Qualia

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
hammock
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:21 pm
Location: Heckville, Dorado; Republic of Lostanglia

Re: Qualia

Post by hammock » Fri May 15, 2015 7:58 pm

raw_thought wrote:The long quote you gave shows how Dennett contradicts himself. Consciousness without subjective experience???????? What on earth is that? It is like a square circle. . . .

That could be the very stimulus for eliminating the terms, or giving up on even revising them for continued use. In that if the readers keep drifting back to the traditional meanings of the labels (such as qualia belonging to a self [subjective], resisting representative capture by language / description, other people not sharing a quale or lacking access [non-universal], etc).... Then -- at least from the perspective of Dennett, and the rest influenced by Witt, Sellars, Kuhn, Feyerabend, and early Rorty -- that old nomenclature might as well be chucked for good into the Phlogiston bin.

Extracted from "beetles in boxes" and "myth of Jones" metaphors is the idea that language and other conveyances of information are governed by public rules rather than regulated by "mine". This would make knowledge of _x_ "intersubjective" in outdated folk-psychology speak (equating to objective), no longer deemed an utterly personal or hidden / precious item. The latter's functional value can be transmitted to someone else ("Ah, yes, I know the role of this color blue or the foul skunk odor to which you refer") because for this group "the character in the play" is all science needs to be concerned with. Not a specific actor who happens to be realizing that part in the play on Saturday night (vague analogy elaborated on below).

The internal content of perceptions and thoughts is not so much denied as dismissed as irrelevant in comparison to useful functionalist accounts of behaviors and information processing (the supposed extrinsic framework / blueprint of macro- and micro- working relationships that can be abstracted from material situations). It is the dynamic organization of "stuff" which instantiates psychological, intellective, and communicative affairs; rather than the specific nature of the "stuff" itself. Whether the stuff is a species of physical substrate (neural tissue, electronic board, etc) or assorted modes of phenomenal manifestations (images, olfactory sensations, etc) filling the hollow shells of performing language units or cognitive components.

Ergo, multiple or variable realization falls out of functionalism: "By gosh, with proper arrangement that mountain of pipes and hydraulic valves and pumps could constitute what that pre-scientific "mind" word (of the primitive philosophical savage) hand-waves at. I don't need either biochemical gunk or computer hardware to form the active, complex structure which outputs the same results." [John Searle sighs with frustration and disagreement in the background: "Your GI tract can't digest the simulation of a pizza! The latter is not a real pizza, the original thing it is designed to resemble."]

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Qualia

Post by raw_thought » Sat May 16, 2015 2:40 pm

http://www.scientificjournals.org/journ ... s/1208.pdf
When Dennett implies that he believes in qualia (subjective experiences), it’s just that he wants verification, I have nothing against that. However, in his “Quining Qualia” his argument is that qualia do not exist because they cannot be verified! * Dennett is like an observer of Wittgenstein’s beetle in a box, he rattles the box, hears something and then concludes that since he does not know what is in the box, there is nothing in the box. He confuses epistemology with ontology. Not knowing what something is does not mean that something does not exist. Similarly, I can feel the wind in my face even if I do not know that wind is air particles moving.
* My counter argument in my seminar paper about “Quining Qualia” was that Dennett defines one of qualia’s properties as ineffability (he is correct) . He then proves that qualia are ineffable. He then concludes that qualia are impossible because they are ineffable! Talk about circular logic.
It is funny that Dennett now says that he is not denying that feelings ( qualia) exist and that he is only seeking verification of particular quales. He explicitly says that qualia ( feelings) do not exist.
………………..
“I think most readers, when first told this, would assume that I must be misunderstanding him. Surely no sane person could deny the existence of feelings. But in his reply he makes it clear that I have understood him exactly. He says, “How could anyone deny that!? Just watch…”
The distinction between appearance and reality, which arguments like his appeal to, does not apply to the very existence of conscious states, because in such cases the appearance is the reality.
John Searle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Searle
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~jsearle/
The two quotes are from
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... -exchange/
“‘Qualia’ is an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us. As is so often the case with philosophical jargon, it is easier to give examples than to give a definition of the term. Look at a glass of milk at sunset; the way it looks to you--the particular, personal, subjective visual quality of the glass of milk is the quale of your visual experience at the moment. The way the milk tastes to you then is another, gustatory quale, and how it sounds to you as you swallow is an auditory quale; These various "properties of conscious experience" are prime examples of qualia. Nothing, it seems, could you know more intimately than your own qualia…”
“At first blush it would be hard to imagine a more quixotic quest than trying to convince people that there are no such properties as qualia; hence the ironic title of this chapter. But I am not kidding.”
http://cogprints.org/254/1/quinqual.htm

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Qualia

Post by raw_thought » Sat May 16, 2015 2:51 pm

“Here is an honest question. (I do not know the answer and it is not a way to start a debate.
Crazy coincidences happen to me all the time.
A few examples, I was at Smith college (my daughter went there). She and my wife were having a girl's day and so I went to the library. I always read science or philosophy. However, this time I decided to randomly choose a book with my eyes closed and read a chapter. I read the collexted works of Calhun.Then when I went back to our room, my wife had yhe southern poverties magizine on the table, opened to an article about respected academics that went over to the dark side. You guessed it, the author of the collexcted works of Calhoun was menrtioned. He is a respected historian that says that slavery was a good thing!
Anyway, stuff like that happens to me everyday. I dont think anything supernatural is happening. But it made we wonder if there is a way to tell.
For example, suppose I spill my bowl of cherries on the floor and then on the TV is a story about a train carring cherries that turned over. Then 5 minutes later, my dog walks in with a bird in his mouth and then I pick up a magizine about bird dogs. Suppose this goes on (every 5 minutes) is there a math formula that tells me when the coincidences are so outrageous that something must be going on.
Not probability, but metaprobability. The odds of unlikey (improbable ) events happening for a certain time segment.”
ME FROM THE Where was 'god' before 'he' created the universe? Thread.
SEE http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/dennettdumb
For another example of Dennett’s reasoning.
As I said in the “where is God before he created the universe “thread. (Quoted above) This weird stuff happens to me all the time!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am not the raw thought that posted the site at the link I just gave!!!!
It said 2008. I have been using “raw thought” as a pseudonym (at philosophy sites) for a decade. Perhaps he saw it and liked it. Or more likely, it is just one of those CRAZY COINCIDENCES!!!
PS; I just found that site 4 minutes ago.
Now you can see why the profs at my university do not take Dennett seriously! Dennett actually told them that he does not believe that an "on" light switch knows that the bulb is on. He just says that to get publicity. Similarly, I imagine that is why he said that qualia ( feelings ) do not exist!

Ginkgo
Posts: 2523
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Qualia

Post by Ginkgo » Sat May 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
raw_thought wrote:Please show where I misrepresented Dennett. I can see why you think I am misrepresenting him bexause he says such nonsense. For example, that feelings do not exist.
I do understand Dennett. My seminar paper was about "quining qualia". My arguments were embraced by the philosophy department.
Thanks for the info about spheres. I thought I was the only one that knew he was a troll.
Please cite where he says; "feelings don't exist." Without the context, such a phrase is utterly meaningless.
Why not post your seminar paper?
Yes, where does Dennett say that feelings don't exist?

Ginkgo
Posts: 2523
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Qualia

Post by Ginkgo » Sun May 17, 2015 12:00 am

raw_thought wrote: * My counter argument in my seminar paper about “Quining Qualia” was that Dennett defines one of qualia’s properties as ineffability (he is correct) . He then proves that qualia are ineffable. He then concludes that qualia are impossible because they are ineffable! Talk about circular logic.
It is funny that Dennett now says that he is not denying that feelings ( qualia) exist and that he is only seeking verification of particular quales. He explicitly says that qualia ( feelings) do not exist.
Only if you don't draw out the distinction Dennett makes in terms of ineffability and it appears you haven't. Dennett distinguishes between private and public ineffability. Qualia for Dennett are relational properties, not intrinsic properties. Naturally, Dennett is denying the private aspect of qualia.

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Qualia

Post by raw_thought » Sun May 17, 2015 8:42 am

Ginkgo wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
raw_thought wrote:Please show where I misrepresented Dennett. I can see why you think I am misrepresenting him bexause he says such nonsense. For example, that feelings do not exist.
I do understand Dennett. My seminar paper was about "quining qualia". My arguments were embraced by the philosophy department.
Thanks for the info about spheres. I thought I was the only one that knew he was a troll.
Please cite where he says; "feelings don't exist." Without the context, such a phrase is utterly meaningless.
Why not post your seminar paper?
Yes, where does Dennett say that feelings don't exist?
See the post I made (second from the top on this page).
You really should read my posts before responding to them. If you do not (like now) you look exceptionally silly!
Last edited by raw_thought on Sun May 17, 2015 8:58 am, edited 2 times in total.

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Qualia

Post by raw_thought » Sun May 17, 2015 8:46 am

Ginkgo wrote:
raw_thought wrote: * My counter argument in my seminar paper about “Quining Qualia” was that Dennett defines one of qualia’s properties as ineffability (he is correct) . He then proves that qualia are ineffable. He then concludes that qualia are impossible because they are ineffable! Talk about circular logic.
It is funny that Dennett now says that he is not denying that feelings ( qualia) exist and that he is only seeking verification of particular quales. He explicitly says that qualia ( feelings) do not exist.
Only if you don't draw out the distinction Dennett makes in terms of ineffability and it appears you haven't. Dennett distinguishes between private and public ineffability. Qualia for Dennett are relational properties, not intrinsic properties. Naturally, Dennett is denying the private aspect of qualia.
?????
So ineffebility is not private??? It is only public?????
So qualia is not private??? If you smash your fingers with a hammer and I know that. My knowledge is identical to you feeling that pain??????
Private and yet publicly communicable?????
Last edited by raw_thought on Sun May 17, 2015 8:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Qualia

Post by raw_thought » Sun May 17, 2015 8:49 am

You guys are exceptionally silly. And I admire that. Whimsy is a sign of exceptional intelligence! :)

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Qualia

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun May 17, 2015 9:45 am

raw_thought wrote:You guys are exceptionally silly. And I admire that. Whimsy is a sign of exceptional intelligence! :)
You are the one making a complete arse of himself.
Dennett does NOT say that. If he had said that then you would be able to quote him, but you cannot.

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Qualia

Post by raw_thought » Sun May 17, 2015 9:55 am

So what does "privately public" mean to you? To me that is silly!
Scroll back (as anyone can). Dennett says that subjective feelings do not exist. And yet then he says that he does not deny that we feel stuff (that there is nothing pain feels like, it is only C fibers firing.) *

UMMMM, I quoted him! See the second post from the top of this page.
* Disingenuous! Dennett redefines his terms. It would be cool to say that pain is defined as a feeling. However. Dennett denys the obvious (that we feel things). Now, that is disingenuous!!!!!!
Last edited by raw_thought on Sun May 17, 2015 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2523
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Qualia

Post by Ginkgo » Sun May 17, 2015 10:11 am

raw_thought wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:
raw_thought wrote: * My counter argument in my seminar paper about “Quining Qualia” was that Dennett defines one of qualia’s properties as ineffability (he is correct) . He then proves that qualia are ineffable. He then concludes that qualia are impossible because they are ineffable! Talk about circular logic.
It is funny that Dennett now says that he is not denying that feelings ( qualia) exist and that he is only seeking verification of particular quales. He explicitly says that qualia ( feelings) do not exist.
Only if you don't draw out the distinction Dennett makes in terms of ineffability and it appears you haven't. Dennett distinguishes between private and public ineffability. Qualia for Dennett are relational properties, not intrinsic properties. Naturally, Dennett is denying the private aspect of qualia.
?????
So ineffebility is not private??? It is only public?????
So qualia is not private??? If you smash your fingers with a hammer and I know that. My knowledge is identical to you feeling that pain??????
Private and yet publicly communicable?????

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Qualia

Post by raw_thought » Sun May 17, 2015 10:14 am

You and I agree? Sorry, I am in warrior mode : :wink:

Ginkgo
Posts: 2523
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Qualia

Post by Ginkgo » Sun May 17, 2015 10:26 am

raw_thought wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:
raw_thought wrote: * My counter argument in my seminar paper about “Quining Qualia” was that Dennett defines one of qualia’s properties as ineffability (he is correct) . He then proves that qualia are ineffable. He then concludes that qualia are impossible because they are ineffable! Talk about circular logic.
It is funny that Dennett now says that he is not denying that feelings ( qualia) exist and that he is only seeking verification of particular quales. He explicitly says that qualia ( feelings) do not exist.
Only if you don't draw out the distinction Dennett makes in terms of ineffability and it appears you haven't. Dennett distinguishes between private and public ineffability. Qualia for Dennett are relational properties, not intrinsic properties. Naturally, Dennett is denying the private aspect of qualia.
?????
So ineffebility is not private??? It is only public?????
So qualia is not private??? If you smash your fingers with a hammer and I know that. My knowledge is identical to you feeling that pain??????
Private and yet publicly communicable?????

If you read the examples Dennet you will see the distinction he is making. Fore example, in "Chase and Sanborn" Dennett is like every other philosopher of mind in that he think consciousness has phenomenological properties, Dennett thinks that qualia is not the best explanation because qualia are said to be intrinsic and non-relational. Dennett is putting forward the idea that phenomenological properties are in fact extrinsic and relational. If you are saying that Dennett believes qualia properties are ineffable in the sense of being intrinsic and non-intentional then this is a misrepresentation of his position

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Qualia

Post by raw_thought » Sun May 17, 2015 10:33 am

"Sanborn" [coffee] is from "Quineing Qualia". Yes, I am familiar with his arguments and have destroyed them in my seminal (pun intended). paper.
I have also showed (here) why his "argument " is silly!

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Qualia

Post by raw_thought » Sun May 17, 2015 10:35 am

Dennett (if consistent, of course he is not). rejects phenomenology (a first person narrative ).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests