T
tonyrey
Guest
Don’t be sorry, Yppop: it’s not an interruption but an irrefutable conclusion! Thomas Nagel’s What Is It Like to Be a Bat? online article develops it in detail.
- Status
C
Candide_West
Guest
Sounds accurate to me.
There are a few things of importance to note at this point. The first is to understand that when we talk about “n-dimensional qualia space” we are really talking about something like a graphical representation of potential experiences. Theoretically a sufficiently high dimensioned graph would allow us to plot any experience that we could have. In reality of course you could never provide any kind of representation of qualia space in a way which could be sensibly interpreted. What you can do however is plot portions of qualia space. For example if you take the primary colour qualia and plot them on 3 dimensions of a graph (red on vertical, blue on horizontal and yellow on depth) you would find every percievable colour somewhere on that graphical representation. It allows you to see relationships between perceptions of different colours too.*
Essentially qualia space is a theoretical way of mapping all experiences against each other in the same manner. It’s a useful way of thinking of subsets of experience at times but ultimately I personally dislike it. The reason being that it leads people to talk about qualia almost as if they are things in themselves and not just our experience of data from our senses.*
The other point is that Edelman’s use of the term “dynamic core” should not be mistaken for some kind of Cartesian theatre where qualia are to exhibited or experienced.*
This again is why I dislike using “qualia” people treat them as things in themselves. The qualia aren’t located somewhere in the brain, they are a old fashioned term for our perceptions. So if I see something red then I perceive it is red. Essentially its a process of association.*
Incidentally I’m not sure what you mean by "explicatively implant qualia as far away from the neuronal circuits of the brain as his theory will allow". Under Edelmans theory it’s all neuronal circuits and synapses etc. So I’m not sure how he separating the qualia off to one side from it.
If the “qualia” can be said to be anywhere it is in associations within the brain. As a baby your eyes see but your brain doesn’t know much abut how to interpret the (name removed by moderator)ut. As you get older you learn to understand the (name removed by moderator)uts and learn associations to verbal patterns that go alongside them. Words like “red” and “ball” etc. Initially you learn parrot fashion, later as ever more complex associations are made you develop the ability to reason and express ever more complex sequences.
The key thing is to remember that when you see a red ball you are not creating a set of qualia in your head. You are just perceiving something and your brain by years of association automatically links that to other perception data. If asked to identify what the object is connections to associated verbal data will be called up with the sounds required for “red ball” to be spoken out loud (or not if you don’t want to).
Again the problems which arise from thinking of qualia as real things unto themselves. The material brain can be their repository as long as we remember that qualia are just associations of perceptions (both present and remembered).*
To the same extent that qualia are “immaterial” you are correct. The mind is the activity of the brain, the continual exchanging of information across a vast and beautifully complex network of dynamic interconnections. The mind is not a physical object in itself, but rather the totality of that activity.
In the same way that qualia not physical objects, but rather they are patterns of associations in the brain. *For example the associations between subsets of perceptions received from the eyes and recollection of other visual perceptions, links to the remembered audible perception which is the sound of the word “red”, the visual data of the letters r, e and d arranged together to form “red” and the pattern of muscular action required to re-create the sounds of the word “red” for yourself as well as a dizzying array of other associations.
While these associations are clearly physical they are certainly not objects in themselves.*
Indeed if our brains hadn’t developed the ability to form associations between perception data and lacked the wondrous neural plasticity which we are born with then we would not be able to learn the way we do.The number of interconnections within the brain is vast, and the number of possible permutations of those is simply astronomical. This means that each of us are genuinely unique, even identical twins will be different at a neural level.
Incidentally if you’re interested in this there’s been some fascinating work done on remapping of nerves. Using cameras to produce a tactile response on the skin so a person can “see” through touch.*
The fact that we are made of matter makes it all the more beautiful to me and means there are no areas of the map marked " 'ere be Dragons" which cannot someday be explored if we work hard enough and truly wish to understand ourselves and this spectacular universe in which we live.*
Not at all, its a fascinating topic and you raised an interesting point. Pleasure to hear from you.
S
Sair
Guest
What a marvellous observation. I completely agree
J
Jehannette
Guest
I will never accept the idea that “I” am nothing more than an arrangement of atoms and molecules.What a marvellous observation. I completely agree
F
fred_conty
Guest
Candide West,
since some of the ideas of discussion have paused, I would like to ask a question that relates to one of the first premises stated in the beginning of this thread.
Candide West you said,"…if the physical events are our thoughts and decision making process…"
The full statement is,“Incorrect, if the physical events are our thoughts and decision making process then the choice that results from them are our choices.”
But knowledge of a thing or event is not the same for everyone.
Some know more and some less because of their physical condition, dull,bright,sick,…
Some know in a skewed way by their upbringing or education.
Some know in a filtered way of seeing what they want to see.
Some know in an objective way while others in a subjective way.
Some know… etc.,etc.,etc.
Abortion is an example. All kinds of reasons and arguments on this topic.
Obviously the knowledge of this subject is not the same for everyone.
Nor are the decisions the same.
Everyone sees in his own light.
Some, as an easy way out of their problems of finance, education, work, etc.
Some, as not an acceptable choice because it is their child, guilt, family pressure, etc.
People chose accordingly.
Still choice does not always follow with what one knows.
Because those who want an easy way out do not always chose to do so.
And those who do not see it as an acceptable choice, chose to do so anyway.
Therefore to know does not necessarily bring about the same decision due to physical
events of knowledge.
From this empirical observation, it seems choice remains independent from knowledge.
Physical events may be our thoughts but do not necessarily dictate what we will decide
to do. Thoughts and choices have their own identity and one does not necessarily follow the
other.
Just a thought (no pun intended)
What do you think?
since some of the ideas of discussion have paused, I would like to ask a question that relates to one of the first premises stated in the beginning of this thread.
Candide West you said,"…if the physical events are our thoughts and decision making process…"
The full statement is,“Incorrect, if the physical events are our thoughts and decision making process then the choice that results from them are our choices.”
But knowledge of a thing or event is not the same for everyone.
Some know more and some less because of their physical condition, dull,bright,sick,…
Some know in a skewed way by their upbringing or education.
Some know in a filtered way of seeing what they want to see.
Some know in an objective way while others in a subjective way.
Some know… etc.,etc.,etc.
Abortion is an example. All kinds of reasons and arguments on this topic.
Obviously the knowledge of this subject is not the same for everyone.
Nor are the decisions the same.
Everyone sees in his own light.
Some, as an easy way out of their problems of finance, education, work, etc.
Some, as not an acceptable choice because it is their child, guilt, family pressure, etc.
People chose accordingly.
Still choice does not always follow with what one knows.
Because those who want an easy way out do not always chose to do so.
And those who do not see it as an acceptable choice, chose to do so anyway.
Therefore to know does not necessarily bring about the same decision due to physical
events of knowledge.
From this empirical observation, it seems choice remains independent from knowledge.
Physical events may be our thoughts but do not necessarily dictate what we will decide
to do. Thoughts and choices have their own identity and one does not necessarily follow the
other.
Just a thought (no pun intended)
What do you think?
T
tonyrey
Guest
The apex of absurdity!
T
tonyrey
Guest
It’s not too complex, it’s simplistic! Experiences call themselves experiences, having experiences is experiences detecting themselves… The **subject **disappears and we are left with verbs, i.e. Hume’s “bundle of perceptions”, nothing more.
So human morality is animal morality?
Physical causes in the brain = the act of choice. **Some **processes = one act of choice. Therefore some = one!
So you treat everyone equally in every respect?
Descriptions are not prescriptions!
The lust for pleasure entails removing impediments - **like Hitler’s elimination of Jews who spoilt his dream of Aryan race supremacy. **
You are quibbling to evade the fact that no tribe has be found devoid of religion. Even if there were one or two it would not alter its universality.
The Golden Rule was not applied to the whole human race including men, women, **children and enemies **before the teaching of Jesus that we all have a loving Father in heaven. ** Almost all societies were patriarchal and opposed to equality.
**
“responsible for” <> invent
The behaviour of some Catholics <> Catholic teaching
“moral and immoral” do not make sense without good and evil.
“other people” <> “everyone”
How do you care for some one you have never met?
Why should everyone be equal when they are related only by an **accident **of birth?
C
Candide_West
Guest
Thanks.
Indeed, its very important to distinguish pain from suffering. Pain is a kind of suffering but there are many other kinds.*
True, the things which cause happiness or suffering can differ wildly between individuals. So there may be people out there who enjoy doing things which would cause you suffering if you did them.However it isn’t true that there are some people who enjoy suffering. By definition you cannot enjoy experiencing suffering.
This is actually a strength of these axioms. Let’s say for the purpose of discussion that there’s someone who hates Beethoven to an extent that listening to it causes them enormous suffering (think of Alex towards the end of “A Clockwork Orange”). Forcing him to listen to Beethoven would be a form of torture and immoral. The fact that listening to Beethoven doesn’t cause MOST people suffering is irrelevant.
Indeed, and of course some people actually like given amounts of pain. Ie the mild burning pain in muscles after a good workout can actually feel pleasant (rather like the sense of having overcome adversity) equally the fizzing of carbonated drinks in our mouths can be considered a mild form of pain but many people enjoy it and few would say it causes them suffering.
Again this is why it is so important to distinguish between pain and suffering.
Well actually from this basis I get something a little different from the golden rule. Which is:
“Do unto others as others would have done unto them”
Which in practice seems to work out a bit better with than the golden rule. the reason for this is that it doesn’t normalise other people against me.*
What I mean by this is… let’s say that i’m a bit odd and I would very much like for someone to run up to me in the street and force feed me chocolate cake. The golden rule (taken literally) would tell me that I should start running up to people in the street and force feeding them chocolate cake. Clearly this in reality would annoy a lot of people.*
Essentially the golden rule is a useful general rule, but the above modification gives it more ability to flex according to the variation between individuals. This way I can say to myself “sure I want someone to run up to me and force feed me cake but I’m a bit weird so other people probably don’t want that, therefore I won’t do it”.
G
Gaber
Guest
Yes. that all works. What I still might be interested in is if you have a take on what idea the Golden Rule as stated, any of it four forms I’m aware of, might have as a dynamic foundation.
Y
yppop
Guest
Candide
Thank you for the very extensive and well thought out response. We are on two sides of a very difficult- to-hurdle fence. On my side are those that believe God exists, on your side (I assume from your responses) are those that believe that God does not exist. There is no way to prove either that God exists or God does not exist and what we are about is expressing opinions one way or the other. I am a devout Catholic and believe that the only soul I need worry about is my own, so I have no compelling need to proselytize anyone else; I merely am intrigued by the difference we hold in interpreting something we all experience, namely the “stuff” we call qualia. When Edelman describes consciousness as: the property of the dynamic core is a reflection of the capacity to make refined discriminations, he is linking qualia space to the brain. He calls this linkage, “phenomenal transform”. This string of verbiage is what I mean by “explicatively implanting” (sorry, should have been stated it more simply). Nevertheless, I enjoyed reading two Edelman books, I learned a lot. I also understand them. By the way, I interpret n-dimensional qualia space not as the 3-D color map – that’s physics – but as the interaction of the various types of qualia. The 5 categories I presented in my post implies a 5-dimensionla qualia space.
I accept your contention that a quale is not a “thing”; sensations, feelings, emotions and the transcendental are too amorphous to have a specific identities’. My point is that they are real and immaterial and must be stored somewhere beside the neuronal circuitry. Surely there is one or more neuronal circuits that “entail” each quale, but those “material circuits” are not qualia; qualia are not material.
Qualia are only part of what is stored in the non-material part of the mind (nous); there are also percepts, those images that allow us to “recognize” things. The “things” that we recognize (faces, trees, fords, etc.).are mapped as percepts in the nous to be used to recognize the face, the tree, the car.
Percepts and qualia are the main part of subjective reality. What you marvel at and find beautiful is inside your head. What is outside, objective reality, is for the most part, nothing more than configurations of photons, electrons, and quarks…
So when you and Sair are expressing the awe you feel when contemplating the marvel and beauty that matter induces, you are commenting on your subjective experience. And subjective reality is firmly imbedded in the spiritual substance that I refer to as nous.
Now here is the idea on which I ground my belief that qualia and percepts are stored in something other than the neuronal circuits of the brain. The hydrogen atom is 30,000 the volume of its nucleus and that ratio increases with the number of protons defining an element., The volume of the hydrogen atom is defined by the presence a single point. particle called the electron. Inside that volume are three point particles called quarks. This idea of point particles in extended volumes applies to all the elements The neuronal circuits in the brain, at the ground of reality, are nothing more than configurations of point particles immersed in a immaterial background. that I contend is the substance in which qualia and percepts are stored.
Yppop
S
Sair
Guest
But that may be simply because you don’t believe that atoms and molecules and their interactions with each other and with the natural forces that come to bear upon them can actually do anything, unless they are infused by some supernatural “spark”.
The point of my comment upon Candide West’s post was simply to agree with the opinion that it is far more enlightening and rewarding to consider how personhood arises from impersonal phenomena - it’s fascinating and, indeed, humbling, in a way belief in a supernatural personal designer who intended us to be the way we are can never really be…
T
tonyrey
Guest
- The belief that a person is nothing more than an arrangement of atoms and molecules is self-destructive because it equates **everything with arrangements of atoms and molecules - including the belief that everything **is an arrangement of atoms and molecules!
- It is necessary to explain** how **arrangements of atoms and molecules have created everything.
- No one has explained** how** atoms and molecules have created themselves, let alone everything!
S
Sair
Guest
At least as far as my limited understanding of particle physics goes, I must wonder at the reference to empty space as ‘substance’. What exists between the nucleus of an atom and its electrons is still physical space, not something that is separate from the physical universe but quite integral to it. Indeed, the existence of space, as such, may depend upon the existence of physical entities for there to be space between, if I may put it so inelegantly. What exists in the synaptic gaps between neurons? Is it something more than a space to be traversed by electrochemical signals? What does it mean, exactly, to store nonphysical “substance” in empty space?
I do agree that qualia are not material entities, as such - in the sense that they are not substantially composed of physical particles. But they can be thought of as the effects of material phenomena, nonetheless, particularly since they seem to be dependent upon the physical characteristics of the brain and nervous system, and the interaction of these quite obviously physical organs with internal (bodily) and external (environmental) stimuli.
S
Sair
Guest
Yet the claim that has previously been denigrated on these very fora - that “Scientists are working on it” - is the approach that is actually making progress in improving not only our understanding of human psychology, but of the whole universe and our place within it. No-one has ever explained - nor ever offered a model of how one might go about explaining - how a person can exist without a material basis, nor indeed how any supernatural entity can possibly interact with any natural entity. On balance, I’m afraid science wins through sheer utility, whilst religious metaphysics is still, after millennia, stuck with relying upon unsubstantiated - and largely undemonstrable - assumptions.
T
tonyrey
Guest
No response.*
arrangements of atoms and molecules have created everything.No response.
atoms and molecules have created themselves, let alone everything!*No response.
“Scientists are working on it” implies without justification that science can explain the whole of reality - including science itself and the creators of science.
No one has ever explained - nor ever offered a model of how one might go about explaining - how matter exist without a spiritual basis, nor indeed how any natural entity can possibly produce supernatural realities such as persons, truth, goodness, freedom, justice, purpose and love.
There is no cause for fear! Utility does not explain reality. That is a feat achieved to a remarkable extent by philosophers, theologians, mathematicians, poets, dramatists, artists, musicians, mystics and saints.
Religious beliefs and metaphysical principles are the basis of **all **knowledge - including science - because they explain and justify the validity of reason and the intelligibility of the universe.
Naturalism is based on the unsubstantiated assumption that everything is derived from (undefined) “natural” processes.
C
Candide_West
Guest
And you are far from alone in this. I think the reason a lot of people hate the idea so much is the culturally widespread idea of the “consequences” if we came to an understanding that we are beings of matter. People think that we would lose our free will, or that moral responsibility would end or they would in some way cease to be who they were before that realisation.*
Of course none of these things occur in truth. Coming to understand a thing doesn’t change what that thing is, it just changes how we percieve it. Sure many people don’t want to or even simply cannot change their perception of the world and themselves. This has happened with virtually every major scientific discovery and philosophical advance in history. Those people personally refused to accept the change and sometimes even slowed it down. But our species has a drive to explore and understand, the wonderous plasticity of our brains means its more or less built into us.*
C
Candide_West
Guest
Hi Fred, nice to meet you.*
Absolutely right, and you’ve raised an important point here - the difference between memories and thoughts.*
An easy way to think of is in terms of how a conputer works. Computers store data in memory and run programmes on their CPU. These are the analogues if the brain has memory storage and thoughts. Now obviously the analogy isn’t fantastic, the hardware is totally different, as is the architecture of how the system works. At the most fundamental level computers are serial processors while our brains are massively interlinked parallel processors. Equally memories are stored in a completely different way.*Nonetheless, your point is an important one, memories and thoughts are different things and while there are interactions the distinctions are at least as important.
Absolutely, we can never say that a person with a, b and c experiences will choose to do x in situation y. There are several reasons for this, firstly our decisions are not constrained to being made on the basis of any given set of memories, we can take influence from any of our lifetime experiences, not just those that seem superficially most relevant. And of course nobody has exactly the same set of experiences in their life as any other individual.*
Secondly the thoughts which make up the decision making process are different. Every different individual has different sets of associations of differing strengths and even apparently minor interactions (even something like seeing someone on the train who reminds you of someone you used to know, or a conversation you once had) can send your thoughts down a completely different route to what they would otherwise have taken.*
I think that saying knowledge and choice are independent is going rather too far. There is certainly a relationship between your knowledge and the choices you make. Indeed there must be if we are to consider any of our choices to be rational. But I’d definitely agree that knowledge does not dictate choice.*
A good point well made. Thanks for the discussion.
C
Candide_West
Guest
Sorry, I figured since you said that it was “So complex it is unintelligible!” that you found it too complex.
Not at all, I’ve explained how this works, I didn’t say that experiences call themselves experiences and nor have I said that experiences detect themselves. In fact I’ve specifically explained that this is not necessary. Remember where I wrote
“There is no need for you to “detect” them (perceptions), or of you prefer your having those thoughts IS you detecting them."
No, human morality is human morality. Bat morality is bat morality. Perhaps you’ve forgotten where this came from again? You asked for evidence of other species having systems of morality. So I provided it.
Indeed, we often find that several things make up a single act. For example the simple act of catching a ball, involves dozens of muscles, hundreds of muscular actions, thousands of nerve signals and vast numbers of calculations of velocity, position, force etc. So there’s nothing surprising in finding that the act of making a choice involves many processes.
People are different to each other,so treating people as equals means understanding that they are different and behaving differently with different people accordingly. So no, I don’t treat everyone equally in every respect, that would be patently silly. What I do is treat everyone as if they are equals.
Indeed, but definitions ARE definitions. And that is what we were talking about.
So you are claiming that any act of “removing impediments” is because of “lust for pleasure”??? So when I asked my neighbour to move her car a bit because it was blocking the drive my justification was REALLY “lust for pleasure” even though I thought I just wanted to park my car?
No, clearly this is silly. If you really want to claim that Hitler committed genocide due to a “lust for pleasure” then please at least make some attempt at a justification.
And you are just obfuscating here. You tried to argue that any areligious environment must have been the product of a religious environment. Since we both know that humans were areligious before they were religious this is quite clearly incorrect. Indeed the inverse is actually correct.
And after the teaching of Jesus - The Golden Rule was not applied to the whole human race including men, women, **children and enemies ** and ** Almost all societies were patriarchal and opposed to equality. **
Indeed this condition continued for over 1700 years before the situation started to change in some countries, and it’s only over the last 100 years that equality has become a realistic proposition. Oddly the last 100 years has also seen a huge decrease in the power of organised religions.
And once again I didn’t invent these axioms, I just identified them.
Ah, perhaps you’ve forgotten the subject again, you said: “Catholics do not pick and choose from the fundamental beliefs and values of the Church.” Hence why I provided evidence that they DO.
Of course they do moral and immoral are not defined from good and evil. Those are religious concepts.
Of course I can, what I can’t do (and neither can you) is care about someone I don’t know to exist. For example do you care about my friend Ben and the issues he’s going through at the moment? Well you could say you care slightly more about him now than you did 5 minutes ago, because then you didn’t even know he existed. Let alone that he is going through a difficult time right now. No doubt if I told you more about him and his current situation you’d care more deeply about him as you came to empathise more with him. I guess you could say that you cared about him in the generic “I care about everyone” sense. But of course in that sense so do I.
This is of course exactly what we expect from the way that morality developed from our nature as a social species.
We are all humans, why should I consider some people to be unequal? Why should I overcome my own natural empathic response to others to stop myself caring?
You keep insisting that I should stop and refusing to answer when I ask why.
J
Jehannette
Guest
I believe that there are excellent reasons to believe that spirits exist and that our conscious minds survive the annihilation of our physical brains.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The power of the mind to grasp eternal truths, establish universal moral principles, predict future events, control itself and destroy all life on this planet is far beyond the capability of electrical impulses inside the skull which don’t even know they exist and yet are supposed to explain all human activity!- Status