(in)signficance of "Qualia"

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 04:29 pm
@manored,
manored;169718 wrote:

I bet that if you were a squirell, that wouldnt be any special agility for you. But perhaps you would look at those giant, hairless bipedal things and contemplate with another squirell what it would be like to be so large =)

Being another animal would only be special if you retained the memories of your "past life".

Hard to say. Good point. And it would be best if we could have our human minds somehow within the squirrels body. It's funny the way squirrels look at us. I had one looking at me today, sort of cautiously.

---------- Post added 05-27-2010 at 05:32 PM ----------

manored;169718 wrote:

This is a nice suming up of why I believe life is eternal =) I cant conceive the world without me, but I can conceive it with me on it, so I conclude that the world cannot exist without me. Even though other people can conceive the world without me, the fact that I cannot ever see it through the eyes ends up giving then no credibility in the matter, its like they were talking about ghosts without proof.

Why not? Perhaps only I have qualia and everyone else are hyper complex biological robots.

The world does seem to exist only for embodied particular beings. Anything else is a guess, an abstraction. The way we live proves that we see others as also made of experience. We give and receive love. We bother to get angry. We can't logically prove that others have experience, but we can't logically prove anything, really. Not perfectly. We persuade and our persuaded by the various aspects of our experience to edit our system of concepts in various ways.

---------- Post added 05-27-2010 at 05:34 PM ----------

manored;169718 wrote:

Invent it. The meaning of a word may have any lenght you desire =)

Like the Ents of the Lord of the Rings, who did it reverse. their words had the lenght (and form) of songs, and their conversations outlasted the patience of any hobbit.

I see your point. It's tricky. You can get away with it sometimes. But it strikes others as a sort of claim on them. It's more social, generally, to make use of an already existing term. I'm now just using "sensation" and "emotion," which takes us out of the qualia debate. "Consciousness" is a strange abstraction. I know what people mean by it, but on close examination it's not so simple....
 
manored
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 07:29 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;169735 wrote:
Hard to say. Good point. And it would be best if we could have our human minds somehow within the squirrels body. It's funny the way squirrels look at us. I had one looking at me today, sort of cautiously.
Learn to sneak your mind into squirrels, and you wont ever need a mirror again! =)

Its probally funny because their eyes and behavior are different, but we compare them to human-like eyes and behavior anyway.

Reconstructo;169735 wrote:

The world does seem to exist only for embodied particular beings. Anything else is a guess, an abstraction. The way we live proves that we see others as also made of experience. We give and receive love. We bother to get angry. We can't logically prove that others have experience, but we can't logically prove anything, really. Not perfectly. We persuade and our persuaded by the various aspects of our experience to edit our system of concepts in various ways.
Indeed.

Reconstructo;169735 wrote:

I see your point. It's tricky. You can get away with it sometimes. But it strikes others as a sort of claim on them. It's more social, generally, to make use of an already existing term. I'm now just using "sensation" and "emotion," which takes us out of the qualia debate. "Consciousness" is a strange abstraction. I know what people mean by it, but on close examination it's not so simple....
Well, if there is no good word, I only see three choices:
1. Invent a word.
2. Explain the whole thing again ever time you want to mention it.
3. Explain it once and keep refering back to it by "that thing" and similar terms, what will probally not take long to get ambiguous.

You cant always be social =)
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 01:32 pm
@manored,
manored;169928 wrote:

Indeed.

It's good that someone sees what I'm saying there. Thanks for joining the conversation.Smile
 
Flying Dutchman
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 06:51 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;169239 wrote:
I never understand why the 'other possible universes' idea is regarded as signifying anything intelligible at all. As an argument it is the death of philosophy. It means nothing whatever.



Whether or not they exist is obviously debatable, but they are an incredible metaphysical tool. Even if you're a hard determinist it really seems like things very easily could have been otherwise. The chain of events from the big bang until now is the most hyper-specific thing I can think of. It's very strange.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 07:00 pm
@Reconstructo,
But even if multi-verses do 'exist' it is really impossible to know, isn't it? I mean the hardcore atheists ridicule the idea of God because 'there is no evidence possible'. But they are quite ready to argue until blue in the face in favour of the multiverse, which by definition there can never be evidence of, simply to avoid the argument from the Strong Anthropic Principle. Strikes me as both hypocritical and philosophically indefensible.
 
manored
 
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 09:04 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;171086 wrote:
But even if multi-verses do 'exist' it is really impossible to know, isn't it? I mean the hardcore atheists ridicule the idea of God because 'there is no evidence possible'. But they are quite ready to argue until blue in the face in favour of the multiverse, which by definition there can never be evidence of, simply to avoid the argument from the Strong Anthropic Principle. Strikes me as both hypocritical and philosophically indefensible.
Its because, for then, the multiverse makes more sense. Off course, they are wrong in being radical atheists because in the same way that there is no proof that other realities dont exist, there is no proof that god doesnt exist.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 01:14 am
@manored,
manored;171263 wrote:
Its because, for then, the multiverse makes more sense. Off course, they are wrong in being radical atheists because in the same way that there is no proof that other realities dont exist, there is no proof that god doesnt exist.



Here's another interesting thought. Both this universe and other universes are abstractions. We only have sense data, emotion, and concept. We build all these universes from this. Look at the night sky. What do you see? Patches of light in a field of darkness? The scientist has his experiments. We put it all together in this complex web of words and equations. Sensation is one thing. Concept is another. If we step back, I think we see something quite fascinating. That concept exist in its own way. So the other universes exist as soon as we speak of them, intellectually. But, roughly speaking, our own universe also exists this way. It's just that we associate various sensations with this concept and not with the other.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 01:53 am
@Reconstructo,
If everything is an abstraction, why does the word 'abstraction' mean anything?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 03:17 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;171641 wrote:
If everything is an abstraction, why does the word 'abstraction' mean anything?

"Everything is an abstraction" is a dangerously open phrase. I don't at all think life is only abstraction. That is a key point of mine. Concept is one and only one fundmental aspect of human experience. Sensation and feeling are at least as important.

We abstract from abstractions all the time. For instance: cats and dogs are abstractions. Animal is a "higher" abstraction that includes them both.

The word "abstraction" refers to what all these abstractions/concepts have in common, and NOT (synthesis is also negation) what they do not have in common. Essence and accident. We can say concept or essence or universal also, right?

There is something "behind" or "in" all concepts which is not reducible, in my opinion. But no particular word, like abstraction or essence, can be the final name for it. What do all abstractions/concepts/thoughts have in common? And how does this tie into sensation and emotion?

I think the issue is obscured because our visual field is automatically quantified, broken into bits. It's so automatic that we take it for granted. So we stick concepts directly on to these visual bits, and they link up so well we don't see the difference between the concept and the sensation.

I bumped into this today, after all my recent thoughts. I say this because as much as I love Wittgenstein, he is no authority. And neither is anyone else of course. But I present another human's opinion, that seems related to mine.
Quote:

2.1511 That is how a picture is attached to reality; it reaches right
out to it.
2.1512 It is laid against reality like a measure.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 12/11/2019 at 03:37:13