RE: If beauty doesn't require God, why should morality? (Bite me Dr. Craig.)
July 30, 2014 at 5:18 pm
(This post was last modified: July 30, 2014 at 5:29 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(July 30, 2014 at 4:46 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Of course there is. One has a rich experience of what things are like, and the other does not.So, some examples of things that belong in either group?
Quote:Ahhhh. . . so you know what qualia is, and that it is biochemistry. This is good news-- pray tell, what are the exact physical criteria by which I can establish that a physical system is subjectively experiencing its environment, rather than only seeming to?LOL, if you had absorbed a single letter of anything I've posted to you in this thread you'd realize how ridiculous a question that is to ask of me. The "seeming" is the "experiencing". It doesn't, to my mind, matter a lick - between an observer - or the one who is either experiencing or "seeming" to experience. It is the same phenomena. Now look up at the first part of your post again.
Quote:You can conflate diametrically opposed ideas if you want to, but it doesn't solve the fundamental problem of qualia: that they are not included in, or explained by, any good mechanical or physical theory of reality.I'm just not sure what I'm being asked to explain here. There's no good mechanical or physical theory of reality that accounts for what, exactly?
The only thing you seem to be willing to offer up on the subject of qualia is that it is mysterious and different and inexplicable. Well, that sounds like a summary of your conclusion - not any chain of reasoning that led up to it.
I can only work with what I have. We attempt to explain the unknown by reference to the known. I mean, obviously, I'm not going to be solving any of the deepest mysteries of the cosmos here, but neither are you - and maybe..just maybe...you aren't actually catching a whiff of one here.
Quote:You can guage my response to things, but you can't really know what red looks like when I experience it, or exactly what it's like to be me tasting a pineapple-- EVEN IF you can monitor my brain activitiy.That's true, I can't. But that doesn't establish that it couldn't be done. Given that we're pretty good at manipulating qualia, I'd say that this would suggest that there is a framework, a language, if you will (that your "color" is analgous to a computers "1011010111010101110101- and so on"). Otherwise, how would we accomplish that? Given the above, and that we at least know where to look, I'd say we're a little closer than your summary would seem to suggest. I don;t know what "it" -is- any more than you do - but that won;t stop me from checking off a list of things that it is -not-. Qualia does not appear to be, by any observation that we have ever made of it - as indirectly as you choose to conceive of those observations; wholly mysterious, inexplicable, or extraneous.
When I get drunk, I understand that my subsequent subjective experience is an issue of chemistry. How do you understand yours?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
