RE: Trying to simplify my Consciousness hypothesis
February 16, 2017 at 9:54 pm
(This post was last modified: February 16, 2017 at 9:59 pm by bennyboy.)
(February 16, 2017 at 9:43 pm)Khemikal Wrote:I can easily be proven wrong. Show what systems do/do not have subjective experience, and that there IS a critical mass of function at which something non-experiencing suddenly allows for experience. 1, 2, 3. . . GO!(February 16, 2017 at 9:05 pm)bennyboy Wrote:IOW there is nothing known to exist that you would consider a distal cause. There is no point at which you would consider this particular question answered. An army of distal causes between the proximate cause and the big bang, but none satisfy.
What's the distal cause of the existence of matter? The Big Bang? Whatever quantity/principle/process allowed for it?
Quote:I disagree, what is the distal cause of whatever unknown thing you would call a distal cause, so on and so forth, ad infinitum. Do you see the problem with the way you've approached the question -and- determined your own answer? Yu have no ore reason to call that unknown thing the distal cause of qualia than anything between it, and objecting in the way hat you have is self defeating.The distal cause need not be infinite. If qualia are purely material, I'll be satisfied with you showing the exact physical structure which is minimally necessary for the most basic elements of subjective experience. An actual mechanism would be nice, but I'm not even gonna ask you for that.
You're searching for something like an ultimate cause. I don;t know what that ulimate ause is, neither do you. Not knowing it won't make any of the intermediate distals any less effective, though.
Quote:Do you think that rocks are able to know what something is like?Nope. But I believe it's possible that there are subsystems, even in a rock, which do. I'd look first to QM particles, then to energetic interactions in the form of photon absorption or electric exchange.
Now, I don't know this to be the case, but you have some work to do. You do not believe that qualia or consciousness are intrinsic the the Universe or to the matter in it-- you believe that it is under particular circumstances that even the most primitive mind comes into being. So explain what this critical mass is, and provide evidence for it.
(February 16, 2017 at 9:35 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: It seems that qualia, as in the case of the bat, is tied to the type of sensory systems that an organism has. It makes no sense to extend that insight into organisms and systems that have no sensory apparatus. It is a leap to suggest that you can have qualia without senses. What evidence are you drawing upon to suggest that qualia can exist without senses? It makes as much sense to suppose that a bat doesn't have qualia for sonar, the link between senses and qualia is that strong.Well, what's a sense? At its most basic, it is a system which can take in energy from outside itself, and use this to inform a behavior. An electron can absorb a photon, and its increased energy causes it to vibrate more. Has the atom "sensed" the electron? This might sound silly, but you'll have to determine at what stage of organization something "senses" if you are going to arrive at the "critical mass for qualia" I've been talking about.
I'm not an expert in physics, but it seems to me the observer effect demonstrates that even simple particles are capable of reacting to aspects of their environment.
