RE: If beauty doesn't require God, why should morality? (Bite me Dr. Craig.)
July 28, 2014 at 6:29 pm
(This post was last modified: July 28, 2014 at 6:47 pm by bennyboy.)
(July 28, 2014 at 11:05 am)rasetsu Wrote: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.(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.
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 worldI 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.