What God is to the Universe is what your mind is to your body

[The Grand Nudger]

You are asking me whether a camera does or doesn't experience things subjectively.  The answer is I have know way to know whether a camera experiences anything, but I don't believe that it does so.

No, I'm asking you whether or not seeing red is qualitatively or quantitatively different than what a camera is doing, for the third time.   

You just keep telling me that you don't think cameras see red.  It didn't answer that question the last few times, and it won't answer it this time either.

You know that some material systems are capable of processing information.  You do not know which systems can/can't experience qualia, or why it is that ANY systems experience qualia.

There's that arbitrary distinction again.  Unless you know -and can demonstrate- that qualia is not a term for information processing as it occurs in, say, -your- brain....then the question begs the question.  Hey, you may not be wrong...you;re just going to have to find another way to express it.

As we've argued many times, I'm happy to say that something about the brain allows for qualia.  However, within the brain are very many levels of organization, and we do not know at what level qualia emerges.  It could be at a QM level, or at a molecular level, at a neuronal level, or it could require specific types of integration of information.

You have a misunderstanding of qm/our brains.  We are not qm creatures.  We do not have qm brains.  Perhaps there is such a thing as qm qualia (I wouldn't know) but it has little relevance to a human being, or a human brain.  Perhaps, similarly, there is such a thing as a molecular qualia, but here again that bears little relevance to human qualia, a human brain.  The last two seem legit...though it seems to be an issue of both, not one or the other.  Some things with nuerons do appear to have qualia, and it does appear that only certain types of information make their way into it. This, in itself, provides problems for the idea of a quantum or molecular qualia but doesn't outright rule them out...after all, if qm particles or simple molecules could be arranged such that they performed the function of nuerons, and then those arrangements cobbled together such that they form a analog of the brain,perhaps they too could experience qualia. Perhaps there are even other arrangements of qm particles and molecules that could -also- experience qualia, things which -aren't- brain analogs...a conscious camera (or any other machine), or a conscious cosmic cloud, for example.  Hence, nuerology...................

As you know, it is my hunch that all energetic transmission represents a primitive spark of mind.  You do not have a good explanation of why mind emerges at whatever level you think it emerges at.

I wouldn't use the word hunch to describe that, personally, lol.  

The reason brainwaving is unsatisfying to me is that it doesn't identify what actually allows mind to supervene.  If it's something intrinsic only to brains, then the answer is "brains."  If it's something intrinsic to QM, then the answer is, "It's everywhere."  In the former, the OP is bullshit.  In the latter, you could call the Universe itself the mind of God, and that would actually mean something.

I'm sorry that nuerolgy doesn't satisfy, there's really nothing more I can say on that count....except that you might not want to allow your disatisfaction with the explanations on offer to push you over the qm wooster edge.   Most notably because qm woo doesn't actually do what you want it to do. It doesn't, for example, suggest or imply that qualia is anything other or more than information processing. If qualia were a qm phenomena, our best explanation of qm qualia would -still- be information processing...and then we find ourselves ignoring the brain - an obvious and specific mechanism for information processing, well evidenced and testable...in favor of a non-obvious and nebulous mechanism, with no evidentiary support and no means of testing it, which doesn't apply to creatures or structures of our scale so far as well can tell...in the first place. It doesn't, for example, propose anything -other- than a material monist consciousness or qualia. Lastly, thre simple invocation of a possible qm qualia doesn't imply or suggest that the universe is or has a mind. That's a -massive- non-sequitur, nevermind that there's no evidence that it is or does. You see, if qualia were a qm phenomena, that qm is everywhere does not mean that qualia is everywhere, and doesn't change the fact that it does not appear to be everywhere.

You're simply flirting with a concept of consciousness and qualia that borders on a cosmic fallacy of composition, while ignoring concepts and explanations which do -not- have these problems and -are- in evidence, however incomplete or unsatisfying their subsequent descriptions may be, which add no explanatory value and rely upon concepts wholly owned by and dependent upon the explanations and descriptions you deem to be insufficient or unsatisfying. This is an impressive and comprehensive failure to properly leverage reason....even if every alternative proposition you've put forward actually was true, and all the "brainwaving" were false.

It's a non-trivial difference given the nature of the OP.

The OP and thread title aren't salvageable.....no matter -what- the status of consciousness or qualia is.

[LadyForCamus]

I love it when bennyboy and rhythm get into it. Always a thought-provoking read for me. ?

[bennyboy]

No, I'm asking you whether or not seeing red is qualitatively or quantitatively different than what a camera is doing, for the third time.   

I don't know what a quantitative difference in color means to you, so I'm going with answer (a).

There's that arbitrary distinction again.  Unless you know -and can demonstrate- that qualia is not a term for information processing as it occurs in, say, -your- brain....then the question begs the question.  Hey, you may not be wrong...you;re just going to have to find another way to express it.  

Calling arguably the most important property of any system in the Universe-- the capacity for subjective experience-- arbitrary-- isn't really going to get you very far, as it is essentially a confession that qualia is so far from your world view that you don't even consider it relevant.

You have a misunderstanding of qm/our brains.  We are not qm creatures.  We do not have qm brains.  Perhaps there is such a thing as qm qualia (I wouldn't know) but it has little relevance to a human being, or a human brain.  

QM is the system upon which all else we know of supervenes. It is the most elemental level of organization that we currently know about. That's not a trivial thing.

Perhaps, similarly, there is such a thing as a molecular qualia, but here again that bears little relevance to human qualia, a human brain.  The last two seem legit...though it seems to be an issue of both, not one or the other.  Some things with nuerons do appear to have qualia, and it does appear that only certain types of information make their way into it. This, in itself, provides problems for the idea of a quantum or molecular qualia but doesn't outright rule them out...after all, if qm particles or simple molecules could be arranged such that they performed the function of nuerons, and then those arrangements cobbled together such that they form a analog of the brain,perhaps they too could experience qualia.  Perhaps there are even other arrangements of qm particles and molecules that could -also- experience qualia, things which -aren't- brain analogs...a conscious camera (or any other machine), or a conscious cosmic cloud, for example.   Hence, nuerology...................

Okay, there's a chain of supervenience in physics starting at QM, then subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, chains of molecules, etc. right up to full brain. Any of these levels could be the lowest at which the most elemental properties of mind emerge. I do not know what level that is, and neither do you. Brain waving doesn't work, because not all of these levels of emergence are specific to the brain, or even to integrated information processing.

I'm sorry that nuerolgy doesn't satisfy, there's really nothing more I can say on that count....except that you might not want to allow your disatisfaction with the explanations on offer to push you over the qm wooster edge

There's nothing wrong with neurology. It tells us a lot about how we think, and really shows how radically our experience can change based on brain function or changes in brain structure. It does not, however, give us any useful information about what other systems do/don't experience qualia, or on what level of physical organization the elements of mind supervene.

This is relevant to the OP. If the elements of mind supervene at the QM level, then the OP is reasonably close to the truth. If it supervenes only at the high-level organization of an animal brain, then the OP is wayyyy off.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't know what a quantitative difference in color means to you, so I'm going with answer (a).

Okay, and the qualitative difference would be?  How would you go about establishing it? 

Calling arguably the most important property of any system in the Universe-- the capacity for subjective  experience-- arbitrary-- isn't really going to get you very far, as it is essentially a confession that qualia is so far from your world view that you don't even consider it relevant.

I'm not sure what metrics you used to determine that it was the most important property of any system in the universe.  Thing that has subjective experience thinks subjective experience is totally awesome.  Not only have you failed to correct the question begging nature of your previous comments, you've jumped off on a tangent that is, itself, a non-sequitur about -another's- worldview....par for the course.  I wouldn;t insist that we address this seriously (and yes, that means without amateurish logical misteps) if I didn't think it was either a. important, or b. relevant.  Your breathtaking ignorance with regards to my worldview is frustrating...if only because we've been over it so many times. The canned "worldview" shit doesn;t work on me or my comments..I don't know why you keep trying it, you've watched me and many others smack the logical shit out of people for saying the same thing for years now with regards to whatever their pet proposition might be...you're no slacker in that regard yourself......

QM is the system upon which all else we know of supervenes.  It is the most elemental level of organization that we currently know about.  That's not a trivial thing.

It is, in the context of a creature that does not exist on the qm scale.  Ask our resident physicist, if you like..or just google it.  Ultimately, I'm not commenting on qm, but your misapplication of invalid inferences -loosely based- upon your misunderstandings of qm.  

Okay, there's a chain of supervenience in physics starting at QM, then subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, chains of molecules, etc. right up to full brain.  Any of these levels could be the lowest at which the most elemental properties of mind emerge.  I do not know what level that is, and neither do you.  Brain waving doesn't work, because not all of these levels of emergence are specific to the brain, or even to integrated information processing.

Any -could- be.....but they don't seem to be, particularly so in the case of human beings...a context in which a discussion of those "lower" levels of organization is entirely irrelevant.  Brain waving...and at some point you';re going to have to confront the intellectually dishonesty which is fundamental to your comments here..in calling nuerology brain waving...is relevant to -human- qualia, to the emergence or existence of a -human- mind.  

There's nothing wrong with neurology.  It tells us a lot about how we think, and really shows how radically our experience can change based on brain function or changes in brain structure.  It does not, however, give us any useful information about what other systems do/don't experience qualia, or on what level of physical organization the elements of mind supervene.

It clearly does...and perhaps you should stop calling it brainwaving? This has been a common theme in all of our conversations regarding this subject...when you are -unsatisfied- with explanations or "useful information" you procede to claim that those explanations and "useful information" do not -exist-....... I;ve commented on this in the last few posts but here we see it again. You are unsatisfied with the explanations and information, for a host of reasons...some of which I understand, and some of which make me go wtf..they do, clearly exist..however...for you to be unsatisfied with them in the first place.

This is relevant to the OP.  If the elements of mind supervene at the QM level, then the OP is reasonably close to the truth.  If it supervenes only at the high-level organization of an animal brain, then the OP is wayyyy off.

It isn't, because the OPs comments were and continue to be incoherent deepities, regardless of what supervenes upon what, what's happening at the qm level, and any consideration of mind.  Reasonably close to the truth is, itself, a ridiculous statement.  There is no "close" to truth in reason.....you're thinking of horseshoes and hand grenades.

[bennyboy]

I'm not sure what metrics you used to determine that it was the most important property of any system in the universe.  Thing that has subjective experience thinks subjective experience is totally awesome.

Yeah, and only subjective agents are capable of establishing a value system. Therefore, if subjective agents think the capacity for subjective agency is super-important, then it is, by the only measure of importance available-- the arbitrary views of subjective agents.

Any -could- be.....but they don't seem to be, particularly so in the case of human beings

What does seeming have to do with anything? There is a grand total of zero things which are what they seem to us to be.

It clearly does...and perhaps you should stop calling it brainwaving?  This has been a common theme in all of our conversations regarding this subject...when you are -unsatisfied- with explanations or "useful information" you procede to claim that those explanations and "useful information" do not -exist-....... I;ve commented on this in the last few posts but here we see it again.  You are unsatisfied with the explanations and information, for a host of reasons...some of which I understand, and some of which make me go wtf..they do, clearly exist..however...for you to be unsatisfied with them in the first place.

Look, my response to the question at hand is honest and straightforward: we do not know what allows for qualia, and cannot therefore say whether it supervenes on the brain, or on more simple systems which need not be so organized as the brain. Conflating X-ology with X-ogony is a pretty fundamental error in logic, but this is much how these arguments go: "We study the brain and the mind, and stuff happens, so the brain creates (or simply is) mind. So far, that's how it seems to be."

This is a horrible misapplication of concept of evidence.

It isn't, because the OPs comments were and continue to be incoherent deepities, regardless of what supervenes upon what, what's happening at the qm level, and any consideration of mind.  Reasonably close to the truth is, itself, a ridiculous statement.  There is no "close" to truth in reason.....you're thinking of horseshoes and hand grenades.

Sure there's "close." If you say, X is God, and you discover almost-X, you can say you've found something which closely resembles your definition of God. If you discover that everything remotely close to X is wrong wrong wrong, you can say God, by your definition, likely doesn't exist.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I am guessing bookstores are quite inept at properly labeling reading materials.

After all, it is probably best to check out the science section than the hocus pocus section.

And what was electromagnetism before scientists explored, worked out the math and explored the mechanics of it?

If you think current science is the end all/be all paradigm, you don't know history and you aren't doing science.

Not-so-subtle God of the Gaps spotted.

Conflating X-ology with X-ogony is a pretty fundamental error in logic, but this is much how these arguments go: "We study the brain and the mind, and stuff happens, so the brain creates (or simply is) mind.  So far, that's how it seems to be."

This is a horrible misapplication of concept  of evidence.

The fact that brain damage results in mental changes is not evidence of the interlinkage of the two? Am I reading you right?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, and only subjective agents are capable of establishing a value system.  Therefore, if subjective agents think the capacity for subjective agency is super-important, then it is, by the only measure of importance available-- the arbitrary views of subjective agents.

Not exactly an impressive set of metrics, but it's not as if it matters, since we both agree that it's important, regardless of where it falls in the scheme of "most important things".  

What does seeming have to do with anything?  There is a grand total of zero things which are what they seem to us to be.

You're going to need to get sound propositions from -something-, though, if you insist that we're having a rational discussion.  I use the word seem to allow for us being wrong, but the possibility that we might be is not a sufficient demonstration that -we are-.  Particularly in light of what you were responding to with those comments.

Look, my response to the question at hand is honest and straightforward: we do not know what allows for qualia, and cannot therefore say whether it supervenes on the brain, or on more simple systems which need not be so organized as the brain.  Conflating X-ology with X-ogony is a pretty fundamental error in logic, but this is much how these arguments go: "We study the brain and the mind, and stuff happens, so the brain creates (or simply is) mind.  So far, that's how it seems to be."

This is a horrible misapplication of concept  of evidence.

Your question may be honest, but it's neither straightforward nor rational....and I'm not going to listen to someone who calls nuerology "brainwaving" lecture -anyone- about a misapplication of the concept of evidence.  The question of what allows for qualia, and the question of a full description of qualia...are simply not the same question.    The ability of matter to interact is sufficient to -allow- for qualia...even if our qualia is somehow created or expressed some other way. Further...if there's some point at which you expect -anyone- to exceed what we do know and can infer...from evidence, and just start making shit up to satisfy you....or if you think that someones inability to satisfy you regarding the one is meaningful,  relevant to the other, or helps you to establish some position of your own....you've totally lost your shit.  

Sure there's "close."  If you say, X is God, and you discover almost-X, you can say you've found something which closely resembles your definition of God.  If you discover that everything remotely close to X is wrong wrong wrong, you can say God, by your definition, likely doesn't exist.

Way to lower the standards of reasons such that it becomes unreasonable.    

Close to x and not x are mechanically equivalent regarding means of inference.  If I claimed to have a purple magic wand...that just turned out to be a purple wand (sans magic, 2 out of three aint bad)...I don't have a purple magic wand.

[Arkilogue]

And what was electromagnetism before scientists explored, worked out the math and explored the mechanics of it?

If you think current science is the end all/be all paradigm, you don't know history and you aren't doing science.

Not-so-subtle God of the Gaps spotted.

Not God of the gaps, science of the gaps. Before it was known an explored, electromagnetism was "mysterious hocus pocus".

The EM force is part of God's law of universe order.

[The Grand Nudger]

I kind of feel like an asshole for bringing up some basic shit...but has the thought ever occurred to you, Bennyboy, that if -some- of the things you say about mind and qualia and the various sub-branches of science that study it were valid objections or criticisms.....that there would -be- no branches of science that could or indeed were studying mind..let alone producing results - however unsatisfying they are or seem to you?  I do understand some of your objections regarding those bodies of knowledge - I even share some of them with you, but we're never going to get around to that unless we can tone down the hyperbole that consumes the vast majority of our communicative efforts.

@Ark

The EM force is part of God's law of universe order.

If you say so......but it seems to me like you might have skipped a step on that one. 

[Arkilogue]

Conflating X-ology with X-ogony is a pretty fundamental error in logic, but this is much how these arguments go: "We study the brain and the mind, and stuff happens, so the brain creates (or simply is) mind.  So far, that's how it seems to be."

This is a horrible misapplication of concept  of evidence.

The fact that brain damage results in mental changes is not evidence of the interlinkage of the two? Am I reading you right?

Two possibilities: either the brain is the TV station and sends signal, or the brain is the TV and receives the signal from the station.