Cheetah
Master Poster
Yeah.
You can now even tell in real-time what colours and shapes people are experiencing.
The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE
- Thread starter devhdb
- Start date
-
- Tags
- materialism
You can now even tell in real-time what colours and shapes people are experiencing.
Yes but you can't see the experiences.
Well I can explain the word salad to you, but not it's qualia.
"Science can clearly show"
"Nuh uh. No it can't."
"No seriously it can. Neuroscience has made huge advancements..."
"No it can't."
"I'm telling you you can literally watch it in real time on a PET or MRI..."
"Nope. Total mystery. Like how magnets work or how the tide comes in, you can't explain that."
"Nuh uh. No it can't."
"No seriously it can. Neuroscience has made huge advancements..."
"No it can't."
"I'm telling you you can literally watch it in real time on a PET or MRI..."
"Nope. Total mystery. Like how magnets work or how the tide comes in, you can't explain that."
Qaulia are summaries of perceptions. No, the redness of the apple isn't a frequency of light. But it's not some big mystery either. It's a summary of all the effects of photons of all the different frequencies reflected from the apple on the rods and cones of the eyes, varying by position and over time. Along with memories of seeing other apples, pictures of apples, stories about apples, and the emotions associated with the memories and the emotions of the moment. All to produce an impression of a single individual time-continuous thing with a known type and characteristic. A red apple.
Such summarizing takes a lot of processing, most of which we're unaware of. The carrying out of that processing is what we call experiencing.
Such summarizing takes a lot of processing, most of which we're unaware of. The carrying out of that processing is what we call experiencing.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,485
They're not? Do you know of any being or entity without access to that kind of electrical stimuli "experience" anything. I see no evidence that brain dead humans experience a damn thing.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,485
Yet.
Even words. Plus we can do it in reverse: with cameras and electrodes we can describe the experience of vision to someone who was blind to such a degree they can see again.
If I show you a photo or indeed a video or we watch someone in real life running can you show me “the run”?
Agreed, qualia are not mysterious, I never suggested they were. And yes, research appears to demonstate that the optic nerve and brain tissue at least coorelates with content(s) of experience - and perhaps the analogy of computation may be useful or accurate. We have yet to have any notion of how matter becomes conscious - the knowing I am having an experience of an apple.
Oh the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" the only bigger made up, pointless, not really a problem problem than qualia.
There is no Hard Problem of Consciousness unless you want there to be one and if you want there to be one there's a reason.
There's no more mystery here then why you don't see "the act of ticking" anywhere in the pile of parts when you finish taking apart the grandfather clock.
You are not a thing. You are a process, indeed multiple processes. Existential crisis over.
Everyone who wants to believe in Woo continue to pretend the crisis is ongoing.
There is no Hard Problem of Consciousness unless you want there to be one and if you want there to be one there's a reason.
There's no more mystery here then why you don't see "the act of ticking" anywhere in the pile of parts when you finish taking apart the grandfather clock.
You are not a thing. You are a process, indeed multiple processes. Existential crisis over.
Everyone who wants to believe in Woo continue to pretend the crisis is ongoing.
Last edited:
Qualia are a hold over from a time when we didn't have the knowledge we now have, science and technology have long made the concept obsolete.
It arose from the idea that even if we explained everything about a red apple to a blind person they would still not be able to see a red apple, therefore there was something else that was the experience of seeing a red apple.
That argument was wrong in 2 major ways. The first was by thinking that our natural language (for example English) was up to explaining reality in anything like the detail and accuracy that would be necessary to describe "everything" about seeing a red apple. This is a common failing of many of the older philosophical "problems" they didn't understand the limitations of natural language to describe reality. The second was creating qualia from no evidence.
Today we know that the entire argument was wrong, because we have worked out how to describe a red apple* to a blind person to such a degree that they can "experience" seeing a red apple and we didn't need a single qualia to do so. We did this by using a language that better describes the world around us, mathematics. When the scientists connect up a camera to a blind person's brain they are describing seeing, and lo and behold someone has vision from "merely" having it described to them.
*to be completely upfront we aren't quite at the level of a red apple but this is now only a technological limitation since we have made blind people see, just not in a lot of detail yet.
I'm not going to take your word for it - How would you use mathematis to explain red to a blind person so that they can 'experience' red. Alternatively you don't have to actually explain it, but provide a link to someone who does.
Actually, you can:
*I can't post a URL, so to see the article copy this into google: livescience movies reconstructed brain activity, and it's the first result, dated 9/22/2011*
That link shows that they are able to see what a person is seeing by doing nothing more then scanning their brain, and then they can project it onto a computer monitor. And that was 9 years ago. Heres how they progressed to 2016:
*For this URL, google: sciencealert scientists-have-invented-a-mind-reading-machine, and it should be the first link on the page dated 6/23/2016*
Just think what they can do today.
This was already posted by Darat, and then I quoted him to remind the conversation, so it's already been pointed out twice that yes, we can do EXACTLY this. We can use surgery to put electrodes into a blind persons brain, then take red light, turn it into electrical signals, send those signals into the blind persons brain and that person can now see. Therefore, this means that we are in fact using math (that would be in the computer code which runs all this) and are able to use that math to describe the color red to a blind person.
No. Philosophy refuses to believe science had made any advancement post 1700 or so. The last thing science was allowed to discover is that maggots don't spontaneously appear in rotten beef and Newtonian Physics.
The entire history of neuroscience did not happen in this dojo.
"But the mind is still this mysterious mysterious mystery of mysteriousness that your cold, hard science still has no clue about" is where they have to stay to maintain the wise old man on the mountain personas.
We know more about how the brain works (and have longer) then we do about plate tectonics, but there is no "Hard problem of continental drift" we have to still pretend is a thing because there's no Woo to be gained by it.
We could drag them kicking and screaming in front of an MRI or PETScan machine and make them watch it Clockwork Orange style and they'd still be screaming about how we're showing them the process "but not the experience."
Because like I said they don't understand why it doesn't make them deep to watch someone take a clock apart to understand how it works and stand over their shoulder going "I still don't see the ticking" at each step, but it's nothing but the scene in every wacky time travel comedy where the Caveman or the medieval Knight smashes the TV the free the tiny people trapped inside it.
I refer to Jabba's thread parts 1 through 97 trillion.
The entire history of neuroscience did not happen in this dojo.
"But the mind is still this mysterious mysterious mystery of mysteriousness that your cold, hard science still has no clue about" is where they have to stay to maintain the wise old man on the mountain personas.
We know more about how the brain works (and have longer) then we do about plate tectonics, but there is no "Hard problem of continental drift" we have to still pretend is a thing because there's no Woo to be gained by it.
We could drag them kicking and screaming in front of an MRI or PETScan machine and make them watch it Clockwork Orange style and they'd still be screaming about how we're showing them the process "but not the experience."
Because like I said they don't understand why it doesn't make them deep to watch someone take a clock apart to understand how it works and stand over their shoulder going "I still don't see the ticking" at each step, but it's nothing but the scene in every wacky time travel comedy where the Caveman or the medieval Knight smashes the TV the free the tiny people trapped inside it.
I refer to Jabba's thread parts 1 through 97 trillion.
Last edited:
sir drinks-a-lot
Philosopher
sir drinks-a-lot
Philosopher
Wherever you studied philosophy, I'd ask for your money back.