Eliminating Qualia

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The brain is the instrument.

The mind is the music.

The brain generates the instrument and the music.

You have no evidence a brain experiences mind exists.

Which cell specifically do you think is experiencing?

All of them.

How does a cell experience?

By direct interraction with other cells.

Once again, what YOU mean by “experience” in regard to “mind” is “have awareness of itself.” That is not the same thing as “experiencing” (i.e., direct interraction with).

Dogs experience the world, but to the best of our knowledge, they do not generate a “self” that in turn reflects upon that experience to import meaning from the experience. That does not, however mean they do not experience.

 

[untermensche]

The brain generates the instrument and the music.

Now you have taken the mind further from the brain.

I say the mind is a product of brain activity.

You are saying it is a product of a product of brain activity.

All of them.

In other words you have no idea.

The glial cells are experiencing?

The cells of the blood vessels are experiencing?

How does a cell experience?

By direct interraction with other cells.

As empty and worthless an explanation as could exist.

Why don't you be honest and say you don't have a clue?

 

[Subsymbolic]

All a human has access to are their experiences.

There is no evidence of things in the external world that is not an experience.

We say something objectively exists in the external world when we really believe the experience points to something in the external world.

There is no verification of any evidence that is not an experience.

And here we go: the standard refutation to this bollocks.

You have just taken the nuclear option of global scepticism and that means you cannot trust anything but the immediate experience you are having now. (Obviously, you are a zombie so that's nothing at all.) You can't trust memory, or any cognitive functions, just that one momentary quale.

There's fuck all you can do with that beyond experience it.

Well done.

- - - Updated - - -

All things a P-Zombie would say in order to trick us into thinking it was human.

How do you know what zombies will say?

We listen to you.

 

[ryan]

The word "evidence" means a brain experienced it and believes it is there.

Declaration is not proof.

We start with the mind to begin to understand anything else that exists. We are alone with this mind from birth until our observations are substantiated by others that seem like ourselves. Each one of us relies on our own mind and its qualia/consciousness to acquire ALL information.

If I see ghosts, that experience is no less real than seeing the Eiffel Tower. I may be wrong about the ghosts, but I cannot be wrong about having that experience.

The mind is real and primary, and the explanations/theories are at best secondary.

 

[Subsymbolic]

The word "evidence" means a brain experienced it and believes it is there.

Declaration is not proof.

We start with the mind to begin to understand anything else that exists. We are alone with this mind from birth until our observations are substantiated by others that seem like ourselves.

If I see ghosts, that experience is no less real than seeing the Eiffel Tower. I may be wrong about the ghosts, but I cannot be wrong about having that experience.

The mind is real and primary, and the explanations/theories are at best secondary.

That's an interesting metaphysical claim. Now, how exactly would you substantiate the claim that a neonate has a mental life? Is it not at least possible that, without language, there's no mind at all. I'm not making that claim, merely pointing out that it is certainly a possibility. what is far more likely is that a neonate brain can solve the first level of binding, and is probably hard wired to do so; as such it will be like something to be a baby. However, without language it is hard to see how a baby could achieve the second level of binding and recognise that the mental life it is experiencing is its mental life.

Furthermore, no one since Locke has believed that we are born tabula rasa. No one at all that I can think of has ever claimed that all contentful states are conscious states. As such it's perfectly possible and indeed natural that plenty of non conscious learning goes on and that the brain is structured both by genetic and epigenetic effects to start off chock full of information.

As such it is unwise to claim that 'Each one of us relies on our own mind and its qualia/consciousness to acquire ALL information.'

 

[ryan]

We start with the mind to begin to understand anything else that exists. We are alone with this mind from birth until our observations are substantiated by others that seem like ourselves.

If I see ghosts, that experience is no less real than seeing the Eiffel Tower. I may be wrong about the ghosts, but I cannot be wrong about having that experience.

The mind is real and primary, and the explanations/theories are at best secondary.

That's an interesting metaphysical claim. Now, how exactly would you substantiate the claim that a neonate has a mental life? Is it not at least possible that, without language, there's no mind at all. I'm not making that claim, merely pointing out that it is certainly a possibility. what is far more likely is that a neonate brain can solve the first level of binding, and is probably hard wired to do so; as such it will be like something to be a baby. However, without language it is hard to see how a baby could achieve the second level of binding and recognise that the mental life it is experiencing is its mental life.

Furthermore, no one since Locke has believed that we are born tabula rasa. No one at all that I can think of has ever claimed that all contentful states are conscious states. As such it's perfectly possible and indeed natural that plenty of non conscious learning goes on and that the brain is structured both by genetic and epigenetic effects to start off chock full of information.

As such it is unwise to claim that 'Each one of us relies on our own mind and its qualia/consciousness to acquire ALL information.'

My mind = me in the traditional sense.

Information exists only for minds. Information is only about what is known versus unknown. Information is meaningless without minds.

 

[Subsymbolic]

We start with the mind to begin to understand anything else that exists. We are alone with this mind from birth until our observations are substantiated by others that seem like ourselves.

If I see ghosts, that experience is no less real than seeing the Eiffel Tower. I may be wrong about the ghosts, but I cannot be wrong about having that experience.

The mind is real and primary, and the explanations/theories are at best secondary.

That's an interesting metaphysical claim. Now, how exactly would you substantiate the claim that a neonate has a mental life? Is it not at least possible that, without language, there's no mind at all. I'm not making that claim, merely pointing out that it is certainly a possibility. what is far more likely is that a neonate brain can solve the first level of binding, and is probably hard wired to do so; as such it will be like something to be a baby. However, without language it is hard to see how a baby could achieve the second level of binding and recognise that the mental life it is experiencing is its mental life.

Furthermore, no one since Locke has believed that we are born tabula rasa. No one at all that I can think of has ever claimed that all contentful states are conscious states. As such it's perfectly possible and indeed natural that plenty of non conscious learning goes on and that the brain is structured both by genetic and epigenetic effects to start off chock full of information.

As such it is unwise to claim that 'Each one of us relies on our own mind and its qualia/consciousness to acquire ALL information.'

My mind = me in the traditional sense.

Information exists only for minds. Information is only about what is known versus unknown. Information is meaningless without minds.

Well, that's certainly an interesting claim, but I'm an externalist and unconvinced. Perhaps if you can explain how you arrived at that equivalence beyond mere fiat?

And again, how could you know that is the case. However I can think of rather a lot of examples of what looks like information in the world with no minds involved; flowers and bees for example. Personally I'm really uncertain about the wisdom of caching ideas like information out in minds as I rather suspect that the notion of the mind still has rather a lot of theological nonsense attached to it and as the state of the art progresses, will need to be naturalised in a rather austere way. It's an evolved information processing strategy that has picked up some useful but misleading (and indeed evolving in a different way with different utility functions and constraints) tools on the way.

It's pretty clear that meaning isn't in the head, beliefs certainly are not and it's equally clear that the illusion of a self would be a very handy organising principle for a brain that needs to bind rather a lot of processes, both internal and external, in a way that butters the parsnips.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Now you have taken the mind further from the brain.

What is this “mind” you’re talking about?

I say the mind is a product of brain activity.

Then it is brain.

You are saying it is a product of a product of brain activity.

At best, I would be saying it’s all brain so it doesn’t matter how you personally decide to categorize its activity.

In other words you have no idea.

No, I told you, all of them. What I say is axiomatically true, because I said it and what I say is axiomatically true.

The glial cells are experiencing?

ALL of them.

The cells of the blood vessels are experiencing?

Yes, they are experiencing the blood vessels and the other cells in the blood vessels and all of the organs of the body. It’s a wild wide. And they relay those experiences constantly with the central nervous system, which in turn relays those experiences to the brain. It’s a constant whirlwind of form and function that comprises the animated matter of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens.

How does a cell experience?

A cell is that which experiences.

By direct interraction with other cells.

As empty and worthless an explanation as could exist.

Coming from the master, that’s quite a compliment, but you’re too kind. You’ve dumped tremendous numbers of empty and worthless explanations itt.

Why don't you be honest and say you don't have a clue?

It was your cells that allowed you to type that.

 

[ryan]

My mind = me in the traditional sense.

Information exists only for minds. Information is only about what is known versus unknown. Information is meaningless without minds.

Well, that's certainly an interesting claim, but I'm an externalist and unconvinced. Perhaps if you can explain how you arrived at that equivalence beyond mere fiat?

Traditionally speaking we understand me to be the mind. It's like when someone dies, the mind is presumably not there nor is he/she.

And again, how could you know that is the case. However I can think of rather a lot of examples of what looks like information in the world with no minds involved; flowers and bees for example. Personally I'm really uncertain about the wisdom of caching ideas like information out in minds as I rather suspect that the notion of the mind still has rather a lot of theological nonsense attached to it and as the state of the art progresses, will need to be naturalised in a rather austere way. It's an evolved information processing strategy that has picked up some useful but misleading (and indeed evolving in a different way with different utility functions and constraints) tools on the way.

It's pretty clear that meaning isn't in the head, beliefs certainly are not and it's equally clear that the illusion of a self would be a very handy organising principle for a brain that needs to bind rather a lot of processes, both internal and external, in a way that butters the parsnips.

You can bind your way outside of the mind all you want and even have vast webs of meaning all over the universe, but you will never have even a taste of true objectivity. Your existence is observing the objectivity; you are a prisoner to subjectivity. That's all you or I have and probably all we will ever have.

Objectivity is what is in question here, not subjectivity.

 

[ryan]

What is this “mind” you’re talking about?

What is that which exists outside of the mind? Show me it, and prove to me it exists outside of my mind.

We start with the mind and go from there.

 

[untermensche]

What is this “mind” you’re talking about?

When you say "I" believe something it is the thing believing. Have you ever said you believe something?

To believe something there must be something capable of believing.

Just like when there is experience there must be something experiencing.

Then it is brain.

A heater is not the heat.

In other words you have no idea.

No, I told you, all of them. What I say is axiomatically true, because I said it and what I say is axiomatically true.

Go away little child.

You have stupidity instead of rational arguments.

The glial cells are experiencing?

ALL of them.

Stupidity!

The cells of the blood vessels are experiencing?

Yes, they are experiencing the blood vessels and the other cells in the blood vessels and all of the organs of the body.

Stupidity!!

How does a cell experience?

A cell is that which experiences.

A cell told you that?

More absolute stupidity!!!!

It was your cells that allowed you to type that.

It is your cells that tell me you have no arguments.

You think a heater and heat are the same thing.

You could not be more lost.

 

[untermensche]

And here we go: the standard refutation to this bollocks.

Just more delusions.

You have just taken the nuclear option of global scepticism and that means you cannot trust anything but the immediate experience you are having now.

All you have are your experiences.

You have nothing else to work with.

What do you think you have access to besides some experience?

You can't trust memory

Nobody can really fully trust their memories. Memories are faulty things.

or any cognitive functions

Absolute nonsense.

I trust the shovel because I can work with it.

I trust the cognitive functions of my mind because I can use them to see how lost you are.

You want evidence and have no clue what evidence is.

All evidence is something a human experiences and reports. There is no other kind of evidence.

If you disagree feel free to make your first argument about something.

How do you know what zombies will say?

We listen to you.

I thought as much.

Your zombie stupidity is only worth such a pitiful display.

Come back when you can explain why you want something to experience from me when you can just look outside your window.

And because you have an experience you know beyond doubt you are something capable of having an experience.

I am Diogenes.

If the people I deal with are not honest then I cannot help them.

 

[Subsymbolic]

What is this “mind” you’re talking about?

What is that which exists outside of the mind? Show me it, and prove to me it exists outside of my mind.

We start with the mind and go from there.

Language. Wittgenstein sorted this out in the fifties. A private language is logically impossible. Ergo solipsism is a forteori logically impossible too. Even if that wasn't so, and it is, the fact is that this particular flourish of global scepticism always relies on starting with an epistemic claim and ending with an ontological one. Which is, technically speaking, naughty. I could go on.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Just more delusions.



All you have are your experiences.

You have nothing else to work with.

What do you think you have access to besides some experience?

You can't trust memory

Nobody can really fully trust their memories. Memories are faulty things.

or any cognitive functions

Absolute nonsense.

I trust the shovel because I can work with it.

I trust the cognitive functions of my mind because I can use them to see how lost you are.

You want evidence and have no clue what evidence is.

All evidence is something a human experiences and reports. There is no other kind of evidence.

If you disagree feel free to make your first argument about something.

How do you know what zombies will say?

We listen to you.

I thought as much.

Your zombie stupidity is only worth such a pitiful display.

Come back when you can explain why you want something to experience from me when you can just look outside your window.

And because you have an experience you know beyond doubt you are something capable of having an experience.

I am Diogenes.

If the people I deal with are not honest then I cannot help them.

Diogenes the beggar who lived in a pot? He'd be dead by now... or perhaps... undead!

And still I ask for objective evidence and get none. At least it's stopped you demanding objective evidence every other post.

 

[untermensche]

You have a language because you experienced one.

That is the only way to acquire one.

Language is evidence humans experience.

 

[untermensche]

And still I ask for objective evidence and get none. At least it's stopped you demanding objective evidence every other post.

You are asking me for something you can experience?

I ask for something I can experience when I ask for evidence.

 

[ryan]

What is this “mind” you’re talking about?

What is that which exists outside of the mind? Show me it, and prove to me it exists outside of my mind.

We start with the mind and go from there.

Language. Wittgenstein sorted this out in the fifties. A private language is logically impossible. Ergo solipsism is a forteori logically impossible too. Even if that wasn't so, and it is, the fact is that this particular flourish of global scepticism always relies on starting with an epistemic claim and ending with an ontological one. Which is, technically speaking, naughty. I could go on.

Why take this to solipsism? I just meant that everything I know is done in my mind, uses my mind, is through my mind. I can infer or imagine what happens outside of my mind, but I can't eliminate my mind nor can I go outside of it.

Questioning the existence of your mind before everything else seems insane! You can't find your flashlight with your flashlight.

 

[untermensche]

I just meant that everything I know is done in my mind, uses my mind, is through my mind. I can infer or imagine what happens outside of my mind, but I can't eliminate my mind nor can I go outside of it.

All you are are a thing that experiences.

And all you have access to are experiences.

For a human there is nothing but experience.

There is nothing else.

This does not mean things external to the mind do not exist.

It does not come close to meaning that.

 

[ryan]

I just meant that everything I know is done in my mind, uses my mind, is through my mind. I can infer or imagine what happens outside of my mind, but I can't eliminate my mind nor can I go outside of it.

This does not mean things external to the mind do not exist.

It does not come close to meaning that.

How did you come to that conclusion about what I am saying?

 

[Subsymbolic]

You have a language because you experienced one.

That is the only way to acquire one.

Language is evidence humans experience.

Oh dear. Stop trying to pretend you are not a zombie. As Wittgenstein also equally clearly pointed out: language is a public phenomenon while one”s mental life is private. That’s why there is a problem of other minds and isn’t a problem of other speakers. Anyone but a zombie with no grasp of philosophy would understand that.

Yet more proof.

And stillwaiting for the objective evidence of your mental life...