If beauty doesn't require God, why should morality? (Bite me Dr. Craig.)

[bennyboy]

And as noted multiple times, if qualia are nothing more than brain processes, then observing those brain processes is observing one aspect of qualia. If they are the same thing, observing one is observing the other.

That is necessarily true, but is a poor semantic argument, since it redefines what people MEAN when they say qualia. If qualia is nothing more than the subjective experience of brain function, then it is still something different than brain function-- it is the subjective experience of it.

If you're arguing that there's no such thing as qualia separate from physical systems capable of "generating" it, then that's fine. However, Qulia is an important enough property, and is so absolutely unnecessary in a mechanical description of the universe, that I wouldn't accept that description as sufficient in fully describing reality as we observe it-- if you include experience as a kind of observation.

They are simply two sides of the same coin. The observational limits don't of necessity make the two distinct.

Is the hardness of an apple distinct from its redness? Or is it all just appleyness? I don't think any measure of the hardness of an apple will allow a non-red-seer to know that it is red.

You seem to treat the current limitations on observation as sacrosanct limits which cannot be superceded. This makes most of your arguments appear to be rooted in an argument from ignorance, that because we can't observe the relationship between qualia and brain processes today, then we will never be able to observe the relationship between the two. I confess we don't know enough today to determine the contents of qualia from brain processes, but to imply that we never will be able to do so is something you simply do not know.

Fair enough. If somehow we are able to directly interact with qualia (maybe via a kind of "mental field" produced electromagnetically or something), then I'll change my opinion. But in the same way I would accept God if there was some way to show exactly what it was and identify via physical means exactly where it was. Right now, we can't say that about God, and we can't say that about qualia.

I reserve the right to change my mind as I collect more information. But given the information I have right now, the mechanical description of the universe is insufficient in explaining the things I can observe-- because it does not sufficiently explain the nature of qualia or why there are qualia associate with some systems rather than with none.

The way you phrase things makes matters even more difficult. Being a property of one or the other? What does that have to do with whether or not they are two sides of the same thing or not; properties aren't ontological distinctions. I share whateverist's concern about your expression here. By intrinsic do you mean that the mechanical properties of the universe are sufficient to explain qualia, or are you implying something more? Regardless, it's an odd way to phrase things.

No, I think that would be to bend too far our understanding of what "mechanical" means. There's is no component of a mechanical understanding of the universe which requires qualia for any calculation, or which explains qualia as a property which naturally supervenes on the mechanical properties of its parts.

Take in contrast light. It's pretty slippery stuff. But we understand about QM and electrons, about conservation of energy, etc. We have a working model of how the amount of energy imbued into an electron's orbit, when released, affects the wavelength of a photon. Despite the mystery around apparent duality in light, I'd say that we've done a pretty good job of describing both the mechanism in creating light, and the impact of that light on another physical system.

The study of qualia has absolutely none of this going for it. Therefore, rather than trying to explain qualia in purely mechanical terms, I would say that a mechanical description of the universe is at best incomplete, and is at worst wrong in important ways.