(September 1, 2016 at 10:10 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(September 1, 2016 at 10:02 am)bennyboy Wrote: Freedom isn't a magical unicorn.  If it's a word to have meaning, it has to be meaningful.  I say freedom means unobstructed and uncompelled,

-and gl showing that your will has any of that.

I showed it today when I bought some ice cream. Yummy!

Quote:Does a lack of "freedom" stop you from enjoying your ice cream of choice?  It's hard to see how...and so it's difficult to see the relevance.

Sure it does. If I'm not free to buy my ice cream, I will be disappointed.

-as an interesting sideline..the different perspectives themselves have useful functions.  1st person is great for throwing a spear or shooting.  Third person is required for navigation.  It;s easy to see how those two feed into each other, and how we would be less fit if we were limited to one or the other.

(September 1, 2016 at 10:24 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(September 1, 2016 at 10:21 am)Yoo Wrote: You say qualia are brain functions. So there is this function happening in the brain, looking at it from third pserson perspective.

That would be innaccurate, you aren't looking at your brain functions from a third person perspective..are you?  You don't see synapses firing from top down view, right?  You see colors and shapes, you feel love.  Predictable, since you don;t have eyes in your head, pointed at you brain, to observe their functions...nor could eyes -see- those functions if you did.  

Quote:Also, there are qualia happening from a first person perspective at the same time. Would you say the function happening in the brain wouldn't work if there weren't qualia from a first person perspective?

The qualia are all "happening" from the same place and from no perspective.  Perspective is a simulation based upon inputs.  Your eyes work like a camera, helping you to build a model that can be from any perspective you have sufficient (or can manufacture sufficient) mapping for.  You can thusly see a sphere in the first person, or you can "see" yourself looking at a sphere in the third person.  That we mostly have first person experiences is probabl;y more to do with the locality of our sensory apparatus than anything else.  There's a crushing weight of "first person" input, and relatively less third person models of anything.  Obviously it;s not a requirement of operation that it be first person..or else we wouldn't have that third person ability.  Your brain accepts input from your brain just as readily as it accepts input from your eyes.

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand your last paragraph. Before I really reply could you explain what you mean by " and relatively less third person models of anything." and "or else we wouldn't have that third person ability."
Do you mean thoughts that you experience, that obvisously aren't direct perceptions from your senses?

(September 1, 2016 at 10:32 am)bennyboy Wrote: I showed it today when I bought some ice cream.  Yummy!

Hows that?  

Quote:Sure it does.  If I'm not free to buy my ice cream, I will be disappointed.

Oh, now I get it, you're just fucking with me, lol.

GG.  

(September 1, 2016 at 10:24 am)Rhythm Wrote:

Quote:Also, there are qualia happening from a first person perspective at the same time. Would you say the function happening in the brain wouldn't work if there weren't qualia from a first person perspective?

The qualia are all "happening" from the same place and from no perspective.  Perspective is a simulation based upon inputs.  Your eyes work like a camera, helping you to build a model that can be from any perspective you have sufficient (or can manufacture sufficient) mapping for.  You can thusly see a sphere in the first person, or you can "see" yourself looking at a sphere in the third person.  That we mostly have first person experiences is probabl;y more to do with the locality of our sensory apparatus than anything else.  There's a crushing weight of "first person" input, and relatively less third person models of anything.  Obviously it;s not a requirement of operation that it be first person..or else we wouldn't have that third person ability.  Your brain accepts input from your brain just as readily as it accepts input from your eyes.

My computer seems to work okay without it (so far as I know) experiencing what it's like to be a computer. My car seems to drive around pretty well without it (so far as I know) experiencing what it's like to be a car. There's no reason to think that ANY mechanism would need to experience what it is like to be itself in order to function properly. So are you disregard mind as a brute fact, or attempt to explain why one particular mechanism experiences what it's like to be itself?

(September 1, 2016 at 10:35 am)Yoo Wrote: I'm sorry, but I don't really understand your last paragraph. Before I really reply could you explain what you mean by " and relatively less third person models of anything." and "or else we wouldn't have that third person ability."
Do you mean thoughts that you experience, that obvisously aren't direct perceptions from your senses?

No, that wouldn;t be an issue of perspective.  A third person experience...an experience of yourself as viewed from a distance in realtion to other things.  Like placing yourself on a map.  That is a direct perception of your senses...it's just arranged in a different way in the simulation we call perspective from, say, 1st person. You know where you are on that map because you can see both the map and your surroundings. You know what you look like, you know what trees look like. You've seen a creek. Now, our brains can obviously arrange all of this information into the "little man behind the eyes" pov...but they can also step back and give us the "bird overhead" view.

In neither case are we observing brain functions...the brain isn't looking at itself doing things. It's aggregating data, simulating our environment, and our relationship -to- things in our environment.

(September 1, 2016 at 10:37 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(September 1, 2016 at 10:35 am)Yoo Wrote: I'm sorry, but I don't really understand your last paragraph. Before I really reply could you explain what you mean by " and relatively less third person models of anything." and "or else we wouldn't have that third person ability."
Do you mean thoughts that you experience, that obvisously aren't direct perceptions from your senses?

No, that wouldn;t be an issue of perspective.  A third person experience...an experience of yourself as viewed from a distance in realtion to other things.  Like placing yourself on a map.  That is a direct perception of your senses...it's just arranged in a different way in the simulation we call perspective from, say, 1st person.  You know where you are on that map because you can see both the map and your surroundings.  You know what you look like, you know what trees look like.  You've seen a creek. Now, our brains can obviously arrange all of this information into the "little man behind the eyes" pov...but they can also step back and give us the bird overhead view.

Okay but what does that matter?
"So there is this function happening in the brain, looking at it from third pserson perspective. Also, there are qualia happening from a first person perspective at the same time. Would you say the function happening in the brain wouldn't work if there weren't qualia from a first person perspective?"
You wouldn't deny that there is brain activity, right? Now would they work without there being qualia?

(September 1, 2016 at 10:37 am)bennyboy Wrote: My computer seems to work okay without it (so far as I know) experiencing what it's like to be a computer.

Your computer doesn't do what we do.  I'd simply repeat all those questions I just asked of Yoo.  Saying your  computer works fine at what it is without qualia is meaningless and uninformative.  

Quote:My car seems to drive around pretty well without it (so far as I know) experiencing what it's like to be a car.  

-does it do what we do?  Your car is no more human than your computer is...and so this is as uninformative as the last.  The question asked was why -we- experience qualia.  What function it serves in us. Why would evolution produce or preserve it.

Quote:There's no reason to think that ANY mechanism would need to experience what it is like to be itself in order to function properly.  So are you disregard mind as a brute fact, or attempt to explain why one particular mechanism experiences what it's like to be itself?

Hey, if you think that you could develop the relationship you have with your wife without qualia.....then so be it buddy.  Otherwise, it looks like you -do- need qualia to "function properly" -as a human being. The relationship you have with your wife is a function that can be selected for (or, admittedly, against). In the case of human beings, these deep interpersonal relationships formed on the basis of qualia seem to be evolutionarily advantageous, wouldn't you agree?

(September 1, 2016 at 10:42 am)Yoo Wrote: You wouldn't deny that there is brain activity, right? Now would they work without there being qualia?

Work at what............? As in, could you swallow without the qualia associated? I would assume so. We can build a machine that swallows, theres no indication that throatbot experiences qualia on account of that or would need it to satisfy it's function of swallowing.

(September 1, 2016 at 10:50 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(September 1, 2016 at 10:42 am)Yoo Wrote: You wouldn't deny that there is brain activity, right? Now would they work without there being qualia?

Work at what............? As in, could you swallow without the qualia associated?  I would assume so.  We can build a machine that swallows, theres no indication that throatbot experiences qualia on account of that or would need it to satisfy it's function of swallowing.

I have to eat and go to work now, I'd like to continue this discussion later on!