(January 22, 2022 at 9:32 pm)GrandizerII Wrote:(January 22, 2022 at 12:17 pm)polymath257 Wrote: And if the circuitry is detecting and processing the 'feeling of love', then it *is* the feeling of love in the first person.
In the first person ... how does that switch to first person work? And one in which love is felt? How does the "non-feely" electrochemical process translate to the first-person "feely" experience which appears to be as if it did not arise from the firings of neurons? Why does the experience seem qualitatively different from physical stuff including the underlying neurons or their processes?
There is no 'switch to the first person'. The first person perspective is the one to whom it happens. So, if a creature with a brain detects the color red, that is what it *means* for that creature to 'see red' and that is the first person perspective for that creature.
Quote:You seem to be taking the switch to first-person for granted, but the hard problem is partly asking about that
And once again, I don't see a hard problem at all. It is simply who something happens to. if I am the one whose brain is processing the information, then I am the one with the first person experience of it.
Quote:
(January 22, 2022 at 12:17 pm)polymath257 Wrote: I was pointing out that it is *logically possible* for air not to be a mixture. You seem to be focused on logical possibility as the standard.
Unless I'm misunderstanding this quote here, I'm not focusing on the logical possibility. It doesn't matter if air is hawayawaya and temperature is tabbalaabilou, and it doesn't matter if we didn't know in the past that air is hawayawaya and temperature is tabbalaabilou. Whatever you're equating air to now, the point is that in this air is just a label you're applying to hawayawaya. It is not something more than that.
Quote:The better analogy is that of temperature. There is no logical requirement that what we measure as temperature is the result of molecular motion. But, in fact, it is the *product* of molecular motion. Talking about temperature and talking about molecular motion are the *same thing* in our universe, just from different perspectives.
Ok, but you also said temperature IS the average kinetic energy of the molecules (per your statement in a prior post). You observe the motion of the molecules, measure the average kinetic energy, and that there is temperature.
Quote:Analogously, the activity of neurons and consciousness is simply the same thing in this universe, but from different perspectives (that from the outside and that internally).
It's not the same. In the temperature analogy, there is no internal perspective. Otherwise, you're including your/my internal perspective which is what we're trying to explain in the first place.
I don't see what needs to be explained: I have a first person experience because it is my rain that processes the information. it seems trivial to me.