Eliminating Qualia

[untermensche]

The McGurk effect is an incredibly interesting and real effect.

The visual experience is creating an auditory experience.

It shows an interconnection between the two systems. With the visual system being dominant.

Especially when trying to make sense of sound in the form of human language.

Something very essential for human survival.

 

[ruby sparks]

The McGurk effect is an incredibly interesting and real effect.

The visual experience is creating an auditory experience.

It shows an interconnection between the two systems. With the visual system being dominant.

Especially when trying to make sense of sound in the form of human language.

Something very essential for human survival.

Yes. I was going to say that the visual system only distorts the auditory experience, but if I concentrate on the 'f' sound, that seems to be of itself 'created' because it's not in the sound.

So I guess one relevant question is, are there 'f-qualia, or not'?

I suspect that will take us down a rabbit warren, and I have to go and get some paid work done right now. Laters.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The brain would have to experience something besides itself if it was experiencing.

Categorically false. Literally.

You must stop asserting that the brain is a monolithic “thing.” It is not, any more than the “body” is. These are group category terms, not descriptive of discrete units. But even if the “brain” were a discrete unit, that still does not preclude it from “experiencing” itself. Indeed, everything you have argued necessarily requires that the brain not only experiences itself, it is self-aware in that experience.

To experience means for one thing to experience some other thing.

It most certainly does not. That is nothing more than your equivocation of terms hinging entirely on the unwarranted inclusion of the word “other.” Again, just substitute “body” in your argument. The body can experience detoxification; high blood pressure; oxygenization of the blood; blood flow; antibodies; digestion; defecation; hallucination; sexual response; etc; etc; etc, and these are ALL examples of the body experiencing itself.

The mind...can only experience that which is not the mind.

It’s time to kill this stupid horse. You keep declaring that it is the brain that generates the mind and that it is the brain that transforms EM radiation into “red,” so what exactly is the “mind” experiencing other than the brain (which generates it)? Brain generates it; brain creates “presentations” for it. All the “mind” is doing then is being temporarily generated in order to “watch” the brain’s presentations, but it is ALL brain.

And simply watching “presentations” is not “experiencing.” That is passive observance of pre-packaged material. It is not possible for a brain to create a “presentation” without it also having a full understanding of what the “presentation” entails. That’s like saying a film just creates itself and it is the audience that gives it coherence.

But it’s worse than that, because the audience only exists as a figment of the brain, so it’s like saying the brain just randomly throws together various imagery, dialogue and a soundtrack that only the brain’s imaginary audience can make coherent. So no matter what, you are saying it’s all brain.

You have failed on all levels. This is nothing more than fiated equivocation-based drivel. Sub, per usual, was right. I leave you to your pointless repetitions.

 

[untermensche]

So I guess one relevant question is, are there 'f-qualia, or not'?

We know there is a specific way the mouth moves to produce the sound.

Is there a mouth moving to make "f" qualia?

 

[untermensche]

You must stop asserting that the brain is a monolithic “thing.” It is not, any more than the “body” is.

The Nervous system is a specific thing. When a cell differentiates into a neuron it becomes a distinct kind of cell. Not just a "body" cell. There is no such thing as a "body" cell.

But even if the “brain” were a discrete unit, that still does not preclude it from “experiencing” itself.

To experience requires being able to distinguish that which is experienced.

If that which is experienced is not separated from the thing that can experience in some way it cannot be experienced.

If the thing that can experience cannot distinguish between itself and what it is experiencing then all things will be experienced as the same thing since a distinction does not exist.

The thing that experiences cannot experience itself. It can only experience what is not itself.

The body can experience detoxification; high blood pressure; oxygenization of the blood; blood flow; antibodies; digestion; defecation; hallucination; sexual response; etc; etc; etc, and these are ALL examples of the body experiencing itself.

No. It is an example of you using the word "experience" incredibly loosely. And with entirely different meanings.

The body does not "experience" blood pressure. They call it the silent killer.

The mind experiences hallucinations and the sexual desires.

The mind...can only experience that which is not the mind.

It’s time to kill this stupid horse. You keep declaring that it is the brain that generates the mind and that it is the brain that transforms EM radiation into “red,” so what exactly is the “mind” experiencing other than the brain (which generates it)? Brain generates it; brain creates “presentations” for it. All the “mind” is doing then is being temporarily generated in order to “watch” the brain’s presentations, but it is ALL brain.

There is not even a wounded horse.

The mind, a product of activity and as such a distinct "entity", experiences "red". It is not an observable "entity". It is a phenomena in the universe.

And it is not explained.

And simply being generated by a brain does not mean you are unable to influence the brain.

 

[ruby sparks]

The thing that experiences cannot experience itself. It can only experience what is not itself.

Odd. I have the distinct experience of not only knowing I have a mind, but what at least some of the contents of it are.

You, on the other hand, mustn't have a clue what's in yours.

So how do you know if you've instructed your arm to raise?

 

[ruby sparks]

So I guess one relevant question is, are there 'f-qualia, or not'?

We know there is a specific way the mouth moves to produce the sound.

Is there a mouth moving to make "f" qualia?

I don't know. All I know is that 'fa' seems different to 'ba' in terms of what I experience, so I was running with the idea that they were not exactly the same qualia (or whatever the contents of experience consist of, temporarily assuming there are contents) so it seemed a good question to ask, because the 'fa' in that case wasn't coming into my system, I just mistakenly thought it was. I guess the easiest answer might be that mistakenly or not and by whatever process, I did, internally, 'create' a 'fa', or a 'fa' emerged or whatever. I thought the question might lead somewhere on-topic. Maybe it doesn't.

 

[untermensche]

The thing that experiences cannot experience itself. It can only experience what is not itself.

Odd. I have the distinct experience of not only knowing I have a mind, but what at least some of the contents of it are.

Knowing you have a mind is just knowing you have experiences and something is having them.

And it has no contents.

It is that which is aware of all "contents".

So how do you know if you've instructed your arm to raise?

You do "something" with your mind and the arm moves.

The mind knows it is doing "something" before the arm moves, not after.

It is subjective reports that serve as the objectification of consciousness in "scientific" research.

 

[untermensche]

So I guess one relevant question is, are there 'f-qualia, or not'?

We know there is a specific way the mouth moves to produce the sound.

Is there a mouth moving to make "f" qualia?

I don't know. All I know is that 'fa' seems different to 'ba' in terms of what I experience

They are separate and distinct sounds.

And some subconscious process learns what position of the mouth creates them.

And that which creates the sounds the mind experiences creates a sound based on the learned visual information. It is used to filling holes in language using the visual information.

so I was running with the idea that they were not exactly the same qualia

They are different sounds.

Saying they are different "qualia" adds nothing.

 

[ruby sparks]

Knowing you have a mind is just knowing you have experiences and something is having them.

And it has no contents.

It is that which is aware of all "contents".

That is basically a way of saying that the mind experiences itself. Personally, I think you should consider this as at least being a possibility, but it's not up to me.

Also, every time you say the mind is the experiencer, I'm going to be thinking 'maybe, or maybe it's the brain, as most experts would agree'. We don't have to agree on that. I again think you should consider the latter at least a possibility, but again that's up to you.

There are a LOT of 'possibles' in this, I think. Fewer 'definites', imo.

Either way, I don't see a lot of point in just arguing about it.

The mind knows it is doing "something" before the arm moves, not after.

It is subjective reports that serve as the objectification of consciousness in "scientific" research.

Yes, that last part seems true. Regarding the former, there is some clinical evidence that suggests otherwise, even if it is inconclusive.

And again, you have the mind knowing what it is doing. That would suggest again that a mind can experience itself (or a brain can experience mind, that's the other possibility. At least then you have an experiencer and an experience).

 

[ruby sparks]

They are separate and distinct sounds.

And some subconscious process learns what position of the mouth creates them.

And that which creates the sounds the mind experiences creates a sound based on the learned visual information. It is used to filling holes in language using the visual information.

That sounds reasonable.

They are different sounds.

Saying they are different "qualia" adds nothing.

Maybe. Maybe not. Because actually, they weren't different sounds. That's the thing. They were the same sound ('ba') all the time.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The Nervous system is a specific thing.

The brain is not. End of your position.

To experience requires being able to distinguish that which is experienced.

False. To experience requires only to exist. Babies cannot distinguish “that which is experienced” yet they experience the world constantly.

If that which is experienced is not separated from the thing that can experience in some way it cannot be experienced.

Non sequitur.

The thing that experiences cannot experience itself.

Aside from the fact that your own argument disproves this, the brain is NOT a monolithic “thing.”

It can only experience what is not itself.

Incoherent. There is nothing in your argument that is not brain. You pretending that “activity” is not brain is nothing more than a category error.

The body can experience detoxification; high blood pressure; oxygenization of the blood; blood flow; antibodies; digestion; defecation; hallucination; sexual response; etc; etc; etc, and these are ALL examples of the body experiencing itself.

No.

Yes.

It is an example of you using the word "experience" incredibly loosely. And with entirely different meanings.

Well, now you know how it feels. Oh, no, wait, you can’t know how it feels because you’re the thing and the thing can’t be the one that experiences the thing; that’s the other thing that can experience, so you can’t know how it feels, only the thing that knows how it feels can know how it feels. You are not yourself.

The body does not "experience" blood pressure.

False.

The mind, a product of activity and as such a distinct "entity"

Special pleading and category error.

 

[untermensche]

Maybe. Maybe not. Because actually, they weren't different sounds. That's the thing. They were the same sound ('ba') all the time.

"Sound" is that which is experienced.

A different sound was experienced depending on how the mouth was moved.

Not the same sound.

 

[untermensche]

The brain is not. End of your position.

Absolute nonsense. My position is the nervous system exists and so does the brain.

False. To experience requires only to exist. Babies cannot distinguish “that which is experienced” yet they experience the world constantly.

To experience something you have to know it is there.

And babies recognize things like their parents faces. They know the faces are there.

To know something is "there" is to know it is not "you". It is to know "you" are experiencing it.

If that which is experienced is not separated from the thing that can experience in some way it cannot be experienced.

Non sequitur.

My central point is hardly a non-sequitur.

 

[Subsymbolic]

The visual system starts at the eye.

It is the system that transforms the light that hits the eye into the visual experience.

What is made of the images are different systems.

Yes, I agree that the visual system seems more separate than taste or smell, both of which may be interwined with each other in ways that vision aren't. But, synesthetes provide counter-evidence. You may say that synesthesia is a malfunction, but my guess is that such things are on a spectrum. Then there is blindsight, where there is nothing, zilch, coming through the eye.

In blindsight there's plenty coming through the eye, there's just either no awareness of it or neglect. Three facts: One: everyone has a significant blindspot and, two, our ability to detect colour drops off to virtually nothing beyond about five degrees either side of the fovea. Finally, three, from just outside of the foveal area there is pretty close to zero ability to discriminate anything.

To put it another way, you can't see your blind spot but you can see colour and detail that it is literally impossible to see.

How odd.

 

[ruby sparks]

Maybe. Maybe not. Because actually, they weren't different sounds. That's the thing. They were the same sound ('ba') all the time.

"Sound" is that which is experienced.

A different sound was experienced depending on how the mouth was moved.

Not the same sound.

Ah yes. You're right. My bad.

 

[ruby sparks]

In blindsight there's plenty coming through the eye, there's just either no awareness of it or neglect.

Ah.Thx.

Three facts: One: everyone has a significant blindspot and, two, our ability to detect colour drops off to virtually nothing beyond about five degrees either side of the fovea. Finally, three, from just outside of the foveal area there is pretty close to zero ability to discriminate anything.

To put it another way, you can't see your blind spot but you can see colour and detail that it is literally impossible to see.

How odd.

I'm going to guess that the brain fills in the gaps.

It seems to do that in other instances.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

My position is the nervous system exists and so does the brain.

The brain is not a specific thing. This is pointless. Again.

 

[ruby sparks]

The brain is the central organ of the nervous system.

Just sayin'.

 

[Subsymbolic]

In blindsight there's plenty coming through the eye, there's just either no awareness of it or neglect.

Ah.Thx.

Three facts: One: everyone has a significant blindspot and, two, our ability to detect colour drops off to virtually nothing beyond about five degrees either side of the fovea. Finally, three, from just outside of the foveal area there is pretty close to zero ability to discriminate anything.

To put it another way, you can't see your blind spot but you can see colour and detail that it is literally impossible to see.

How odd.

I'm going to guess that the brain fills in the gaps.

It seems to do that in other instances.

In the case of the blind spot, no. It’s a classic case of neglect we can all experience. There’s literally nothing there to register the lack of any signal so we just don’t notice the hole. Even when we disappear something in the blind spot we still don’t notice the hole, merely the the lack of the thing we disappeared.