/lit/ - Literature

>qualia don't exist

God what is it that cities do to us that we have become so stubbornly retarded as a fucking species

>>14147265
Quales exist no matter what. It's the cause of the qualia, the reason for its existence, which is debated.

>>14147265
Good thing qualia do exist.

I'm going to hijack this a bit since we're talking about qualia here.

How does panpsychism address the qualia problem? By qualia problem I mean: how can we reconcile qualia and materialism? If materialism isn't true and panpsychism is...where does that leave qualia exactly?

>>14147280
>what is it that cities do to us

wait what? what do cities have to do with anything

>>14147297
i think it just leaves qualia as something that aren't special: it's the idea of qualia not being mystical or as foreign as idiots like chalmers make them seem. they have a function that, in time, will be understood by cognitive science (which, presently, is too infantile)

>>14147302
They over-complicate everything

>>14147311
No, they won't. You don't understand qualia. What is the function of redness? And Chalmers is a parallelist, like Spinoza was. Lord give me strength.

>>14147317
>What is the function of redness?
what would be an alternative way of receiving visual information of color?

>>14147297
If you can explain why people inquiry about qualia, you have explained qualia itself, because it is ultimately a question of behavior(why do people inquire at all?). In this way, it's reduced to a problem of the physical. It's not up to philosophy to explain.

>>14147265
Every time I hear "qualia" I think of that ASAPscience christmas carol video. You guys should look it up.

>>14147334
Your entire consciousness as a “bundle of sensory data” with a perceived “specious present” (time qualia) is a completely unnecessary and freakish method of computation. It’d make far more sense if our experience of reality was a cascade of data processed independently then evaluated collectively with absolutely no qualia. You wouldn’t “see” red you wouldn’t “see” anything, your brain would just know something was red and respond to it, you wouldn’t even perceive time.

>>14147312
>"urbanity is the problem"
>"technology is the problem"
>"modernity is the problem"

>>14147381

I know you're supporting qualia, but this doesn't exist anywhere in nature. There can't be sense without sensation, and the fact that we have to decide between to (especially in the case of animals) was cooked by satanic Anglo autism.

>>14147281
this, epic retards deny qualia because they watched 10 mins of an hour long Dennett lecture

>>14147385
NO ITS CAPITALISM INNIT THSTS THE PROBLEMS ITCSUDES ALL MY MENTAL ISSUES>>14147398

>>14147265
There's only one reason anybody doubts qualia is real. It's the same single reason anti-metaphysics attitudes all popped up at the same time: the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The reason is this: qualia (and other metaphysical entities) are """"""""""""""useless""""""""""""" to scientific calculation, which is necessary to make you new gadgets sold at profit-maximizing prices by your lovable capitalist overlords. In other words, truth reduces to value under the industrial late capitalist system; what isn't useful, must be untrue too. Wake up. It's not a fucking coincidence that anti-realism rose in conjunction with industrial capitalism.

>>14147451
>Discussion of idea leads nowhere
>People stop discussing it
>"REEEEEE, FUCK CAPITALISM"

>>14147381
How do you know that you seeing red and you receiving a constant stream of information of red aren't the same thing?

>>14147466
>Discussion
this isn't about discussion, it's about denial. it's fine if you think discussing the moon will lead no where, it's another to conclude that this means: "therefore the moon must not exist"

>>14147466
>lead nowhere
This is "usefulness" talk at play though. What's real is what's real and we can know it to be real directly. Just open your eyes. The qualia is fucking there. The amount of effort used to "show" this is wrong is incredible and can only be a consequence of thinking what can't be useful must be false. You know the anti-qualia people are all pragmatists and neo-pragmatists right? They literally define truth in terms of value.

>>14147469
Because I'm seeing red lol.

This anon is right. >>14147451 phenomena can't be mined for shekels so best to deny their ontological status

>>14147483

Ever read the SEP article on Mary's room? It's on another level.

>>14147491
Mary's room falsely assumes that human perception and imagination are the limits of perception and imagination.

>>14147491
what do you think Mary's room proves against qualia? if anything it confirms qualia exist separately from their intellectual discriptions

>>14147491
I've read the Frank Jackson article and the addendum at least. Might check out the SEP article in full some time. I've read literature on sense data (especially literature critical of it), which I think is similar to reading anti-Mary literature.

>>14147503

I'm saying it's a perfect example of the kinds of pretzels anti-qualia fags twist themselves into.

>>14147517
>anti-qualia fags
>fags

You shouldn't use that word

(1) Phenomenal character, e.g. phenomenal blueness, is a physical property of experiences (but see Lycan 1990a for an exception who construes qualia as properties of external objects).

(2) To gain knowledge of what it is like to have an experience of a particular phenomenal character requires the acquisition of phenomenal concepts of phenomenal character.[5]

(3) What it is for an organism to acquire and possess a phenomenal concept can be fully described in broadly physical terms.

(4) A subject can acquire and possess phenomenal concepts only if it has or has had experiences of the relevant phenomenal kind.

(5) After release Mary gains knowledge about phenomenal characters under phenomenal concepts.

But the facts that make these new items of knowledge true are physical facts that Mary knew before release under another conceptualization.

>>14147486
>Because I'm seeing red lol.
Let's say a 'philosophical zombie' with the same biological instruments as you takes in light through the eyes, has it sent to his brain, and then converted to visual information displayed in real time, and is able to say "I am perceiving an apple, which is red", now what is it that you're "seeing" that he isn't? You might say to this automaton that he is not actually perceiving red, he is only saying he does, but how do you explain or show the distinction?

>>14147619
>how do you explain or show the distinction?
Not that anon, but: You won't be able to, but we have reason to believe independent of this that qualia exist and don't reduce to those behaviors and brain states. 20th century philosophy has a long history of showing us that co-extension of predicates, even necessary co-extension, doesn't mean identity of property (triangularity =/= trilaterality); that logically equivalent sentences, even necessarily logically equivalent ones, don't have to have the same meaning (see Soames' critique of Davidson's truth conditional semantics); and that two things can be so metaphysically correlated, either in actuality or across all possibility, that one won't show without the other (for example, Socrates and the singleton set {Socrates} must necessarily co-exist). The observation you put forth is used as some kind of argument in favor of the denial of qualia. But the affirmation of qualia depends on something quite independent of this observation.

>>14147311
Why would cognitive science ever figure it out? Brains and neurons aren't fundamental, understanding their functioning doesn't tell you why certain agglomerations of atoms are conscious.

>>14147721
You don't even know what "conscious" is, so you do not have that authority to make that declaration.

>>14147265
Why would the existence of mental substance alongside physical substance give your life meaning?

>>14147311
Not really. It just says that qualia (conscious experience) is a fundamental feature of the universe and that all things share in it. It neutralizes the problem by claiming the mental to be physical and vice versa

>>14147619
But anon, the brain is inextricably pink, or colored. This is what materialists don't seem to understand: that the items you consider "material" and therefore "real", are themselves as coated in qualia as anything else. You quite literally can't separate color from any visual object, just as you can't separate color from shape. Now I'm not saying there isn't something unknown about how frequencies of light become experienced as specific colors, but I am saying that entities presently deemed as "non-qualia" are themselves equally of qualia to any other. This is why a materialist denying qualia is so absurd - not because they deny the elements of experience as somehow not being present, but that they deny the items of their own doctrine simultaneously, which they are also arguing as being real.

>>14147265
because materialism is false and non-duality is true
subject-object duality is the fundamental root of all delusion and existential problems

>>14147517
it's a pretty simple thought experiment, something you teach undergrads...

>>14147777
this. if qualia don't exist, science is literally impossible, as humans can ONLY interact with the world through sense data. either sense data contains qialia, or we are blind to it. I am a materialist and I think denying qualia is absolutely retard level

>>14147971
Thank you anon. It genuinely baffles me how nonsensical certain parts of science have become, approaching the kind of - forgive me for the harshness - retardation, that only certain instances of organized religion had previously managed to reach in order to uphold its dogmatic model of reality. Which at this point consists of denying their own model itself. It shouldn't be a revelation for me to state that the brain is a colored object, yet we've reached such a point of zombiefication in materialist science that people literally and sincerely say things like "your brain doesn't see color, just data - color is just an illusion, it's not real", as if they've forgotten what a brain itself looks like. Utterly bizarre. Shows you how even educated and intelligent people can lose touch with ordinary reality when they've been living inside incorrectly abstracted mental models of it for so long.

>>14148116
How Can Color Be Real If Our Brains Don't See Color?