Consciousness

[p0lka]

Well if you phrase it that dishonestly of course you don't get it.

Ah sorry,

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.

sorry, I missed the highlighted bit in what you said.

I'm interested in neurological explanations of our internal experience,

so do you agree I'm not arguing souls?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again I'll repeat so the Philosophers can ignore and respond to a completely different question that nobody is actually asking.

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.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm interested in neurological explanations of our internal experience, so do we agree I'm not arguing souls?

This will depend heavily on what you saying when you say "internal experience."

Is it ANYTHING different from "external stimuli causing electrical/chemical reactions in your brain?"

Because if your answer is no... then what's your question? "Your brain." There we figured that out a long time. What more are you looking for that isn't a soul?

If your answer is yes, then yes you're looking for a soul.

 

[p0lka]

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.

Qualia is a label, i don't care about it.
I'm interested in what is in the realms of science re our internal experience and how it comes from the brain.

 

[Mike Helland]

Again I'll repeat so the Philosophers can ignore and respond to a completely different question that nobody is actually asking.

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.

Here's my guess.

You've created a life out of arguing about religion on the internet, so that's how you approach every subject.

I'd like to see you lay this argument out with sound logic.

What premises do you use to reach your conclusion?

premise 1: if you're seeking something intangible, it must be a soul

Therefore, an immaterial mind is a soul.

Considering this isn't a mainstream school of thought, you should probably clearly state your premises, and then justify them, before being belligerent about it.

 

[Belz...]

Qualia is just a unit of conscious experience. Ie, the mind.

Not souls.

Oh, ok. Define qualia, then. What does it do, how does it work, where is it, how does one detect it, etc.

Good luck with that.

 

[Myriad]

My point about pain on the previous page was to answer DrSid's question of what consciousness is good for. If as appears to be the case there's no pain without awareness, and if as appears to be the case pain is beneficial for learning which is beneficial for survival, then that establishes at least one adaptive function provided by conscious awareness.

A p-zombie, in order to have behavior indistinguishable from that of a conscious person, would have to pretend to experience pain. Which is possible in principle, but it would mean the p-zombie would have to be taught when to pretend to experience pain, rather than learning that from the environment. A p-zombie variant of any species with learned adaptive behaviors would be at a relative evolutionary disadvantage.

 

[Thermal]

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

I think that forgone conclusion makes discission difficult. Your assuming that is the ultimate intent/objective and it makes for a confusing argument to your adversary, who doesn't share that assumption.

Sorry, why what?

My bad for not hiliting. I meant regarding that your brain must map things out to make sense. I don't think the brain needs to do anything that 'makes sense'. The mind wants things to make sense.

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.

Maybe that's the hitch, then. I think of the brain as a processing organ. It doesn't have wants or intellectual requirements. It processes chemicals and electrical impulses. It has no need for mapping, and has only the mind to react to or map for. . Only a consciousness would.

Explain.

Seems to me if you need the brain to make sense of things, you are implicitly giving it an independent consciousness that would require the mapping. If the brain was simply an organ, it has no wish for making sense or a need to map. Doesn't have a lot of needs beyond blood and oxygen and stuff.

Who said anything about requirements? It's a logical implication. I thought you guys loved this logic thing.

Logically valid maybe, but not sound, at least to my ear.

 

[Belz...]

Qualia is a label, i don't care about it.

Yeah, "god" is a label too, but like qualia, it represents an idea about reality, and it's important to address false ideas and pull people away from that kind of thinking.

I'm interested in what is in the realms of science re our internal experience and how it comes from the brain.

Do you agree that qualia don't exist, then?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jesus Christ. Philosophers show me on the goddamn doll where clear, concise language that actually conveys a clear meaning touched you.

 

[p0lka]

This will depend heavily on what you saying when you say "internal experience."

Is it ANYTHING different from "external stimuli causing electrical/chemical reactions in your brain?"

Because if your answer is no... then what's your question? "Your brain." There we figured that out a long time. What more are you looking for that isn't a soul?

If your answer is yes, then yes you're looking for a soul.

Do you have an internal experience?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Do you have an internal experience?

I have no idea because I have no idea what you are saying.

I'm not playing this game. Nail your own Jello to the wall.

"LOL I don't like labels" seems to mean you don't like clarity or actually having a point.

 

[Mike Helland]

Oh, ok. Define qualia, then. What does it do, how does it work, where is it, how does one detect it, etc.

Good luck with that.

"In philosophy and certain models of psychology, qualia (/ˈkwɑːliə/ or /ˈkweɪliə/; singular form: quale) are defined as individual instances of subjective, conscious experience. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

Right now I can feel the keys on my lap top, hear the video I'm listening to, see colors on the screen. Lots of stimuli.

I think the idea behind qualia is taking that big colorful, noisey, tactile, smelly experience, just breaking that up into smaller things.

The experience of the color red, or a car horn.

 

[Mike Helland]

Do you have an internal experience?

I've met maybe a few dozen people on the internet that deny they have a subjective experience.

Maybe they don't.

I dunno.

 

[Belz...]

I think that forgone conclusion makes discission difficult.

That's odd. So we should never conclude anything just in case another discussion is coming? Or are you saying that conclusions can never be changed?

You're assuming that is the ultimate intent/objective and it makes for a confusing argument to your adversary, who doesn't share that assumption.

It's not an assumption. I told you: it's a conclusion.

My bad for not hiliting. I meant regarding that your brain must map things out to make sense. I don't think the brain needs to do anything that 'makes sense'.

You misunderstand. In order to use the incoming information, the brain (or any computer) has to put everything in relation. That's what I mean by a "map". It has to construct a "reality" to calculate. Otherwise it can't make sense of anything or act on anything. That this "map" takes form X for any given person doesn't mean this X is a real thing. It's an internal representation.

The mind wants things to make sense.

Sorry, the changing terminology is confusing. Are you using "mind" and "consciousness" interchangeably?

I think of the brain as a processing organ. It doesn't have wants or intellectual requirements. It processes chemicals and electrical impulses. It has no need for mapping, and has only the mind to react to or map for. . Only a consciousness would.

That's essentially the p-zombie argument, and it's been demonstrated time and time again that it's nonsensical. Here are a few points:

1) If you don't think chemicals and electrical impulses can have intellectual requirements, then what do you think this "mind" is made of? What could, in your view, have these requirements?

2) Also, as I said earlier you are wrong. The brain does the entire work of thinking, calculating, acting, etc. The conscious self does none of that. This has been demonstrated quite clearly.

Seems to me if you need the brain to make sense of things, you are implicitly giving it an independent consciousness that would require the mapping.

Why do you assume consciousness is required for this? Lower animals and computers do this all the time.

If the brain was simply an organ, it has no wish for making sense or a need to map. Doesn't have a lot of needs beyond blood and oxygen and stuff.

And that's why I said you are looking for a soul: simple matter cannot, according to you, display the properties of consciousness.

Logically valid maybe, but not sound, at least to my ear.

Which premise is wrong, then?

 

[Belz...]

"In philosophy and certain models of psychology, qualia (/ˈkwɑːliə/ or /ˈkweɪliə/; singular form: quale) are defined as individual instances of subjective, conscious experience. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

Right now I can feel the keys on my lap top, hear the video I'm listening to, see colors on the screen. Lots of stimuli.

I think the idea behind qualia is taking that big colorful, noisey, tactile, smelly experience, just breaking that up into smaller things.

The experience of the color red, or a car horn.

I didn't ask you for a definition. I asked you what they are exactly, what it does, how it works, where it is, how one detects it, etc.

You have, as always, completely ignored the question.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Nobody is looking for a soul."
Wait for it...
"Absolutely nobody."
Wait for it...
"I tell you nobody here is looking for soul...."
Wait for it...
....
Wait for it...
....
"But....."
There is it is.

 

[Belz...]

I've met maybe a few dozen people on the internet that deny they have a subjective experience.

Maybe they don't.

I dunno.

The problem is that the question, as usual, is poorly framed. Are there processes that only my conscious self has access to, normally? Yes, but there's no reason to assume that they are different in nature to those that are available to others, or everyone.

 

[Mike Helland]

The problem is that the question, as usual, is poorly framed. Are there processes that only my conscious self has access to, normally? Yes, but there's no reason to assume that they are different in nature to those that are available to others, or everyone.

The idea behind qualia (not that I'm a huge fan, but I can be a grown up about it) is that the experience of red isn't "different in nature".

If it helps, I think qualia means experience, is redundant, and doesn't really move along the conversation (though I think it was well intentioned).

 

[Belz...]

The idea behind qualia (not that I'm a huge fan, but I can be a grown up about it) is that the experience of red isn't "different in nature".

If it helps, I think qualia means experience, is redundant, and doesn't really move along the conversation (though I think it was well intentioned).

I know exactly what the definition of qualia is, Mike. You can stop repeating it. Instead, please answer my specific questions about it.