• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Consciousness

Mike Helland said:
Do you not understand the principle?

If you think consciousness might be an illusion, you might not.

Most people do though.

Oh well.
Click to expand...

*Throws a rock, but not the qualia of a rock, at your head so the rock hits your head but you don't 'experience' the rock hitting your head."
 
Mods please ban all philosophers from the experience of this board's subjective first person qualia.
 
While it is trivially true to say that the red I see may not look the same to someone else, it's still red. The wavelength of light IS what red is. There is no intrinsic "redness" that can't be grasped by science.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Mods please ban all philosophers from the experience of this board's subjective first person qualia.
Click to expand...

What exactly is your objection to qualia? That you think it must lead to the proposition of a soul?

How about we assume that the argument doesn't take that dive? While acknowledging there is no reason to suppose a soul, can the nature of self awareness/referentialness be wondered at and kicked around?
 
Mike Helland said:
Do you not understand the principle?

If you think consciousness might be an illusion, you might not.

Most people do though.

Oh well.
Click to expand...

I also understand the concept of a flat earth. It doesn't make it true. I also understand the concept of 'nothingness'. It doesn't make it make any sense.

Darat said:
Do you know they don’t have red in the French language!
Click to expand...

Yes we do.
 
Thermal said:
What exactly is your objection to qualia? That you think it must lead to the proposition of a soul?
Click to expand...

Yes. Because it is purposely made and argued in a way that avoids any inquiry. It is a deliberately spiritual concept.

Your brain tries to make sense of the world it perceives. It has to be mapped in some way or another. There's no reason to believe that this mapping has some special characteristic or quality.
 
Thermal said:
What exactly is your objection to qualia? That you think it must lead to the proposition of a soul?

How about we assume that the argument doesn't take that dive? While acknowledging there is no reason to suppose a soul, can the nature of self awareness/referentialness be wondered at and kicked around?
Click to expand...


Actually I tend to think qualia is a nonsensical concept myself, but I'd probably enjoy reading (if not necessarily participating heavily, since I don't know all that much about this) a thread that's specifically on qualia ------ discussing what it is, why it is nonsensical, why it may be meaningful, whatever.
 
Belz... said:
Yes. Because it is purposely made and argued in a way that avoids any inquiry. It is a deliberately spiritual concept.
Click to expand...

I get how it could. I disagree that it must.

Your brain tries to make sense of the world it perceives. It has to be mapped in some way or another. There's no reason to believe that this mapping has some special characteristic or quality.
Click to expand...

Why? 'Making sense' is a function of consciousness, not a requirement. The argument is circular. The brain has no requirement to do anything unless you acknowledge consciousness as a separate entity that the brain is working for.
 
Thermal said:
I get how it could. I disagree that it must.
Click to expand...

You're disagreeing with something I didn't say, then. My conclusion is that it is.

Why?
Click to expand...

Sorry, why what?

'Making sense' is a function of consciousness
Click to expand...

See, this is where focusing on concepts and ignoring evidence hurts your "side" here. Your consciousness doesn't "make sense" of anything. Your brain does. Consciousness, such as it is, is constructed afterwards. Your error is assuming that consciousness is the actor, when it's the audience.

The argument is circular.
Click to expand...

Explain.

The brain has no requirement to do anything unless you acknowledge consciousness as a separate entity that the brain is working for.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about requirements? It's a logical implication. I thought you guys loved this logic thing.
 
Thermal said:
What exactly is your objection to qualia? That you think it must lead to the proposition of a soul?
Click to expand...

Well... yes because that's what it is.

How about we assume that the argument doesn't take that dive? While acknowledging there is no reason to suppose a soul, can the nature of self awareness/referentialness be wondered at and kicked around?
Click to expand...

I have no intention of helping anyone, lest of all you, in some quest in splitting the hair of the philosophy version of the "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual" copout.

If you're looking for a non-neurological explanation for ANY (I repeat any, up to and including making up qualities that don't exist that have to be explained including the stupid idea of an "airgap" between our mind and our sense and/or our senses and the world) mental function, you're looking for a soul.
 
Last edited:
p0lka said:
your internal experience seems to be having an overreaction to an idea,
bloody brains, what can you do with them.
Click to expand...

I get that little snippy "LOL calm down" quotes are part of the Philosophy defense routine, but dangerous illogical thinking bothers me. Try to make that into a negative quality all you want.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I get that little snippy "LOL calm down" quotes are part of the Philosophy defense routine, but dangerous illogical thinking bothers me. Try to make that into a negative quality all you want.
Click to expand...
I'm not following how any discussion about an internal experience equates to having a soul, to be honest.
You seem to be 1000% sure it does though.

How does it? Has science stopped or something?
 
Last edited:
p0lka said:
I'm not following how any discussion about an internal experience equates to having a soul, to be honest.
Click to expand...

You don't think qualia being inherently outside of the realm of science is basically the same as a soul? It's another attempt, without appeals to gods, to put the "conscious" self above the material. Otherwise it would have a scientific basis. Ask yourself why scientists NEVER mention qualia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom