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

[Dave241]

Interesting article - but implant does not describe color mathematically - but provides proxy qualia.

Thank you for acknowledging that post, but you are wrong. It absolutely describes it mathematically, it's computer code. Computer code IS math, full stop. Everything which is done using computer code is done using math. This implant uses computer code, therefore it uses math to describe sight to a blind person.

Therefore, the original claim in this thread has been successfully refuted. We can, in fact, describe red to a blind person. It's time for you to find a different hill to die on, this one has been taken.

 

[Dave241]

By the way I would be interested in a cite to detecting which colour a person is seeing in real time

It would be unsurprising that we could detect this in later analysis of the data but I am surprised that it can be done in real time.

Let's say that today, it can't. I have no idea, but let's say today it takes 1 hour to decode it. Are you claiming it will never get faster? Are you claiming regardless of future advances in computer speed, it will never become real time? Because otherwise, I dont see the point to this objection. If all you need to realize that it's possible to describe red to a blind person is a faster computer, and you are willing to admit that computers will get faster, then you dont have an objection.

 

[RedStapler]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

You already confirmed my post with this ridiculous question:

When you say that you see that they are alike do you mean that you note that they are both reflecting EM waves with a frequency of 700–635 nm, and then you consult a table of frequencies in the visible light spectrum and look and see that that particular wavelength corresponds to red?

It's just the good old argument from ignorance, sprinkled with some special pleading. Nothing new here.

 

[abaddon]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

What is the "qualia" of running.

It is not a difficult question until you discover that you cannot explain it.

It is your "qualia" proposal. Go right ahead and explain your proposal.

Tell us what the "qualia" of running actually is.

 

[Dave241]

I, and presumably (nearly) everyone else experiences qualitia, and while totally familiar and easy to provide examples . . . how my morning cup(s) of coffee tastes, smells and feels like to me . . . it's difficult to provide a usable definition. While it may be difficult to define qualia, that does not mean the tactic should be to claim they don't exist. I see no reason why qualia should not fall under the pervue of science. We obviously need a different approach as there has been zero progress so far - as evidenced by researhers and labs moving in directions like pansychism, 'biological materialism', 'proto-conscious matter' . . . things is getting desperate.

Zero progress? Didn't you read those links of all the progress we've made? You directly replied to one of them, so you must have read about how we can literally describe sight to a blind person. And you even acknowledged it. Yet you wish to claim that being able to literally read a person's mind is "zero progress". I can only imagine you weren't thinking things through when you typed that.

 

[Dave241]

It seems to me that qualia is just a fancy way of saying: When I see red, I have internal experiences apart from the physical experience of actually seeing red. Red might make me angry or might make me remember some other pleasant memory. When I drink a cup of coffee, I have certain internal experiences that are quite apart from the raw taste of the coffee itself . . . etc

OK, but those "qualia" are simply a complicated process that is entirely dependent on my brain function and prior experience; IOW, dependent on how the atoms in my brain have been arranged because of things that have happened to me while drinking coffee/seeing red. It's all, in the end, chemical reactions in the brain creating these internal representations. Qualia, if they can be said to be anything at all, are simply these complex interactions of stimulus and response.

Be careful: It sounds like you just gave a potential definition for qualia, and we all know that is (for some reason) impossible.

To those defending the idea of qualia: When you are asked to define it, why cant you give something like xjx just gave? This is really starting to sound religious, like when I ask someone to define god and I get back "you cant define god, he just exists." Great, so define it. If you dont like the on xjx gave, come up with a different one. Why is this hard?

 

[acbytesla]

I don't want to be antagonistic. That said I abhor woo ideas.

There seems to be an issue for some people that there has to be more to our experiences than the combinations of our senses and our brain. Even though ALL the evidence suggest they are wrong.

As if this somehow detracts from the feelings we have. I have never let that trouble me. I simply accept it and move on. I doubt this knowledge has caused me to enjoy a sunset or a work of art less. In fact, I believe I appreciate it more.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

What is the "qualia" of running.

It is not a difficult question until you discover that you cannot explain it.

It is your "qualia" proposal. Go right ahead and explain your proposal.

Tell us what the "qualia" of running actually is.

"Qualia" is the plural, the singular form is "quale".

You're right, it is a difficult question, but mostly because it's a nonsensical question.

It's easy to come up with other questions of a similiar nature:

- What is the flavor of an electron?
- What is the mass of happiness?

 

[LarryS]

The description is provided not in words, but in the form of electrical impulses representing a two-dimensional mapping of shades and brightness, created by a camera and computer.

Actually, even if that technology didn't exist, there's still a parallel valid argument against qualia. Arguments for the necessity of qualia hinge on claims like the impossibility of describing sight or some detail thereof (such as the redness of red) to a blind person. But without impulses from our eyes, we would all be blind people. So it's clear that it's the merely physical sensory apparatus (in this case lenses, irises, retinas, optic nerves), not anything in the brain or mind or spirit, that makes the difference between experiencing or not experiencing the redness of red.

All the arguments based on "you can't describe what it's like to ____ to a ____ person" merely demonstrate the insufficiency of linguistic descriptions for some purposes.

Correct, the existence of qualia is not based on linguistic shortcomings - but the proposed inability to convey the experience of red providing only knowledge of physical measurable quantities of red (color/vision), measurable quantities such as spin, charge, mass, frequencies, etc.
In fact - one can not use words (linguistics) - one can only describe red using measurable physical quantities.
It's not about the difference between the experience of red, and the experience of redness . . . whatever that is
The question is: In principle, can a brain compute the experience of red provided only measurable physical quantities (assuming brain has full knowledge of those physical quantities)?

 

[RedStapler]

"Qualia" is the plural, the singular form is "quale".

You're right, it is a difficult question, but mostly because it's a nonsensical question.

It's easy to come up with other questions of a similiar nature:

- What is the flavor of an electron?
- What is the mass of happiness?

Evasion noted. At least you admit that you are using a word you can't explain..

 

[Dave241]

I agree, but that is only half of the story. My brain , and therefore qualitative experiences, are all subject to physical laws in the end. It is impossible to have something that is not contingent on physics.

BUT........

Nope, no buts, otherwise you are contradicting the highlighted part. This means if our understanding of physics is sufficient, it will absolutely be possible to describe red to a blind person. The highlighted parts forces you to agree with this. The claim me and others here are making is that we've already passed the point of "suffuciently understanding the physics", and therefore can currently right now describe red to a blind person WITHOUT the need for qualia.

So, if qualia exists, we should be able to define it RIGHT NOW, using already known physics. With equations associated with it. The fact that we cant says that qualia doesnt exist. If you think it does, the first step is defining it. But you admit you cant.

 

[d4m10n]

...if qualia exists, we should be able to define it RIGHT NOW, using already known physics.

Put in "love" or "sarcasm" or "satiety" in place of qualia.

Can we still describe those experiences using the language of physics?

(Admittedly I've not obtained any degrees in physics since the mid-90s, but I'd be surprised if the field has come that far in the interim.)


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Dave241]

I don't follow how describing something to somebody and them having an internal experience based on your description disproves qualia.

It doesnt so much disprove it, as it forces you to define it. Back when we really couldnt describe red to a blind person person qualia was the catch all for what we didnt know about sight in order to describe sight to a blind person. In other words, if you could describe the qualia of seeing red, then you'd actually be able to describe red to a blind person.

Today we dont have that excuse, as we can currently describe red to a blind person. So where is the qualia? Either we've already discovered it and didnt realize it, or we've discovered qualia doesnt exist.

Thus the challange to define it. Since no one can, you get to the claim that it doesnt exist.

 

[Dave241]

"Qualia" is the plural, the singular form is "quale".

You're right, it is a difficult question, but mostly because it's a nonsensical question.

It's easy to come up with other questions of a similiar nature:

- What is the flavor of an electron?
- What is the mass of happiness?

Oh, those are simple questions. Allow me:

What is the flavor of an electron? Electrons have no flavor.
What is the mass of happiness? Happiness has no mass.
What is the qualia of running? Running has no qualia.

You'll notice the one thing they all have in common is they dont exist.

 

[Dave241]

Put in "love" or "sarcasm" or "satiety" in place of qualia.

Can we still describe those experiences using the language of physics?

(Admittedly I've not obtained any degrees in physics since the mid-90s, but I'd be surprised if the field has come that far in the interim.)


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

Im sure we will one day. Does this mean you are moving the goalposts from "we cant describe the color red" to "we cant describe love"? Because remember the op was about seeing color.

But sure, lets move those goalposts. Lets say that today we cant describe love, but in 20 years we can strap electrodes to a persons skull and give them the experience of love. Where does that leave your argument? Or are you suggesting that describing love will be literally impossible, regardless of advances?

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

It doesnt so much disprove it, as it forces you to define it. Back when we really couldnt describe red to a blind person person qualia was the catch all for what we didnt know about sight in order to describe sight to a blind person. In other words, if you could describe the qualia of seeing red, then you'd actually be able to describe red to a blind person.

Look at the wikipedia page above for qualia if you want a definition.

And no, we can't describe the quale for red to a blind person any more than we can describe it to another sighted person. We can show a person something red, and say this is red but we still don't know if their experience of red (quale) is the same as ours and can't really explain it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

In any case, say you induce the experience of "purpleness" in this blind person. How do you validate that the subjective experience of "purpleness" they have is the same as yours? That's more like what the problem is. The experiment being described doesn't sound like it is testing qualia.

The same? What makes you think it's supposed to be the same? Do you know if 'red' is the same to me as it is to you? How could you know?

Hans

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Do you know if 'red' is the same to me as it is to you? How could you know?

We can't, because we can't describe it.

 

[LarryS]

Look at the wikipedia page above for qualia if you want a definition.

And no, we can't describe the quale for red to a blind person any more than we can describe it to another sighted person. We can show a person something red, and say this is red but we still don't know if their experience of red (quale) is the same as ours and can't really explain it.

It's not really a 'description' problem - more of a knowledge problem. If a brain had never seen color but knew every relevant measureable scientific fact/quantity about color (frequency/spin/charge/etc.) . . . can a brain produce an experience of red. I can teach my computer about red, and it will/can display red on a screen. We are here referring to the experience of red . . . "I am seeing and experiencing red, I know what it is like to be me experiencing red" Can a brain compute this given all required/necessary knowledge of physicality such as mass, spin, charge, frequency, etc.

 

[d4m10n]

Or are you suggesting that describing love will be literally impossible, regardless of advances?

I'm suggesting that there is a gap between knowledge of the objective world (e.g. certain wavelengths of light are called red) and the subjective experience thereof (e.g. I perceive that apple as red). One could be entirely colorblind (all rods, no cones) and still be assured that color vision is real and people all generally agree on what to call the uppermost circle on a rainbow. One could be too young to understand eros but still confident that people appear to be motivated by it. Etc.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk