A question for scientists: Primary and Secondary qualities

[Interesting Ian]

Of course. Responses to external stimuli produce changes in electrochemical states in the brain, and some of these states may be mimicked by introduction of some substances. That's a no-brainer (figuratively speaking).

Alcohol (for instance) affects the nervous system in ways that would cause one under its effects to report differently his internal states (using non-technical terms like 'happy', 'sad', 'playful', angry, etc). If such 'feelings' are independent of events in the underlying neural substrate, how do you explain that?

Independent? What do you mean? Feelings etc are influenced by brain states, I have never denied this. But obviously this does not mean to say they are one and the same thing as brain states, nor does it entail mental states cannot produce changes in brain states, nor does it entail that mental states and the self originate from brain states.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Independent? What do you mean? Feelings etc are influenced by brain states, I have never denied this. But obviously this does not mean to say they are one and the same thing as brain states, nor does it entail mental states cannot produce changes in brain states,

I agree.

But you asked, "What on earth has an electrochemical state have to do with feelings of sadness??" (using not one, but two question marks at the end). I'm glad to see that you agree that there is some correlation between such states and 'feelings'.

I was really just asking Titus for clarifacation on his postition regarding a distinction between these electrochemical states and something extra, something present in the system which performs the important job of 'feeling the feelings'

nor does it entail that mental states and the self originate from brain states.

Assuming that a 'self' originates elsewhere gives rise to several questions, such as does it have physical properties; if it is propagated through some other medium what is the nature of that medium; does it have an effect brain states, and by what sort of mechanism is this accomplished?

 

[Dancing David]

Posted by Suggestoligist

Well, I disagree. Since I prefer to give someone the experience, rather than (or in addition to) the explanation, could you please conscientiously perform the following introspective experiment: Closing your eyes may help. 1) Say something to yourself in your mind; and notice where the voice seems to come from. It seems to come from the middle of your head (for most people). 2) Move the voice to your left shoulder; and say something to yourself with the voice seemingly coming from your left shoulder. How does that feel different? 3) Move the voice to just behind your right ear; say something to yourself with the voice seemingly coming from that position. How does that feel different? 4) Move the voice to just an inch above the very top of your head. Say something to yourself with the voice seemingly coming from that position. How does that feel different?



As much as I try , I am not able to externalise the thought of a verbal nature, in fact I can't move it to my shoulder or other parts of my body. I can think a thought that as it were has a parenthetical comment that it is coming from my left shoulder but I still percieve it as in my head. So while I can parentheticaly move the thought/voice, I lack the abilty to percieve the voice in different places, I also have great difficulty with visualization.

So perhaps my brain isn't wired that way? Perhaps if I practise for twenty years then I will be able to move my thought/voice. This is how I have gained what limited visualization I can do.

So whats your point, I am very willing to agree to the plastic nature of human reality and the false attributions of it. And since all of are senses are representations in our brains of the sensory input, I would say that reality is manufactured in our brains.


But I don't hear voices outside my head unless they are generated by humans or human devices.

 

[Dancing David]

Hmm.

Still talking about this topic after all this time, but very little movement in terms of positions.

Hey, I wiggle in my chair all the time, sometimes I post from work, sometimes from home.

 

[Dancing David]

Titus:
I feel that qualia are not inate they are learned. They are learned as we mature.

 

[scribble]

Hmmmm . . .basically I entirely agreed with it. I read it just before going to bed though, when I was knackered. It's actually given me some ideas! But I'm going to read through it again more carefully before addressing the rest of your points.

Personally i'd like to see this promise followed through on.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:

Yeah like listening to certain music might induce a feeling of sadness. Must mean sadness is one and the same thing as certain music.

What? I didn't say sadness was one and same thing as antidepressants, so what does this have to do with the price of beans?

Dancing David said:

I feel that qualia are not inate they are learned. They are learned as we mature.

Is the feeling that an object maintains the same size even as it moves away from you a quale? If so, that one is certainly learned.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

I guess it is. I didn't realize that we had to rely on one paranormal thing (telepathy) to detect another apparently paranormal thing (consciousness).

Not at all what I meant. You probably already knew that.

All right, anomalmouse coginition.

Humorous, 8 of 10; relevant, 0 of 10.

 

[Rayn]

Hello all,

Just wondering what state this debate got to. Hadn't perused this thread in a bit and was wondering where we were at. I'd like to contribute, so just wondering if anyone would like to give a synopsis of their own thoughts or of the general thread. Thanks

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:

Not at all what I meant. You probably already knew that.

Hammy, that remark wasn't addressed to you. It was addressed to Ian, since he said:

Speaking for myself I do not necessarily agree that p-zombies are possible, and even if there were we could distinguish them from normal human beings by anomalous cognition.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Hmmmm . . .basically I entirely agreed with it. I read it just before going to bed though, when I was knackered. It's actually given me some ideas! But I'm going to read through it again more carefully before addressing the rest of your points.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Personally i'd like to see this promise followed through on.

Why is that then Scribble? Have you read the article I linked to? Do you profoundly disagree with it? What exactly do you disagree with? Please let me know won't you?

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
Yeah like listening to certain music might induce a feeling of sadness. Must mean sadness is one and the same thing as certain music.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What? I didn't say sadness was one and same thing as antidepressants, so what does this have to do with the price of beans?[/B]

Right. Are you also willing to acknowledge that physical processes in the brain are not the same as actual conscious awareness?

 

[Interesting Ian]

I agree.

But you asked, "What on earth has an electrochemical state have to do with feelings of sadness??" (using not one, but two question marks at the end).

And I await patiently for your answer. Am I going to receive one? Or not? Please let me know.

I'm glad to see that you agree that there is some correlation between such states and 'feelings'.

I was really just asking Titus for clarifacation on his postition regarding a distinction between these electrochemical states and something extra, something present in the system which performs the important job of 'feeling the feelings'

I do not understand what you could possibly mean by "'feeling the feelings'". What is the distinction between feeling, and "feeling the feeling"?? Or are you just talking out of your arsehole?? You'll let me know won't you?

Assuming that a 'self' originates elsewhere

Who has suggested this?

gives rise to several questions, such as does it have physical properties;

Are you able to tell me why it should??

if it is propagated through some other medium what is the nature of that medium; does it have an effect brain states, and by what sort of mechanism is this accomplished?

Mechanism? What does mechanism mean? Must all change occur through this so called "mechainism"? If so could you explain why it should??

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian asked:

Right. Are you also willing to acknowledge that physical processes in the brain are not the same as actual conscious awareness?

When you give me a coherent description of "actual conscious awareness," I'll certainly consider it.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian asked:
When you give me a coherent description of "actual conscious awareness," I'll certainly consider it.

~~ Paul

It cannot be defined. It can only be experienced. If you are a p-zombie then you can never understand it.

 

[Suggestologist]

Posted by Suggestoligist

Well, I disagree. Since I prefer to give someone the experience, rather than (or in addition to) the explanation, could you please conscientiously perform the following introspective experiment: Closing your eyes may help. 1) Say something to yourself in your mind; and notice where the voice seems to come from. It seems to come from the middle of your head (for most people). 2) Move the voice to your left shoulder; and say something to yourself with the voice seemingly coming from your left shoulder. How does that feel different? 3) Move the voice to just behind your right ear; say something to yourself with the voice seemingly coming from that position. How does that feel different? 4) Move the voice to just an inch above the very top of your head. Say something to yourself with the voice seemingly coming from that position. How does that feel different?



As much as I try , I am not able to externalise the thought of a verbal nature, in fact I can't move it to my shoulder or other parts of my body. I can think a thought that as it were has a parenthetical comment that it is coming from my left shoulder but I still percieve it as in my head. So while I can parentheticaly move the thought/voice, I lack the abilty to percieve the voice in different places, I also have great difficulty with visualization.

Without cheating, what color are your mother's eyes?

So perhaps my brain isn't wired that way? Perhaps if I practise for twenty years then I will be able to move my thought/voice. This is how I have gained what limited visualization I can do.

So whats your point, I am very willing to agree to the plastic nature of human reality and the false attributions of it. And since all of are senses are representations in our brains of the sensory input, I would say that reality is manufactured in our brains.


But I don't hear voices outside my head unless they are generated by humans or human devices.

When people offer the objection you have; they normally get told to "pretend" they hear the voice from that position. Pretending within this context, quickly comes to mean actually doing what one "merely" pretended to do. Everyone can do it; it does not take 20 years. It takes a few minutes (at most 20 or 30 with the proper assistance).

Another way to put this: do you ever have two voices that argue between eachother, like two points of view that you argue to yourself? Do you sense that they come from slightly different positions inside your head? Or: Have you ever heard your parents' voice(s) within your head? Etc.

The point: People can move voices around. You can move it down to your stomach, over your head, a mile away -- whatever. Changing the position changes the impact of the voices -- I leave the particular impact of particular positionings for you to discover for yourself.

People can control hearing where their voices come from. When people don't realize this, they sometimes convince themselves that they have mental pathology of some sort -- when they don't. Of course, pathology can cause the same types of things.

So, hallucination does not require pathology. Hallucination happens all the time; when you hear a voice within your head; or imagine the events that someone describes to you. Confusing these things with reality, can happen for a variety of reasons -- not necessarily pathology.

 

[hammegk]

]Hammy, that remark wasn't addressed to you. It was addressed to Ian, since he said:
~~ Paul

Well Pauly, one of us has a reading comprehension problem:

Hammegk said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this the first moment you've faced this problem? Two choices: solipsism, or "gentlemens' agreement" (*you* are not a p-zombie, or Turing Machine, either, as *I* am not).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I guess it is. I didn't realize that we had to rely on one paranormal thing (telepathy) to detect another apparently paranormal thing (consciousness).


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the heck is telepathy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All right, anomalmouse coginition.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

And I await patiently for your answer. Am I going to receive one? Or not? Please let me know.

When you said:

Feelings etc are influenced by brain states, I have never denied this.

Were you talking about something other than electrochemical states?

I do not understand what you could possibly mean by "'feeling the feelings'". What is the distinction between feeling, and "feeling the feeling"??

"I am a thinker (separate from my thoughts), an experiencer (separate from my experiences), a feeler (separate from my feelings)". Cartesian Dualism.

gives rise to several questions, such as does
it have physical properties;
------------------------------
Are you able to tell me why it should??

If it is going to interact with matter, it must.

Mechanism? What does mechanism mean? Must all change occur through this so called "mechainism"? If so could you explain why it should??

It is a fundamental principle of physics that any change in the trajectory of any physical entity is an acceleration requiring the expenditure of energy. If there is a ghost in the machine, it must remain only a ghost, unable to affect the machine in any way; as soon as its presence is even minutely detectable in the brain, it begins to have physical properties, and is no longer just a ghost.

Assuming the 'self' originates elsewhere
------------------------------
Who has suggested this?

You have. Here:

But obviously this does not mean to say...
...nor does it entail that mental states and the self originate from brain states.

 

[Mercutio]

So, hallucination does not require pathology. Hallucination happens all the time; when you hear a voice within your head; or imagine the events that someone describes to you. Confusing these things with reality, can happen for a variety of reasons -- not necessarily pathology. [/B]

So you persist in the use of the term "hallucination" despite DD's reasonable plea for a more precise term. If you are wishing to use a more general and inclusive term, we have them, and a history of their use in this sort of debate. The more general terms are "seeing" or "hearing" (or whatever sense you wish to exploit). A visual hallucination, as per your usage, is much less contraversially termed "seeing." The voice you claim to hallucinate is "heard." It is trivially obvious (not that that carries any weight around here) that our vision sometimes tricks us, even with our eyes wide open. So accuracy is not a necessary part of seeing, and so your "hallucinations" (I must agree with DD, the word is an emotionally-loaded one--which I doubt very much is coincidental to its use in your posts) are merely one category of "seeing" (perhaps a major category, perhaps a sliver, but hallucinating is seeing--or hearing or feeling, if you wish to try to take a sentence out of context). The logical positivist philosophical literature has many examples of discussions of seeing that do not require an immediately present stimulus; they still call it "seeing."

Although I'm perfectly content with "seeing", I think DD is right, that being more rather than less specific would probably be best for this debate. You want to use "hallucinate"? Please justify why either more or less specific words are less appropriate.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

And I await patiently for your answer. Am I going to receive one? Or not? Please let me know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


When you said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feelings etc are influenced by brain states, I have never denied this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Were you talking about something other than electrochemical states?

Why do you imagine I was??

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not understand what you could possibly mean by "'feeling the feelings'". What is the distinction between feeling, and "feeling the feeling"??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"I am a thinker (separate from my thoughts), an experiencer (separate from my experiences), a feeler (separate from my feelings)". Cartesian Dualism.

Yes, so why haven't you answered my question?? I repeat:

"What is the distinction between feeling, and "feeling the feeling"??

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gives rise to several questions, such as does
it have physical properties;
------------------------------
Are you able to tell me why it should??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If it is going to interact with matter, it must.

Are you able to explain this? Or are you content to just pull this assertion from your ass?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mechanism? What does mechanism mean? Must all change occur through this so called "mechainism"? If so could you explain why it should??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is a fundamental principle of physics that any change in the trajectory of any physical entity is an acceleration requiring the expenditure of energy. If there is a ghost in the machine, it must remain only a ghost, unable to affect the machine in any way; as soon as its presence is even minutely detectable in the brain, it begins to have physical properties, and is no longer just a ghost.

{Shrugs}

You are free to label it as you wish. This however entails that all phenomena which cannot be encapsulated by physical laws is nevertheless still "physical". What are your semantic games supposed to prove matey??

So it is a fundamental principle of physics that not only the physical world is describable by physical laws, but the self and its actions are also. Forgive me, but this sounds like naturalism to me! Are you asserting physics necessitates naturalism?? Do you have any reasons or evidence whatsoever that not only the physical world is susceptible to a description by physical algorithmic laws, but our freely chosen actions are also?? What gives you the confidence that physical laws apply to not only the perceptually experienced, but experiencers (selfs) also?? Come on! I'd love to hear your justification here!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming the 'self' originates elsewhere
------------------------------
Who has suggested this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have. Here:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But obviously this does not mean to say...
...nor does it entail that mental states and the self originate from brain states.

I'm sorry but I don't understand. How does what I have said imply that the self originates elsewhere??