How can subjective experiences exist in a purely physical world?

[wittgenstein]

Ok, I just did.

It takes place in an alternate universe, because if nothing else, a human Mary would be able to perceive the flesh-tones of her own skin. Therefore, the “experiment” does not deal with real human conditions.

ICXC NIKA

It is a thought experiment
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

 

[fisherman_carl]

Physical Processes is one thing, but knowing the process itself seems impossible without adding that which is not the physical process itself.

If there were only physical processes then there shouldn’t be that which is not identical to physical processes. There cannot be a distinction between subjective and objective. No duality should exist. But there clearly is a distinction made evident in the fact of there being a process and my knowing or experiencing that process. Therefore a real duality exists between experience and the object of experience. They are not the same thing or identical in nature.

There is a transcendence of physical objectivity.

This is an interesting subject and one that I would like to explore further. I got a little about this from Dr. Edward Feser’s book called “The Last Superstition”. He also has a whole book on the subject which I have not read. This is a difficult subject to understand.

A little background knowledge on it. The problem posed was how could a physical object know something about another physical object without actually becoming that physical object. Indeed, how could a physical object know anything about another object? Ok so this problem existed which seemed to suggest that the mind is not physical. A mind is needed in order to recognize objects without actually becoming them. Then the more modern materialists suggested that it is not necessary for a physical object to become another physical object in order to have knowledge about it. That instead the brain can store symbols of that object. For instance, If I think about a giraffe, my brain does not actually become a giraffe in order to know about it. My brain can store a symbol of a giraffe instead, like a computer. A computer stores patterns and symbols of other things. A picture for instance can be stored as a series of zero’s and one’s. Ok, so what is the problem with this theory? It doesn’t get rid off the problem. It just moves it back a step. Because, you still need a mind to interpret the symbols. What symbol gets associated with a giraffe? A mind still needs to interpret these symbols. So you are back to the need for an immaterial mind. Even with a computer you still need a human mind to interpret the symbols and data that it displays on the screen. The computer itself does not ‘know’ these things. It simple stores the data that the human mind has organized and interpreted.

 

[fisherman_carl]

In continuation…

Consequently some atheistic philosophers have come to believe in a kind of dualism. That is there is an immaterial mind of sorts. While other committed materialist philosophers reject dualism in favor of the idea that we don’t actually think about anything, that it is all an illusion, a trick of the brain. However, it is impossible to actually live out that belief. How can one live as though they are not actually able to think about something else?

I’m no expert on this subject as you can probably tell. But I have read a little about it. As well I have a degree in Computer Science. So I understand how computers work more than the average person. Some atheists claim that our brains are like computers. Dr. Edward Feser notes that even with a computer you need a mind to make sense of any of the symbols or data. The computer itself just does what it is programmed to do. You still need a human mind to program it. The intelligence of the computer is actually an intelligent mind who has programmed it to behave that way. And, thus our minds can not be computers because even computers need minds. Yes, a computer can do many calculations in a short time compared to a human. However, the intelligence behind those calculations comes from a human mind. The computer could do nothing if it wasn’t for the human mind telling it what to do.

 

[Bahman]

Physical Processes is one thing, but knowing the process itself seems impossible without adding that which is not the physical process itself.

If there were only physical processes then there shouldn’t be that which is not identical to physical processes. There cannot be a distinction between subjective and objective. No duality should exist. But there clearly is a distinction made evident in the fact of there being a process and my knowing or experiencing that process. Therefore a real duality exists between experience and the object of experience. They are not the same thing or identical in nature.

There is a transcendence of physical objectivity.

It is very simple: There are minds in charge of simple process, like physical one, and there are other in charge of controlling the simple one, each mind has its own experiences.