Hard consciousness: binary? cline? else?

[JeanTate]

Oxford Dictionary has a decent definition...

Qualia (noun - from Philosophy): The internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena.

That seems good as it is, but the term seems to come from Philosophy rather than Science. We could go Full Science and choose a different term that means pretty much the same thing, but comes from Science.

For me, "Qualia" seems useful right away, regardless of whether it comes from Science or Philosophy.

One possible approach¹ a scientist² may take, to investigate qualia:
- write a questionnaire, in English
- select a bunch of healthy adults, at random
- ask
- write up and classify

Result: a first attempt at a classification scheme for qualia.

Next: refine, expand (other languages, different samples, children, sick people, non-verbal, ...), revise.

Eventual goal: a robust, empirical taxonomy of Homo sapiens qualia.

I guess a philosopher would do things differently.

¹actually just one small project; iterate many times
²or rather, at least two separate teams of people

 

[JeanTate]

If they exist. This is a matter of definition. I have yet to see a definition that is not assuming dualism.

You can also ask, what use has the term qualia, except to imply that consciousness is dualistic?

Assuming a robust taxonomy (see my last post), perhaps a new aid/tool for psychologists, psychiatrists, neurologists?

Probably not much of value to physicists or philosophers though

 

[William Parcher]

One possible approach¹ a scientist² may take, to investigate qualia:
- write a questionnaire, in English
- select a bunch of healthy adults, at random
- ask
- write up and classify

Result: a first attempt at a classification scheme for qualia.

Next: refine, expand (other languages, different samples, children, sick people, non-verbal, ...), revise.

Eventual goal: a robust, empirical taxonomy of Homo sapiens qualia.

I guess a philosopher would do things differently.

¹actually just one small project; iterate many times
²or rather, at least two separate teams of people

You have created a Poe Trap which will ensnare Philosophers. I'm not going to touch such bait.


Empirical Taxonomy. ROFL

 

[JeanTate]

You have created a Poe Trap which will ensnare Philosophers. I'm not going to touch such bait.


Empirical Taxonomy. ROFL

Well, this is the Science board, not the Philosophy one.

Genuine question: is a headache a quale? How about nausea?

Appropriately caveated, they both seem to fit the definition of qualia to a T (or a Q).

Am I missing something?

 

[Darat]

So where, on the sliding scale (continuum, cline) do qualia occur?



Perhaps the existence of qualia, for an object/entity with consciousness, is also on a sliding scale: electrons have consciousness but no qualia, primates have both in spades, nematode worms have consciousness but just the hint of a quale or two, azaleas have consciousness but no qualia (that sort of thing)?

You first need to demonstrate that qualia exist. What you are really doing is (as an examination le) asking how telepathy works before showing telepathy exists, putting the cart before the horse.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Would anybody take issue with this statement; contemporary science declares that human-centric consciousness is only found in biological entities and that it is binary (Exist or doesn't exist)?

I cannot recall the word that came about as a result of phenomenological inquiry which states that it may be impossible to create AI because consciousness is only innate in biological substances. I cannot recall the term... 'something' materialism/physicalism.

The talk of qualia is, in my opinion, the result of insufficient understanding of how minds work.
We probably need better models and definitions of consciousness before a something like "Qualia" will become useful .

Agreed. Plant's are conscious if your definition includes exchange of information between cells and with other plants, or making complex decisions which prolong their existence. Although, you'd have to make the assumption that these decisions are a result of contemplation with knowledge and not a result of programming in their DNA. Plants have evolved and continue to survive for millions of years. I cannot in good faith attribute these numerous concurrent success to a series of random chances.

 

[ServiceSoon]

You first need to demonstrate that qualia exist. What you are really doing is (as an examination le) asking how telepathy works before showing telepathy exists, putting the cart before the horse.

"I think therefore I am." Thanks Descartes, what is next?

 

[JeanTate]

You first need to demonstrate that qualia exist. What you are really doing is (as an examination le) asking how telepathy works before showing telepathy exists, putting the cart before the horse.

Per the definition William Parcher posted, qualia exist. As I said, headaches are an example of qualia, as is nausea*.

*of course, I may have misunderstood that definition; if so, I hope William Parcher will be along soon to set me straight

 

[JeanTate]

Would anybody take issue with this statement; contemporary science declares that human-centric consciousness is only found in biological entities and that it is binary (Exist or doesn't exist)?

Well, I certainly take issue with that!

In fact, to the extent that “contemporary science” can “declare” anything, I doubt that “human-centric consciousness” makes sense at all.

Here’s something to chew on: your “consciousness” waxes and wanes, e.g. full wakefulness, the weird falling asleep but not yet asleep, dreaming, near-death coma.

I cannot recall the word that came about as a result of phenomenological inquiry which states that it may be impossible to create AI because consciousness is only innate in biological substances. I cannot recall the term... 'something' materialism/physicalism.

Agreed. Plant's are conscious if your definition includes exchange of information between cells and with other plants, or making complex decisions which prolong their existence. Although, you'd have to make the assumption that these decisions are a result of contemplation with knowledge and not a result of programming in their DNA. Plants have evolved and continue to survive for millions of years. I cannot in good faith attribute these numerous concurrent success to a series of random chances.

So what about bacteria? Viruses?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Here’s something to chew on: your “consciousness” waxes and wanes, e.g. full wakefulness, the weird falling asleep but not yet asleep, dreaming, near-death coma.

Even when fully awake, a large part of your mind is unconscious.

The unconscious mind (or the unconscious) consists of the processes in the mind which occur automatically and are not available to introspection and include thought processes, memories, interests and motivations...

an extensive line of research conducted by Hasher and Zacks has demonstrated that individuals register information about the frequency of events automatically (i.e., outside of conscious awareness and without engaging conscious information processing resources).

So what about bacteria? Viruses?

They are not conscious. How could they be, with no brain? Ascribing 'consciousness' to organisms with no higher brain function, or even inanimate objects, is an abuse of language.

 

[Minoosh]

You've got an apple in front of you. Choosing to eat it, or not, is a situation and an act which proves Free Will exists. We use our brain and our senses to provide the theater staging and motive(s) for Free Will.

Our Free Will is inherent in this universe.

How does picking up/not picking up the apple prove free will? You might be acting purely on physiological processes. If my dog eats/doesn't eat her food, does that prove free will? How about a snake? Do they have free will, or is striking/not striking purely instinctive?

The problem is, if you burrow down deep in biology, you'll find tons of examples of an organism acting instinctively, without any element of free will. So the question becomes: Biologically, when exactly does free will develop? Dog yes, snake no? And that takes you to, "How do I know it's my choice to eat the apple? Maybe it just feels like I have a choice." I don't particularly like that proposition because it is so counter-intuitive, but logically, it's got a lot going for it.

If you believe in "mind over matter," what's really going on in your mind but a bunch of biological processes?

 

[Minoosh]

They are not conscious. How could they be, with no brain? Ascribing 'consciousness' to organisms with no higher brain function, or even inanimate objects, is an abuse of language.

So when, biologically, does consciousness emerge?

ETA: For a long time I was allergic to these conversations, for personal reasons. But that passed, and now I wonder how dualistic perceptions emerged.

 

[JeanTate]

Even when fully awake, a large part of your mind is unconscious.


They are not conscious. How could they be, with no brain? Ascribing 'consciousness' to organisms with no higher brain function, or even inanimate objects, is an abuse of language.

It would seem, then, that many a philosopher abuses, even tortures, language!

So only some animals can have consciousness, as sponges, jellyfish, and starfish do not have brains.

What is the minimal set of brain functions an animal must have (“higher brain function”) in order for it to possess consciousness? Do ragworms qualify?

 

[JeanTate]

Even when fully awake, a large part of your mind is unconscious.


They are not conscious. How could they be, with no brain? Ascribing 'consciousness' to organisms with no higher brain function, or even inanimate objects, is an abuse of language.

Missed this: so even in the deepest level of sedation, a human has consciousness, but as whatever is going on in the brain is not available to introspection, there are no qualia?

Not sure (some) philosophers would be happy with that ... qualia which come and go, ...

 

[Minoosh]

Plants have evolved and continue to survive for millions of years. I cannot in good faith attribute these numerous concurrent success to a series of random chances.

Someone more knowledgeable than I may disagree, but as far as I can tell, evolution is the result of a series of random chances.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I cannot recall the word that came about as a result of phenomenological inquiry which states that it may be impossible to create AI because consciousness is only innate in biological substances. I cannot recall the term... 'something' materialism/physicalism.

Around these parts it's the Magic Bean theory. There may not be anything special about consciousness that you couldn't replicate in a computer, but it doesn't count unless there's a magic bean too. Human brains have it, computers just don't.

How does picking up/not picking up the apple prove free will? You might be acting purely on physiological processes. If my dog eats/doesn't eat her food, does that prove free will? How about a snake? Do they have free will, or is striking/not striking purely instinctive?

The problem is, if you burrow down deep in biology, you'll find tons of examples of an organism acting instinctively, without any element of free will. So the question becomes: Biologically, when exactly does free will develop? Dog yes, snake no? And that takes you to, "How do I know it's my choice to eat the apple? Maybe it just feels like I have a choice." I don't particularly like that proposition because it is so counter-intuitive, but logically, it's got a lot going for it.

Why does an organism acting instinctively mean it doesn't have free will? Free will is about making a choice. Choices are what brains do. A worm burrowing through the earth has free will, because it must constantly choose to go left or right, up or down. It may not seem like much of a decision to you, but it could be life or death to the worm.

 

[steenkh]

Someone more knowledgeable than I may disagree, but as far as I can tell, evolution is the result of a series of random chances.

I disagree partly. Evolution is not just random mutations. It is also selection which is not random at all.

 

[Minoosh]

Why does an organism acting instinctively mean it doesn't have free will? Free will is about making a choice. Choices are what brains do. A worm burrowing through the earth has free will, because it must constantly choose to go left or right, up or down. It may not seem like much of a decision to you, but it could be life or death to the worm.

I used to think that my dog decided where to pee based on where other dogs had peed. Then I realized it was probably just as likely that no thought at all was occurring, and that the smell simply induced the need to pee.

Human behavior may have more complex interplays of instinctive vs. learned responses, but no matter how many loops there are, maybe each second we are ultimately acting in a stimulus-response mode, which happens to be accompanied by an internal narrative about why we're doing what we're doing.

 

[StillSleepy]

I would be curious to know how people reconcile the concept of qualia with disturbances of ipseity? Is the emphasis within qualia more on the observation being made or on the observation being one's own?

 

[Minoosh]

I disagree partly. Evolution is not just random mutations. It is also selection which is not random at all.

I felt like I was missing something. But wouldn't any survival/reproductive edge be conferred by random mutations?

It is not random which mutation survives, but the mutation itself is random.