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

[Darat]

OK, those things certainly seem to create my experience of redness. I don't dispute that they do. How would we confirm that my experience of redness is the same or different to yours? Maybe two quite different ways of producing redness actually produce the same qualia, while a similar looking way produces blarfness? How would we determine that?

As I said this would seem to be very unlikely since we all have very similar hardware that we know reacts in pretty much the same way to the same stimulus.

For example: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ns-thoughts-into-words-using-a-brain-implant/

 

[shuttlt]

This idea may seem totally crazy and outlandish at first but how about we showed both of you something red and confirm that both of you see red

I am with you 100% up until the part of that beginning with the word "confirm". It's not like what either of us experience as redness has anything to do with the properties of red objects. It's just a sensation that our brains have made up and associated with the red cones in our eyes being activated. You can't confirm that the sensation that my brain is making up is the same sensation that your brain is making up when we see a red object.

 

[RedStapler]

I am with you 100% up until the part of that beginning with the word "confirm". It's not like what either of us experience as redness has anything to do with the properties of red objects. It's just a sensation that our brains have made up and associated with the red cones in our eyes being activated. You can't confirm that the sensation that my brain is making up is the same sensation that your brain is making up when we see a red object.

When 2 people say "this is red" it's totally sufficient.

When 1 says "This is a light red" and 1 says "This is a dark red" it's STILL sufficient.

Why do you try to create a conflict that is absolutely not there?

 

[shuttlt]

When 2 people say "this is red" it's totally sufficient.

When 1 says "This is a light red" and 1 says "This is a dark red" it's STILL sufficient.

Why do you try to create a conflict that is absolutely not there?

Because this was the movable feast that is the discussion of qualia. Saying "why complicate things by talking about qualia" doesn't make sense to me.

 

[shuttlt]

As I said this would seem to be very unlikely since we all have very similar hardware that we know reacts in pretty much the same way to the same stimulus.

For example: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ns-thoughts-into-words-using-a-brain-implant/

I don't care whether it is unlikely or not. How would we in principle check that your experience of redness is the same as mine. It's not like it would matter in the battle for survival if our experience was different, so there would be no evolutionary pressure to make sure that it was.

It feels like for you it is axiomatically the case that it is, so the question doesn't make sense to you.

 

[RedStapler]

Because this was the movable feast that is the discussion of qualia. Saying "why complicate things by talking about qualia" doesn't make sense to me.

No offense, but why should anyone care if this makes sense to you. It's already clear that you want a conflict. Again: There is none.

 

[shuttlt]

No offense, but why should anyone care if this makes sense to you. It's already clear that you want a conflict. Again: There is none.

OK. I will continue talking about qualia. You go ahead and have a different conversation about other aspects of the world.

 

[RedStapler]

OK. I will continue talking about qualia. You go ahead and have a different conversation about other aspects of the world.

You mean you simply repeat one totally irrelevant question over and over and over. Allright, go for it.

 

[shuttlt]

You mean you simply repeat one totally irrelevant question over and over and over. Allright, go for it.

It's not an irrelevant question. Nobody has answered it. Attempts to answer it have reframed it as if it was a question about neurons and assigning categories to sense data which it isn't.

 

[RedStapler]

It's not an irrelevant question.

It absolutely is.

Nobody has answered it.

That's because it's irrelevant.

Attempts to answer it have reframed it as if it was a question about neurons and assigning categories to sense data which it isn't.

It absolutely is. Welcome to a "boring" reality.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What is ticking? It is movement.... It's the transfer of energy... There is nothing in ticking that isn't just an elaboration of the properties of the parts of the clock.

False. Take all the parts of a clock, lay them out on a work bench, and listen. Is anything making any sound? No, it isn't. The emission of the regular ticking sound is a property of the assembled clock that is totally absent from the individual elements of the clock.

Same with a computer, it doesn't do anything that isn't a more complicated version of what it's parts can do.

Equally wrong. Take your computer to bits - in fact, simply disconnect the power supply - and none of it will perform any calculations.

Your problem is that you simply do not understand what the term "emergent" means.

Dave

 

[shuttlt]

It absolutely is.



That's because it's irrelevant.



It absolutely is. Welcome to a "boring" reality.

I suspect you don't understand what qualia are. Until you do, this conversation isn't going to go anywhere.

 

[RedStapler]

I suspect you don't understand what qualia are.

Well, it's hard understanding something that does not exist. Only because a woo slinger slapped a label on it does not mean it is worth considering.

But good luck with repeating the question if 2 people really see the same red for X pages and handwaving any answer you don't like.

 

[Darat]

It's not an irrelevant question. Nobody has answered it. Attempts to answer it have reframed it as if it was a question about neurons and assigning categories to sense data which it isn't.

That is not the case. If we look at the organ itself, like we look at any other organ, similar inputs give similar outputs. There is simply no reason to think the brain isn’t the same.

 

[shuttlt]

False. Take all the parts of a clock, lay them out on a work bench, and listen. Is anything making any sound? No, it isn't. The emission of the regular ticking sound is a property of the assembled clock that is totally absent from the individual elements of the clock.



Equally wrong. Take your computer to bits - in fact, simply disconnect the power supply - and none of it will perform any calculations.

Your problem is that you simply do not understand what the term "emergent" means.

Dave

This amounts to what I said that ticking is a complicated behaviour. It's a more complicated behaviour of the behaviours of the constituent elements of the system.

Now, go back to the game of life style Langton's Ant mentioned earlier - post 388

Can the sound of ticking arise from that kind of process?

"Its an emergent property" is a hand waving way of explaining things away without explaining them.

What we have with qualia is a 2 dimensional grid with squares turning black or white based on some set of rules. Somehow we end up with the sound of ticking. Saying "oh, ticking is an emergent property" isn't a very satisfying explanation.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This amounts to what I said that ticking is a complicated behaviour. It's a more complicated behaviour of the behaviours of the constituent elements of the system.

You're not only wrong, but obviously wrong. Ticking is a behavior that is completely absent from the constituent elements of the system. Either agree to that or tell me which constituent part of a clock ticks more simply than a whole clock.

Saying "oh, ticking is an emergent property" isn't a very satisfying explanation.

Not as long as you don't understand what "emergent" means, no.

Dave

 

[shuttlt]

No, wetness is an emergent property of congregations of many water molecules. But any one water molecule cannot be descibed as wet.

Sure, we apply labels to aggregate behaviour and aggregate behaviour requires a bunch of things to be aggregated. There is no magic trick. If the behaviour wasn't actually just a complicated collection of things that the individual components could do, that would indeed be remarkable.

 

[shuttlt]

You're not only wrong, but obviously wrong. Ticking is a behavior that is completely absent from the constituent elements of the system. Either agree to that or tell me which constituent part of a clock ticks more simply than a whole clock.



Not as long as you don't understand what "emergent" means, no.

Dave

Go back to the ant example. The sound of ticking can't emerge out of that. Why not? What is missing from it?

The reason it can arise from the components of the clock is that the sound of ticking is just what happens when energy is imparted from the atoms of the clock, to the atoms in the air over a short period of time. We are bundling a whole bunch of that and other things into the label "ticking", but there is nothing remarkable in it.

Unless we say that the rules of game with the ant include energy being transferred to the air atoms around the game, then the sound of ticking can't emerge.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Go back to the ant example. The sound of ticking can't emerge out of that. Why not? What is missing from it?

That's a stupid question. Ticking is not an emergent behavior of Langton's Ant.

A better question might be: I just took a clock to bits, then put them together in a different way. It doesn't tick now. Why not? What is missing from it?

The reason it can arise from the components of the clock is that the sound of ticking is just what happens when energy is imparted from the atoms of the clock, to the atoms in the air over a short period of time.

Agreed. Now tell me which part of the clock does that in a simpler way when it isn't part of the clock. You don't need to use technical language; just give me a general idea which part of a clock makes a simple version of a ticking noise when it's on its own.

The answer is, there isn't one, because ticking is an emergent property of the clock when the components are assembled in a particular way.

Unless we say that the rules of game with the ant include energy being transferred to the air atoms around the game, then the sound of ticking can't emerge.

Give me a link, please, to the rules of a clock assembly game that says "This game must include energy being transferred to the air atoms around the game." Or perhaps admit that you're just trying to muddy the waters.

Dave

 

[RedStapler]

..