(August 18, 2016 at 12:51 am)Rhythm Wrote: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.(August 18, 2016 at 12:16 am)bennyboy Wrote: No, I do not believe a camera sees anything.I wasn't asking you about your beliefs, though, was I? I asked you if what you called seeing red was qualitatively or quantitatively different from what other matter, such as camera, is doing. It's going to take more than "I don't believe cameras see" to respond to -that- question.
Quote:You already asked that question, and I already answered it. I didn't wave at the brain at all, didn't even mention it.......strange, it's the only part of my post you -didn't- include in your quotes, and it's the very first portion of my previous response. I;'ll repeat it, for your benefit. Fundamentally, that matter can interact. You asked, and asked again, what could allow for the experience. If you expect a full or satisfying explanation of the experience then perhaps you should ask for that instead, and probably not to me? I only know enough to dispense with the low hanging fruit that people so often put forward as some sort of deepity.........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.
Quote:How serious can you possibly be about this shit if you insist that nuerology is "waving at the brain" btw, I've wanted to ask you that for a long time. Seems appropriate now, since you've started to repeat it like you're trying to cast a spell.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.
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.
Quote:(I distinctly remember having had this conversation with you before...and iirc..we came to a mutual understanding. Really don't know why it's flared up again. You find all of this "brainwaiving" unsatisfying, for a host of reasons...some that I can understand, and some that make me say "wtf?"...that doesn't mean it's insufficient. You don't like the explanations offered, for a host of reasons, some that I understand and some that make me say "wtf?"....that doesn't make the phenomena inexplicable, even if it is partially or wholly unexplained.)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.
It's a non-trivial difference given the nature of the OP.
