Knowledge of Qualia or Subjective States

[Whateverist]

While I've included a poll to get some idea what most of us think about the importance of this subject, I'm really much more interested in what in particular people think about it. Where to begin? Is there knowledge to be had regarding such things? Can that knowledge be confirmed interpersonally? If you answered yes to either of these questions, then how does one best approach the acquisition of such knowledge, and, having acquired it what is it good for?

Since we and our minds are obviously in the world we all inhabit, the phenomena of our minds (or souls or spirits if you prefer) obviously have their place. What place is that? Answers will vary from the garbage can for nonsense to the pinnacle of all wisdom.

Whatever importance we may attach to qualia we are all intimately acquainted with such things. Phenomenologically we can describe them in some detail when it comes to dreams and waking fantasies and the stuff of altered states.

Arguably every experience is buffered by qualia but that is further than I care to go. If true, it would seem to be so banal an observation as not to bear mentioning. However, I do think there is an important distinction between consensual knowledge of the sort for which science is appropriate and user-knowledge of the workings of our minds. Our position in approaching qualia is obviously different than it is for objective knowledge. We should all tread more carefully here in either promoting or disparaging any particular point of view.

Now on another thread Chad has made the claim that atheism undermines our knowledge by dismissing something he sees as key to understanding something important about our existence. I would invite him to say specifically what he thinks that is and also to say what exactly it is about atheism which disadvantages us in the way he claims. I'll have plenty to say myself but this already exceeds the length most of us will want to wade through.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Thank you, Whateverist, for posing the question so succinctly. As you mentioned, I may have overreached elsewhere and the title of that thread produced too many tangents.

At this time, readers should understand that references I make to non-physical things, causes, or events, should not be construed as references to gods, the paranormal, or even Platonic forms. For the purpose of this discussion, I refer only to qualities associated with mental phenomena, like qualia and intentionality, as distinct from physical phenomena.

A common opinion among AF members is that these are just different ways of describing the same thing. To me that answer begs the question. By saying that subjective/objective distinctions refer to the same aspect of reality is to presume that one description reduces to the other without leaving any form of knowledge behind. But the objective description in no way coveys any of the qualitative aspects of the subjective experience. So I believe this opinion leaves much to be desired. In short, it does not explain everything that needs to be explained.

Here are some areas where I believe ignoring the relevance of the qualitative experience yields only a partial understanding of reality:

First, the validity of science presupposes kinds of knowledge, qualitative in nature, which cannot be derived solely from observation and inductive reasoning alone. For example, descriptions of physical things and processes are facts, they are not ‘about’ anything until assigned significance by an intelligent agent. Also, physical reality is continuous and seamless such that identification of any particular event as a ‘cause’ to a certain ‘effect’ tacitly assigns necessary teleological properties to the causal chain.

Secondly, reduction of qualitative knowledge to quantifiable knowledge produces category errors that lead to absurd conclusions, like attributing mental properties to simple mechanical operations or denying the existence of felt experience altogether. All talk about ‘emergent properties’ disguises this category error.

Finally, limiting our investigation of the world to only physical things and events precludes finding plausible links between the humanities and the natural sciences.

While this list is far from exhaustive and many examples will be needed to clarify each point, this should at least get the conversation started.

[Whateverist]

Secondly, reduction of qualitative knowledge to quantifiable knowledge produces category errors that lead to absurd conclusions, like attributing mental properties to simple mechanical operations or denying the existence of felt experience altogether. All talk about ‘emergent properties’ disguises this category error.

This is the point that interests me. I'm fine with qualitative knowledge not being reducible to quantifiable knowledge but I would add it is reasonable to suppose that the reverse is also true. The knowledge that science gains us is not dependent on nor reducible to qualitative knowledge. We are not in danger of 'waking up' to find that what science has revealed was but a dream. As a truce I would offer that both qualitative and quantifiable knowledge are capable of standing on their own and neither is reducible to the other.

If you wished to study qualitative knowledge in an open and careful manner I don't think you could do better than a phenomenological approach. If we find commonalities we might begin to get some sense of what is the nature of qualia in themselves. But I anticipate that we would never (could never?) experience anything that doesn't have a quantitative analogue. All our reference points come from the objective world and so that is the language we must bring to describe what we find.

Recognizing that to be the case it would be essential to understand that everything we use to describe our subjective experience must be understood to have an "as-if" quality. The literal must be abandoned or at least understood in a different, poetic or symbolic way. None of this is my own idea but rather what I understand from depth psychology, from Jung to Hillman. But it has informed the way I approach the philosophic problems of the self and psychology.

That will have to do for a start. Gotta get to work.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You seem to accept the idea that mental processes are solely physical in nature and thus reducible in principle, if not in practice. And you advocate allowing each area of knowledge to stand on its own. This seems reasonable since progress has been made in each. No one disputes the success of the scientific revolution. Nor does anyone dispute the fact that much of its success came from focusing exclusively on quantifiable material interactions by means of efficient cause. Likewise, continued study in the humanities has brought to light many insights about the human condition. (The arts, I fear, have not fared so well.)

Despite these benefits, the strict division between qualitative and quantitative knowledge has come at great cost. People generally agree that technological advances must be balanced with ethical boundaries. But finding a rational basis for achieving that balance has proved elusive. Academic post-modern thought has become entirely self-referential and left us with extreme cultural relativism. Meanwhile scientism give no quarter to libertarian free will or human dignity. It seems to me that if balance is to be found, it must come from a theoretical framework that encompasses and links both types of knowledge, a TOE+ (explained below).

One recent goal of physics is to formulate a Theory of Everything (TOE) that links general relativity with quantum mechanics. In my opinion a Theory of Everything & More, or TOE+, if you will, would also reconcile disparate realms of knowledge. A TOE+ would give you a framework for understanding relationships between the arts, humanities and sciences. More importantly a TOE+ would also reveal areas of interdependence and mutual influence.

So while I agree that learning can continue within each of these fields of study without a Theory of Everything & More. However a TOE+ could potentially lead to an even better understanding about nature and the human condition.

[Whateverist]

You seem to accept the idea that mental processes are solely physical in nature and thus reducible in principle, if not in practice. And you advocate allowing each area of knowledge to stand on its own. This seems reasonable since progress has been made in each. No one disputes the success of the scientific revolution.

I see them as entirely different in kind but also mutually dependent. Yes, material and biological processes support the brains/chakras/what-have-you which give physical support for minds/souls/etc. Likewise, without minds to make sense of it, 'knowledge' is reduced to bits of text on paper or online. Even if we thought that "facts" were independent of an observer, belief -and with it knowledge- are not independent in the same way. The part of the universe which cares about outcomes and judges the truth value of claims is a pretty special subset of what exists .. at least to those of us who partake in that.

Academic post-modern thought has become entirely self-referential and left us with extreme cultural relativism. Meanwhile scientism give no quarter to libertarian free will or human dignity. It seems to me that if balance is to be found, it must come from a theoretical framework that encompasses and links both types of knowledge..

I think the important balance to be struck is internal, between our capacity for deductive reasoning and our intuitive, mostly unconscious mind. In some ways I react to your projects here and on the last thread as an attempt to establish a theory of everything which is rule-governed and logical. That, as I see it, would be a total win for the conscious mind, leaving our conception of the rest of our mind's capacity to be defined by the victor - rather than on its own terms.

[Ryantology]

A common opinion among AF members is that these are just different ways of describing the same thing. To me that answer begs the question. By saying that subjective/objective distinctions refer to the same aspect of reality is to presume that one description reduces to the other without leaving any form of knowledge behind. But the objective description in no way coveys any of the qualitative aspects of the subjective experience. So I believe this opinion leaves much to be desired. In short, it does not explain everything that needs to be explained.

It does leave much to be desired, and it is an answer we desire as much as you do. But, I'm willing to wait until we understand more about the question to give it the best answer.

You're right in that every experience we have requires some amount of interpretation, even those we generally consider to be objective. But, to equivocate all subjective experiences is not honest. Our puny primate brains work best when they cooperate, and there are many subjective experiences which can be shared, compared, and scrutinized. Is the color of the sky blue? Everybody who has fully-functional eyes can agree on this. Most of us have eyes which allow us to interpret the sky in such a way that it does not appear differently to us. We're operating by group consensus, and the more people who agree with the consensus, the more we can trust it to be an accurate representation of reality.

When we're talking about events which cannot, in any way, be shared like this, how can we trust any of it? When we hear you guys talk about revelation and private messages from God, you understand that if the vast majority of people on earth had experiences just as any individual stated, we would believe it. We do not dispute you merely out of principle. It just sounds terribly shady when the only people who get messages from the Christian God are current Christians. What is it you see, and how is it you can know that it is not a trick of the mind? We know the mind plays lots of tricks on us. We know that hallucinations are possible and they can affect every sense we have. When it comes right down to it, you, Chad Wooters, must decide to interpret these sensations as communication from God. How can you do this? How do you trust your own ability to decode your sensations to know that it is God, and that it cannot be anything else? This is why I cannot call such phenomena 'knowledge'. You cannot even verify it for yourself, much less anybody else. All you really know is that you had an experience. Even when you attempt to explain it as a supernatural occurrence which is impervious to our scrutiny, that doesn't exempt you. It is as impervious to your scrutiny as ours.

That's faith, and it's blind faith. You are hoping you are right, but it is only a guess. It is not, and cannot be, knowledge. You are just as physical as we are.