The Hard Problem of Gravity

[Belz...]

For those playing at home, fifteen orders of magnitude is equivalent to saying that the planet Mars weighs the same as the Empire State Building.

Now, come on, Pixy. They're pretty much the same!

 

[Belz...]

Or made up, depending.



No, but the fact that you can have qualia about qualia about qualia about turtles certainly doesn't help the idea's credibility.



By any reasonable definition, yes.



Based on what's been said in this thread, you've just asked me if I experiencingly experience the world in an experiencing manner.

What the hell do those terms mean, anyway ? How do you "objectively" experience ? How do you experience in a quantitative manner ?

Aku ?

 

[PixyMisa]

Took me a moment to dig that one out, but it's actually very close. To 15 orders of magnitude, that is.

Unless I've messed up somewhere The Empire State Building has a mass of around 3.4 x 10⁸ kg, and Mars has a mass of around 6.4 x 10²³ kg. So off by about a factor of two, but that's close enough for internet forum work.

...

Damn. I should have used Mercury as my example. Then I'd be within 3%.

 

[H'ethetheth]

No, that's not really the same.

I don't see why not. Brainstates about other brainstates are not those brainstates, just as brain states about aircraft are not aircraft. Obviously brain states about anything can exist in the brain without it being necessary that these things themselves exist in the brain. I have no idea why that would not go for specific brain states as well.

If you know "everything there is to know" about the physical process of seeing colour, then you know what it feels like, because that is simply part of the physical process.

Then you use the word "know" in a different way than I do. I assumed Jackson meant "every objectively verifiable thing there is to know", which would exclude knowledge of experiencing redness.

...Unless you assume that it's not physical - which is precisely what Jackson does, which is why his argument isn't logically valid.

Well maybe, but I don't think his premises need to be rejected to make the argument bunk,for the above reason.

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't see why not. Brainstates about other brainstates are not those brainstates, just as brain states about aircraft are not aircraft. Obviously brain states about anything can exist in the brain without it being necessary that these things themselves exist in the brain. I have no idea why that would not go for specific brain states as well.

All of which is true in general, but -

Then you use the word "know" in a different way than I do. I assumed Jackson meant "every objectively verifiable thing there is to know", which would exclude knowledge of experiencing redness.

That's exactly the problem with the argument. If he is talking about what you can actually, practically know, then that just excludes the knowledge of the experience, and the argument is a tautology.

If he really means everything there is to know, then that includes the knowledge of the experience, and the argument is a self-contradiction.

Well maybe, but I don't think his premises need to be rejected to make the argument bunk,for the above reason.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there's only one problem with the argument.

 

[AkuManiMani]

The basic premise of the GWT is that consciousness involves parallel processing between the various modules of the brain. Ofcourse, the brain itself does not operate in a vacuum and it directly tied to the rest of the nervous system, endocrine system, cardiovascular system, immune system, etc...

Directly? No.

Oh? If the brain is not directly linked to other body systems what is the mediating factor between brain and body?

The flaws you've listed aren't actual features of what I'm proposing.

Ah. So when you say it's a field, you don't mean it's a field, even though when pressed on what you mean by field you say it's a field.

Do I have that right?

When I said field I meant field. I've demonstrated that your earlier assertion that the brain neither generates or is affected by EM fields is flat-out wrong. But I guess that doesn't matter when you can simply shift the goal post again, right?

The mind seamlessly integrates modular processes across the brain to generate our conscious experience.

Nope. The mind does nothing of the sort. If you say that the mind is the integration of modular processes across the brain, then that I would certainly agree with. There's nothing seamless about it, though. Even the most cursory study of neuroscience or psychology shows seams all over the place. Information lost, inconsistencies, confabulation, that sort of thing.

Your experience of the world is a seamless integration of modular brain functions. Its the reason why 'inconsistencies' and 'confabulations' are not readily apparent to a subject unless there is extreme dysfunction -- as in the case of mental and neurological disorders.

Regardless, all the contributions of those neural modules are put together to form the combined out-put that make up our conscious experience. If not in a distributed field, where then does our conscious experience come together?

There's no single central administrator, that's true. That doesn't mean that there's no part of the brain that is the key to consciousness.

Did I say there weren't?

But yes, in general, this is quite correct. But it's not a global function. Different parts of the brain performa different functions, and we can acutally see activity progressing from one part of the brain to another during (for example) visual perception experiments.

The unified experience of those processes IS a global function. Cut off one module and it affects the entirety of one's mental experience.

The most obvious mechanism for syncing all of these processes into an integrative whole would be a field.

NO.

The mind doesn't behave like that. It is not seamless. It is not synchronous. It is not unified.
The brain doesn't work like that. It's a switch network. The neurons are interconnected.
There is no transmitter for such a field. The RF signal of individual neurons is extremely weak.
There is no receiver for such a field. The RF signal of the whole brain is not powerful enough to change the operation of a single neuron.
There is no such field. Yes, the brain gives off electromagnetic radiation. This does not contain the information or have the effect you claim.
It's physically impossible. See all of the above.

Wait, wait...Lemme get this strait... First you assert that there is no way for the brain to generate EM fields. Now, after I've demonstrated that they do, you're seriously claiming that there is no coherent global brainwave activity or synchronous neural firing? The global Delta, Theta, Alpha, Beta, and Gamma waves of the brain are all incoherent noise? That it's absolutely physically impossible for there to be any relevant and coherent EM field activity across the brain? Are you daft?

Your computer radiates RF noise. That in no way implies that it works via RF noise.

And indeed it doesn't.

As an old forum buddy likes to say: Irrelevant.

Sorry, no, this is completely wrong.

You can, with a sensitive antenna array and a special amplifier (and very close proximity), pick up the electromagnetic waves produced by the electrical impulses in the brain.

A neuron cannot do that. It just plain doesn't have the hardware necessary to transmit or receive signals that way.

What it does have is direct connections to other neurons. And we can directly monitor signals going from neuron to neuron, and and activity happening as bursts of signals fire between neurons in specific regions of the brain, and map it to various cognitive functions, and at no time is any field implied or requried to explain the observations.

TMS - transcranial magnetic stimulation - can induce cognitive changes. The magnetic field used for this is on the order of a Tesla. The magnetic field produced by the brain itself is on the order of a femtoTesla. In other words, it's a quadrillion times weaker than what we know is required to influence the operation of the brain in the way you suggest.

First I would like to say I'm impressed. You've actually taken the time to put forward actual argumentation. Kudos.

Now to address your above argument. Why do you assume that neural cells [which have physical properties that are quite different from artificial antenna arrays in current use] are not affected by the collective EM field activity of the brain? It would go a long way toward explaining the nature of memory storage and what is actually 'experiencing' the collective inputs of disparate brain modules. There is plenty of evidence that the EM field activity of the brain is relevant to mental functions -- in fact, the EM field model of consciousness is one of many legitimate theories in neuroscience.

- http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/pdfs/mcfadden_JCS2002b.pdf

- http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness

- http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2002/05/52674

- http://members.shaw.ca/jamesball/Ball_ConsciousnessWhatIsIt.pdf

- http://www.unisci.com/stories/20022/0516026.htm

That's what sciency types refer to as "physically impossible".

The fact that so many 'sciency types' take the theory seriously says differently. But I'm sure, being the absolute authority that you are, you could easily set them strait

Read the MEG article you linked to, then look up transcranial magnetic stimulation, then try to bridge the 15-orders-of-magnitude gap.

For those playing at home, fifteen orders of magnitude is equivalent to saying that the planet Mars weighs the same as the Empire State Building.

Irrelevant. I said that the actual carrier of conscious experience is most likely the collective EM activity of the brain. In response, you asserted that the brain can neither generate or 'receive' such a field. I posted the two articles on EEG and MEG to illustrate that the brain does indeed generate an EM field and, in the case of the EEG article, demonstrated that global brainwave patterns are directly relevant to mental states.

Now, you not only move the goal post -again- but you toss in a red herring about the difference of field densities between endogenous brain fields and that of external devices used to manipulate those fields.

In closing, I'll note that I understood perfectly what you were saying from the beginning. You said field. You meant field.

Oh, so its not a misunderstanding; you're just deliberately being obtuse and dishonest.

And it is completely impossible, exactly as I said the first time.

I said that the carrier of conscious experience is the endogenous EM field of the brain -- not that we are RF receivers that pick up radio transmissions.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Eh? Metaphysics, by definition, is what is 'after' or 'beyond' physics. Its just so happens that qualia is beyond the current understanding of physics.

Or made up, depending.

Belz, you have subjective experiences that, presumably, can be broken down into basic components. Thats qualia and they are not accounted for in current physics.

No, but the fact that you can have qualia about qualia about qualia about turtles certainly doesn't help the idea's credibility.

Nonsense. Thats like saying texts about texts are logically implausible.

Are you conscious?

By any reasonable definition, yes.

The basic elements of your conscious experience are what I'm calling qualia. What is so extraordinary or implausible about that??

Based on what's been said in this thread, you've just asked me if I experiencingly experience the world in an experiencing manner.

What the hell do those terms mean, anyway ? How do you "objectively" experience ? How do you experience in a quantitative manner ?

When you punch a wall it objectively experiences a physical blow but, presumably, there is no subjective experience of the sensations of a blow or pain by the wall.

Edit:

Aku ?

Don't assume that because I don't immediately respond to your posts that I'm ignoring you. I just got my hands full with RL stuff as well as responding to other posters

 

[westprog]

So you are saying that the statistical probability of a given behavior occuring in a working computer is the same as the statistical probability of the same behavior occuring in a pile of electronic components on the floor?

Are you saying that the existence of life nothing to do with the order relies upon?

Are you saying that the probability of finding a certain configuration of molecules in a crystal is identical to the probability of finding a certain configuration in a random aggregation of molecules?

Are you really suggesting such things?

I will just let you come up with your own term for whatever this is, then, westprog, because you seem to be unwilling to use any language created by anyone other than yourself.

So what do you call it? What is the difference between the behavior of a drop of water and the behavior of a snowflake?

Every different collection of molecules has its own set of probabilities of assuming different configurations. These probabilities are a measure of our ignorance of the state of the system. If we have perfect knowledge of the state of the system, then the probabilities will collapse to the deterministic outcome. What must happen will have probability one, what can't happen will have probability zero. This applies to all physical systems.

This leaves aside the question of quantum fluctuations, which are of course disregarded by the computational model anyway.

So the idea that one physical system exhibits random behaviour while another is deterministic is simply wrong. Hence it's unlikely to be the basis of a physical theory.

If it is wished to show that something called "computation" takes place in a working computer, but not in a heap of electronic components lying on the floor, then it is necessary to show exactly what it is that's happening. The idea that one system exhibits deterministic behaviour and the other one random is simply wrong. We know how the heap of components will behave. It will sit there, at room temperature. Every bit as deterministic as the working computer.

We've had switches, we've had randomness - what next?

 

[westprog]

I said that the carrier of conscious experience is the endogenous EM field of the brain -- not that we are RF receivers that pick up radio transmissions.

I have a feeling that the main reason for rejecting a field model for consciousness has nothing to do with the evidence, but the fact that it conflicts with the sacred computational model.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Hi AMM, there are not field effects in the way neurons work, sorry (at least in the way they pass information). At least not in the way physics defines an EM field. They are biochemical bags that use a phase shift in the polarity of the cell membrane and ion flux (through channels) to self signal the release of neurotransmitter.

The EM pulse that is detected by machines is the side effect of the phase shift in the membrane and the ion flux/movement. When the postsynaptic receptors reach threshold they tell the cell to 'fire' this cause the channels to open and the calcium, sodium and potassium ions to cross the membrane due to osmotic pressure. The calcium has one charge and the sodium and potassium have another. So the overall balance of ion potential changes when the cell fires (I forget which way it goes, if the calcium goes out and the sodium comes in or visa versa.) But it goes from one state of osmotic ionization potential to a neutral one, this wave of depolarization travels down the axon and signals the presynaptic vesicles to release neurotransmitter. And that is what makes the next neuron fire, and so on.

But the weak EM signal that machines detect is from the shift in ion osmotic potential and the ions rush in or out. The signal is carried by the neurotransmitter in the cleft, it is not carried between cells through the weak EM pulse.

So at least in the sense of EM fields in physics, there is no transmission signal from the EM pulse between neurons, it is through the release and binding of neurotransmitters.

I understand, DD; I'm not ignorant of the basic facts of neuroscience. I'm aware that neurons communicate directly with their neighbors via neurotransmitters which convey information that propagates across the cell membrane as electrical signals.

When I talk about the collective EM field activity of the brain being the carrier of conscious experience I'm not referring simply to the exchange of neurotransmitters between synapses. I am aware of the relative weakness of the field. My point is that the EEM [endogenous electromagnetic field] itself may be the 'seat' of conscious awareness, that relevant information [like memories] is encoded within that field, and that the properties of said field are relevant to the endogenous generation of action potentials. I don't think that its a coincidence that global brainwave patterns and frequencies are associated with different conscious states or that directed action and attention is correlated with synchronous neural firing.

I rather independently came to this conclusion myself, but it was a bit of a surprise to find that there were researchers already investigating such a possibility. Giving it some further thought, it seems clear that such a model would provide a scientific basis for investigating what memes actually are. According to Dawkins' scheme, memes are a kind of mental replicator. In order for them to replicate they must comprise of replicatable units of information that can be stored and conveyed with some fidelity [i.e. they must have some stable structure]. Clearly, entities like, thoughts, memes, memories, qualia, etc. are not neural cells nor are they contained by any particular cell or group of cells. There must be some media upon which they are stored and, as of now, it seems highly likely that they are stored within the EEM field of the brain.

 

[Belz...]

Belz, you have subjective experiences that, presumably, can be broken down into basic components.

Not according to you. You said that you can experience experiences, so there IS no basic component.

Thats qualia

"Thats" also very funny, because then "qualia" is a synonym for "experience".

and they are not accounted for in current physics.

Oh ? And what added physical laws are required ?

Nonsense. Thats like saying texts about texts are logically implausible.

No, it is nothing like that, actually, because nobody is claiming that texts are basic.

The basic elements of your conscious experience are what I'm calling qualia. What is so extraordinary or implausible about that??

You seem to have your own definition of qualia, then.

When you punch a wall it objectively experiences a physical blow but, presumably, there is no subjective experience of the sensations of a blow or pain by the wall.

The wall will be affected by the blow, nonetheless. But, of course, that's not what I asked, because the wall doesn't experience anything.

So, again, how do you "objectively" experience ? How do you experience in a quantitative manner ?

Don't assume that because I don't immediately respond to your posts that I'm ignoring you.

I simply assumed that since you took the time to respond to later posts you were ignoring me.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Now to address your above argument. Why do you assume that neural cells [which have physical properties that are quite different from artificial antenna arrays in current use] are not affected by the collective EM field activity of the brain? It would go a long way toward explaining the nature of memory storage and what is actually 'experiencing' the collective inputs of disparate brain modules. There is plenty of evidence that the EM field activity of the brain is relevant to mental functions -- in fact, the EM field model of consciousness is one of many legitimate theories in neuroscience.

- http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/pdfs/mcfadden_JCS2002b.pdf

- http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness

- http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2002/05/52674

- http://members.shaw.ca/jamesball/Ball_ConsciousnessWhatIsIt.pdf

- http://www.unisci.com/stories/20022/0516026.htm

Not following this closely, but wouldn't an MRI, which depends on generation of a strong magnetic field seriously alter brain states if they depended on a general field created by neurons? Since this doesn't happen, I think it is safe to assume that it is the direct interaction of neurons that is responsible and not the minor electrical fields generated by neuron action.

 

[rocketdodger]

Every different collection of molecules has its own set of probabilities of assuming different configurations. These probabilities are a measure of our ignorance of the state of the system. If we have perfect knowledge of the state of the system, then the probabilities will collapse to the deterministic outcome. What must happen will have probability one, what can't happen will have probability zero. This applies to all physical systems.

This leaves aside the question of quantum fluctuations, which are of course disregarded by the computational model anyway.

So the idea that one physical system exhibits random behaviour while another is deterministic is simply wrong. Hence it's unlikely to be the basis of a physical theory.

If it is wished to show that something called "computation" takes place in a working computer, but not in a heap of electronic components lying on the floor, then it is necessary to show exactly what it is that's happening. The idea that one system exhibits deterministic behaviour and the other one random is simply wrong. We know how the heap of components will behave. It will sit there, at room temperature. Every bit as deterministic as the working computer.

We've had switches, we've had randomness - what next?

What is the difference between the behavior of a drop of water and the behavior of a snowflake?

 

[AkuManiMani]

Not following this closely, but wouldn't an MRI, which depends on generation of a strong magnetic field seriously alter brain states if they depended on a general field created by neurons? Since this doesn't happen, I think it is safe to assume that it is the direct interaction of neurons that is responsible and not the minor electrical fields generated by neuron action.

That is an interesting point. Even so, it seems relevant that an external EM source would have to be of a specific range of frequencies to have a direct effect on biological functioning, let alone mental states. There is a SciAM article that goes into more detail about that here.

 

[Dancing David]

Oh? If the brain is not directly linked to other body systems what is the mediating factor between brain and body?



When I said field I meant field. I've demonstrated that your earlier assertion that the brain neither generates or is affected by EM fields is flat-out wrong. But I guess that doesn't matter when you can simply shift the goal post again, right?

AMM, what the fred are you talking about.

It is clearly established that the neurons transmit their signal through the release of neurotransmitters.

What the heckalolly polly wolly doddle are you talking about.

The neuronal cell do not communicate through EM, so you are flat out wrong.

...




Wait, wait...Lemme get this strait... First you assert that there is no way for the brain to generate EM fields. Now, after I've demonstrated that they do, you're seriously claiming that there is no coherent global brainwave activity or synchronous neural firing? The global Delta, Theta, Alpha, Beta, and Gamma waves of the brain are all incoherent noise? That it's absolutely physically impossible for there to be any relevant and coherent EM field activity across the brain? Are you daft?

Look dude, i do not know why you have your undies in a bunch, just chill PM is what he is.

But there is no transmission between neurons through the EM fields and forces.

Does that make sense to you or not?

Serotonin , it is not an EM pulse or field.

...
Now to address your above argument. Why do you assume that neural cells [which have physical properties that are quite different from artificial antenna arrays in current use] are not affected by the collective EM field activity of the brain?

Nope they are not, there is no research thats ays they are, what are you talking about? Neuronal transmission occurs through the use of neurotransmitters.

No doubt about it.

Do you have any research or data to back your speculation?

It would go a long way toward explaining the nature of memory storage and what is actually 'experiencing' the collective inputs of disparate brain modules.

Not really you alread have the revereberating cycles of the biochemical units and transmission, along with attenuation and potentiation.

Your theory is nice, but where is the data?

Where has any one shown that neurons transmit information through the EM forces?

There is plenty of evidence that the EM field activity of the brain is relevant to mental functions -- in fact, the EM field model of consciousness is one of many legitimate theories in neuroscience.

Time to put up AMM, I await you data and research and it had better be good, those are some tall words you put up there.

- http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/pdfs/mcfadden_JCS2002b.pdf

Won't open will try later.

- http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness

Excuse me, but they NO WHERE demonstrate that their idea is true, where is the data?

- http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2002/05/52674

Where is Mcfadden's data, where does he/she show that the EM pulse does anything to the other nuerons?
Where is the data, where is the research?

- http://members.shaw.ca/jamesball/Ball_ConsciousnessWhatIsIt.pdf

Blocked at school.

- http://www.unisci.com/stories/20022/0516026.htm

You have got to be kidding right?

Where si the data, where do they show that this happens.

i will wait but seriously this is not supported, show me the data and research!

The fact that so many 'sciency types' take the theory seriously says differently. But I'm sure, being the absolute authority that you are, you could easily set them strait

Roll your eyes, theya re wrong, you have not shown anything thats ays they are right!

Where do they show that the action phase oulse does anything to adjacent neurons, anywhere?
Not in what you provided.

Irrelevant. I said that the actual carrier of conscious experience is most likely the collective EM activity of the brain.

All speculation.

where is the data and research?

In response, you asserted that the brain can neither generate or 'receive' such a field. I posted the two articles on EEG and MEG to illustrate that the brain does indeed generate an EM field and, in the case of the EEG article, demonstrated that global brainwave patterns are directly relevant to mental states.

No you did not nopne of the articles were more than speculative, where did Mcfadden show that thsi reall happens, now come one, i want to knowe.

Where di they show that neurotransimission and reception si effected by the EM in adjacent neurons.

I am growing frustrated.

this is great theory and speculation, where is the data?

Where does McFadden show that it happens?

HMMMMM?

I said that the carrier of conscious experience is the endogenous EM field of the brain -- not that we are RF receivers that pick up radio transmissions.

And I say that makes as much sense as phlogiston, show me the data!

 

[Dancing David]

That is an interesting point. Even so, it seems relevant that an external EM source would have to be of a specific range of frequencies to have a direct effect on biological functioning, let alone mental states. There is a SciAM article that goes into more detail about that here.

AMM, where did McFadden or anyone show that this was more than idle speculation?

Where did they show that sheilding or something similar effects the rate of neural transition?

i hate to tell you this, but I call woo.

I want data!

 

[Dancing David]

Seriously this looks so bad it is way off base:
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/cemi.htm

What we need to look for is something that is a product of the brain’s activity, but which also has the power to influence that activity. Surprisingly, we have known for years that such an entity exists within our brain. The neurons in our brain transmit electrical signals along and between nerve fibres. It is always assumed that the electrons and neurotransmitters moving down these nerves are the movers and shakers of neuronal computation

No they don't, there is no evidence, I weant data. that is just wrong. the neurotransmitters move between the cells. No electrical impulses between cells!

However, all electrical circuits - and that’s basically all neurones are – generate an associated energy field, known as an electromagnetic field or em field. This field contains precisely the same information as the circuitry that generated it. However, unlike neuronal information, which is localised in single or groups of neurons, the brain’s em field will bind the neuronal information into a single integrated whole.

Nope there is no way that the electrical impulse image will have any of the conditioned resposnes of biochemical transmission.

this is wrong, wrong ,wrong.

The last cemi field proposition is that the brain’s (conscious) em field can itself influence neuronal firing. Like the first proposition, this is easy to prove and is indeed inevitable.

except that they haven't, where is the data?

Where do they demonstrate that this is happening! No where.

There is no demonstration that this happens, the synchronised firing of neurons could be explained through the existing neural netwroks. that is called a confounding factor and there is no experiment thatd emonstra6tes this speculation of Mcfadden's!

McFadden is asserting his consclusion and it is undemonstrated!

When he/she shows that this is what really happens, then they will win the Nobel and do humanity a huge servive.

But they haven'y so far.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Belz, you have subjective experiences that, presumably, can be broken down into basic components.

Not according to you. You said that you can experience experiences, so there IS no basic component.

That does not follow. The point of fundamental components is that they can be arranged in more complex ways.

"Thats" also very funny, because then "qualia" is a synonym for "experience".

Oh, so you HAVE been listening

Thats qualia and they are not accounted for in current physics.

Oh ? And what added physical laws are required ?

One that would specifically define what they are physically and predict how they could be reproduced.

Nonsense. Thats like saying texts about texts are logically implausible.

No, it is nothing like that, actually, because nobody is claiming that texts are basic.

Whats the actual point of contention here? I get the impression that you're simply being contrary for contray's sake and arguing for the sake of arguing -_-

Of course texts are basic. In phonetic languages texts break down into fundamental elements called phonemes [often represented as letters or phonetic symbols], which convey vocal sounds which, in turn, composes morphemes which covey basic meanings which, in turn, make up words which, in turn, make up sentences....

I think you get the idea. Phonemes form the fundamental basis spoken and written language. Yet, here I am using language to refer to the fundamental components of language.

The basic elements of your conscious experience are what I'm calling qualia. What is so extraordinary or implausible about that??

You seem to have your own definition of qualia, then.

Not really. I've stated that qualia are the basic elements of subjective experience which, together, make up consciousness. This is in perfect agreement with the standard definition of the term:

qua⋅le
  /ˈkwɑli, -leɪ, ˈkweɪli/ [kwah-lee, -ley, kwey-lee]
–noun, plural -li⋅a  /-liə/ [-lee-uh] Philosophy.
1. a quality, as bitterness, regarded as an independent object; a sense-datum or feeling having a distinctive quality.

Origin:
1665–75; < L quāle, neut. sing. of quālis of what sort

An entity without qualia cannot be said to be conscious. The definition is quite simple and clear. I don't understand why after over 70 pages of discussion you're still harping over this. Are you trying to have a genuine discussion or do you have some ulterior agenda? Can we move on or are you going to just keep picking at this issue because the term sounds too 'mystical' for you?

When you punch a wall it objectively experiences a physical blow but, presumably, there is no subjective experience of the sensations of a blow or pain by the wall.

The wall will be affected by the blow, nonetheless. But, of course, that's not what I asked, because the wall doesn't experience anything.

So, again, how do you "objectively" experience ? How do you experience in a quantitative manner ?

- By 'objective experience' I'm referring to general exposure or interaction of an object -- as in:
"system1 experiences [x] change in temperature; system2 experiences [y] change in viscosity..." etc. Things like temperature and viscosity are quantitative properties. Both conscious and unconscious entities can be said to 'experience' events in this sense.

- By 'subjective experience' I'm referring to what you've earlier called 'internal behaviors' of a subject -- as in:
"critter1 experiences change in temperature as [x] sensation; critter2 experiences change in viscosity as [y] sensation" etc. Sensations of a particular experience are qualitative correlates of quantitative data originating from within/without the organism.

Depending on the conscious make-up of an organism, they may experience the same sensory data quite differently than another -- or not at all. As of now, we do not have a clear scientific understanding of what subjective experiences physically are, what exactly gives rise to them, or how they exist at all.

 

[westprog]

What is the difference between the behavior of a drop of water and the behavior of a snowflake?

In what context? I should point out that you are not a beautiful unique snowflake and neither am I.

 

[westprog]

Oh ? And what added physical laws are required ?

Nothing in current physics deals with subjective experience.