(July 28, 2014 at 4:01 pm)rasetsu Wrote: A case description of cerebral achromatopsia:

The Case Of The Colorblind Painter

Interesting. So what is it exactly that he is missing? He knows about colors, more than most people in some formal sense. Most of all he is acutely aware of missing them.

There is a major class of qualia which he was missing, and for a while he was missing another by not being able to recognize letters. Both of these greatly affected his subjective experience of the world. I guess if you want to see consciousness as a separate layer from the physical world you must think something like ChadWooters. He thinks we are like radio receivers that tune in consciousness. It would account for this Colorblind Painter case, but what an extravagant construct it seems to me.

(July 28, 2014 at 11:05 am)rasetsu Wrote:

(July 28, 2014 at 12:08 am)bennyboy Wrote: I've been pretty clear that I'm talking about the ability to experience qualia.

In cerebral achromatopsia, the ability to experience the qualia of color is lost. Not only are they unable to see things in color, they're unable to imagine colors, and their memories are all colorless. I'd say that's a pretty convincing display that the ability to experience qualia is tied to brain circuitry.

The inability to imagine colors is especially interesting. I don't know whether the other selective brain damage studies I mentioned also include a corresponding ability to process IDEAS. For example, do those who cannot recognize faces have the same problem when they're dreaming, or thinking about their mothers? My guess would be that might be the case. A more blunt observation could have been made, though-- if you shoot someone through the brain, they will no longer experience qualia.

That being said, the philosophical question of capacity isn't really about the link between brain and specific qualia. It's why ANY physical structure, under any circumstance, would experience qualia. Why does anything in the universe have this capacity for the existence of subjective experience, rather than just grinding through its mechanical processes sans esprit?

Quote:I guess if you want to see consciousness as a separate layer from the physical world

I can't speak for Chad, but I'm not thinking of qualia as separate from the rest of the universe-- quite the opposite, in fact. It seems to me that the capacity for mind must be INTRINSIC to the universe, as an essential part of its makeup. The question is why would a bunch of "stuff," grinding through the interaction of the 4 forces we know about and maybe others we don't, at any point see redness as "red," rather than just processing it and outputting a red-appropriate response? Given our current physical understanding, this seems absurd; therefore, I think our current view of the universe is insufficient. Trying to fit mind into a purely physicalist model, with old definitions of matter and forces, fails to explain too much of human experience-- like trying to say Casablanca is just a collection of celluloid film frames being flashed in front of a light.

There's some equivocation here-- because I already know that if the existence of qualia is ever understood, it will be established as a new physical force, rule, or mechanism. I'd prefer to refer simply to the "universe," than to start talking about layers or parallel universes, or layers, or whatever. There's reality, and it is what it is-- we just haven't got as much of it figured out as some would say.

Well, and again, by reference to the equipment, of course your experience -would- be subjective. It isn't someone else's eyes or ears you experience things with, and it isn't someone else's brain that processes that information. So I suppose the only other requirement for subjective experience to exist is for the universe to be one that -can be- experienced. That sets the bar pretty low, doesn't it?

Quote:"red," rather than just processing it

"red" -is- "processing it". That's why you and I probably don't have the same color in mind when we say "red" - even though we're talking about the same spot on the spectrum.

(July 28, 2014 at 6:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Well, and again, by reference to the equipment, of course your experience -would- be subjective. It isn't someone else's eyes or ears you experience things with, and it isn't someone else's brain that processes that information. So I suppose the only other requirement for subjective experience to exist is for the universe to be one that -can be- experienced. That sets the bar pretty low, doesn't it?

I'm not talking about whether experience is or isn't subjective. Of course it is. I'm talking about why there IS a subjective anything rather than a lack of it. What about this universe, which is supposed to be a deterministic interplay of four fundemental forces and energy in different states over time, requires/allows anything like a subjective perspective?

Quote:

Quote:"red," rather than just processing it

"red" -is- "processing it". That's why you and I probably don't have the same color in mind when we say "red" - even though we're talking about the same spot on the spectrum.

So what color are x-rays? To a computer which has a physical apparatus which can measure them, they presumably are not a color at all. Just input, processing, output.

" Why does anything in the universe have this capacity for the existence of subjective experience, rather than just grinding through its mechanical processes sans esprit?"

"What about this universe, which is supposed to be a deterministic interplay of four fundemental forces and energy in different states over time, requires/allows anything like a subjective perspective?"

Being astonished by something which has already come to pass seems like a poor foundation for an argument. Who are we to say what the universe is supposed to be or not be? Sorry, I'm just not feeling it.

(July 29, 2014 at 2:41 am)whateverist Wrote: " Why does anything in the universe have this capacity for the existence of subjective experience, rather than just grinding through its mechanical processes sans esprit?"

"What about this universe, which is supposed to be a deterministic interplay of four fundemental forces and energy in different states over time, requires/allows anything like a subjective perspective?"

Being astonished by something which has already come to pass seems like a poor foundation for an argument. Who are we to say what the universe is supposed to be or not be? Sorry, I'm just not feeling it.

Strange. You wouldn't feel uncomfortable asking "Why does the universe exist, rather than not?" would you?

The existence of mind is strange because the academic context we are mainly working in is a purely physical model. You often get stuff like "qualia is just the experience of brain chemistry," and the person saying it actually believes he's giving an answer. Fine-- what exactly about brain chemistry, or about lobe X, or about a single neuron, causes qualia to exist rather than not to? Anyone who thinks it's less than a complete mystery is, in my opinion, acting more on dogma than on curiosity.

(July 29, 2014 at 7:49 am)bennyboy Wrote: Strange. You wouldn't feel uncomfortable asking "Why does the universe exist, rather than not?" would you?

I'd probably have to recluse myself since my preexisting experience of the universe might tend to prejudice my decision. That, and I'm a champion of common sense and plain talk.

(July 29, 2014 at 7:49 am)bennyboy Wrote: The existence of mind is strange because the academic context we are mainly working in is a purely physical model. You often get stuff like "qualia is just the experience of brain chemistry," and the person saying it actually believes he's giving an answer. Fine-- what exactly about brain chemistry, or about lobe X, or about a single neuron, causes qualia to exist rather than not to? Anyone who thinks it's less than a complete mystery is, in my opinion, acting more on dogma than on curiosity.

But that would be like someone pounding the table as they insist the table is far from solid since its actual particles are few and widely spaced. In the same way, whatever we find out in the lab about how what happens in the brain maps to reports of first person reports of subjective states .. none of that can ever be subjective experience itself. The experience of consciousness is no more dismissible as brain chemistry than the solidity of the table is on account of small particle physics. I think this may be your point.

What I don't understand is why you think organic chemistry cannot account for consciousness just as well as it does for digestion. What we know about consciousness directly can never be falsified because we are that. But I see no reason consciousness cannot have a perfectly natural place in the world. In the same way, humanity is special to us because we are that, even though humanity is one of many mammalian species that has evolved right along with every other creature in existence .. quite naturally.

(July 28, 2014 at 8:39 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I'm not talking about whether experience is or isn't subjective. Of course it is. I'm talking about why there IS a subjective anything rather than a lack of it.

Because the requirements are damned low....and it's a big universe? Think we touched on that a few pages back?

Quote:What about this universe, which is supposed to be a deterministic interplay of four fundemental forces and energy in different states over time, requires/allows anything like a subjective perspective?

That it is a universe in which experience can exist, and a universe which has within it entities who possess the equipment to avail themselves of that. Low bar. What about those four fundamental forces, or deterministic interplay...would make this seem strange?

Quote:So what color are x-rays? To a computer which has a physical apparatus which can measure them, they presumably are not a color at all. Just input, processing, output.

That's a good question. I don't know how we would experience that, if we could. There are certainly some fairly interesting arrangements in this world. Dogs can "smell" atomic weight, for example. We don't think of it like that - but that's what bomb sniffing dogs are doing. Bats "see" sound. "Color" -is- "processing".

(July 30, 2014 at 2:41 am)whateverist Wrote: What I don't understand is why you think organic chemistry cannot account for consciousness just as well as it does for digestion. What we know about consciousness directly can never be falsified because we are that. But I see no reason consciousness cannot have a perfectly natural place in the world. In the same way, humanity is special to us because we are that, even though humanity is one of many mammalian species that has evolved right along with every other creature in existence .. quite naturally.

Organic chemistry can account for consciousness in the same way that the properties of various metals can account for the strenght of steel. We know that where there's a brain with certain functions, we have a person who seems to be conscious (and accept with a near-total confidence that the person isn't a philosophical zombie or something).

But digestion and cosciousness are different in an important way. There's nothing about digestion (so far as anyone has suggested) that cannot be studied PURELY in terms of the chemistry and mechanics of that system. Consciousness cannot be studied in this way-- you cannot observe a brain and know exactly what it is like for someone to experience their environment or ideas.

(July 30, 2014 at 11:00 am)bennyboy Wrote: Organic chemistry can account for consciousness in the same way that the properties of various metals can account for the strenght of steel. We know that where there's a brain with certain functions, we have a person who seems to be conscious (and accept with a near-total confidence that the person isn't a philosophical zombie or something).

But digestion and cosciousness are different in an important way. There's nothing about digestion (so far as anyone has suggested) that cannot be studied PURELY in terms of the chemistry and mechanics of that system. Consciousness cannot be studied in this way-- you cannot observe a brain and know exactly what it is like for someone to experience their environment or ideas.

Of course studying is an activity which takes place within the domain of consciousness rather than digestion. When we think about what consciousness might be we do so within a function of consciousness itself. When we think about anything else (besides the consciousness of other beings) we are quite content with third person accounts. Empirical evidence is then the gold standard. I would suggest that the something extra you attribute to consciousness has less to do with what it is than it does with the fact that we are that.