tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post3465839564432440397..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Inverted qualiaUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49684621015880955342009-12-06T23:46:33.700-05:002009-12-06T23:46:33.700-05:00Massimo,
"P2: It is conceivable that the rela...Massimo,<br />"P2: It is conceivable that the relationship between qualia and physical states of the brain be different from what it actually is."<br /><br />Doesn't this assertion beg the question, "What is actuality?" I seem to remember Descartes' meditations and Hume's "brain in a vat" theory explored the very question and I'm not sure that "actual reality" has been established. Discoveries in quantum physics has shown that our physical world is indeed much different than what has been generally accepted. Maybe our perceptions or "qualia" if you will, actually define reality. In other words the only reality that actually exists is the one contained within one's head!Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12470122906255222769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-23534904927928858812009-12-03T06:25:12.036-05:002009-12-03T06:25:12.036-05:00Blue Ridge:
Good stuff, especially 'intersubj...Blue Ridge:<br /><br />Good stuff, especially 'intersubjective'. I would add that there are many infinite sets of B5 floating around, one set has been discussed, the set that travels over the airwaves or other public spaces. Another set is in your personal space, and that is the number of messages you can interpret as B5. <br /><br />Then you talk about reality, or at least I think you do, when you say Beethoven wrote one 5th Symphony.<br /><br />I know many people grounded and rooted in philosophy are getting tired of what they might call quantum claptrap and modern scientific speculation, but any number of Beethovens may have written or still be writing or will write this piece of music. It's science, man (or woman?). Just because it's new and bizarre, it should not be discounted.<br /><br />Moving back to the top of your post I understand why you and Massimo want to stay away from the mystical (which I believe in, and for which I have a fairly dry explanation) and non-physicalism (which makes no sense to me).<br /><br />Learning and classifying stuff is just another evolutionary process. First we had only Matter, the rest was hanging out somewhere in the Ether. Then we got to Matter and Energy (the rest was mumbo-jumbo) Now we have Matter, Energy, and Information. It is a recent development, and it is so because there is no other way to talk about the bits and pieces that we are made of. Energy just does not cut it for reasons that a quantum physicists can explain much more coherently than I can.<br /><br />Once one accepts the idea of information, and its quite the difficult thing to do, the next question is how does it work. We are forced to turn to the things we created - information systems, study them, draw conclusions and apply them to our own 'physical' world.DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-47302191757629722872009-12-03T01:53:19.280-05:002009-12-03T01:53:19.280-05:00Massimo:
I think we have reached agreement. No &#...Massimo:<br /><br />I think we have reached agreement. No 'mystical' stuff (whatever that would mean). "Non-physicalism about biological specices"... I guess you are talking about Creationism? My opinion is that darwinian evolution is adequate to explain speciation.<br /><br /><i>... it is the processing of stimuli in our brains (another physical process!) that allows us to distinguish the Fifth from random radio waves.</i><br /><br />Good point... saying that the Fifth or whatever is an "intersubjective object" implies that one can "subjectively" identify it... a suitably educated person has (includes? acquires?) a "Beethoven's Fifth detector" which responds to appropriate sensory stimulation, which exists at some similar "higher" ontological level as the object itself.<br /><br />I do think this notion of "higher level properties" is very important. Taking the canonical form of The Fifth to be an audio stream, it appears to be just one of a practical infinity of possible streams, in no way distinguished, and in that sense "unpredictable" from however complete knowledge of the behavior of chemical mixtures such as air. So the emergence of intersubjective objects (and corresponding detectors) allows the creation of a "non-physical" universe of discourse..."fictional", if you like... that isn't restricted to behaving "realistically". Like Mathematics. I think that must be where "values" come from.<br /><br />perspicio:<br /><i>...I'm dubious of the idea that it is something specific at all, other than an abstract concept. In fact, there are a great many concepts that could be labeled Beethoven's symphony, depending on who you ask. But the sheet music, the CD, the radio waves, etc. are not concepts; they are phenomena.</i><br /><br />Yes, instances of B's 5th are always "phenomena". I prefer "intersubjective object" to "abstract concept". "Concept" is dangerously close to a kind of "mental state": unnecessary, and excessively speculative. And there's nothing "abstract" about it. There are (always) borderline cases and undereducated guesses, but "we know what we mean". <br /><br />There aren't "a great many" Beethoven's Fifths... just the one that Beethoven wrote.Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10215784276660875929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57403635932969753682009-12-02T07:32:58.085-05:002009-12-02T07:32:58.085-05:00perspicio:
there is a common thread in your post,...perspicio:<br /><br />there is a common thread in your post, and it comes out in the 2nd para. You are separating mind from body. I think it is wrong to do that. <br /><br />Pls do keep in mind when we use the word "you" it is a loaded word that means whatever we want it to mean in terms of mental vs. physical processes.<br /><br />Anyway, by way of reply. P1.S3: Yes you do, P1.S4: Yes you do P1.S5 I believe events are the sum of the sender, receiver, and transmitted information. I cannot prove this, it is just a way of looking at things. P1.S6 Conceptualization is a process that takes place in the rock travelling over the water at a much faster rate much faster than usual.<br /><br />P2: At the risk of offending silicon molecules used to transmit this message, I am demoting the intellect to the level of the rockDaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-24304269375380514712009-12-02T07:13:03.026-05:002009-12-02T07:13:03.026-05:00But there are ways of knowing that an event has ta...But there are ways of knowing that an event has taken place that do not involve conceptualization. Sensory awareness, for one. You don't need to conceptualize a rock flying toward your head to see it doing so. You don't need to conceptualize pain to feel it. These are events, and they matter. Conceptualization may (or may not) be a value-added process in this or other cases, but the idea that it is the only thing that matters is incorrect.<br /><br />Unless I am drastically misunderstanding you, your view applies the Peter Principle to the intellect, promoting it beyond the role for which its qualitites and attributes are well-suited.perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67440032792758098152009-12-02T00:39:02.684-05:002009-12-02T00:39:02.684-05:00perspicio:
The receiver conceptualizes the inform...perspicio:<br /><br />The receiver conceptualizes the information sent from some source that induces the receiver to think that an event has taken place.DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-73361981994474949452009-12-02T00:03:55.627-05:002009-12-02T00:03:55.627-05:00DaveS,
Without an actual event, what would there ...DaveS,<br /><br />Without an actual event, what would there be to conceptualize about?perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-25687675980314373562009-12-01T22:28:58.309-05:002009-12-01T22:28:58.309-05:00perspicio:
It seems like it involves the conflati...perspicio:<br /><br /><i>It seems like it involves the conflation of actual events with conceptualizations of those events by the human mind.</i><br /><br />I'm not sure what 'actual events' means. I think the only thing that matters is a conceptualization of an event.DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-87664573079643951662009-12-01T18:39:08.821-05:002009-12-01T18:39:08.821-05:00Again I feel obliged to be clear in retrospect. Ma...Again I feel obliged to be clear in retrospect. Massimo, I was not offering a contrary view to your statements about the symphony. In fact, I'm pretty certain what I said was consistent with them.perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63631947184883685712009-12-01T18:34:02.497-05:002009-12-01T18:34:02.497-05:00Massimo,
I don't think that everything can be...Massimo,<br /><br />I don't think that everything can be considered information under this description. Only ordered energy qualifies. Also, in this context I think entropy and information are complementary concepts, not equivalent ones, since entropy refers to the disordered energy of a system.<br /><br />By ordered and disordered, I mean in a definitive state versus in an indefinitive state.<br /><br />When it comes to Beethoven's symphony, I'm dubious of the idea that it is something specific at all, other than an abstract concept. In fact, there are a great many concepts that could be labeled Beethoven's symphony, depending on who you ask. But the sheet music, the CD, the radio waves, etc. are not concepts; they are phenomena. To someone who has no such concept, none of these would be Beethoven's symphony. Unlike the parallel discussion of information taking place in this thread, these forms of ordered energy DO need to be understood in order to be properly termed "Beethoven's symphony." Concepts are not attributes of any phenomena other than the mind.perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-53495758360322107782009-12-01T16:25:27.664-05:002009-12-01T16:25:27.664-05:00ok, I will go with Searle here. Just as long as we...ok, I will go with Searle here. Just as long as we don't confuse ontological statu for either physical existence or an excuse to talk about mystical stuff. <br /><br />(I mean "species" as a category of living organisms probably has its own ontological status, but that doesn't license any non-physicalism about biological species, right?)<br /><br />Of course, going back to your example of Beethoven's symphony, I would simply say that it is the processing of stimuli in our brains (another physical process!) that allows us to distinguish the Fifth from random radio waves. Once again, so?...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50765999291879834952009-12-01T12:09:05.118-05:002009-12-01T12:09:05.118-05:00Massimo:
I still don't get why a file of Beeth...Massimo:<br /><i>I still don't get why a file of Beethoven's symphony is non-physical. A radio broadcast is a form of energy, right?</i><br /><br />To be sure. The point is that if you look at it just from a physical point of view, the etheric wiggles of the radio broadcast don't have anything much in common with the ink dots of the printed score, or anomalies in the metallic coating on a CD, etc. The broadcast appears to have more in common with a broadcast of a Grateful Dead concert. If we like, we are entitled to ignore the sameness of the broadcast and the CD and concentrate on the sameness of the two broadcasts... that's how radios work. The sameness of all radio broadcasts can be justified on purely physical grounds, but I don't see how you can justify a musical understanding of these samenesses and differences without understanding the respective encoding schemes.<br /><br />So what is it that is "the same" under all encodings? ... Note that we can still recognize the Fifth even if it is played very badly, in the wrong key, scored for glockenspiel chorus, etc, so it isn't simply identity of the acoustic stream decoded to a canonical audible form. I don't see how 'The Symphony' can be held to be a physical object. Or a set of physical objects. But it certainly is <i>something</i>; It belongs to a non-physical intersubjective ontological category.<br /><br />I keep saying, whatever The Symphony is, we never encounter it except encoded in some physical object having a provenance derived in a completely causal fashion from LvB's pen. <br /><br />I just ran across this essay by John Searle (possibly the first thing of his that I think I understand): <a href="http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/searle-final.pdf" rel="nofollow"> Why I am not a Property Dualist</a>. Not exactly the same point under discussion here, but related in that The Symphony is a 'higher-level' intersubjective object that only appears when mediated by 'consciousness'.<br /><br /><i>The property dualist and I are in agreement that consciousness is ontologically irreducible. The key points of disagreement are that I insist that from everything we know about the brain, consciousness is causally reducible to brain processes; and for that reason I deny that the ontological irreducibility of consciousness implies that consciousness is something ‘over and above’, something distinct from, its neurobiological base. </i>Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10215784276660875929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19988549401028862832009-12-01T11:50:01.100-05:002009-12-01T11:50:01.100-05:00ppnl,
I most certainly do not accept zombie-like ...ppnl,<br /><br />I most certainly do not accept zombie-like arguments:<br /><br />http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2008/07/zombification-of-philosophy-of-mind.html<br /><br />We understand how qualia are caused from both a physiological and an evolutionary points of view. We know a lot about the physiology of vision color, for instance. (And yes, that's not the same as *experiencing* qualia, but I find that objection rather silly.)<br /><br />If you equate information with entropy I suggest we stick to entropy, it's more value-neutral and not as likely to quickly lead to some mumbo-jumbo about non-physicality.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-53954729130193970802009-12-01T09:23:19.115-05:002009-12-01T09:23:19.115-05:00Massimo,
I have no idea what you mean when you sa...Massimo,<br /><br />I have no idea what you mean when you say we know what causes qualia. <br /><br />You seem to accept the possibility of zombies that act like us yet have no internal experiences. Well, you accept it in the sense that you cannot see and conflict with physical law. But then you say they would be strange. <br /><br />But how would they be strange? How would you tell them from us at all? How do I know that you are not such a creature?<br /><br />And information is a physical property of a system somewhat related to entropy. It has consequences for how a system behaves much like entropy has consequences for how a heat engine performs. People confuse information with knowledge or understanding. There really isn't much of a connection at all.ppnlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01720719028496317693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52375226097105281892009-12-01T07:23:08.406-05:002009-12-01T07:23:08.406-05:00perspicio,
I see your point, but then you slide i...perspicio,<br /><br />I see your point, but then you slide into too broad a definition of information: following what you say *anything* is potentially information.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63805314746085660342009-12-01T01:31:16.299-05:002009-12-01T01:31:16.299-05:00DaveS,
I think I get what you're saying now, ...DaveS,<br /><br />I think I get what you're saying now, but I'm personally not drawn to take that ride. It seems like it involves the conflation of actual events with conceptualizations of those events by the human mind.<br /><br /><br />Massimo,<br /><br />I don't think the rock and the water understand each other either. However, even though I see nothing invalid about the way you are using the term, it seems to me that a concept of information that does not depend in any way on the attribute of understanding (but does involve relationships between phenomena) needn't be constrained to apply only to living organisms. Just to be clear, I'm not drawing any firm boundaries to say that information <i>is</i> or <i>isn't</i> something specific, since it's an abstract categorical concept of our own design, so we get to define it. However, removing the living organism constraint seems reasonable to me, provided the understanding component is disassociated as well. It would certainly be appropriate in my view to say that only a living organism can <i>use</i> information, but I see no problem with the idea that, for example, cosmic background radiation <i>contains</i> information about the history of the universe.perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-23745962124366762072009-12-01T00:03:42.544-05:002009-12-01T00:03:42.544-05:00DaveS,
I think information is a particular manife...DaveS,<br /><br />I think information is a particular manifestation of matter/energy, not the other way around.<br /><br />ppnl,<br /><br />I'm not sure what it means to say that subjective experience is "beyond" science. We have a pretty good understanding of what causes qualia, but by definition we cannot experience them if not in first person. So?<br /><br />Blue Ridge,<br /><br />I still don't get why a file of Beethoven's symphony is non-physical. A radio broadcast is a form of energy, right?<br /><br />perspicio,<br /><br />the reason I don't think that the concept of information makes sense outside of living organisms is because I cannot make sense of a phrase like "the skipping rock and the water understand each other." They don't, they just interact with each other, there is no understanding.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57660216323547777462009-11-30T23:44:21.580-05:002009-11-30T23:44:21.580-05:00ppnl
====
I do not think it would make sense to ta...ppnl<br />====<br />I do not think it would make sense to talk about a universe w/o qualia.<br /><br /><br />Perspicio<br />=========<br />Some of the systems in your body will understand that a rock hit it (skin abrasions etc..) Other systems in your body will understand a piece of wood hit it. due to the visual or tactile miscue. Staying within the 4 corners of your case there are no misunderstandings. "You (the composite of your systems) " were hit by both a piece of wood and a rock.<br /><br />I think the problem arises when 5 others observe you, all claiming you were hit by a rock. Reality is like history - it is written by observers. The 5 others have informed your reality, and you will correct your memory of the event, although your body gave you zippo in the way of new information. <br /><br />But if you had no reason to think otherwise, 'you' were hit by both objects.<br /><br />Qualia<br />======<br />I am still trying to figure out why your existence poses a problem for physicalists, given that information has been defined as within the realm of the physical. Very confused, me.DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11403199954652863842009-11-30T17:06:39.513-05:002009-11-30T17:06:39.513-05:00Massimo,
I should've been clear. I was respon...Massimo,<br /><br />I should've been clear. I was responding specifically to the preceding post by DaveS, particularly with respect to the fact that, in his view, <i>all</i> matter and energy is information, while misunderstood information is a particular subset he's calling mumbo-jumbo. I didn't have a specific point; rather, I was just seeking a bit more developed explanation of his ideas.<br /><br />However, your comments do shed some additional light on the way you in particular are invoking the concept of information as well. On the basis of what you said, I'm not really sure whether, in your view, there is a particular reason why ordered energy/matter can only be considered information if a living organism responds to it, or whether that is simply part of how you are defining the term "information".<br /><br /><br />DaveS,<br /><br />If a rock hits me on the head, but I think it is a chunk of wood, is the information encoded in the physical event understood by my body in the same way that the skipping rock and the water understand each other's information about each other? And what would you then say about my mental misunderstanding of the event? Is the same information being understood incorrectly in this sense? This seems to imply that my mental self is a different object than my physical self. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, I'm just trying to understand your view.<br /><br /><br />Blue Ridge,<br /><br />Not <i>ordered</i> energy exchange because DaveS said that information misunderstood by the receiver is mumbo-jumbo. I think this implies a non-ordered exchange.<br /><br /><br />This conversation seems a bit hazy to me, as it appears that different people are using terms in different ways.perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45378807366658380252009-11-30T14:25:36.760-05:002009-11-30T14:25:36.760-05:00Massimo:
What non-physical account of information ...Massimo:<br /><i>What non-physical account of information can one possibly come up with? </i><br /><br />What would you say about categories, such as "red the category" above? A more focused example: "Beethoven's Fifth Symphony": imagine a copy of an MP3 file captured from a radio broadcast of a live performance. There isn't any problem about closure of causality, but what is it that is being moved along?<br /><br />It seems to me that once you have an encoding scheme (of which we have many), you have a new ontological category of "encoded things", which don't behave like physical objects.<br /><br />That Guy Montag:<br /><br />My reply to your post got forwarded to my gmail by the Google Blogger, but doesn't appear on the site. "Bugs, Captian Rico! We're a-burnen them!" Briefly:<br /><br />I stand on "learned intersubjective object". No idealized external standards ("norms"); no need to talk in detail about mental states ("concepts"). And qualia are neither linguistic nor thoughtful.<br /><br />Perspicio:<br /><br />Why not <i>ordered</i> energy exchange? Even Shannon's physicalist description of information quantity concerned selection of one ordering of energy from among some number of possibilities.Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10215784276660875929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72409517496195418052009-11-30T10:11:34.979-05:002009-11-30T10:11:34.979-05:00I think your reasoning is dead on. However lets tr...I think your reasoning is dead on. However lets try this question...<br /><br />How would the universe be different if qualia did not exist? <br /><br />The problem is subjective experience seems to be beyond the reach of science. That's why people keep reaching for a nonphysical, supernatural or magical answer.ppnlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01720719028496317693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58503735142144850332009-11-30T10:03:55.138-05:002009-11-30T10:03:55.138-05:00matter, energy and your ideas are some of the ways...matter, energy and your ideas are some of the ways information manifests itself. <br /><br />Using P's example as a riff, let's call the "rock skimming on water" Object A, "surrounding water" Object B, and 5 members of a photography club and their mascot dog Object C. Object A sends information to ObjB and ObjC. All information 'caught' but not comfortably processed by Objs B & C is misunderstood. I can tell you more about how ObjC would misunderstand things and less about about ObjB would misunderstand things because I am a human, but do not have enough grounding in geology or physics to come up with something off the top of my head to explain how the surrounding water could get confused about the rock.DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-13354416221646935272009-11-30T07:29:52.770-05:002009-11-30T07:29:52.770-05:00perspicio,
I'm not sure what your point is. O...perspicio,<br /><br />I'm not sure what your point is. Of course certain patterns of matter and energy become "information" only under certain circumstances. And yes, there has to be a living organism (not necessarily a conscious one) around for that to happen. So?<br /><br />All living beings gather and use "information" about their environment, whether they are sentient or not (think of a bacterium swimming away from a chemical gradient, or toward light, etc. -- are these qualia??).<br /><br />I don't see how this helps non-physicalism at all.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89278505572599427712009-11-30T01:08:49.646-05:002009-11-30T01:08:49.646-05:00Ooops, 1st line of 3rd paragraph should read "...Ooops, 1st line of 3rd paragraph should read "equivalent to energy exchange" - scratch the "ordered".<br /><br />I'm wondering if we're headed into a discussion of entropy....perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-27611384128251016012009-11-30T01:06:06.247-05:002009-11-30T01:06:06.247-05:00I believe the idea that there is no difference bet...I believe the idea that there is no difference between physical and non-physical would be incoherent from a physicalist's perspective. (There's no difference between existence and non-existence? Whaaaa?)<br /><br />Leaving that aside for the moment as (possibly) only a semantic issue....<br /><br />If information transmission is equivalent to ordered energy exchange, then is it safe to say that from your perspective sentience is not a prerequisite of understanding? After all, planets and their primaries exchange gravitational information/energy continuously in an ordered way. A body of water receives information about the shape and momentum of a stone skipped across its surface and in turn transmits information about the water's surface cohesion, dynamic coefficient of friction, etc. Plants receive information from the sun in the form of light and coherently translate certain wavelengths of it into chemical energy. And so on. If this amounts to what you mean by understanding on the part of the receivers, then what is <i>non</i>-understood information (aka mumbo-jumbo)? If this is not what you mean by understanding, then what is?perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.com