If beauty doesn't require God, why should morality? (Bite me Dr. Craig.)

[bennyboy]

If somehow we are able to directly interact with qualia (maybe via a kind of "mental field" produced electromagnetically or something), then I'll change my opinion.

Doesn't sound any more direct than interacting with qualia via chemicals or sound, or visual stimulation. All of which we're currently capable of doing. I suppose that there are two ways of reading that statement , but it would hold under either. I imagine that sort of thing though (a mental field) would take a very long time. We can't expect that we all "speak the same language", regardless of whether it's mechanical or "other".

It's true that we can interact with qualia, but not directly. If, for example, you could electronically create a large field, independent of the mechanism of neurons, and anyone standing it would have an "experience," I'd say that would be a very direct interaction. Or if you could record someone's "field," inject it into someone else's "field," and have complete agreement between them in describing the resultant experience.

We probably all agree that experience is unlikely to work this way, especially in our lifetimes, but that would be the kind of thing that would make qualia a candidate for a mechanical description, rather than a philosophical two-step.

As for the "same language," I would expect someone to say something like, "I felt I completely understood what was being said, but when they turned off the field, I realized I had no idea."

[The Grand Nudger]

What would be "receiving" such a message? I'm not sure we ever really see anything like that as is, subjective experience sans brain activity (and why would you consider the generation of a field to be direct, whereas our other methods are not, what's the difference - fundamentally or in function?). From my pov, that would definitely establish that qualia -was not- mechanical. Why would we forget once the field had been disabled? I mean, obviously, you don't have to have the answers, but it's fun to muse over.

[bennyboy]

What would be "receiving" such a message?

That's a good question. The point is that the "fields" of two minds would be directly interacting in a kind of as-yet-undiscovered mechanism. So the "receiver" wouldn't be the brain, it would be the field generated by the brain, and would affect the person's experiences without them having to have the 1:1 brain chemistry:qualia that we normally consider the most likely candidate for the reality of experience.

This may sound woo-woo, but at least it would make qualia a functional property, like the magnetic properties of two iron bars, rather than a non-functional property, incental to the mechanical functioning of the brain that doesn't (so far as anyone can sensibly explain) need it as part of any meaningful formula or algorithm that we can apply to it.

I'm not sure we ever really see anything like that as is, subjective experience sans brain activity (and why would you consider the generation of a field to be direct, whereas our other methods are not, what's the difference - fundamentally or in function?).

As far as I know, there are no properties of things which can't interact with other things or their properties. Redness affects our eyes independent of any of an apple's other properties. But qualia does not seem to-- we are affected directly by the physical markers of a behavior, and the qualia behind them remain opaque and irrelevant.

From my pov, that would definitely establish that qualia -was not- mechanical. Why would we forget once the field had been disabled? I mean, obviously, you don't have to have the answers, but it's fun to muse over.

Well, I'm really pulling stuff out of the southern hemisphere here, but I'd say that a vicarious experience would be complete, and would include all parts of the "broadcaster's" memories. But once that was turned off, you wouldn't have access to any of their linguistic knowledge, and the words would no longer have meaning, even if you could remember the sounds or symbols representing them.

However, hmmmm, maybe it's possible that you might have your OWN symbols that would light up in response, and that the vicarious memory might be partly integrated into your own brain. I suppose that's like Neo in the Matrix learning karate.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure that would make it any more a functional quality than it already is, by whatever means. More a difference in how it is generated (or by what) than what it's worth, what it can be used for, whether or not it has a function. I'm getting the feeling that you aren't thinking of an electric field, as such, but more like a qualia field-straight up?

I don't remember a lick of spanish, but I still remember the sorts of dirty nothings I'd whisper into my first girlfriends ear. I suppose I was taking notes in my own native language as well, and those are all I remember. I have to go from whatever it is to english then back to whatever it is, personally. I've always assumed that alot of people did this with non-native languages, do you translate when you speak, or does it just "work"?

[bennyboy]

I'm not sure that would make it any more a functional quality than it already is, by whatever means. More a difference in how it is generated (or by what) than what it's worth, what it can be used for, whether or not it has a function. I'm getting the feeling that you aren't thinking of an electric field, as such, but more like a qualia field-straight up?

I wouldn't know how to define it, but yes, I'm saying for qualia to be useful/meaningful in a mechanical description of the universe, it would have to have some means of interacting with either other systems or other qualia. It's been argued that since qualia is (supposed to be) just brain function, then our behaviors are subjective expressions of our qualia. However, if qualia are a property of brain function, then the diagram looks something like:

(qualia)<->brain function --> behavior --> other person -->brain function <->(qualia)

But unless qualia have another interface with the universe other than brain function, then brain function --> behavior --> other person --> brain function is fully sufficient.

I think the first model more meaningfully describes reality as I know it. So unless qualia is a magical link between brain and soul, or brain and another dimension, or brain and the Mind of God or something, I would look for it to interact in some way with the universe; it doesn't make sense to say it interacts with brain function. Elsewise, it is a strange logical eddy-- flowing one way, and affecting nothing.

The only things we know which interact with each other, and which supervene as properties of objects while not really being explained by those objects, are magnetism and gravity. So right now, I'd argue qualia might be something like that.