "exist" when we say it. It follows that Qualia must exist.

Although we don't know what their nature is, and whether this nature allows for them to have emerged from a material brain or not.

Highlighted: Excuse me, but this is nonsense. The term "invisible unicorn" also exists in our language. Our language is perfectly able to express terms for non-existent things.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

We don't know what they are. We know what we mean by the term Qualia, but we do not know what their nature is.
As for how I know that everyone has them, I use induction : The only particular example that I know of (me) has qualia . I can use induction to establish that probably all humans have qualia.. Then say that if I meet another human, he probably (only probably) has qualia. Therefore, solipsism is probably false.

By analogy , when scientists find a fossil with a small skull, they say that probably this is average size of these species. Because the odds of it being a deformed skull are very tiny. It's more meet people with an average height, than exceptions. So, Probably what I see is the norm.

Highlighted: Really? Then please explain what we (or failing that, you) mean by qualia.

Hans

 

[bruto]

Qualia exist .. because : the term "exist" is in our language. I mean, we understand what "exists" mean, we invented the word.

Therefore, it follows that the semantics of "exist" denote something that matches that.

What I mean is that without Qualia, we would not invent the term "exist" in the first place. And since it happens that we understand what we mean by "exist" when we say it. It follows that Qualia must exist.

Although we don't know what their nature is, and whether this nature allows for them to have emerged from a material brain or not.

I am not in the mood to continue a discussion that's been going on for a very very long time and promises never to end, but I would simply remind some that way back in the wayback, the question "Does Consciousness Exist" was addressed by William James, and while you may not agree with it, it does make an argument. It's been many decades since I read it, but I seem to recall that it does provide a way to acknowledge that consciousness is real, but not an entity that "exists" in the same way as, say, matter does. We do this routinely with other things that are real, measurable and predictable, but that we cannot separate from experience and consider by themselves.

 

[acbytesla]

I just don't agree with you. We do not FULLY know what physical laws are, what physics is all about. There is a reason why there is a branch called "Metaphysics" in philosophy. We know how things present themselves, but not what their nature is.

And we do not fully know what consciousness is. I mean its nature, what is the nature of qualia? this is the reason there is another branch : Philosophy of Mind.

There is NO SUCH THING as "metaphysics'. That people might ponder these questions doesn't make them real. They also ponder warp speed, transporter beams and witches.

How do you know we don't understand matter and or consciousness fully? This is the infinity paradox in another form.

Whenever people start theorizing the metaphysical or supernatural they are just making castles in the air. These things aren't real. They might make a good movie or a book but until any of it can be demonstrated it is nothing more.

Batman, Superman, Allah, Yahweh, Thor, Sauron and so on and so on are all merely human literary creations and shouldn't be considered seiously by any individual who considers themselve a skeptic.

 

[acbytesla]

Qualia exist .. because : the term "exist" is in our language. I mean, we understand what "exists" mean, we invented the word.

Therefore, it follows that the semantics of "exist" denote something that matches that.

What I mean is that without Qualia, we would not invent the term "exist" in the first place. And since it happens that we understand what we mean by "exist" when we say it. It follows that Qualia must exist.

Although we don't know what their nature is, and whether this nature allows for them to have emerged from a material brain or not.

Nonsense.
Do transporter beams exist? No.
Do warp drives exist? No
Does Middle Earth exist? No
Does Hogwarts exist? No.
Do witches exist? No.

Existential claims must be demonstrated not merely imagined.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Have some computer passed Turing's test?

Dude you haven't passed the Turing Test yet.

Again if computers aren't human until the go on the internet to argue about qualia I hope they never pass the Turing Test and I hope they replace us.

 

[jrhowell]

To the first: Certainly not. I have met people who would probably fail a Turing test, but to say they were not intelligent would be unreasonable. Just not very much so.

Why "Certainly not?" What you wrote appears to agree with the idea that failing the test would not be proof of a lack of intelligence.

In essence, the only thing the Turing test can do is assess if a computer successfully emulates a human, and that might not imply intelligence on the part of the computer (but certainly on the part of the programmer).

The assumption behind the test is that successfully emulating an intelligent human, consistently over time, would require at least human level intelligence. Perhaps not be a certainty, but it would very likely be the case.

 

[acbytesla]

Dude you haven't passed the Turing Test yet.

Again if computers aren't human until the go on the internet to argue about qualia I hope they never pass the Turing Test and I hope they replace us.

The Turing Test was passed by computers 6 years ago. But I have heard some humans are stumped.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The Turing Test was passed by computers 6 years ago. But I have heard some humans are stumped.

Can a computer using nothing but cold hard logic tell me the difference between the neurological sensation of eating an apple and the qualia of the taste of an apple?

I mean neither can I but the difference is I can keep pretending there is a difference so that means I have a soul and science doesn't know everything and oh look here's some Woo I still get to have by some amazing coincidence.

"Oh you can explain X but you can't explain Y oh and I'm defining the difference between X and Y as Y being X but having a part you can't explain."

There, I just summed up "qualia" as a concept.

 

[acbytesla]

Can a computer using nothing but cold hard logic tell me the difference between the neurological sensation of eating an apple and the qualia of the taste of an apple?

I mean neither can I but the difference is I can keep pretending there is a difference so that means I have a soul and science doesn't know everything and oh look here's some Woo I still get to have by some amazing coincidence.

"Oh you can explain X but you can't explain Y oh and I'm defining the difference between X and Y as Y being X but having a part you can't explain."

There, I just summed up "qualia" as a concept.

Yep.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Why "Certainly not?" What you wrote appears to agree with the idea that failing the test would not be proof of a lack of intelligence.

Correct. I agree with that statement.

The assumption behind the test is that successfully emulating an intelligent human, consistently over time, would require at least human level intelligence. Perhaps not be a certainty, but it would very likely be the case.

Exactly: The test might be able to show whether a human was at the other end of the communication, but not an intelligent entity. In other words, an intelligent computer might not (in fact, probably would not) emulate a human.

Hans

 

[LarryS]

Can a computer using nothing but cold hard logic tell me the difference between the neurological sensation of eating an apple and the qualia of the taste of an apple?

Qualia is the experience of eating an apple, I'm not sure what you mean by 'neurological sensation' . . . do you mean measureable quantities like mass, spin, charge. etc.?

I mean neither can I but the difference is I can keep pretending there is a difference so that means I have a soul and science doesn't know everything and oh look here's some Woo I still get to have by some amazing coincidence.

Non sequitor . . . this is your paranoid nature shining forth. Not sure how you come to conclusion below until you detail my question above

"Oh you can explain X but you can't explain Y oh and I'm defining the difference between X and Y as Y being X but having a part you can't explain."

There, I just summed up "qualia" as a concept.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Qualia is the experience of eating an apple, I'm not sure what you mean by 'neurological sensation' . . . do you mean measureable quantities like mass, spin, charge. etc.?

Yes. Measurable. As in they actually exist.

I can't wait for the word salad that's going to try to go "Oh no they totally exist but you can't measure them" that will put us right back into Dragons in the Garage territory.

 

[acbytesla]

Qualia is the experience of eating an apple, I'm not sure what you mean by 'neurological sensation' . . . do you mean measureable quantities like mass, spin, charge. etc.?

Yes. Measurable. As in they actually exist.

I can't wait for the word salad that's going to try to go "Oh no they totally exist but you can't measure them" that will put us right back into Dragons in the Garage territory.

I keep wondering why anyone thinks we can't see experiences happening in the brain?

Taste, touch even experiences like love can be tracked to electrical activities in the brain.

 

[Darat]

Qualia is the experience of eating an apple, I'm not sure what you mean by 'neurological sensation' . . . do you mean measureable quantities like mass, spin, charge. etc.?



Non sequitor . . . this is your paranoid nature shining forth. Not sure how you come to conclusion below until you detail my question above

Is there then a qualia for eating an orange, another one for eating a sprout, another one for eating vanilla ice cream and yet another for mint ice cream?

 

[Darat]

I keep wondering why anyone thinks we can't see experiences happening in the brain?

Taste, touch even experiences like love can be tracked to electrical activities in the brain.

Chemicals as well. Indeed it would seem just added parts per million of some chemicals make some people have qualia that they are flying!

 

[LarryS]

Yes. Measurable. As in they actually exist.

I can't wait for the word salad that's going to try to go "Oh no they totally exist but you can't measure them" that will put us right back into Dragons in the Garage territory.

Apples exist, and they have different flavors and etc. I can measure them on a scale of tartness, firmness or etc. - - you can as well and we can come up with a scale we both can agree on and use.
Brain activity has been coorelated with qualia, but they are not the same.