How does the neural correlate = qualia ?

[Victor Danilchenko]

I decided to drop by philo forum again, and the ridiculous qualia insanity is still going on...

davidsmith73

I want to know how a materialist can equate a physical process with qualia and what they really mean when they say this.

As far as I am concerned, qualia -- the introspective experience of experience, sans the silly ineffability dongle -- is simply the mind's introspection on itself. Mind can examine itself, its own processes, and the sense of this examination is what we label as "qualia". Qualia are simply the result of our ability to introspect, a quale is an instance of the mind observing its own process.

Complaining that qualia cannot be described linguistically but only through reference ("see the red barn? this is what red feels like!") is stupid: all descriptions are thusly limited, every description in any language is ultimately rooted in some sort of sensory reference. Until you can point at a tree and say "this is a tree" to a child, you cannot describe the tree either, except in terms of other previously-referenced sensory objects. "The feel of red" in this regard is no more mysterious than "the look of a tree", there are simply more levels of indirection going on.

 

[Argo Nimbus]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
Somehow saying "My thought is real" is not quite the same thing as saying "A pattern exists".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by PixyMisa
Why?

One difference is that I only learn about physical "patterns", or processes, in my brain by reading about them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
It seems to me that my thoughts or subjective experiences are just as much a part of the universe as the Sun, even if they are not physical objects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by PixyMisa
Why do suggest that subjective experiences are not physical?

What I said is that they are not physical objects like the Sun. I would classify them as physical processes, not objects.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
Furthermore, I don't have to explain the relation between minds and brains in order to know that my thoughts exist and are real. It's one thing to say that a particular theory about the relation of minds to brains is false, but quite wrong, it seems to me, to make an issue out of whether subjective experience is real.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by PixyMisa
All the evidence we have shows that the mind is a result of a physical process. You can't see the physical process, because "You" are in fact the result of the process. All your thoughts are really patterns of neurons firing in your brain. If you won't say that a pattern is real, then your thoughts aren't real either. If you accept a pattern as a real thing, then your thoughts are real.

I don't deny that physical processes in my brain are real. I just don't learn about them in the same way that I learn about my thoughts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
I can always be wrong about what causes my subjective experience, but it's hard to see how I could be wrong about having the experience. If I step on a stonefish and then touch an object that to me feels cold, I would be wrong if I said the experience of "coldness" was caused by a cold object. According to Tricky, the cause would be a hot object + stonefish toxin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by PixyMisa
The problem is, if you deny reality to patterns, you have also denied it to your own thoughts on a subjective level.

I haven't denied reality to physical processes, so I'm sure you'll grant that I haven't denied the reality of my own thoughts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To summarize: I can be wrong about causes and relations, but that doesn't make subjective experience non-existent or not real.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by PixyMisa
No, it's your definition of real that does that.

Let me make the point about subjective experience in another way. Consider a block of metal. Based on what I have read in textbooks, this block of metal is made up of smaller units of matter called molecules that are held more or less in alignment by the forces acting between the molecules. I accept this as a description of reality. However, the block of metal also appears solid to the touch (or at least I personally can't pass my hand through it), so by your logic, the "solidity" of the metal is "not real" and "doesn't exist". This is so, by your logic, because both my hand and the metal can be resolved conceptually into smaller units and the interaction of hand and metal can be explained in terms of molecules and molecular forces. As for me, rather than say that the "solidity" of metal is non-existent or not real, I would say that how the metal appears to me is just as much a part of reality as the molecules in my hand, the molecules in the metal, and the forces of interaction between them.

--- Argo

P.S. Keep in mind that I was (and still am) responding to the post in which you said that subjective experiences do not exist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by PixyMisa
"Qualia" is the name you give to the subjective experience of the outcome of a particular physical process. Qualia do not actually exist any more than the number 2 exists. What does exist is the brain and the processes occurring in the brain. When you have fully described this you have described all that is real, and the need for "Qualia" goes away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, are you saying:

[question]

(1) Physical processes are real.

(2) Subjective experiences are not real.

(3) What is real exists, but what is not real does not exist.

(4) Once everyone understands that subjective experiences are not real and therefore do not exist, the whole problem goes away.

[/question]?

It seems to me that subjective experiences are real, even if they do not exist in the same way physcial objects exist (which of course is why they're referred to as "subjective").

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Q-Source

I am not saying that Qualia are not objective processes, I don't know if they are or not. I am just asking why people assert that they are objective when in fact there is no evidence to support such assertion.

I think what people are really asserting is that the incredulous arguments of the dualist brigade are simply BS. The assertion is not that qualia are material, but rather than there is nothing bizarre or inexplicable or inconceivable about matrialistic nature of qualia. Qualia, despite all the hand-waving, are pretty mundane -- they are no more exciting and bizarre than any number of other cognitive objects, and in fact they are quite a bit less so. Now that's pretty damn exciting if you are a cognitive scientist of some stripe or another, but that's no reason to classify those objects as being materialistically inexplicable.

You know what's bizarre and exciting? the fact that we can learn a complex structured language with amazing speed. The fact that we can look at an incredibly complex image, and simply notice a face hidden in the jumble. The fact that we can abstract incredibly complex rules into compact and unbelievably efficient heuristics (think go). These are bizarre and exciting; qualia are just stiocking stuffers of sophomoric philosophy discussions.

The core question -- what do we mean when we say that qualia are materialistic -- is what is being answered. the answer is not the proof that qualia are real, but the proof that there is nothing mystically inexplicable about qualia above and beyond other cognitive processes.

 

[The One called Neo]

Ah Victor! So good of you to contribute to R&P. I'll use my sock puppet since you have me on ignore.

Q-Source

I think what people are really asserting is that the incredulous arguments of the dualist brigade are simply BS.

So what? What people assert and what actually is the case do not necessarily coincide.

The assertion is not that qualia are material,

Good, then your argument is with the materialists. Materialists definitely assert qualia are material.

but rather than there is nothing bizarre or inexplicable or inconceivable about matrialistic nature of qualia.

If qualia are not material then it follows they do not have a materialistic nature Got your story straight Victor me boy before you come bursting in.

Qualia, despite all the hand-waving, are pretty mundane

Yea, I agree. But tell me how they are one and the same thing as physical processes.

-- they are no more exciting and bizarre than any number of other cognitive objects, and in fact they are quite a bit less so. Now that's pretty damn exciting if you are a cognitive scientist of some stripe or another, but that's no reason to classify those objects as being materialistically inexplicable.

Materialistically inexplicable is a nonsensical phrase since materialism doesn't explain anything in anycase, and nor could it ever do so in principle. I presume you man scientifically inexplicable. Well I'm afraid they are. If you think otherwise then explain them.

Snip irrelevancies

The core question -- what do we mean when we say that qualia are materialistic -- is what is being answered. the answer is not the proof that qualia are real, but the proof that there is nothing mystically inexplicable about qualia above and beyond other cognitive processes.

Cognitive processes as that which can be ascertained from a third person perspective? I'm afraid not. Qualia are intrinsically subjective. My qualia cannot be known from a third person perspective in contrast to all physical processes.

 

[PixyMisa]

One difference is that I only learn about physical "patterns", or processes, in my brain by reading about them.

What, you mean you've never seen (or heard) a pattern?

What I said is that they are not physical objects like the Sun. I would classify them as physical processes, not objects.

Yes.

I don't deny that physical processes in my brain are real. I just don't learn about them in the same way that I learn about my thoughts.

Yes.

I haven't denied reality to physical processes, so I'm sure you'll grant that I haven't denied the reality of my own thoughts.

As I said, it depends on your definition of "real". If you give processes and patterns the benefit of reality, then yes, your thoughts are real. Because that's what they are (depending on whether you are looking at them over time or at a particular instant.)

Let me make the point about subjective experience in another way. Consider a block of metal. Based on what I have read in textbooks, this block of metal is made up of smaller units of matter called molecules that are held more or less in alignment by the forces acting between the molecules. I accept this as a description of reality. However, the block of metal also appears solid to the touch (or at least I personally can't pass my hand through it), so by your logic, the "solidity" of the metal is "not real" and "doesn't exist". This is so, by your logic, because both my hand and the metal can be resolved conceptually into smaller units and the interaction of hand and metal can be explained in terms of molecules and molecular forces. As for me, rather than say that the "solidity" of metal is non-existent or not real, I would say that how the metal appears to me is just as much a part of reality as the molecules in my hand, the molecules in the metal, and the forces of interaction between them.

I would say that solidity does not exist. It's a property of things that do. It's a concept, the same way "Qualia" are concepts, the same way the number 2 is a concept. If you are extending your definition of reality out this far, you are including a whole lot of things that simply aren't there when you actually understand what is going on.

 

[Yahzi]

Consider a block of metal

Isn't that just my temperature argument in different clothes?

Yet oddly, he intends this argument to refute the materialist position, where I cite it to support the materialist position.

What a strange world we live in.

 

[Argo Nimbus]

I would say that solidity does not exist. It's a property of things that do.

I would say that properties exist and are real. It sounds rather strange and incoherent to say, as you do, that things have properties that are non-existent. Consider an Army. The Army is made up of soldiers equipted with weapons, but you're not going to be taken seriously if you say that the Army is not real and does not exist.

It's a concept, the same way "Qualia" are concepts, the same way the number 2 is a concept. If you are extending your definition of reality out this far, you are including a whole lot of things that simply aren't there when you actually understand what is going on.

My subjective experiences exist and are real. If I speculate (based on my subjective experiences) about causes and relations, then I'm forming concepts. As I've already said, I can be wrong about causes and relations, so any concepts I form can be false.

--- Argo

 

[PixyMisa]

I would say that properties exist and are real. It sounds rather strange and incoherent to say, as you do, that things have properties that are non-existent. Consider an Army. The Army is made up of soldiers equipted with weapons, but you're not going to be taken seriously if you say that the Army is not real and does not exist.

Take a good look at the organisational structure of the U.S. Army and then come back and tell me it's real.

And in what way is a concept real? It's certainly not real the same way a rock is.

You seem to have a very poor grasp of the word "real".

 

[Argo Nimbus]

Isn't that just my temperature argument in different clothes?

Wouldn't know. Haven't seen your temperature argument.

Yet oddly, he intends this argument to refute the materialist position, where I cite it to support the materialist position.

You're mistaken. He isn't attempting to refute the materialist position, just PixyMisa's incoherent version of it.

--- Argo

 

[Janus]

How does any of this make the redness of red the very same thing as a physical process??

You keep asking this question. Do you agree with this definition.

Plural for quale. "Quale" is a technical term introduced by C.I. Lewis (1929). A quale is an introspectible and seemingly monadic property of a sense-datum. For example, the qualia of a visual sense-datum of a rose would include the experienced red-ness, and the qualia of an olfactory sense-datum of a rose would include the sweet-ness of the scent.

If this is all qualia are, then the answer is only more complex form of the answer to the question: How is "War and Peace" the exact same thing as this big thing of paper and ink. If you don't know what words are and how they can be represented then it seems just as unsolvable.

 

[PixyMisa]

[Nothing of interest.]

The difference between an army and your "Qualia" is this:

An army is an organisation of things which are ultimately real.

"Qualia" are either:

1) Brain processes, and thus an organisation of things that are ultimately real; or
2) A pattern that is not made up from any real thing, and thus purely a concept, like Sherlock Holmes, virtue, or the number 2, and not real.

If you deny that "Qualia" are brain processes, then they have no reality whatsoever.

And if you accept that they are brain processes, then "Qualia" are really just thoughts, that is, patterns of neurons firing. In which case, the concept of "Qualia" is of no use to anyone.

 

[synaesthesia]

You seem to have a very poor grasp of the word "real".

Have you read Daniel Dennett's paper, "Real Patterns"? It's one of his shorter, simpler ones, but it is so central to so much of his philosophy that perhaps 70% of the attacks on him miss this facet of his thinking. (Even though I think it's clear enough from his other work).

How did Issamov put it? (Paraphrase alert!!)

"People used to think that the earth was flat. They were wrong. People used to think that the earth was round. They were also wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is round is as wrong as thinking it's flat, you're wronger than both of them put together!"

 

[PixyMisa]

Have you read Daniel Dennett's paper, "Real Patterns"? It's one of his shorter, simpler ones, but it is so central to so much of his philosophy that perhaps 70% of the attacks on him miss this facet of his thinking. (Even though I think it's clear enough from his other work).

I don't think so. I've read some Dennett, but that one doesn't ring a bell. I've been meaning to see if I can find more of his work. By the title, it sounds like it's central to what I'm arguing here, and I expect that Dennett has put more thought into it than me

How did Issamov put it?

Um, Asimov?

(Paraphrase alert!!)

"People used to think that the earth was flat. They were wrong. People used to think that the earth was round. They were also wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is round is as wrong as thinking it's round, you're wronger than both of them put together!"

From the essay "The Relativity of Wrong", which I just happened to read last Christmas.

 

[Q-Source]

Q-Source

Wouldn't that argument apply to God? And to Invisible Pink Unicorns?

Exactly. If we have NO EVIDENCE that God or Unicorns exist then WE CANNOT assert that they exist!

People here are saying the qualia are objective proccesses without any evidence to back up. Show me a fully objective description of how fear takes place in the brain.

Skepticism is not believing in things that have no evidence. Until you have evidence, you don't believe. Show us evidence, and we will believe. Until then, we won't.

I agree with you, Yahzi.

But are you seriously asking me that I should provide evidence that qualia ARE NOT objective???

It is you and Pixy Misa who are claiming that they are objective, so show us the evidence.

A scientific reference please

Suspending judgement for your sacred cows (while passing judgement on everyone else's) is not agnosticism or open-mindedness, it's just hypocrisy.

Why is hypocrisy????

I am not making any judgement about qualia, I am just asking why we should say that qualia are objective proccesses when we still do not know how they work??

I am trying to avoid using any methaphysical belief (materialism or idealism).

Q-S

 

[Q-Source]

Q said:
Our brain is physical. It does all sorts of wonderful things, including having subjective experiences. There is no evidence for any nonphysical aspects of our brains so I see no reason why qualia should be any different, unless you simply proclaim them so.

Exactly!

But you are making the same mistake that you erroneously think I am making. Your positionion is like: o.k. the brain is physical, we have subjective experiences, then qualia must really be an objective proccess.

However, the problem is that we still do not know whether or not your unsupported conclusion is true, because we haven't described such proccesses. Why??, I wonder why Scientists haven't described and replicated such proccesses yet?

Q-S

 

[Q-Source]

As Paul pointed out, the brain is a physical thing. All evidence - and it's an absolutely huge amount of evidence from neuroscience, clinical psychology, biochemistry, general medicine and everyday life - all of this evidence tells us that the mind is a function of the brain. There is no reliable evidence to suggest otherwise.

Just provide a reference to any scientific description of a subjective experience that was really objective (fear, love, taste, sadness, etc.)

If the mind is a brain function, so are "Qualia". It's that simple.Doesn't matter.

If, if, if, can you get rid of the word "if"?

If it is so simple, why people are having these discussions over and over again?. Just provide the damn reference.

The only alternative is some form of mysticism. It is hugely unlikely that any such thing is true; we have never seen anything to suggest it.

I do not agree that mysticism is the other alternative. I would say that the more realistic alternative should be that we do not know yet whether or not qualia are an objective proccess.

I am not a mystic, so you cannot say that I am defending mysticism or suggesting that it must be the solution to this problem.

I'm using evidence. If you have any evidence to suggest that "Qualia" are not the result of objective events, present it.

Which evidence is that?, all we have are correlations between chemicals changes in our brains and the mental states. Even if Science recognises the existence of mental states, it cannot describe or replicate them.

If you're right, you'll probably win multiple Nobel prizes, because you'll have overturned the fields of Physics, Chemistry and Medicine at the very least. Yes. Or rather, it is how researchers have shown the Theory of Relativity to be correct.It can do. Look at what the correlations are. Trying to suggest anything other than mind being a brain function is just trying to push water uphill. With a fork.

Did I mention that qualia are not a product of the brain? or did I suggest that they were non-physical?

I do not know what they are, when I heard you saying that they are objective proccesses then I just wanted to ask you for the evidence.

Just look for a moment at how things that effect the brain also effect the mind.
Drugs.
Injuries.
Hypoxia.
Electrical stimuli.

and what is the scientific definition of mind?

"A" correlation? A vast body of related and self-consistent evidence is what we have.

I know that they correlate.

Did you know that there is a high correlation between black criminals and the consumption of white bread in prisons?

In some cases, correlations only suggest that there might be a causation, but that's it. In the mean time, we cannot affirm that it is in fact a causation. I think that Scientists do not say that, only some materialists.

Q-S

 

[Q-Source]

Wrong. Science has a hell of a lot to say about it. Try reading something on the subject.

Do you know how the scientific method works?
Do you know that a scientific theory should hold with empirical evidence?

You have subjective experiences, I wonder if they can be replicated in someone else's brain to support the non-existence theories about qualia.

Q-S, you seem to be looking fo a deductive proof. You don't get that in the real world. You get inductive support for theories. You can get conclusive evidence which falsifies a theory, but you can't prove one.

The support for a physical origin of mind is overwhelming, if you take the time to look at some of it. It's not proven, and will never be proven. But we'll continue piling up more supporting evidence and more detailed theories, because that's is what Science does.

It is not proven and will never be proven? that makes you affirm that qualia are an objective stuff?

I missed this one:

If you have any evidence to suggest that "Qualia" are not the result of objective events, present it.

Why should I present evidence to support that qualia are not the result of objective events?, should I prove a negative?
I am not saying that qualia are objective, all I know is that I am having this subjective experiences and noone can explain them in objective terms, not even myself.

Q-S

 

[Interesting Ian]

I decided to drop by philo forum again, and the ridiculous qualia insanity is still going on...

davidsmith73

As far as I am concerned, qualia -- the introspective experience of experience, sans the silly ineffability dongle -- is simply the mind's introspection on itself. Mind can examine itself, its own processes, and the sense of this examination is what we label as "qualia". Qualia are simply the result of our ability to introspect, a quale is an instance of the mind observing its own process.

Complaining that qualia cannot be described linguistically but only through reference ("see the red barn? this is what red feels like!") is stupid: all descriptions are thusly limited, every description in any language is ultimately rooted in some sort of sensory reference. Until you can point at a tree and say "this is a tree" to a child, you cannot describe the tree either, except in terms of other previously-referenced sensory objects. "The feel of red" in this regard is no more mysterious than "the look of a tree", there are simply more levels of indirection going on.

I don't see how this helps at all. The look of a tree is qualia as well. We have on the one hand the objective world as described by physics, on the other we have qualia. With what reason do you suppose a quale is an instance of the mind observing its own process rather than being constitutive of reality itself?

 

[PixyMisa]

Just provide a reference to any scientific description of a subjective experience that was really objective (fear, love, taste, sadness, etc.)

I have already pointed out that I don't have one.

If, if, if, can you get rid of the word "if"?

Yes.

"Qualia" are baloney. Thoughts are brain processes.

Happy now?

If it is so simple, why people are having these discussions over and over again?. Just provide the damn reference.

Because the "damn reference" you are asking for is an Operational Theory of Consciousness, and you you damn well we don't have one.

If you want a neurological discussion of taste, then I'd suggest you read The Neurobiology of Taste and Smell. For the emotions, try The Emotional Brain. You should also read The Synaptic Self.

I do not agree that mysticism is the other alternative. I would say that the more realistic alternative should be that we do not know yet whether or not qualia are an objective proccess.

Wrong. We know they come from somewhere. It is completely obvious that that somewhere is the brain. There is no support in neurology, biology or the laws of physics for the mind to come from anywhere else. To claim that we don't know where mind comes from is stupid. To claim that it comes from somewhere other than the brain - in the face of all scientific knowledge and with no supporting evidence whatsoever - is mysticism.

I am not a mystic, so you cannot say that I am defending mysticism or suggesting that it must be the solution to this problem.

You may simply be ignorant. What on earth leads you to think that we can't be sure that mind comes from the brain?

Which evidence is that?, all we have are correlations between chemicals changes in our brains and the mental states. Even if Science recognises the existence of mental states, it cannot describe or replicate them.

Can. Does. Read up on the icky electrical implant experiments being conducted, like this one involving an artificial hippocampus.

Did I mention that qualia are not a product of the brain? or did I suggest that they were non-physical?

You suggest that we don't know we they come from. Where do you think they might come from, Q-S?

I do not know what they are, when I heard you saying that they are objective proccesses then I just wanted to ask you for the evidence.

"Qualia" exist only in the mind. Mind arises from brain. QED.

and what is the scientific definition of mind?

This one looks good to me:

The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination.

I know that they correlate.

So why all the fuss?

Did you know that there is a high correlation between black criminals and the consumption of white bread in prisons?

Big deal. Take a look at the nature of the correlations. Start with Yahzi's Bat. Get drunk. Take a nap. Read something on the subject rather than sitting there spouting nonsense.

In some cases, correlations only suggest that there might be a causation, but that's it. In the mean time, we cannot affirm that it is in fact a causation. I think that Scientists do not say that, only some materialists.

Yes we can. Yes they do.

You're looking for proof again. You won't get it. We have enough evidence that we can - and scientists in the field do - say that beyond the shadow of a doubt, the mind arises from the brain.

All you ever get in life is correlations. If you want proof, go study geometry.

 

[PixyMisa]

But are you seriously asking me that I should provide evidence that qualia ARE NOT objective???

It is you and Pixy Misa who are claiming that they are objective, so show us the evidence.

If you are seriously so unaware of the field, then why are you making claims about it? You didn't come in with a question, you came in with the statement that we don't know qualia are the result of objective processes.

If you want evidence, read something on the subject. You don't seem to have any grounding in it at all. If you want to find a good neuroscience text, ask your library. Stop asking for things that you have been told don't exist.