RE: Monist vs. Dualist Experiment?
December 4, 2013 at 5:03 am
(This post was last modified: December 4, 2013 at 5:06 am by genkaus.)
(November 30, 2013 at 1:05 pm)bennyboy Wrote: No. You tried to. There's a difference.
Not in this case.
(November 30, 2013 at 1:05 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Um no. Qualia is the subjective experience of light, sound and senses. Brain function is neurons transmitting signals from nerve endings for processing in the brain.
And that experience is the result of neurons transmitting signals - as evidenced by the fact that manipulation of those transmissions determines the experience.
(November 30, 2013 at 1:05 pm)bennyboy Wrote: That's true. And you claim to know that qualia is brain function, while insisting that the Cyberboy 2000 has qualia despite not having a brain.
Based on the assumption that Cyberboy has been installed with mechanism that replicates brain function.
(November 30, 2013 at 1:05 pm)bennyboy Wrote: A piece of concrete is not a building. And a neuron's contribution to our complex experiences is not the same as experiencing a cup of hot chocolate.
Precisely my point. You need a lot of concrete and other stuff in a specific formation to form a building. And you need a lot of neurons working in a specific way to generate complex experience. It is precisely because a neuron's contribution in forming the experience doesn't itself count as experiential, that I discount the possibility of neural or atomic qualia.
(November 30, 2013 at 1:05 pm)bennyboy Wrote: You've said you don't believe in supervenience, but you are talking very much like someone who does.
My position does not match anyone's who believes in supervenience.
(November 30, 2013 at 1:05 pm)bennyboy Wrote: You can replace "qualia" with "mind" if you want. I'd categorize mind as the medium on which qualia are expressed. But you still have the same philosophical issues: you don't know if anyone else has a mind, and you are left only with your hunch that your own mind is sufficient evidence of others.
Except I do know of others having a mind.
(November 30, 2013 at 1:05 pm)bennyboy Wrote: No, I mean your interpretation of what is observable, and the process by which you draw inferences from it to put forward as positive assertions.
Again, that has been available to you from the beginning.
(November 30, 2013 at 3:00 pm)Chas Wrote:(November 30, 2013 at 8:45 am)genkaus Wrote: Which part would you like explained?
The first sentence.
Its to demonstrate the failure of analogy. Benny claims that I'm assuming that qualia exists and it affects behavior in the same way a theist assumes that god exists and causes sunsets. My response is that unlike a theist, I know my own qualia existing (something we agreed to accept as a brute fact) and I know that it affects my behavior. For the analogy to fit, the theist would similarly have to know of atleast one god's existence and his role in causing sunsets.
