Qualia

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Qualia

Post by Ginkgo » Tue May 19, 2015 12:56 am

raw_thought wrote:Dennett disingenuously takes an eliminative materialist stance and then an Epiphenomonolist stance.
I would say he takes a functionalist stance. This is the point I have been trying to get across.

Epiphenomenalism is the view that says our thoughts and feelings are not merely physical states in the brain. Instead they non-physical by-products of mental processing. This is the main reason why Dennett is not an epiphenomenalist.

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

Re: Qualia

Post by raw_thought » Tue May 19, 2015 1:05 am

I am familiar with functionalism. It is a sub set of eliminative materialism.
Republicanism and Democraticism are subsets of representative democracy. If I am arguing against representative democracy it makes no difference if my opponent is a Democrat or a Republican.

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

Re: Qualia

Post by raw_thought » Tue May 19, 2015 1:41 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Well of course he's saying that the program can't run until someone presses the enter key.
Umm no, I am not claiming that one cannot run the program without pressing the key. Which is in a way true but has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Your metaphor has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
I am saying that intentionality cannot be physical because matter lacks the ability to refer. For example, the ink pattern "on" does not refer to an on light.
See "symbol grounding problem".
You are obviously confusing the philosophical definition of "intentionality" ( that something refers to something else) with the common defintion (that I do a purposeful act).

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

Re: Qualia

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Tue May 19, 2015 8:08 am

raw_thought wrote:
There is no intentionality without qualia.


How are the two necessarily connected?

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

Re: Qualia

Post by raw_thought » Tue May 19, 2015 6:52 pm

“The symbol grounding problem is related to the problem of how words (symbols) get their meanings, and hence to the problem of what meaning itself really is. The problem of meaning is in turn related to the problem of consciousness, or how it is that mental states are meaningful. According to a widely held theory ofcognition called "computationalism," cognition (i.e., thinking) is just a form of computation. But computation in turn is just formal symbol manipulation: symbols are manipulated according to rules that are based on the symbols' shapes, not their meanings. How are those symbols (e.g., the words in our heads) connected to the things they refer to? It cannot be through the mediation of an external interpreter's head, because that would lead to an infinite regress, just as looking up the meanings of words in a (unilingual) dictionary of a language that one does not understand would lead to an infinite regress. The symbols in an autonomous hybrid symbolic+sensorimotor system—a Turing-scale robot consisting of both a symbol system and a sensorimotor system that reliably connects its internal symbols to the external objects they refer to, so it can interact with them Turing-indistinguishably from the way a person does—would be grounded. But whether its symbols would have meaning rather than just grounding is something that even the robotic Turing test—hence cognitive science itself—cannot determine, or explain.’
FROM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem
Here is another site
http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/dpitt/whatsit.pdf
Note that a belief in cognitive qualia does not mean that one thinks that the brain does not make calculations. Believing in Cognitive qualia is the simple claim that one is aware of knowledge.
For example, ask yourself, if one knew everything about Einstein’s brain, would one understand relativity? Are neurons firing the same as a syllogism?

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

Re: Qualia

Post by raw_thought » Tue May 19, 2015 6:54 pm

Spheres only gave the following “arguments”.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Raw thought is wrong because he believes in ghosts and God.
My response;
I do not believe in ghosts or God! However, even if I do that is not an argument. Similarly, it would not be a legitimate argument if I told a Republican that he is wrong because he is a Republican.
I have stated my positions over and over. Either spheres is not reading my posts or he is purposely misrepresenting them.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Raw thought is wrong because he thinks that the feeling of pain is a ghost.
My response;
I said that pain is a quale (feeling). In other words a private experience.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Raw thought is wrong because he bases his belief in qualia on the flimsy foundation of saying that one chooses to feel things.
My response;
I never said that! I repeatedly answered that criticism by specifically saying that most likely brain states cause qualia (feelings). I also explained in detail that when I use the word “intentionality” I am referring to the philosophical definition (something refers to something else) and not the street definition (doing something on purpose).
I welcome debate. Unfortunately, All that spheres offers is the same logical fallacies http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseam that any first year philosophy can spot.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5423
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Qualia

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue May 19, 2015 8:17 pm

raw_thought wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Well of course he's saying that the program can't run until someone presses the enter key.
Umm no, I am not claiming that one cannot run the program without pressing the key. Which is in a way true but has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Your metaphor has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
I am saying that intentionality cannot be physical because matter lacks the ability to refer. For example, the ink pattern "on" does not refer to an on light.
See "symbol grounding problem".
You are obviously confusing the philosophical definition of "intentionality" ( that something refers to something else) with the common defintion (that I do a purposeful act).
Don't ignore Ginkgo, and pay attention to me, I'm easy to dismiss with my, calling a spade a spade, routine. Pay attention to Ginkgo, he's supplying his logical thought on the matter, as one that is familiar with Dennett's arguments.

While I know that anything is possible, that the universal physics allow, that is, I'm not one to believe in relatively new things, that seem to not fit within universal constraints. Sure it could be my/our ignorance, but I've already given you my beliefs on the subject, with a little, "in your face" thrown in, because I see that you throw some of that in as well. Sure it's a different flavor, but it's, "in your face," just the same. Or at least to my understanding it is.

It's probably just youthful exuberance, on your part, and if so, I apologize for not recognizing it for what it is, as surely it requires that I then make allowances. If everyone was extremely honest about themselves, it would be an easy thing to navigate through them.

If you keep it up, challenging me that is, I'll consider that you kinda like me, in all my scruffiness, and continue to supply you with my arguments, reiterated of course, because I hate to sound repetitious for too long, like someone I know. Hey you know him too! ;)

So I'll state it this way, With all that we know about the human brain and psyche, that I'm aware of, I see the idea of qualia as redundant, as that of which you attribute as evidence for it's existence, I see as explainable with the "physical" truth of the human CNS. That the, so called, mind/body arguments are simply based upon ignorance of the mind.

If you think I've been picking on you, wrong! I've only ever picked on your argument, until I noticed you were supplying some, "in your face" tactics. To simply state something over and over again, as if it's fact, without exploring it's intricacies, is no argument at all.

Take Ginkgo serious, as I have found him to be an honest and thoughtful person, one worthy of such honest consideration.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5423
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Qualia

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 pm

raw_thought wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Well of course he's saying that the program can't run until someone presses the enter key.
Umm no, I am not claiming that one cannot run the program without pressing the key. Which is in a way true but has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Your metaphor has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
I am saying that intentionality cannot be physical because matter lacks the ability to refer.
Not at all, why do you consistently ignore memory, as a recording, that one simply refers to, and then compared to others, so as to extrapolate. Which is all physical in nature.

Human intention is born with the need of subsistence, all living things are aware of that on some level. Does not a plant absorb water and nutrients by design. There's your intention. We are just a bit more capable, that we can pick up our roots and move to a more hospitable environment, without necessary relying on another generation. Intention is, in the purest of cases, simply meeting needs, unlike mankind's twisting it to include wants and desires.

The ability to feel things, that you seem to be hung up on, is simply a "physical" sensor, like the other four, so that it helps to spell out need and thus intention.

Surely when you say, "matter lacks the ability to refer" You are forgetting to take simple matter and making it complex, with all it's incarnations. Remember that we are simply a particular combination of elements, albeit a very complex combination, and the only difference between elements are the numbers of protons, neutrons and electrons, which seem to be relatively simple, yet quantum physics might disagree with you. It's the complexity of the combination of simple matter that's throwing you a curve ball. In it's physical complexity, matter can easily refer. You nor I just don't understand that complexity, so some invent non physical things, in its place. Like qualia for instance. They feel the need to put some hoodoo or is that voodoo, ghosts, goblins, gods, demons, etc, in there to answer for their ignorance of the extremely complex physical truth, that we have yet to completely understand.

To argue for something beyond the physical, screams of ones need to believe in a god.


For example, the ink pattern "on" does not refer to an on light.
See "symbol grounding problem".
You are obviously confusing the philosophical definition of "intentionality" ( that something refers to something else) with the common defintion (that I do a purposeful act).
Here are both definitions:
"Intentionality is a philosophical concept defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs".[1] The term refers to the ability of the mind to form representations and should not be confused with intention."

"Intention is a mental state that represents a commitment to carrying out an action or actions in the future. Intention involves mental activities such as planning and forethought." Both definitions are courtesy wikipedia.

They are exactly the same thing. They are both simply "IF, THEN" statements. IF, this and/or this, THEN I shall do/propose this. Otherwise known as reasoning. All of which are based upon the physical process' of the brain. To compare bits of data contained in memory and/or against new data, so as to choose the one that fits the need the best. Purely physically computational by the machine. No ghost, god, or qualia are required!

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

Re: Qualia

Post by raw_thought » Wed May 20, 2015 3:10 am

?????
I am not ignoring memory.
Here, I will say it again. I never claimed that the brain does not facilitate 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 » Wed May 20, 2015 3:12 am

I specified that I was talking about the definition of "intentionality" as "referring " or "aboutness".

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

Re: Qualia

Post by raw_thought » Wed May 20, 2015 3:16 am

Sure, you can distract people away from the issue (that matter cannot refer, or be about something) with semantics. You are wrong there also (even tho even if I concede that point it has nothing to do with the issue we are debating). They are not the same thing. To have an intention (to move this rock,lets say) is not the same as saying that the ink pattern "this rock" refers to the rock in my hand. One can purposely move a rock without knowing the word for it.
Besides "purpose" makes no sense if only matter exists. It is not a plant's purpose to grow. It is not the purpose of the earth to revolve around the sun.
Like most materialists you anthropomorphize inanimate objects. Computers are conscious and seek data on purpose just like people seeking knowledge.
That is silly.
Last edited by raw_thought on Wed May 20, 2015 3:53 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 » Wed May 20, 2015 3:30 am

Give me one example of matter referring. I suppose you will say that my neurons firing refer to the concept "rock".. That is saying that the concept "rock" is defined as certain pattern of neurons firing. That is silly.*
So qualia do not exist. Pain does not hurt. It is and only is C fibers firing. Sure, c fibers firing probably do cause the sensation (qualia). of pain. But to say that one does not experience pain is silly.
* Even physical ink patterns do not refer unless consciousness intervenes. Read the quote from "symbol grounding problem" site I gave.

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

Re: Qualia

Post by raw_thought » Wed May 20, 2015 3:32 am

Ignoring Ginko????
I responded to all his questions.
Stop making stuff up!
That was exceptionally disingenuous!!! Trying to create discord where there is none.

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

Re: Qualia

Post by raw_thought » Wed May 20, 2015 3:35 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
raw_thought wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Well of course he's saying that the program can't run until someone presses the enter key.
Umm no, I am not claiming that one cannot run the program without pressing the key. Which is in a way true but has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Your metaphor has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
I am saying that intentionality cannot be physical because matter lacks the ability to refer.
Not at all, why do you consistently ignore memory, as a recording, that one simply refers to, and then compared to others, so as to extrapolate. Which is all physical in nature.

Human intention is born with the need of subsistence, all living things are aware of that on some level. Does not a plant absorb water and nutrients by design. There's your intention. We are just a bit more capable, that we can pick up our roots and move to a more hospitable environment, without necessary relying on another generation. Intention is, in the purest of cases, simply meeting needs, unlike mankind's twisting it to include wants and desires.

The ability to feel things, that you seem to be hung up on, is simply a "physical" sensor, like the other four, so that it helps to spell out need and thus intention.

Surely when you say, "matter lacks the ability to refer" You are forgetting to take simple matter and making it complex, with all it's incarnations. Remember that we are simply a particular combination of elements, albeit a very complex combination, and the only difference between elements are the numbers of protons, neutrons and electrons, which seem to be relatively simple, yet quantum physics might disagree with you. It's the complexity of the combination of simple matter that's throwing you a curve ball. In it's physical complexity, matter can easily refer. You nor I just don't understand that complexity, so some invent non physical things, in its place. Like qualia for instance. They feel the need to put some hoodoo or is that voodoo, ghosts, goblins, gods, demons, etc, in there to answer for their ignorance of the extremely complex physical truth, that we have yet to completely understand.

To argue for something beyond the physical, screams of ones need to believe in a god.


For example, the ink pattern "on" does not refer to an on light.
See "symbol grounding problem".
You are obviously confusing the philosophical definition of "intentionality" ( that something refers to something else) with the common defintion (that I do a purposeful act).
Here are both definitions:
"Intentionality is a philosophical concept defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs".[1] The term refers to the ability of the mind to form representations and should not be confused with intention."

"Intention is a mental state that represents a commitment to carrying out an action or actions in the future. Intention involves mental activities such as planning and forethought." Both definitions are courtesy wikipedia.

They are exactly the same thing. They are both simply "IF, THEN" statements. IF, this and/or this, THEN I shall do/propose this. Otherwise known as reasoning. All of which are based upon the physical process' of the brain. To compare bits of data contained in memory and/or against new data, so as to choose the one that fits the need the best. Purely physically computational by the machine. No ghost, god, or qualia are required!

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

Re: Qualia

Post by raw_thought » Wed May 20, 2015 3:38 am

Please address the issue!!!!!!!
Talking about neutrons or that people seek subsistence etc has nothing to do with our debate. * I do not doubt the existence of matter.
I am saying that private experiences exist. For you my knowing that you smashed your fingers with a hammer is identical to you feeling that pain. Isnt that obviously silly to you?!
* So plants are conscious?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest