tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post8817989174433845792..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Fifty shades of qualiaUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45499771701150114072012-10-01T22:05:55.047-04:002012-10-01T22:05:55.047-04:00I will check back later in case anyone wants to co...I will check back later in case anyone wants to complete the explanation of (1) calculation and (2)mechanization to order the calculations as a computation to reproduce the human mind. <br /><br />In particular, (a) at what level would you calculate (eg biological, chemical, physical, or all three?); (b) what would you calculate (eg at a chemical level, every chemical aspect of every neuron representing every chemical aspect of our gross anatomy - sight, touch, etc and their correlations?).<br /><br />My proposal would be that until a proper model of the biology is in place to guide what to calculate and how to calculate it, C-T can go nowhere except revert to the physical - an impossible dream of reconstruction. Note that C-T is nothing but an open hypothesis that IF we can make mechanical calaculations, they can be computerized IF a machine can account for those calculations. <br /><br />I reckon from my reading that C-T is nothing but an invitation to mechanically calculate what you like, and try to account for the calculations by a mechanical process. It's an adjunct to biology in medicine, and that's about all.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11498290170379928702012-09-30T11:59:00.021-04:002012-09-30T11:59:00.021-04:00The more I read about C-T, the more I need to calc...The more I read about C-T, the more I need to calculate, starting with particles & fields as all the calculations of physics (that's physical properties explained), then as the chemical hydrodgen as accumulated particles & fields, all the way up the periodic table (that's chemical properties explained, and their relation to physics), then biology...I shan't continue as it would be as pointless as the 'hypothesis'. <br /><br />That's no less than the complete explantion for existence in calculations if you build from the ground up with 'computation'... and then you need a machine to process all those calculations in correct order to reproduce neurons, anatomies & environments as the experience of mind. I would stick with initially trying to use it as an adjunct to real attempts at understanding biology, perhaps narrowed to chemical properties standing between the physics & the biology. <br /><br />The quote above is from Turing himself, and it encapsulates the 'hypothesis' and its extremely basic nature and dependency on a machine to prove it. It's a good mantra to try to computerize this and that, but that's all. Darwin = organism conditioned by an environment. Turing = calculation conditioned by a computer. Both are just open ended research programs subject to what you can do in an environment (Darwin), or get a machine to do (Turing). Thus the endless narratives about survival by evolutionary biologists, and the endless computers coming out of silicon valley. File it away under highly speculative.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-32587075873022669062012-09-29T20:21:16.367-04:002012-09-29T20:21:16.367-04:00Just looking quickly at C-T in Wiki, 'a functi...Just looking quickly at C-T in Wiki, 'a function is effectively calculable if its values can be found by some purely mechanical process ... carried out by a machine'. So computability is equated to calaculability, which is an easy adjustment of terms - but it must be able to be carried out by a machine, which is the real problem. I have no issue with trying to calculate mental processes (including qualia), but translating that calculation into a code for a computer to implement is science fiction.<br /><br />Thermodynamics is likewise basic, but it it a real physical fact of particles & fields, rather than a basic statement equating their obvious but exceedingly complex 'calculability' to 'computation'. To be a computation, every calculation of the physical process involved would need to be accounted for, without knowing beforehand by biology what those processes are at that level. <br /><br />It would be a meaningless tracking of endless complexities, much like atoms losing heat in bonding - a basic level from which to consider functions. Maybe a machine that can prove the C-T "hypothesis" would need to be as big as the universe, but any guess is as good as any other in this entirely abstract argument about implementation if I ignore the biological and simply 'calculate' particle & field interactions. Calculate, by all means, and call that a computation if it can be reproduced by a machine, but not until then. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26469207742736716562012-09-29T19:38:46.906-04:002012-09-29T19:38:46.906-04:00Then Dennett would say that a computer can reprodu...Then Dennett would say that a computer can reproduce the human mind. I will have a look at his model some more if that's the case. That's abstract nonsense of course, given that he has not even made a dent into the biology with his model. However, it's probably to be expected, and I should have anticipated he might have claimed some such thing. There is absolutely no basis for saying that 'computer chips' can replace the neurons, anatomies & environments, but we can only wait and see if he makes good on his abstract. <br /><br />However, the methodology remains. If you want to reduce the mind to physics, there is a long way to go with that. Thermodynamics, for example (a real scientific fact) would apply to the particles & fields making up our anatomy & environment, so there would be a very basic level of application there. That is a clear scientific fact that applies. Computation using C-T principles might be possible, but how and to what extent is an open issue without a clear bilogical model to apply it to. So begin with the biological model in the usual way to make progress, as explained.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-53683731063703641712012-09-29T16:01:38.727-04:002012-09-29T16:01:38.727-04:00The reason I quote you on Dennett is to point out ...The reason I quote you on Dennett is to point out that you are wrong about Dennett's stance. Grossly and perversely wrong. Dennett is the man who stood before a crowd and proclaimed that humans were really mindless zombies following deterministic rules like a computer program. He is basically a behaviorist who denies that there is any scientific issue at all in qualia. It is just an illusion.<br /><br />One of Dennett's famous thought experiments is with replacing a persons neurons with a computer chip. But he does it slowly, one at a time as he is talking to him. Dennett's position is that there would be no functional change as the person's brain was transformed into a network of computers as that is all it was anyway. Searle's position is that the person would continue to talk and act normally but would stop experiencing any qualia. They would become a mindless zombie that simply imitated consciousness.<br /><br />I don't need to refer to the specifics biology in order to assert that Church-Turing applies to biological systems any more than I have to refer to the specifics of biology to assert that the law of gravity applies to biological systems.<br /><br />Church-Turing isn't about the biological or abiological. It is a limitation imposed by the laws of physics as we think we know them. You cannot break it without breaking the laws of physics as we know them. It applies to any physical object.<br /><br />Well maybe we are wrong about the laws of physics. It could happen. But if so you will have to show where. You can't just assume it and insist that others prove you wrong. <br /><br />There actually has been research on how you could change the laws of physics to allow a more powerful model of computation. ppnlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01720719028496317693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-27928892777494341212012-09-29T08:46:23.779-04:002012-09-29T08:46:23.779-04:00This has become as much about method in blog excha...This has become as much about method in blog exchanges as it is about methodology in science. The marker is: "You have no basis for saying that knowledge can be translated into a computer." "Yes I do. Its called the Church-Turing thesis. Computers are universal." You then explain C-T without reference to anything real (a processing computer) so in the next post I argue that such a processor is not proposed by any philosopher who works FROM the biology (Dennett, Searle etc). <br /><br />As I say now, however, if Dennett has said a processor can reproduce the biological human mind, I will be most interested to write to him about it. But back to your error, you then persisted with quoting my Dennett references to support the possible connection of alorithmic mathematics (for example) to our biology, which is not the issue. As explained, 'process' and 'algorithm' might be interchangeable, and C-T might or might not be useful in understanding the biological process, but that does not mean a computer can stand in for neurons, anatomies & environments. <br /><br />As scientific methodology, the way in is from the biology, using the computational theory as an adjunct that is always subject to the potentials & limitations found from the biological model. Good luck with C-T as an adjunct - you make some useful comments about computation. However, looking at the biological, I cannot see a reproduction by a computer and I doubt a theoretical program could be written for one (it might be meaningless anyway if it cannot be proven by implementation - but I don't want to get into that).<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19352859393414353572012-09-29T04:13:43.397-04:002012-09-29T04:13:43.397-04:00I don't see a specific reference to Dennett or...I don't see a specific reference to Dennett or quote by you, but if he says his multiple drafts model can be reproduced by a computer, he is abstracting along with you. That model is an attempt at defining the process or 'algorithm' with reference to biology (neurons, anatomies & environments) and he does not attempt to translate his proposal to a computer as far as I am aware. <br /><br />Your exasperation is from your own evasiveness, and there is no goal post shifting, that's more evasion to get away from your fundamental flaw. It doesn't matter whether Dennett has 'said something' about translating to computers or 'expressed hope'. The issue is whether he put anything forward other than a model tied to biology, and he has not to my knowledge. In other words, he has not bridged the gap at all.<br /><br />I don't support Dennett or Searle, and they don't support each other, but no one has bridged that gap, and that is the point you keep evading with your side steps. Nothing supports you because you have your methodology back to front. First: model from real biology. Second: compare with models from computer science to see if they can be reconciled. You have shown no knowledge of real biology, preferring to jump straight to computers and purport to apply that knowledge to biology without understanding it in the first place. You are going at it bass ackwards.<br /><br />You seem to argue that 'support' amounts to 'cheer leading' for your guesswork. Dennett might be your biggest cheerleader for all I know and care. If he has done any actual work to bridge the gap, by all means reference it. He doesn't have a neuronal model that is any more viable than Searle's or any others, so you should concentrate your efforts on devising such a model before making an unfounded jump. Develop some working knowledge of the facts of biology instead of computing alone. Good luck with that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-56166988985905173902012-09-28T22:31:42.723-04:002012-09-28T22:31:42.723-04:00" I have never read how Dennett shows that t...<br />" I have never read how Dennett shows that the brain state is artifically reproducible. "<br /><br />You are moving the goal post. I never claimed that Dennett showed any such thing and you didn't ask me to show any such thing. Your original assertion was that dennett never argued that a brain could be reproduced on a computer. For example here:<br /><br />" I don't see any basis for your confidence, and many philosophers (Dennett, Searle etc) are highly skeptical of beliefs such as your, so I will leave you to it. "<br /><br />and here:<br /><br />" Dennett would not make the jump from a computer algorithm to the human mind as you have done, so I have no idea where you got that idea from. "<br /><br />Dennett is not skeptical of this and he did make exactly such a jump. He is a founder and most vocal cheerleader for this jump. That you have somehow missed this shows that you are ignorant of the major elements of the debate. Its like arguing that Einstein didn't believe in relativity.<br /><br />" So it boils down to you providing an example of a computer that reproduces the human mind... "<br /><br />Moving the goal post again. No computer on earth has the computational power of a mouse let alone a human mind. So no there is no mind in a computer currently. But you can have very strong arguments that it is possible even if implementing it is currently impossible. For example the Higgs boson was predicted like fifty years ago.<br /><br />You seem concerned that an algorithmic description of a brain contains no information about neurotransmitters, neurons, axons or glial cells and so cannot explain a brain. In an absolute sense you are correct.<br /><br />But the same argument applies to a computer. A programmers model of a computer tells us nothing about semiconductors, electron holes, capacitive inductance, magnetic domains, or the giant magneto resistance effect. A modern computer uses all of these and you have not fully understood it until you understand all of these.<br /><br />But in another sense none of these are important. Once you have a programmers model you can in principle implement it without these things. You could even impliment it on a 1940's style card shuffling machine.<br /><br />Ditto a brain. In order to fully a understand a specific brain you do need all those little details. But once you have a symbolic model you can implement it in some other substance. A silicon chip maybe. Or even a card shuffling machine.<br /><br />Well thats the implication of the Church-Turing thesis anyway. So what if the Church-Turing thesis is wrong? What if Church-Turing does not apply to biological systems? Well maybe. But it does massive violence to physical law and what we think we know about the universe. Thats what I mean by breaking science. I would love to see it happen but still I must assign it a very low probability. ppnlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01720719028496317693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30605515475000604132012-09-28T19:30:42.476-04:002012-09-28T19:30:42.476-04:00I have never read how Dennett shows that the brain...I have never read how Dennett shows that the brain state is artifically reproducible. Provide the reference. You are just avoiding the point. Any "process" is by definition "algorithmic", but that gets you nowhere to creating a computer with a human mind without neurons, anatomies & environments. As I have said repeatedly, that is a woefully insufficient argument. You rely merely on the connections to it being "a process", and the obvious recognition of that point by Dennett. <br /><br />The issue you have avoided all the way along is the terms of the algorithm: the real facts to which it applies. The example you referenced is the usual dime store example of math applied to biological facts to hopefully find some paralells to assist computer function. There's no problem using humans to get ideas to advance computers in various ways, but no computer can reproduce the human mind.<br /><br />So it boils down to you providing an example of a computer that reproduces the human mind - but you haven't demonstrated an understanding of how the human mind is constituted in the first place! Read the middle chapters of my free book at www.thehumandesign.net to see the argument in real terms. If you have a way of reproducing the human mind artifically, the world would be exteremely interested. Until then, don't simply assume that an astract applies to reality unless you can prove it. QEDAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-62689081476336959882012-09-28T18:40:27.293-04:002012-09-28T18:40:27.293-04:00" Dennett would not make the jump from a com...<br />" Dennett would not make the jump from a computer algorithm to the human mind as you have done, so I have no idea where you got that idea from. "<br /><br />Keeerist man! The whole basis for the feud between Searle and Dennett was their difference over the jump from computer algorithms to minds. Searle constructed the Chinese room argument to ridicule the idea that formal systems could function as minds. Dennett defended the idea. The feud got so bad that they stopped talking at all. You seem to have no knowledge of the history of the debate at all.<br /><br />" I would like to see an example from you of an algorithm that attempts to explain the brain state. If you can provide one, I will comment further. "<br /><br />Any attempt at all to explain brain states is pretty much by definition algorithmic. See this for example:<br /><br />http://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI8509593/<br /><br />I think there is a group trying to raise the money to implement an entire brain on computer at a neuron level. I don't think it is currently practical but large portions of a cats visual cortex has been implemented on a supercomputer. ppnlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01720719028496317693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67065174031490797182012-09-28T10:35:46.012-04:002012-09-28T10:35:46.012-04:00You are taking the wrong approach to answering the...You are taking the wrong approach to answering the question. As explained, brains operate within anatomies and environments. To understand its functions, that context must be understood. That's what understanding means; attributing facts to the mathematics (if math is used as a tool to describe neuronal fnctions, for example).<br /><br />Reducing to an algorithm, as math, for example, is dependent upon the things, the facts, the terms (the number "1" or "2" as units of acetycholine, not as some algorithmic anstract). Without the reference to real terms - the facts to which the math applies - you have meaningless self-consistent equations. Its that simple. Symbols are just abstracts unless apllied to realities - so work on realities.<br /><br />I would like to see an example from you of an algorithm that attempts to explain the brain state. If you can provide one, I will comment further. Otherwise, just refer back to the previous posts on OSR, Krauss & Smolin for abundant argument on what constitutes reality, abstracts, information, digitization etc. I won't repeat it here.<br /><br />Better still, provide an example that is in pure mathematics or symbols without reference to real terms such a 1 unit of acetylcholine, or the timing of synaptic potential. Your analysis is just abstract, unless of course you can provide any kind of example. You have broken science by removing facts in preference to theories that might or might not have application to computers, but are purely abstract in application to humans. <br /><br />Dennett would not make the jump from a computer algorithm to the human mind as you have done, so I have no idea where you got that idea from. The manufactured basis for the computer is irrelevant. Science is better served by working FROM the real thing, not FROM an abstract. You can propose in abstract that Church-Turing applies to biology, and good luck with that abstract. Your arguments make no sense, so I will check out. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60904901195092202152012-09-28T03:46:14.515-04:002012-09-28T03:46:14.515-04:00" The first task would be to understand the b...<br />" The first task would be to understand the brain in its own terms,... "<br /><br />Sorry, I can't attach any meaning or sense to that at all as it seems to be a semantic swamp. To the extent that I can make sense of it it seems wrong. I don't worry about whose "terms" I describe things of the external world in. I only worry about increasing the predictive and explanatory power of those description. I can assign no meaning at all to the ownership of "terms". One of the problems with human language is that it is so easy to say nothing intelligible at all. <br /><br />Beyond that I think you have such a narrow concept of computers that it makes communication difficult. It is true that modern computers are implemented on silicon chips but silicon has nothing to do with the definition of a universal Turing machine. Past computers were made with vacuum tubes and even paper card shuffling devices reminiscent of Searle's Chinese room. Future computers may be made of carbon nano-tubes or even protein neural nets. Whatever is used it is only an engineering choice that does not affect the definition of a UTM.<br /><br />You should not think of a UTM or computer as a physical device at all. Rather think of it as a way of defining a class of symbolic languages. The Church-Turing thesis tells us that all these languages are in a deep sense equal to each other and that there is no more powerful language. <br /><br />Searle would strongly disagree with what I have said here but then he was...<br /><br />Lets just say that I don't have a high opinion of Searle.<br /><br />Dennett would just about agree with everything I have said. He would just not be troubled because he doesn't think questions about experience are meaningful. That is a very unsatisfying answer but I see no alternative that does not break science. <br />ppnlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01720719028496317693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37334836193276075512012-09-27T22:27:32.112-04:002012-09-27T22:27:32.112-04:00Joe - sorry most of the stuff that I know of is at...Joe - sorry most of the stuff that I know of is at least ten years old. Maybe Max Tegmark has come out with fresher material. I can say the most powerful work to come out in the last 2 years which seems to echo the way I think the world 'works' would be a novel by Mark Leyner titled "The Sugar-Frosted Nutsack". I think a few others came out this past year that draw on similar 'postmodern' themes, but I have not read them.DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1204779156170983202012-09-27T22:22:11.733-04:002012-09-27T22:22:11.733-04:00Apologies for delay in responding, Ian. Did not wa...Apologies for delay in responding, Ian. Did not want to add the 8 or so moving parts, my theory of information comes with, at least not here, but I guess its fair to say qualia is only a problem for those with an ontological orientation. For those who would say "not only is my experience of red possibly unlike yours, but my sense of anything may not necessarily map to your sense of the same thing" Why? Because that thing does not exist in a vacuum, ergo it doesn't even exist. And while I cannot prove objective stuff doesn't exist, I feel that just like dealing with the question of gods, spirits and whatnot, the burden of proof is upon the realists to prove that stuff exists. Why? Because antirealists (?) can always describe everything in terms of only information, without jettisoning the explanatory powers of current sciences. Given all the things we know that we don't know, I think realists are the ones who need to defend their weltanschauung (I've wanted to use that word for the longest time).DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58954105870162903522012-09-27T20:57:37.608-04:002012-09-27T20:57:37.608-04:00The first task would be to understand the brain in...The first task would be to understand the brain in its own terms, and computational ideas might be useful or misleading in that task, we shall see. In your analysis, anything that has a process is a computer, including tornados. That's too broad to be useful. The material of brains, in their own terms in their natural settings of other material things, might not be mechanically reproducible even if understood as a process.<br /><br />Your use of the term 'algorithm' does not add anything to the transition of brain material (and its crucial context of anatomical & environmental material) into silicon. Basically 'algorithm' means 'understandable' in your analysis. The algorithm, or process, would depend entirely on the conditions of application (neurons, anatomical functions, environments). <br /><br />The translation to silicon does not automatically follow from there being a process, and it would be better to focus on the first task at hand - dealing with natural stuff- assisted if relevant by some computational concepts. The focus needs to be biological, not silicon, if its biology we seek to explain. I don't see any basis for your confidence, and many philosophers (Dennett, Searle etc) are highly skeptical of beliefs such as your, so I will leave you to it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71369095814136209612012-09-27T12:48:18.872-04:002012-09-27T12:48:18.872-04:00" You have no basis for saying that knowledge...<br />" You have no basis for saying that knowledge can be translated into a computer. "<br /><br />Yes I do. Its called the Church-Turing thesis. Computers are universal.<br /><br />Now what ever else the brain does it absorbs, processes and outputs massive amounts of information. Whatever else the brain is it is also a computer. Your ability to learn and do calculus is an algorithm. Your ability to stand and walk without falling over is an algorithm that balances your body without you even thinking about it. Your ability to convert the information in the light that hits your eyes into a model of your surroundings is an algorithm. Your ability to decode patterns of sound into words is an algorithm. You could not do any of these things if you were not a computer. Understanding how you do these things involves understanding an algorithm.<br /><br />Now you are free to claim that the brain is also something else in addition to being a computer. But there is no objective empirical evidence that you need anything more than a computer to do all that the brain does. In fact the idea seems to break the Church-Turing thesis.<br /><br />In general understanding anything as a process involves converting it into an algorithm. Understanding a tornado means reducing it to a mathematical model that can be programed into a computer. If you cannot create such a model then you have not understood the tornado. Ditto brains.<br /><br />If there is something that cannot be programmed into a computer then there is an aspect of the universe that is not algorithmic. If it is not algorithmic then it cannot be understood as a process even in principle and you break science. ppnlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01720719028496317693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61985541929186281542012-09-27T05:32:30.137-04:002012-09-27T05:32:30.137-04:00No, I said "There is no absolute way of knowi...No, I said "There is no absolute way of knowing the subjective but there might be ways that take us very close, which would be the aim." <br /><br />You are making the mistake of assuming what an objective understanding might contribute. You have no basis for saying that knowledge can be translated into a computer. You are just making two unfounded statements. <br /><br />I have not assumed my conclusion (which is to aim at a more informative objective analysis by neuroscience), so that would be a third unfounded statement in quick succession. I will leave it that as the discussion has completely dried up.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-27814087722558639232012-09-26T22:40:39.137-04:002012-09-26T22:40:39.137-04:00No, if the brain states are fully understood then ...<br />No, if the brain states are fully understood then we can predict the pattern of brain activity and thus predict and "explain" objective behavior. That explanation cannot tell us how it feels or even if it feels. Thats subjective and you have to live it to feel it.<br /><br />If we fully understand brain states then we have the capacity to program a computer to produce exactly the same pattern of "states" and thus produce the exact same objective behavior. Does the program feel?<br /><br />"It doesn't break the rules, because the subjective always remains exactly that, but if the brain state creating it is fully understood then there is a way to objectively assess it."<br /><br />You have simply assumed your conclusion. I don't know if there is an accessible answer. Maybe there are some things that simply aren't knowable. OTOH I never claimed we would never find an answer. I only said that any answer would break science as we know it. I actually think that would be kinda cool. ppnlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01720719028496317693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-12512299654988233522012-09-26T20:10:17.262-04:002012-09-26T20:10:17.262-04:00I will just read the daily.I will just read the daily.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60767808478387789032012-09-26T20:09:43.989-04:002012-09-26T20:09:43.989-04:00It doesn't break the rules, because the subjec...It doesn't break the rules, because the subjective always remains exactly that, but if the brain state creating it is fully understood then there is a way to objectively assess it. As I said, you don't know what neuroscience holds, or if you do you haven't demonstrated it. There is no absolute way of knowing the subjective but there might be ways that take us very close, which would be the aim. Don't lose hope.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78945794263706241062012-09-26T13:10:45.239-04:002012-09-26T13:10:45.239-04:00Actually I would say that there is no way even in...Actually I would say that there is no way even in principle unless you massively change how science is done. Science is about the objective. Asking about the nature of, mechanism for or even the existence of the subjective breaks the rules. <br /><br />It is understandable that behaviorists deny that there is any scientific question at all here. But this will never be a very satisfying answer. ppnlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01720719028496317693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44399948364675501502012-09-25T19:18:12.685-04:002012-09-25T19:18:12.685-04:00There is some data to suggest the experiment would...There is some data to suggest the experiment would not work, as the unused colour receptors would not pass information to the visual cortex. This isn't a nit-pick, rather a basic quality of experience: we are not passive spectators of perception, rather this is a process and a skill we need to acquire. Imagine the analogous experiment with "Mary has never ridden a bike". We would not conclude there must be a "basic carrier of the ability to ride a bike."<br /><br />Bodily sensations are not the same as theoretical knowledge, even if at bottom all theoretical knowledge is acquired by or with help of the senses.The difference is hard-wired in the brain. To make that into a proof of dualism is like concluding the world we see must be separate from the world we hear just because there is no sight, seeing which is precisely like listening to Beethoven's Ninth.<br /><br /><a href="http://ablogdog.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/red-mary/" rel="nofollow">Red Mary</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63952051781290429312012-09-24T22:44:56.552-04:002012-09-24T22:44:56.552-04:00No way that you know of to talk about how a given ...No way that you know of to talk about how a given brain state causes a given experience of color. That would be the aim of neuroscience, in its infancy, so don't give up hope. Consequently, as you say, you are left with assuming their subjective experiences are similar or comparable to yours.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57644259963256632732012-09-24T07:15:43.704-04:002012-09-24T07:15:43.704-04:00Marcus,
you have been posting (a lot) on this blo...Marcus,<br /><br />you have been posting (a lot) on this blog, and I always appreciate readers' contributions, even when they regularly include advertisings to their own freely available books that will change the world.<br /><br />However, I wonder if - as an exercise in will power - you could manage to post some comments without being condescending or downright insulting to other readers. If you don't, I may start filtering out your contributions, with great loss to the quality of this blog.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89677928464012186242012-09-24T04:41:35.824-04:002012-09-24T04:41:35.824-04:00I should add for the benefit of readers (as I doub...I should add for the benefit of readers (as I doubt you will understand) that the appeal to philosophy over science in a blog discussing subjective creation of awareness by a brain state is artificial and ridiculous. If you want to discuss empirically baseless philosophy, go ahead, but don't foolishly try to narrow the enquiry to your own limited terms. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.com