Eliminating Qualia

[untermensche]

A ball may be any colour, but if the ball happens to be red, the colour is a part or aspect of that particular ball.

No ball in the world is red.

Red is only something that exists on the balls in the mind.

Color is something brains create for minds to experience.

They do not exist in any other way.

Yes, of course. But the property (reflected wavelength of light) of the ball that we perceive as being red is nonetheless an aspect of that ball (which is what I meant). As is all information acquired by the brain via its senses being interpreted and represented as objects, colours, sounds smells, etc.

The wavelength is an aspect of light.

The ball has differential reflectivity as a property.

And the brain does not interpret light into red. It creates red whole from the stimulation. Red has nothing to do with the light. It is just a random contingency of an evolving brain.

 

[untermensche]

Nonetheless, the properties are intrinsic to the ball.

And the ball's various properties could be subdivided. The shape and size properties are not in any way related and do not affect each other, I think.

So does that make 'shape' and 'size' different 'things'? More to the point, does it make them independent? I don't think so. It would seem odd to say that either of them exist in their own right.

Red is not intrinsic to any ball.

Red is something that only exists in minds.

It is not the property of anything in the world.

Things in the world have the property of differential reflectivity.

Objects do have the properties of shape and size.

And things can have the same shape but a different size and the same size but a different shape.

Sure, but I ended up asking a specific question, which was basically about independent versus intrinsic and dependent.

'Shape' does not exist of itself, yeah? So although we could say it is a completely different thing, it is a wholly dependent and intrinsic property.

Shape exists.

The tree exists.

What you "see" does not exist.

But the tree is there and it has a specific shape at any moment in time.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Not all things are the same.

Art is many things.

It is first the artist. Specifically their skills.

It is also the materials. The paints and brushes and the canvas.

It is also the activity that created it. The movement of the artist's body and the application of paint.

And then it is the final product. The final arrangement of materials.

But art is nothing like a brain creating a mind.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

 

[WAB]

Not all things are the same.

Art is many things.

It is first the artist. Specifically their skills.

It is also the materials. The paints and brushes and the canvas.

It is also the activity that created it. The movement of the artist's body and the application of paint.

And then it is the final product. The final arrangement of materials.

But art is nothing like a brain creating a mind.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

...er...define point. Ya mean like, re Euclid, or like, West Point, or like, what do you mean? The pointy tip of a stick? Point to point point observation" (R.E.M.), or does it refer to Julian of Norwich, who described God as a point? Pointy Birds? Steve Martin's poem?

Please ignore this. I'm just trying to be funny, like a squat, Socratic toad, as in the wet sprocket.

 

[untermensche]

Not all things are the same.

Art is many things.

It is first the artist. Specifically their skills.

It is also the materials. The paints and brushes and the canvas.

It is also the activity that created it. The movement of the artist's body and the application of paint.

And then it is the final product. The final arrangement of materials.

But art is nothing like a brain creating a mind.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

Showing you had no point with your talk about art.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Not all things are the same.

Art is many things.

It is first the artist. Specifically their skills.

It is also the materials. The paints and brushes and the canvas.

It is also the activity that created it. The movement of the artist's body and the application of paint.

And then it is the final product. The final arrangement of materials.

But art is nothing like a brain creating a mind.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

Showing you had no point with your talk about art.

Wrong and what is your point in this thread? Brain activity generates what we call “mind.” And....?

 

[Subsymbolic]

The activity that produces a product is not the product.

The activity in the computer chip is not the product of that activity.

It is something that arises because of the activity.

The mind, a distinct entity, arises because of activity.

It is not the activity.

It is not the thing producing the activity.

It is a "thing" unto itself.

Not necessarily. The activity could be what we call mind. It might just happen to feel like something to the system.

I think you are too fond of making everything separate. Now you've even added a pigeonhole for 'activity' as a separate, middleman 'thing' to brain and mind. And you already have qualia as separate 'things' from brain, mind and now presumably 'activity'. You end up with a horde of supposed interactions between all the different 'things'. It's not entirely unlike adding 'angels carrying' to why apples fall from a tree. It's not parsimonious. It may in fact be nothing more than semantics.

Take 'life' for example. We could say this is a different thing from non-life, right? But does that make 'life' a separate 'thing' in a brain?

In any case, I was asking about the consequences. Autonomy and/or independence. Splitting the world up into a plethora of separate 'things' does not necessarily make them all autonomous or independent. To say that something is independent when it is fully dependent seems to me to be going in the direction of a contradiction in terms.

But you keep diverting away from responding to my questions. What experiences the self? And why can't a brain be an experiencer?

ruby, if I may, this is actually what I would ask of you, DBT, Dennet, Harris, and anyone else who goes anywhere near the "consciousness as illusion" silliness. Yes, I still maintain that it's a load of crap.

What, exactly, is doing the experiencing? IF the brain is the experiencer, then why can't I simply tell my brain to stop my heartbeat? That is, if I am only my brain: the experiencer.

Who, or what the actual fuck (stole that from Sub, but I did let him know, lol), is this "I". Why is it needed? What possible reason does the brain have to present this illusion to itself.

WTF— according to YOU— makes a subjective experiencer preferable to a merely operational, functioning machine, a complex arrangement of nuts and bolts?

I know for myself why I prefer the experience, well, at least the good things, not so much the pain & suffering; but what advantage does an experiencer have over a p-zombie, with respect to fitness, Darwin, evolution? What do materialists think is the answer to this question?

Please, don't just tell me I do not understand things, or that I am asking the wrong questions (Subsie):

Explain what you mean. Don't refer to Dennet, or link to a paper; tell me, in your own words, what you mean. But, may I make an appeal that you answer me in private, or email me, if this requires a B I G bunch of paragraphs. I do not have the energy to go toe to toe with anyone in a long drawn out thread, particularly since my memory is fuck.d and I can't even wrap my noodle around all the gadgets, doodads, buttons, tabs, available to me, and necessary for a formal engagement right here.

I am, after all, NOT arguing with Dennet, but with ruby, DBT, untermensche, Subsie, et al.

Immediately after I pointed out that you were asking the wrong question, I gave my answer, in my own words, in detail. I gave you exactly what you were asking for. You thanked me. So I’m surprised that you are asking for it again. If you think I’m wrong that’s great, we have an argument. However, you can see how I might be offended if I spent a couple of hours answering your question only to be told I have not and merely told you you were asking the wrong question.

Please revisit post 137. Assume I put a bit of effort into the other ninety odd lines I wrote as well as the ‘wrong question’ line and return me the favour...

 

[untermensche]

Showing you had no point with your talk about art.

Wrong and what is your point in this thread? Brain activity generates what we call “mind.” And....?

Which means the mind is a distinct entity.

It is something created by activity.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Showing you had no point with your talk about art.

Wrong and what is your point in this thread? Brain activity generates what we call “mind.” And....?

Which means the mind is a distinct entity.

It is something created by activity.

No, it doesn’t. It just is the embodied, encultured, embedded brain’s activity.

 

[Juma]

Showing you had no point with your talk about art.

Wrong and what is your point in this thread? Brain activity generates what we call “mind.” And....?

Which means the mind is a distinct entity.

It is something created by activity.

No. It is the activity.

 

[WAB]

ruby, if I may, this is actually what I would ask of you, DBT, Dennet, Harris, and anyone else who goes anywhere near the "consciousness as illusion" silliness. Yes, I still maintain that it's a load of crap.

What, exactly, is doing the experiencing? IF the brain is the experiencer, then why can't I simply tell my brain to stop my heartbeat? That is, if I am only my brain: the experiencer.

Who, or what the actual fuck (stole that from Sub, but I did let him know, lol), is this "I". Why is it needed? What possible reason does the brain have to present this illusion to itself.

WTF— according to YOU— makes a subjective experiencer preferable to a merely operational, functioning machine, a complex arrangement of nuts and bolts?

I know for myself why I prefer the experience, well, at least the good things, not so much the pain & suffering; but what advantage does an experiencer have over a p-zombie, with respect to fitness, Darwin, evolution? What do materialists think is the answer to this question?

Please, don't just tell me I do not understand things, or that I am asking the wrong questions (Subsie):

Explain what you mean. Don't refer to Dennet, or link to a paper; tell me, in your own words, what you mean. But, may I make an appeal that you answer me in private, or email me, if this requires a B I G bunch of paragraphs. I do not have the energy to go toe to toe with anyone in a long drawn out thread, particularly since my memory is fuck.d and I can't even wrap my noodle around all the gadgets, doodads, buttons, tabs, available to me, and necessary for a formal engagement right here.

I am, after all, NOT arguing with Dennet, but with ruby, DBT, untermensche, Subsie, et al.

Immediately after I pointed out that you were asking the wrong question, I gave my answer, in my own words, in detail. I gave you exactly what you were asking for. You thanked me. So I’m surprised that you are asking for it again. If you think I’m wrong that’s great, we have an argument. However, you can see how I might be offended if I spent a couple of hours answering your question only to be told I have not and merely told you you were asking the wrong question.

Please revisit post 137. Assume I put a bit of effort into the other ninety odd lines I wrote as well as the ‘wrong question’ line and return me the favour...

Apologies, Sub. I can only defend myself by saying that I had forgotten our exchange. THIS is why I have to to a neurologist when I come out of the mental health facility in Prescott.

This is also the reason I usually abstain from really getting into these discussions in any great detail. If you'll note my post count: I have only 3,000 + posts, in over 14 years of participation here.

I am in a manic state at the moment, hence my spate of long posts recently. I lose track of them, then wind up in a situation where I have forgotten what I've read, where I've engaged with people, and have to go through all the threads I am subscribed to to try and figure out if I am caught up or not.

Until I go to the mental health facility - which should be within a week or so, they are still waiting for a bed to be available - I'll just stick to humor.

Apologies for offending you!

 

[untermensche]

Which means the mind is a distinct entity.

It is something created by activity.

No, it doesn’t. It just is the embodied, encultured, embedded brain’s activity.

It can't just be one thing. It can't just somehow "be" the activity, whatever the hell that even means.

The activity of the brain produces things, like red and pain.

These things need to be produced first so they can then be experienced.

That is what brain activity does. Produces things.

Like the mind.

 

[untermensche]

Which means the mind is a distinct entity.

It is something created by activity.

No. It is the activity.

There is activity. That is true.

There is blood flowing?

Is that what you say the mind is? Blood flowing?

There are neurotransmitters moving?

Is that what you say the mind is? Neurotransmitters moving?

There are cell membranes polarizing and depolarizing.

Is that what the mind is?

What activity is the mind and what is your model to show how it works?

 

[untermensche]

First these mind deniers say that the mind doesn't really move the finger.

Based on the timing of reports from a mind.

Then when the timing of inklings is questioned the mind that made the timing reports suddenly does not exist anymore.

It is called wanting it both ways.

You can't use subjective reports in your studies and claim there is no mind making them.

 

[DBT]

Yes, of course. But the property (reflected wavelength of light) of the ball that we perceive as being red is nonetheless an aspect of that ball (which is what I meant). As is all information acquired by the brain via its senses being interpreted and represented as objects, colours, sounds smells, etc.

The wavelength is an aspect of light.

The ball has differential reflectivity as a property.

And the brain does not interpret light into red. It creates red whole from the stimulation. Red has nothing to do with the light. It is just a random contingency of an evolving brain.

I clearly said that the brain interprets a particular wavelength as a colour. The composition and reflective properties of the ball determine the colour that the observer sees.

This is not random because all observers with normal colour vision can agree on the colour of the ball....even if their subjective perception cannot be compared.

If this were not true, there would be major problems with safety, colour coding, wiring, traffic lights, stop lights, etc.

 

[DBT]

First these mind deniers say that the mind doesn't really move the finger.

Based on the timing of reports from a mind.

Then when the timing of inklings is questioned the mind that made the timing reports suddenly does not exist anymore.

It is called wanting it both ways.

You can't use subjective reports in your studies and claim there is no mind making them.

It is not the mind that performs motor actions. It is the brain. Motor action can happen without the participation of conscious mind, being asleep, reflex actions of various kinds, nerve loop, auditory, visual, etc.

The brain generating both conscious mind and motor action....in any given sequence.

 

[Juma]

Which means the mind is a distinct entity.

It is something created by activity.

No. It is the activity.

There is activity. That is true.

There is blood flowing?

Is that what you say the mind is? Blood flowing?

There are neurotransmitters moving?

Is that what you say the mind is? Neurotransmitters moving?

There are cell membranes polarizing and depolarizing.

Is that what the mind is?

What activity is the mind and what is your model to show how it works?

Everything that happens in the mind is activity in the brain.
Everything that happens in the brain doesnt necessarily have any counterpart in conciousness.

You are simply viewing it from two ”sides”.

 

[Subsymbolic]

ruby, if I may, this is actually what I would ask of you, DBT, Dennet, Harris, and anyone else who goes anywhere near the "consciousness as illusion" silliness. Yes, I still maintain that it's a load of crap.

What, exactly, is doing the experiencing? IF the brain is the experiencer, then why can't I simply tell my brain to stop my heartbeat? That is, if I am only my brain: the experiencer.

Who, or what the actual fuck (stole that from Sub, but I did let him know, lol), is this "I". Why is it needed? What possible reason does the brain have to present this illusion to itself.

WTF— according to YOU— makes a subjective experiencer preferable to a merely operational, functioning machine, a complex arrangement of nuts and bolts?

I know for myself why I prefer the experience, well, at least the good things, not so much the pain & suffering; but what advantage does an experiencer have over a p-zombie, with respect to fitness, Darwin, evolution? What do materialists think is the answer to this question?

Please, don't just tell me I do not understand things, or that I am asking the wrong questions (Subsie):

Explain what you mean. Don't refer to Dennet, or link to a paper; tell me, in your own words, what you mean. But, may I make an appeal that you answer me in private, or email me, if this requires a B I G bunch of paragraphs. I do not have the energy to go toe to toe with anyone in a long drawn out thread, particularly since my memory is fuck.d and I can't even wrap my noodle around all the gadgets, doodads, buttons, tabs, available to me, and necessary for a formal engagement right here.

I am, after all, NOT arguing with Dennet, but with ruby, DBT, untermensche, Subsie, et al.

Immediately after I pointed out that you were asking the wrong question, I gave my answer, in my own words, in detail. I gave you exactly what you were asking for. You thanked me. So I’m surprised that you are asking for it again. If you think I’m wrong that’s great, we have an argument. However, you can see how I might be offended if I spent a couple of hours answering your question only to be told I have not and merely told you you were asking the wrong question.

Please revisit post 137. Assume I put a bit of effort into the other ninety odd lines I wrote as well as the ‘wrong question’ line and return me the favour...

Apologies, Sub. I can only defend myself by saying that I had forgotten our exchange. THIS is why I have to to a neurologist when I come out of the mental health facility in Prescott.

This is also the reason I usually abstain from really getting into these discussions in any great detail. If you'll note my post count: I have only 3,000 + posts, in over 14 years of participation here.

I am in a manic state at the moment, hence my spate of long posts recently. I lose track of them, then wind up in a situation where I have forgotten what I've read, where I've engaged with people, and have to go through all the threads I am subscribed to to try and figure out if I am caught up or not.

Until I go to the mental health facility - which should be within a week or so, they are still waiting for a bed to be available - I'll just stick to humor.

Apologies for offending you!

Don't worry about offending me, or even remembering what I said. The great thing is that the internet is a panopticon and that means it can function as a metacortex: it's all there in your easily accessed desktop memory. Welcome to being a cyborg. So if you want the question answered, mine is there for you to read again. Seriously, I'm an externalist and I also believe that mental issues are just a class of physical issues: if you can't walk, a wheelchair opens the world up again. If you can't remember then use your environment, especially your mind tool environment. You already do of course, so just lean on it a bit harder.

 

[ruby sparks]

First these mind deniers say that the mind doesn't really move the finger.

Based on the timing of reports from a mind.

Then when the timing of inklings is questioned the mind that made the timing reports suddenly does not exist anymore.

It is called wanting it both ways.

You can't use subjective reports in your studies and claim there is no mind making them.

Weird. I don't think anyone said there is no mind.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Which means the mind is a distinct entity.

It is something created by activity.

No, it doesn’t. It just is the embodied, encultured, embedded brain’s activity.

It can't just be one thing. It can't just somehow "be" the activity, whatever the hell that even means.

Why not?

The activity of the brain produces things, like red and pain.

Really? Where? In little factories? Here's the thing: that production would have to come from some sort of plan, that information comes from the world and is carried through the nervous system. Are you imagining that every time information passes across a synapse, a model is made and viewed? Every time a neuron reaches its threshold and fires, that firing is a model? Every time a gland or transmitter site releases a neurotransmitter it's producing a little model? Because you haven't got much more to work with.

I doubt you think that, but you do think that, somewhere, in there there is a Cartesian Theatre in which things are produced and experienced. You think that, because, as you have said enough times already, that's how it feels to you. Well, how things feel isn't a good guide to how things are. There is, as a matter of biological fact, no place in the brain where everything comes together - if there was, we'd have noticed it by now.

Your model is wrong. The information that you would need to make a thing has to be enough information to be that thing without an extra layer of making and experiencing. The information is instantiated in the action and structure of what is there and experienced in the action and structure of what is there. Adding an extra level of production and experience lacks elegance, parsimony and any empirical support whatsoever: there's no place it happens. By trying to understand your experience in the light of this archaic and disproven metaphor all you do is confuse yourself.

These things need to be produced first so they can then be experienced.

Don't you see that all this model of internal production and experience introduces is a second experiencer; the one experiencing the inner production. You then have exactly the same problem you had with the initial experience. If you solve it in the same way, you introduce a third experiencer and so on to infinity.

That is what brain activity does. Produces things.

Like the mind.

All your model produces is an infinite regress.