Show Me Qualia

[Dancing David]

Still waiting.

 

[synaesthesia]

Still waiting.

David,

The question was posed as an empirical one, but, as you realize, it is a conceptual one. In point of fact, to be able to show, see, talk about, act upon the knowlege of qualia would be to contradict the meaning of qualia.

Intrinsic, ineffable and infallible qualia are just that; Nothing about them can be discerned as a relationship to the world, nothing extentionally referring to them can be said.

The fact that qualia constitute a wittgenstinian private language implies not only, as hammegk points out, that YOU cannot show ME qualia, but that various agencies in your cognition cannot show them to eachother.

In other words, not only can I not show you my own qualia, I can't even show them to myself!

 

[davidsmith73]

Since the other thread is about showing the neural correlates of qualia, and I don't want to spam.

Show me qualia with out a brain, show me qualia with out the physical process that support the brain. Show me how there are just qualia and no external reality. Can you will you, I am open minded, jsut show me.

Peace

A slightly ill-posed question I think. The mental monist viewpoint, as paraphrased by Paul, is to supposed that the physical realm is a fiction, a construct, and not real. So when you ask to be "shown" qualia without the physical brain, you must first realise that a mental monist views the brain, or any other physical concept for that matter, as only being manifest in reality as qualia. So your question really must be - how do you show the physical world to be a fiction ?

There is one article I found interesting which tries to do this:

http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/philos/ty99.htm#mind

 

[Dancing David]

No the question is not ill posed, I understand the idea that qualia are the perception in ultimate. however How does this refure physical reality. You can't have qualia without reality. But there seems to be this idea out there that there can be qualia without physical reality.

Show me the qualia that is divorced from physical reality.

Where is red without the photon to be percieved?

 

[hammegk]

Show me the qualia that is divorced from physical reality.

Where is red without the photon to be percieved?

I can "see" (well,visualize) red with my eyes closed. How about you?

That's only a remembered response you say? Consider that for a bit. What is being remembered if not a qualia? Or what is the concept "red" if not a qualia?

Do all living entities have qualia, or is it confined to homo sap?

Hard to discuss, let alone demonstate, the undefinable; sorry.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I cannot see red in my mind. Are you really sure you're actually seeing red?

I agree that we can call that a quale, for lack of another term, but I don't understand why it has to be anything other than your memory triggering the red portion of your visual rainbow, just as would happen if you looked at something red.

~~ Paul

 

[Tricky]

I can "see" (well,visualize) red with my eyes closed. How about you?

That's only a remembered response you say? Consider that for a bit. What is being remembered if not a qualia? Or what is the concept "red" if not a qualia?

Do all living entities have qualia, or is it confined to homo sap?

Hard to discuss, let alone demonstate, the undefinable; sorry.

And I can visualize words with my eyes closed. I can remember tastes and smells and a whole range of senses I have sensed before, but I can never visualize a color, smell or taste I have not seen, smelled or tasted before. What you are calling "qualia" are simple memories. There is an enormous amount of evidence that memories have a physical basis.

Would it be possible to excise very specific parts of your brain such that you could not remember "red"? Certainly not with current technology, but I do not find the concept impossible.

 

[Mercutio]

And I can visualize words with my eyes closed. I can remember tastes and smells and a whole range of senses I have sensed before, but I can never visualize a color, smell or taste I have not seen, smelled or tasted before. What you are calling "qualia" are simple memories. There is an enormous amount of evidence that memories have a physical basis.

Would it be possible to excise very specific parts of your brain such that you could not remember "red"? Certainly not with current technology, but I do not find the concept impossible.

Well said, Tricky...if I could make one change, I would suggest a small but significant change in language. You say these are memories; indeed, that is how we talk about the process. But it is actually a behavior--the behavior of remembering, rather than seeing a memory. I know it seems silly, but when, in our language, we make nouns out of processes (ironic that "processes" is a noun), we give them an "existence" that they do not actually have. Certainly we do see, we smell, we hear, both in the presence of extenal stimuli and later, in their absence, we re-see, re-smell, re-hear them.

When we speak of seeing "sights" (as opposed to simply "seeing") or "having memories" (as opposed to simply "remembering"), we give metaphorical substance to the insubstantial. It should not be confusing, but it obviously is; we have people on this forum claiming that "consciousness" (another noun I have problems with) is self-evident. It is not; it is an inferred phenomenon that we build from seeing, hearing, feeling, thinking. These are things we do, not mental manipulation of mental objects.

sheesh...reading this, it looks like I disagree with what you wrote--I absolutely do not. You said what I wanted to, but you got there first.

 

[davidsmith73]

No the question is not ill posed, I understand the idea that qualia are the perception in ultimate. however How does this refure physical reality. You can't have qualia without reality. But there seems to be this idea out there that there can be qualia without physical reality.

Show me the qualia that is divorced from physical reality.

Where is red without the photon to be percieved?

Still ill-posed. The photon is still there. Its just that the photon is not part of a physical "outer" world. Its part of the mental realm. This is why we don't have to throw away all our scientific knowledge just because we revert to mental monism. We just have to change the meaning of what we are refering to when we talk about physical descriptions. The physical descriptions still hold as predictors for future observations.

 

[davidsmith73]

And I can visualize words with my eyes closed. I can remember tastes and smells and a whole range of senses I have sensed before, but I can never visualize a color, smell or taste I have not seen, smelled or tasted before.

You must have done the first time you experienced them.

What you are calling "qualia" are simple memories. There is an enormous amount of evidence that memories have a physical basis.

This thread has nothing to do with memory ! I really don't get the relevance of memory here.

We must have had the experience of redness for the first time. Here, there is no memory for redness. Lets take the argument from here !

 

[davidsmith73]

has anyone read my link ?

 

[Dancing David]

Still ill-posed. The photon is still there. Its just that the photon is not part of a physical "outer" world. Its part of the mental realm. This is why we don't have to throw away all our scientific knowledge just because we revert to mental monism. We just have to change the meaning of what we are refering to when we talk about physical descriptions. The physical descriptions still hold as predictors for future observations.

Erk, what? You lost me there. the photon existed before it ineracted with the recpetors in the eye. In current theories, if that is a photon of reflected sunlight it may have existed for quite a while in the sun before it zoomed across space to reflect off the object and then enter my eye. When I look at the Andromeda galaxy I am seeing photons that have existed for a very long time prior to my interaction with them.

When they interact with my eye then they become part of the mental realm.

Point one: Qualia re learned at some level, a baby does not experience red the first time they are exposed to it, the neural pathways and the visual cortex have to developp in response to exposure to the stimuli. No stimuli, no pathways, and a child who will not percieve color.

Point two: I will try to read the stuff about Berkley, I think I understand the basic premise , that we limited to the sensation our brain percieves. However we do not percieve reality in a raw sense. Perception are a product of learning and development. If a child is never exposed to the color red or orange or purple, or any color that will stimulate the red percieving receptors. They will not percieve red when exposed to it.

Point three: visualization is an interesting case. I can visualize many things that I have never seen, such as hobbits in the Lord of the Rings. But that is because I have something to reference the words to when I read the book.


It is still not an ill posed question: your response seems to assume that I already understand mental monism. I am asking you to bridge the gap and show me where the qualia are.

Your response does not explain where qualia are, it just makes reference to the article on Berkley. That is not even trying to explain qualia as the free floating 'thing'.

I did not post this thread to try to disprove any thing or fight with people, just to try to understand where the monism camp comes from. To quote my mother ' If you can't explain something then you don't really understand it' , I would like to understand your point of view.

So where are the qualia? Where is the perception of the photon without the photon. they are learned and developed responses to stimuli.

Peace

 

[hammegk]

Since the other thread is about showing the neural correlates of qualia, and I don't want to spam.

Show me qualia with out a brain, show me qualia with out the physical process that support the brain. Show me how there are just qualia and no external reality. Can you will you, I am open minded, jsut show me.

Peace

Heck, I'm open minded too. Can you show me "external reality" without qualia?

You prefer to choose "objective reality", which leads to various problems including HPC, free will, any reason for life itself, etcetc.

A mental monist at least can accept there may be underlying design rather than randomness. (My world doesn't seem random to me.) And who/what is *I*, the selector of some parts of the *me* stream-of-consciousness?

Originally posted by Tricky
There is an enormous amount of evidence that memories have a physical basis.

Of course, once you accept your worldview is completely formed by "external reality". And how did your *I* arrive at that conclusion, other than by accepting what you wish to demonstrate as an axiom?

 

[Tricky]

You must have done the first time you experienced them.

That is just "sensing". The first time you sense something, you write it to your memory. When you "recall redness", you are simply accessing that memory, but you cannot recall redness until you have first sensed it.

This thread has nothing to do with memory ! I really don't get the relevance of memory here.

Because what you call "qualia" are actually just another word for "memories'.

We must have had the experience of redness for the first time. Here, there is no memory for redness. Lets take the argument from here !

And that is exactly what I am saying. The "qualia" for redness did not exist until you experienced it for the first time. A person totally blind from birth has no "qualia" for redness, just as you have no qualia for the sound of a bat's sonar.

Here's a little experiment. Try to describe redness without comparing it to something else. You might try giving the wavelength, but that would mean nothing to a person who had not seen a graphic representation of wavelength vs. color. Or try to describe redness to a blind person. Since they have none of the memories you have, it will be impossible.

Originally posted by hammegk

Of course, once you accept your worldview is completely formed by "external reality". And how did your *I* arrive at that conclusion, other than by accepting what you wish to demonstrate as an axiom?

Empirically. The fact that I have never observed anything other than "external reality" makes me question the existence of anything else. Perhaps it exists, but since there is no evidence for it, I decline to philosophize about what it "might be like".

 

[Dancing David]

Re: Re: Show Me Qualia

Heck, I'm open minded too. Can you show me "external reality" without qualia?

You prefer to choose "objective reality", which leads to various problems including HPC, free will, any reason for life itself, etcetc.

A mental monist at least can accept there may be underlying design rather than randomness. (My world doesn't seem random to me.) And who/what is *I*, the selector of some parts of the *me* stream-of-consciousness?


Of course, once you accept your worldview is completely formed by "external reality". And how did your *I* arrive at that conclusion, other than by accepting what you wish to demonstrate as an axiom?

Hammegk,

I think I understand that qualia are the ultimate perception, ie the experince of the red square as a red sequare. This is something that I feel is presented by our visual cortex to the frontal cortex.

How can there be the qualia without the external stimuli. it seems to me that the two are linked.

And in this thread the assumption is that external reality exists. the goal is to come to a mutual language that we can understand.

peace

 

[davidsmith73]

Erk, what? You lost me there. the photon existed before it ineracted with the recpetors in the eye. In current theories, if that is a photon of reflected sunlight it may have existed for quite a while in the sun before it zoomed across space to reflect off the object and then enter my eye. When I look at the Andromeda galaxy I am seeing photons that have existed for a very long time prior to my interaction with them.

When they interact with my eye then they become part of the mental realm.

You are talking about mathematical descriptions of our experiences the latter of which are manifest in the realm of consciousness i.e, qualia. In the mental monist view, the concept of physical reality lies within the realm of the mental. It is a fictional contruction. Yes, the photon can be described as travelling across this conceptual framework we call space/time and interact with your "physical body" but all these "things" cannot be regarded as having a separate ontological existence from the qualia they have been contructed from.

Point one: Qualia are learned at some level, a baby does not experience red the first time they are exposed to it,

Since we cannot "see" inside someone elses hypothetical consious experience, this is untestable.

the neural pathways and the visual cortex have to developp in response to exposure to the stimuli. No stimuli, no pathways, and a child who will not percieve color.

To generalise your point: our nervous systems develop from a single cell and at some point there will develop the appropriate neural circuitry that hypothetically generates certain qualia.

This is merely a re-statement of the title of the other thread: Physical neural processes are equivalent to qualia. If you can explain to me how this is so I'll be impressed.

Point two: I will try to read the stuff about Berkley, I think I understand the basic premise , that we are limited to the sensation our brain percieves.

Erm, I don't think so. His basic premise is that the concept of a physical ontology is a fiction.

However we do not percieve reality in a raw sense. Perception are a product of learning and development. If a child is never exposed to the color red or orange or purple, or any color that will stimulate the red percieving receptors. They will not percieve red when exposed to it.

The point of the link I gave was to show that physical concepts such as your photons, receptors and neural processes existing as a separate ontology from the experience we have of them is a fiction. Physical reality is not there to be percieved, it is constructed from the ultimate reality which is the mental realm.

Point three: visualization is an interesting case. I can visualize many things that I have never seen, such as hobbits in the Lord of the Rings. But that is because I have something to reference the words to when I read the book.

I don't see the relevance of this at all.

It is still not an ill posed question: your response seems to assume that I already understand mental monism. I am asking you to bridge the gap and show me where the qualia are.

What do mean by "show me where the qualia are" ? Do you want me to point to one

Your response does not explain where qualia are, it just makes reference to the article on Berkley. That is not even trying to explain qualia as the free floating 'thing'.

Free floating thing !? What do you mean ? How would you respond if I asked you to explain what matter is ?

So where are the qualia? Where is the perception of the photon without the photon. they are learned and developed responses to stimuli.

Ok, well they don't have time and space dimensions because these are concepts derived from the notion of physical reality. Does that help ?

 

[davidsmith73]

That is just "sensing".

Thats what the materialist is talking about when they refer to the "neural correlate of consciousness" ie. conscious perception
That is what the debate is all about isn't it ?

The first time you sense something, you write it to your memory. When you "recall redness", you are simply accessing that memory, but you cannot recall redness until you have first sensed it.

From a materialistic perspective, the first time you sense (are conscious of) something, a particular physical neural process somehow generates qualia. We are talking about a physical process generating or being equivalent to qualia. Recalling the qualities of redness at a later date to me is irrelavent to the original perception with regards to this debate.

And that is exactly what I am saying. The "qualia" for redness did not exist until you experienced it for the first time. A person totally blind from birth has no "qualia" for redness, just as you have no qualia for the sound of a bat's sonar.

According to the materialistic view of course. And this is why I started the other thread, to try to get someone to explain how this can be so. How can such a intuitively different thing - redness - be generated from a "physical process".

Here's a little experiment. Try to describe redness without comparing it to something else. You might try giving the wavelength, but that would mean nothing to a person who had not seen a graphic representation of wavelength vs. color. Or try to describe redness to a blind person. Since they have none of the memories you have, it will be impossible.

You can't describe redness without comparing it to something else to anyone ! The only way to find out if someone has experienced it is to do the comparison. Also remember that according to mental monism, a blind person does not exist as physically separate from your experiences. I'm not sure what the implications of that are in light of what you have said. Let me think it over !

 

[davidsmith73]

Re: Re: Re: Show Me Qualia

How can there be the qualia without the external stimuli.

By realising that the external stimuli are themselves qualia.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm sorry Mr david smith 73 but I just have to beg to disagree with you.

You make these bold assertitions that physical reality is a fiction. Then why do we need bodies? I think I understand the argument that our understanding of reality is nessecarily filtered/generated/constrained by the the nature of our perception.

But it is not incumbent on me to explain your point of view, you make the bold assertions and then don't follow them up.

1. How can it be that the 'physical realm' is a subset of the mental?

I willing to try to understand but it upon you to explain your notions, and I am begining to feel that your beliefs are just that. You seem to act as though you haven't tried to understand the biological explanation of perception. It seems to me that you make some assertion and sweep it under the rug. Just stating that something isn't so doesn't really explain your point of view.(My perception of course not nessecarily your intent)

I think that you understand the premise that you are presenting. Do you understand it well enough to explain it?

We may have to agree to disagree.

peace

 

[Dancing David]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Show Me Qualia

By realising that the external stimuli are themselves qualia.

Wow thats a bold perception, so is an unpercieved photon what? Our receptors interact with the receptors and then transmit it to our brains , our brains then process it, making what I think you call qualia. So are you saying that the photon interacting with the cone in my eye is the qualia?


Peace