Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Consul]

Experiences cannot exist without being experienced by something/somebody, and they cannot experience themselves; so there must be an experiencer distinct from them whose experiences they are.

Yes because reality should conform to our grammatical rules.

QUOTE>
"There is an argument against substrata that Locke did not anticipate that deserves brief consideration.
The argument is that we come to believe in the need for substrata simply because it is suggested by the subject-predicate form of our language (and also, presumably, by the (Ex) of quantification in logic). Then it is argued that some languages (and also, presumably, some logics) don't have this subject-predicate form. So, the conclusion seems to be that the notion of, and supposed need for, substrata is due only to, and suggested by, a local, parochial linguistic form.
It is very difficult to see the force of this argument. First, the claim that some languages lack anything like a subject-predicate form is not the proven linguistic fact that it is argued to be. However, the argument cannot be at all conclusive, even if this claim were true. Because, secondly, if some languages suggest a substratum and some do not, the question should still arise 'Which are right?' Then the argument for substrata, and against alternative theories, would have to be considered."

(Martin, C. B. "Substance Substantiated." Australasian Journal of Philosophy 58/1 (1980): 3–10. pp. 8-9)
<QUOTE

QUOTE>
"My main objection to the Humean position is the more basic one, that the very notion of subjectless mentality is unintelligible. Thus, I can no more understand how there could be a thought without a thinker, a belief without a believer, or an experience without an experiencer, than I can understand how there could be speech without a speaker, or motion without something that moves."

(Foster, John. A World for Us: The Case for Phenomenalistic Idealism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. p. 204)
<QUOTE

[Consul]

Experiences cannot exist without being experienced by something/somebody, and they cannot experience themselves; so there must be an experiencer distinct from them whose experiences they are.

Or perhaps there must be an experiencer, but one who is not 'distinct' from their own experiences.

By "distinct" I simply mean "different"/"nonidentical". I don't mean "separate" in the sense of "disjoined", "disconnected", or "detached".

[Atla]

Obviously, hence the hard problem.

Still, qualia is a real and remains unexplained. I don't think consciousness lies in any of those systems, but (as I have said many times on the forum over the years) that it most likely stems from the synergy of various primary systems, not just one. The correlation is indisputable, but there may be more to it.

There's also zero scientific evidence for the synergy idea, so it seems unlikely that qualia would have a basis.

[Atla]

Experiences cannot exist without being experienced by something/somebody, and they cannot experience themselves; so there must be an experiencer distinct from them whose experiences they are.

Yes because reality should conform to our grammatical rules.

QUOTE>
"There is an argument against substrata that Locke did not anticipate that deserves brief consideration.
The argument is that we come to believe in the need for substrata simply because it is suggested by the subject-predicate form of our language (and also, presumably, by the (Ex) of quantification in logic). Then it is argued that some languages (and also, presumably, some logics) don't have this subject-predicate form. So, the conclusion seems to be that the notion of, and supposed need for, substrata is due only to, and suggested by, a local, parochial linguistic form.
It is very difficult to see the force of this argument. First, the claim that some languages lack anything like a subject-predicate form is not the proven linguistic fact that it is argued to be. However, the argument cannot be at all conclusive, even if this claim were true. Because, secondly, if some languages suggest a substratum and some do not, the question should still arise 'Which are right?' Then the argument for substrata, and against alternative theories, would have to be considered."

(Martin, C. B. "Substance Substantiated." Australasian Journal of Philosophy 58/1 (1980): 3–10. pp. 8-9)
<QUOTE

QUOTE>
"My main objection to the Humean position is the more basic one, that the very notion of subjectless mentality is unintelligible. Thus, I can no more understand how there could be a thought without a thinker, a belief without a believer, or an experience without an experiencer, than I can understand how there could be speech without a speaker, or motion without something that moves."

(Foster, John. A World for Us: The Case for Phenomenalistic Idealism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. p. 204)
<QUOTE

"Subject" and "object" are one, this has already been proven by science, after our Platonic philosophers failed to realize it for 2500 years. You have to catch up with known facts.

[Sy Borg]

Obviously, hence the hard problem.

Still, qualia is a real and remains unexplained. I don't think consciousness lies in any of those systems, but (as I have said many times on the forum over the years) that it most likely stems from the synergy of various primary systems, not just one. The correlation is indisputable, but there may be more to it.

There's also zero scientific evidence for the synergy idea, so it seems unlikely that qualia would have a basis.

There's no compelling evidence for any hypothesis, hence the thread's existence.

Whatever, the synergy idea has never been investigated so it makes no sense to expect evidence, especially given that there's no compelling evidence for any other hypothesis - including the idea that consciousness is fundamental. Whatever, most funding for consciousness studies goes to neuroscience, given its medical applications, so that approach has amassed the most evidence, without ever getting to the crux.

[Atla]

Obviously, hence the hard problem.

Still, qualia is a real and remains unexplained. I don't think consciousness lies in any of those systems, but (as I have said many times on the forum over the years) that it most likely stems from the synergy of various primary systems, not just one. The correlation is indisputable, but there may be more to it.

There's also zero scientific evidence for the synergy idea, so it seems unlikely that qualia would have a basis.

There's no compelling evidence for any hypothesis, hence the thread's existence.

Whatever, the synergy idea has never been investigated so it makes no sense to expect evidence, especially given that there's no compelling evidence for any other hypothesis - including the idea that consciousness is fundamental. Whatever, most funding for consciousness studies goes to neuroscience, given its medical applications, so that approach has amassed the most evidence, without ever getting to the crux.

Wouldn't say that it has never been investigated, we know from biology, physics etc. that the "synergies" between primary systems also seem to be made of the same kind of things as the rest of the human body. So again, looks like science can't even in principle explain how or why there would be qualia with them.

[Atla]

Obviously, hence the hard problem.

Still, qualia is a real and remains unexplained. I don't think consciousness lies in any of those systems, but (as I have said many times on the forum over the years) that it most likely stems from the synergy of various primary systems, not just one. The correlation is indisputable, but there may be more to it.

There's also zero scientific evidence for the synergy idea, so it seems unlikely that qualia would have a basis.

There's no compelling evidence for any hypothesis, hence the thread's existence.

Whatever, the synergy idea has never been investigated so it makes no sense to expect evidence, especially given that there's no compelling evidence for any other hypothesis - including the idea that consciousness is fundamental. Whatever, most funding for consciousness studies goes to neuroscience, given its medical applications, so that approach has amassed the most evidence, without ever getting to the crux.

Maybe if the biologists would have found that the primary systems aren't connected via nerves, blood circulation, all kinds of chemical exchanges, overlapping EM fields etc., but the primary systems would communicate with each other anyway, then it would be highly suspect that physics is missing something big here, that can't be explained but is happening right before our eyes anyway.
But biologists have found that those "material"/"energetical" connections are all there, they are integral parts of the human body. Looks like these are the "synergies" themselves, no hard emergence or anything like that needed to explain the human physiology.

[Sy Borg]

Obviously, hence the hard problem.

Still, qualia is a real and remains unexplained. I don't think consciousness lies in any of those systems, but (as I have said many times on the forum over the years) that it most likely stems from the synergy of various primary systems, not just one. The correlation is indisputable, but there may be more to it.

There's also zero scientific evidence for the synergy idea, so it seems unlikely that qualia would have a basis.

There's no compelling evidence for any hypothesis, hence the thread's existence.

Whatever, the synergy idea has never been investigated so it makes no sense to expect evidence, especially given that there's no compelling evidence for any other hypothesis - including the idea that consciousness is fundamental. Whatever, most funding for consciousness studies goes to neuroscience, given its medical applications, so that approach has amassed the most evidence, without ever getting to the crux.

Maybe if the biologists would have found that the primary systems aren't connected via nerves, blood circulation, all kinds of chemical exchanges, overlapping EM fields etc., but the primary systems would communicate with each other anyway, then it would be highly suspect that physics is missing something big here, that can't be explained but is happening right before our eyes anyway.
But biologists have found that those "material"/"energetical" connections are all there, they are integral parts of the human body. Looks like these are the "synergies" themselves, no hard emergence or anything like that needed to explain the human physiology.

The possibilities I feel most comfortable with at this stage are:
1. Qualia is generated by brains. Personally, I think the mechanisms would have been found by now, given the depth of brain studies. Still, you never know.
2. Qualia is generated by multiple body systems, including the CNS. This has not been researched, nor seriously postulated due to assumptions that #1 is correct.
3. Qualia is fundamental. Panpsychism. Maybe, maybe not. I hope so.

[SteveKlinko]

Ok, but I am primarily interested in the Conscious Visual Experience. It's irrelevant which Sense you believe is more important.

I have no beliefs. You either accept that taste and smell are closer to the basis of qualia than vision, or you persist with the cul-de-sac you are pursuing. Trying to understand qualia via vision is akin to trying to understand digestion through dentistry. Theories of consciousness fail due to incorrect initial assumptions about it.

It's perfectly valid to want to study Taste or Smell. But by studying Redness, there is almost always something Red in my field of view that I can Experience and further think about. With Taste you would have to carry abound a bag of Salt all day long to study that taste. With Smell you would have to carry around a bottle of Bleach to study that Smell. Tastes and Smells are not as easily available as Redness in the Visual field.

[Pattern-chaser]

Qualia is generated by brains.

I do not dispute this. I have no grounds on which to dispute this. But I think this is one of those problems centred on 'abstract distance'.

For example, we can say that Microsoft Word - the computer program itself - is a collection of bytes. This is true enough. We can also comment on Word as a sophisticated manipulator of literary documents, and that is true too. But when we try to merge those two correct observations, we run into difficulties. Those difficulties are down to an enormous abstract chasm between a collection of bytes, and the text-processing abilities it seems to confer. The abstract difference is just too wide for us to bridge.

Thus I find it not-useful - but not wrong! - to link qualia to brains directly. The abstract gap is just too wide to be useful to us humans.

[Atla]

There's also zero scientific evidence for the synergy idea, so it seems unlikely that qualia would have a basis.

There's no compelling evidence for any hypothesis, hence the thread's existence.

Whatever, the synergy idea has never been investigated so it makes no sense to expect evidence, especially given that there's no compelling evidence for any other hypothesis - including the idea that consciousness is fundamental. Whatever, most funding for consciousness studies goes to neuroscience, given its medical applications, so that approach has amassed the most evidence, without ever getting to the crux.

Maybe if the biologists would have found that the primary systems aren't connected via nerves, blood circulation, all kinds of chemical exchanges, overlapping EM fields etc., but the primary systems would communicate with each other anyway, then it would be highly suspect that physics is missing something big here, that can't be explained but is happening right before our eyes anyway.
But biologists have found that those "material"/"energetical" connections are all there, they are integral parts of the human body. Looks like these are the "synergies" themselves, no hard emergence or anything like that needed to explain the human physiology.

The possibilities I feel most comfortable with at this stage are:
1. Qualia is generated by brains. Personally, I think the mechanisms would have been found by now, given the depth of brain studies. Still, you never know.
2. Qualia is generated by multiple body systems, including the CNS. This has not been researched, nor seriously postulated due to assumptions that #1 is correct.
3. Qualia is fundamental. Panpsychism. Maybe, maybe not. I hope so.

I think we already have sufficient evidence or lack of evidence to say that 2 is just as unlikely as 1. In the brain we got nice correlations with mental content, that's what the brain is for, in the gut and spiral cord etc. maybe we would get correlations of a general sense of being, and gut feelings maybe? Which is still just correlation, again even in principle it can't explain why there are any qualia at all.

More importantly, qualia being fundamental doesn't mean that panpsychism is correct. Panpsychism is a crude Western view which puts matter and consciousness everywhere, still maintaining the double vision which created the Hard problem in the first place. Or even worse, it puts minds everywhere. It's a step in the right direction, but then gets it all wrong, we can't solve a problem using the same thinking that created it.

[Sy Borg]

Ok, but I am primarily interested in the Conscious Visual Experience. It's irrelevant which Sense you believe is more important.

I have no beliefs. You either accept that taste and smell are closer to the basis of qualia than vision, or you persist with the cul-de-sac you are pursuing. Trying to understand qualia via vision is akin to trying to understand digestion through dentistry. Theories of consciousness fail due to incorrect initial assumptions about it.

It's perfectly valid to want to study Taste or Smell. But by studying Redness, there is almost always something Red in my field of view that I can Experience and further think about. With Taste you would have to carry abound a bag of Salt all day long to study that taste. With Smell you would have to carry around a bottle of Bleach to study that Smell. Tastes and Smells are not as easily available as Redness in the Visual field.

It would seem that each approach has its limitations.

[Sy Borg]

Qualia is generated by brains.

I do not dispute this. I have no grounds on which to dispute this. But I think this is one of those problems centred on 'abstract distance'.

For example, we can say that Microsoft Word - the computer program itself - is a collection of bytes. This is true enough. We can also comment on Word as a sophisticated manipulator of literary documents, and that is true too. But when we try to merge those two correct observations, we run into difficulties. Those difficulties are down to an enormous abstract chasm between a collection of bytes, and the text-processing abilities it seems to confer. The abstract difference is just too wide for us to bridge.

Thus I find it not-useful - but not wrong! - to link qualia to brains directly. The abstract gap is just too wide to be useful to us humans.

How to go from dynamic electrical patterns to being immersed in a broad suite of sensations?

How to go from bytes to data entry seems more straightforward. It is just a sequence of translations as the information is passed through various media. So the letter "T" is depressed, corresponding with binary 1010100. So a switch sends that byte to places that you would know much better than me. So, computers process information like very simple versions of brains, but the missing element is qualia.

[Sy Borg]

There's no compelling evidence for any hypothesis, hence the thread's existence.

Whatever, the synergy idea has never been investigated so it makes no sense to expect evidence, especially given that there's no compelling evidence for any other hypothesis - including the idea that consciousness is fundamental. Whatever, most funding for consciousness studies goes to neuroscience, given its medical applications, so that approach has amassed the most evidence, without ever getting to the crux.

Maybe if the biologists would have found that the primary systems aren't connected via nerves, blood circulation, all kinds of chemical exchanges, overlapping EM fields etc., but the primary systems would communicate with each other anyway, then it would be highly suspect that physics is missing something big here, that can't be explained but is happening right before our eyes anyway.
But biologists have found that those "material"/"energetical" connections are all there, they are integral parts of the human body. Looks like these are the "synergies" themselves, no hard emergence or anything like that needed to explain the human physiology.

The possibilities I feel most comfortable with at this stage are:
1. Qualia is generated by brains. Personally, I think the mechanisms would have been found by now, given the depth of brain studies. Still, you never know.
2. Qualia is generated by multiple body systems, including the CNS. This has not been researched, nor seriously postulated due to assumptions that #1 is correct.
3. Qualia is fundamental. Panpsychism. Maybe, maybe not. I hope so.

I think we already have sufficient evidence or lack of evidence to say that 2 is just as unlikely as 1. In the brain we got nice correlations with mental content, that's what the brain is for, in the gut and spiral cord etc. maybe we would get correlations of a general sense of being, and gut feelings maybe? Which is still just correlation, again even in principle it can't explain why there are any qualia at all.

More importantly, qualia being fundamental doesn't mean that panpsychism is correct. Panpsychism is a crude Western view which puts matter and consciousness everywhere, still maintaining the double vision which created the Hard problem in the first place. Or even worse, it puts minds everywhere. It's a step in the right direction, but then gets it all wrong, we can't solve a problem using the same thinking that created it.

I'm not discounting #1 or #2, but favour the latter.

It depends on the type of panpsychism. The experience of a bacterium, for instance, would not generally be thought of as a mind, as such. More a collection of pulses and tingles.

[SteveKlinko]

There's also zero scientific evidence for the synergy idea, so it seems unlikely that qualia would have a basis.

There's no compelling evidence for any hypothesis, hence the thread's existence.

Whatever, the synergy idea has never been investigated so it makes no sense to expect evidence, especially given that there's no compelling evidence for any other hypothesis - including the idea that consciousness is fundamental. Whatever, most funding for consciousness studies goes to neuroscience, given its medical applications, so that approach has amassed the most evidence, without ever getting to the crux.

Maybe if the biologists would have found that the primary systems aren't connected via nerves, blood circulation, all kinds of chemical exchanges, overlapping EM fields etc., but the primary systems would communicate with each other anyway, then it would be highly suspect that physics is missing something big here, that can't be explained but is happening right before our eyes anyway.
But biologists have found that those "material"/"energetical" connections are all there, they are integral parts of the human body. Looks like these are the "synergies" themselves, no hard emergence or anything like that needed to explain the human physiology.

The possibilities I feel most comfortable with at this stage are:
1. Qualia is generated by brains. Personally, I think the mechanisms would have been found by now, given the depth of brain studies. Still, you never know.
2. Qualia is generated by multiple body systems, including the CNS. This has not been researched, nor seriously postulated due to assumptions that #1 is correct.
3. Qualia is fundamental. Panpsychism. Maybe, maybe not. I hope so.

I would add an item 4. to the above. See the topic:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17727