/lit/ - Literature

qualia is now

Consciousness, thoughts, and related stuff.

>>20818685
How can qualia be "now" if your senses are delayed by milliseconds

when the perception hits your conscious that's a-qualia

>>20818695
mama mia

>>20818691
then qualia is "your" now, which is delayed from the real now by the miliseconds it takes for information to be processed by the brain

>>20818686
Define consciousness

>>20818703
This

>>20818703
Sum of your qualia

>>20818681
qualia = what it is like to experience a given thing

Trope theory obviates the notion of qualia as actual universal properties, but idealists and other crypto-mystics cling to it as a way to mysticize consciousness.

>>20818681
You can't explain qualia to someone who doesn't have it.

http://www.jaronlanier.com/zombie.html

>>20818681
Qualia are hyper-reflexes of the hyper-Algorithm that is consciousness.

Reflexes are animate physical responses to inanimate physical stimuli.

>>20818745
>animate
This refers to Life, which is one of a few key algorithms of reality

Algorithms are methods of organizing the distribution of energy in a way that is anti-entropic.

Anti-entropy doesn't actually exist, entropy cannot be truly countered, this would violate not just the law of entropy (which doesnt *actually* exist in the classical sense), it would violate a more fundamental law: conservation of energy

thus, algorithms are better defined as localities of low entropy

>>20818739
Maybe you're a zombie

>>20818758
Not bad. Are you sure you're a pneumatic?

>>20818745
>>20818758
This is a correct way to present the situation. Qualia is the most optimal way to achieve a localized low entropy region of spacetime which justifies its very existence based on thermodynamic principles

>>20818767
Or maybe you are

>>20818745
>>20818758
>>20818789
this. It's been proven by neuroimaging that the least entropic experiences happen during childhood and psychedelic states of councioussness, which are the ones with the strongest qualia afaik

>>20818811
Nta but I'm unironically not conscious. I'm the famous NPC everyone seems so obsessed with.
AMA

>>20818703
Use a dictionary.

>>20818789
Not really. Atoms themselves are also "localized low entropy regions" and "anti-entropic algorithms" so you could be describing them instead.

Qualia deez nuts

Define "sticky"

>>20818703
Electrical signals in the brain. Disappears after you die. Can be measured objectively by EEG either thru delta/alpha/mu/beta/gamma wave states. Some theorize gamma (40 hz waves) are the basis of consciousness

Phonological loop = your thoughts/self reflection/subjectivity. Though one can lack any inner dialogue or inner thought, they are still empirically and objectively conscious. Such as brain damaged patients or those with dementia/alzheimers, they're still conscious. Animals react and demonstrate basic consciousness too - they show reflexes and emotions like humans (acting frightened, happy, sad, etc)
Humans however were the first to evolve their gestures and symbolic communication, thus we started communicating with spoken language and became the top of the food chain

i have such a deep disdain for "philosophy" sometimes

>>20818681

>>20818949

>>20818703
The possession of an ego (will coming from the observing and acting self rather than an "outside" instinct) and ability to introspect within a metaphorical "space" in which to make decisions and plans.

>>20818703
Awareness of awareness.

>>20818681
Bullshit word used to describe the (subjective) sensation of particular qualities but is invariably used to hoodwink people into thinking they're making an important statement about consciousness. This is why all definitions of it are inherently so circular, it is not in fact an elemental or essential aspect of experience or consciousness, it is that it is a convenient way of avoiding discussion that reveals how little work they've put into defining (and they understanding) consciousness

>>20818681
unverifiable experienced mental schema.

>>20819525
It's not unverifiable though, we can test color perception and levels of conceptual understanding empirically
>>20819087
I feel you are adding a bullshit definition to color. Why do we need to call it something other than what it is? Color is not a feeling, it is just a low level percept. It also can be manipulated by synesthetes or through associative learning processes (see optical illusions for color, alternatively read about colorblind people)

Colors are just a feature of consciousness itself. Just like shapes, just like lines and geometry, those are all individual smaller parts adding to the whole
>>20819514
Yep.

>>20819548
>It's not unverifiable though, we can test color perception and levels of conceptual understanding empirically
That's not qualia. That's information processing. What is perceiving the color?
AI has color perception and forms of conceptual "understanding" that can be tested in similar ways. You still don't know if it has qualia.

>>20819548
we have no idea what the experience of a given wavelength of light is person to person.

Also read the current theory about how your eyes perceive color. Blue green and red cones/rods in your eyes mix together to give you the full primary/secondary/tertiary color spectrum. Synesthetes somehow learned to associate shapes with colors or ideas with spatial movement (like learning to walk), therefore their "qualia" is different from ours. However we can still manipulate our "qualia" in multiple different ways because it's largely biological
>>20819558
Every person should be assumed conscious given their brain has electrical activity on an EEG. There are multiple disorders for anomalous self experiences such as schizophrenia or schizoid personality disorder, also Cotard delusion and dementia can cause memory loss and delusions of death
Nonetheless, most of these patients are still able to reflect on their experiences and tell it to a doctor. Even people with aphantasia or derealization/depersonalization are still fully conscious - they are just not experiencing the full capability of their brain (as we evolved and require to survive in daily life)
Say someone has a stroke and loses their ability to recall short term memory or recognize faces. Are they still conscious? Yes, absolutely. The conscious observer is there until the electrical activity in the brain stops. Again we have verified this for the most part through empirical study

>>20818681
Qualia rudimentary is just a type of information. One that is hard to define because it's not material. The played out phraseology refers to qualia as the, "what it's like" aspect of a thing or experience. Refer to Nagels Bat, Mary's Room, Searles Chinese room, etc. Materialism suffers the same problems when trying to answer the 'hard' problem of consciousness

>>20819566
Nothing you said related to anything I said. High level consciousness and identity needs memory and processing but none of those things account for why the process is experiencing things.
That you don't remember experiencing something doesn't mean you didn't experience it. That's a point in favor of the idea that everything has "experience". In simpler things it has no coherence of identity or any of the complex things we normally attribute to it.

>>20819564
Are you messing with me or what?

>>20819575
Your brain enables your consciousness, above that, your brain also enables short term memory + working memory + long term memory. If you happened to get into a horrible accident you could lose any of those three processes due to brain damage.
The conscious "experiencing" is near the lowest level, with the basics like color and shape perception. Object perception is related to vision, your brain categorizes objects and has to blend individual objects thru snapshot frames to make up an entire "scene". People who lose their object/motion perception view the world in still frames or can only focus on one object at a time

Like I said, these are individual processes located within the brain. Your brain is made up from parts, for your vision hearing touch taste smell. It all consists of parts to make up a larger whole. The conscious observer is still there regardless of whatever part goes missing, the electrical activity in your brain stays consistent until you are dead

>>20818703
Dictate define!

>>20819589
You're not saying anything about qualia.
I can reproduce most of those systems in computers. We don't know if they have qualia. You don't know what electrical activity is expressed as qualia or even if the phenomena itself fundamentally relies on electrical activity. You know memories and the process that perceives a coherent identity over time is gone but you don't know anything about the qualia except that you yourself are experiencing things right now. There's no evidence of that phenomena anywhere else.

>>20819600
Memories can be tested by electrical activity on EEG. For the most part we can measure many different conscious experiences and replicate the patterns by the EEG. That's more due to brainwaves and how they express themselves (like say taking a certain drug increases beta brain waves, or how a disorder is a maladaptive theta brainwave state across the brain, or lack of connectivity overall in schizophrenics)
You should understand, you are not giving "qualia" a solid definition. From the external world to your own internal world, there are physical processes and parts bridging the gap. Even outside of biology, your native language and verbal acuity determines how you think and the content of your thoughts (phonological loop)
Metaphor and analogy is a "high level" process conceptually, mainly how we reason or explain things using language. But this is all based on top-down vs. bottom up. You could keep saying I'm not defining "qualia" but you are failing to define it yourself. That seems like a failing on your part

>>20819611
>Memories can be tested
Irrelevant to any discussion about qualia. You can rant for as long as you want about information processing
>you are not giving "qualia" a solid definition
The only evidence of it is from your own perspective. You can't grasp the idea that things exist that are outside your precious models so you won't accept anything as a definition unless it sits within those holy models.
>You could keep saying I'm not defining "qualia" but you are failing to define it yourself
I'm at least talking about the subject. You don't seem to grasp anything and just mindlessly regurgitate basic shit from textbooks smugly.

>>20819615
Dude are you fucking stupid? I just went on for 15 minutes trying to explain to you, this is a foundation built on parts making up a whole. Consciousness acts bi-directionally, the external world acts on you, just as you act onto it. You are gaining nothing by saying the word "qualia" over and over rather than being specific and precise. Consciousness is the electrical activity we can objectively measure, it stays there in the brain until you are dead. There is no p-zombie phenomena, even those who lack inner dialogue are still conscious observers. Maybe you should go back to your video games or anime if you don't understand it

>>20819564
>Color drastically changes between different people even though the physicals systems are all the same and we have consensus over what properties colors have because... well it just could okay!

>>20819621
You spent 15 minutes saying over and over that you're so conditioned by your dogma that you can't grasp the idea of qulia. You said nothing I didn't know and didn't make any attempt to understand what I'm telling you.
Why does processing information in a certain way suddenly cause an observer to observe that specific kind of information processing?
>there is no p-zombie phenomena
No there is not but you are describing a p-zombie while pretending you're not. You're not accounting for the thing we're talking about, just pretending it doesn't exist even though it's literally staring you in the fact right now.
>the external world acts on you, just as you act onto it
Acts on what? A system that's processing information? Why and when specifically does this system start experiencing? There are lots of things which interact with the external world, does each interaction mean experience is happening there? When a computer processes information from bi-direction interactions with the external world is it then experiencing? Why? How do you know?

>>20819632
>Acts on what? A system that's processing information?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enactivism

>Why and when specifically does this system start experiencing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop

>Strange loops take form in human consciousness as the complexity of active symbols in the brain inevitably leads to the same kind of self-reference which Gödel proved was inherent in any complex logical or arithmetical system in his incompleteness theorem. Gödel showed that mathematics and logic contain strange loops: propositions that not only refer to mathematical and logical truths, but also to the symbol systems expressing those truths. This leads to the sort of paradoxes seen in statements such as "This statement is false," wherein the sentence's basis of truth is found in referring to itself and its assertion, causing a logical paradox.

>Hofstadter argues that the psychological self arises out of a similar kind of paradox. We are not born with an "I" – the ego emerges only gradually as experience shapes our dense web of active symbols into a tapestry rich and complex enough to begin twisting back upon itself. According to this view the psychological "I" is a narrative fiction, something created only from intake of symbolic data and its own ability to create stories about itself from that data. The consequence is that a perspective (a mind) is a culmination of a unique pattern of symbolic activity in our nervous systems, which suggests that the pattern of symbolic activity that makes identity, that constitutes subjectivity, can be replicated within the brains of others, and perhaps even in artificial brains.

>>20819640
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enactivism
>Cognition
Is not qualia, it's information processing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop
>Coherent identity from memory over time
Is not qualia, it's information processing.

You're too retarded to even grasp the question but still regurgitate things you don't understand on any level. 100% American.

>>20819649
Information processing and identity is your conscious experience. You seem confused

>>20819650
>Information processing and identity is your conscious experience
How? When does information processing become conscious?
I can replicate all your shitty definitions in simple forms and according to you those simple systems have experience. It's still not possible to test that hypothesis because you still haven't accounted for the phenomena at all. You've said absolutely nothing.

>>20819657
What's your definition of "qualia" and "consciousness"?

>Hofstadter claims a similar "flipping around of causality" appears to happen in minds possessing self-consciousness. The mind perceives itself as the cause of certain feelings ("I" am the source of my desires), while according to popular scientific models, feelings and desires are strictly caused by the interactions of neurons.

>>20819658
I've been telling you but you're braindead.
I experience, I use the label "qualia" to relate that phenomena to you.
I don't know a system that processes information about the external world, has a memory and is reactive to its own processes has experience. You say it does and that you know it does but don't say why it does or how you know. You just dogmatically know it without needing to give any account.

>>20818886
and atoms themselves are algorithms. quantum states also. it's just the micro scale. it's also where quantum woo stems from (horseshit)

>>20818854
>>20818789
>>20818779
thanks for the input :)

i invite you to my pneumatic thread. it has Plato as its thumbnail, you can't miss it!

>when I /thread The ThreadTM but it keeps on going
it really shiggies my diggy

>>20819674
Like the other guy you're not saying anything really. I already knew these were pockets of low entropy and information processors and all that. Doesn't engage in any way with the question of what experience is. It's like you're both just trying to confuse yourselves into forgetting the problem.

>>20819665
>>20819681
You seem so confused you can't even determine whether you want to talk about the physics, biology, psychology or the linguistic components of consciousness

We could absolutely go into the phase space transitions/physics theories of conscious perception. Problem is, you are so confused, you cannot provide any clear definition for your questions. Doesn't really matter because you don't have an argument, you are not saying anything valuable either

>>20819694
holy fucking based. DEMOLISH that hylic, my man

you know a lot about this particular stuff. you seem to know more than me even.
maybe we could have a little productive chat?

Lancelot#9582

>>20819694
>you can't even determine whether you want to talk about the physics, biology, psychology or the linguistic components of consciousness
None of those disciplines account for qualia which is the entire point. Exactly like I said before you can't even conceive of an idea that's not defined within the context of your holy models.
You're not even aware of it? You can't relate this post to the post that predicted it?
>We could absolutely go into the phase space transitions/physics theories of conscious perception
You won't say anything about how arranging matter in certain ways or processing information in certain ways results in the process experiencing anything. You'll keep talking about inputs and outputs, logic that can be replicated in computers without any evidence of the process experiencing anything no matter how reactive it is to its environment and its self.

>>20819694
uhh shut up
u sound fun at parties LMFAO
have sex.
im trans btw

>>20819694
>>20819705
It blows my mind every time that you retards can't even get past the conditioning when it's thrown in your face how brainwashed you are.
There's a phenomena that your models don't account for but all your thought processes are so dependent on those models that to you anything outside them is functionally equivalent to not existing.

>>20819710
Pneumaticism accounts for qualia but you won't dare challenge

>>20818681
That which does not admit of a quantitative representation. The opposite of "quanta." Where "quanta" can be thought of almost as the Descartian res extensa, with the caveat that a quanta is a pure representation and therefore cannot properly be given as an extended body, an extended body as such being a type of qualia.

>>20819732
>There's a phenomena that your models don't account for but all your thought processes are so dependent on those models that to you anything outside them is functionally equivalent to not existing.
here's a quick little redpill:

noumena are not actual entities in the classical sense

only phenomena are

>>20818924
>Electrical signals in the brain. Disappears after you die. Can be measured objectively by EEG either thru delta/alpha/mu/beta/gamma wave states. Some theorize gamma (40 hz waves) are the basis of consciousness
Why can't it be simulated then?

>>20818924
>Some theorize gamma (40 hz waves) are the basis of consciousness
Some theorize the soul is the basis of consciousness.

>>20819771
Stupid tripfag

>>20818924
The problem with neuroscience is that it assumes causality IS causation. The entire science is wavy as hell, but this being one of its core tenets spells doom for anything that psychiatrists have built. And good riddance: I'm looking forward to the pitchforks and the stakes.
This all is leading to so many human tragedies, so many chemically lobotomized geniuses I can't help but laugh at it.
To answer your question: the electrical signals can be measured; we have no fucking idea of what it is that produces them or how we even perceive them as analog data in the form of memories, thoughts, sensory experiences and reactions, how these experiences vary between living organisms, and what even leads to the miracle of being able to be aware of the system that controls us to begin with through a passive, detached observer than in actuality when thought of, in its own quality as itself, can only come with an instinctive answer (as many biases are) of divine quality. The inner workings of the brain are, indeed, an enigma.
>>20819566
It's worth mentioning that the synesthete perceives the world in ways similar to yours and will have very much the same thoughts, ideas, cognitive biases and failings as any other human being. Their quality of witnessing color isn't even shared. You have more luck fucking with perception with LSD to achieve more consistent results.
You gave argument for consciousness being more than just a regulated brain exercise, by the way. People with highly damaged brains can still be conscious of what they are experiencing, and while it's easy to say this is proof the brain is modular, the reality is that there is something higher and not so easily cracked happening here. A system that is aware of itself as a system is either a paradox or proof of a much more complex design than reductionist electrical pulses and chemical binds.

>>20818681
The plural of quale.

>>20819771
You made 500 posts on the subject. You had 500 opportunities to say anything and instead you used those opportunities to confuse yourself with concepts you apparently don't understand like entropy.

>>20818681
the subjective quality that a particular observer has in regards to its observations, it cannot be fully demonstrated, "what if we all say different colors like i saw blue as green but you saw blue as red and we would never know because we learn because someone points at a color and calls it "blue" but we are actually experiencing different colors"

The private experience of a particular thing, essentially.

Any attempt to intuit how another experiences X or Y comes down to self-reference and winds up circular.

>>20819577
>>20819625
recognition of a given wavelength is not the same as the potential difference in the experiential understanding. I don't think people see colors radically differently, but it's the best example of qualia imo.

>>20819087
Bro..what if my yellow...is different from your yellow...
*hits blunt*
Whoa...

>>20822472
It's weird enough that we can't check.

>>20818681
Immediate bit of experience uncomplicated by consideration of its relationship to other bits. Whether that's a philosophically defensible ontological position, and I myself am scpetical, it's patently clear what this term refers to and only a dunce totally iffamiliar with the tradition of thought in any culture whatsoever would be unable to conceive of it as such.

>>20818854
most entropic
fix'd

>>20819732
Indeed. You are very brainwashed

>>20823716
Say something retard. This is a forum, the idea is to say things.
I explained what I mean in detail while you're too mindless to even attempt to communicate anything relevant.

>>20818681
Whatsoever happens to be present within the mind at any given time.

>>20823739
What do you want me to say? If you want me to reply, then learn how to form a proper argument. I'm not going to waste time with retards flinging ad homs back and forth. There'd be no reason for discussion. >>20819694

>>20824159
You're not part of the discussion. Mindlessly reading back tidbits of information you don't even understand is not contributing to a discussion. You haven't mentioned the phenomena. You keep saying exactly what I already predicted someone incapable of grasping anything outside his preconceptions would say. >>20819710
Say anything about the actual phenomena. How can you know a given piece of matter is experiencing the color yellow? If I create a system that reacts to the color yellow in all the ways you say are necessary to experience it how do you know it's really experiencing anything? How can you be this fucked in the head?

>>20824375
>How can you know a given piece of matter is experiencing the color yellow?
By stimulating the yellow receptor
How do you know it is a yellow receptor?
Because they told me they saw yellow when I stimulated it
But how did they know what yellow is?
By stimulating the yellow receptor
By stimulating the yellow receptor

>>20818681
Qualuudes

>>20824404
All assumptions, basically no better than guessing. I do assume other people experience yellow but there's no way to check. You apparently aren't even aware that you're making assumptions. You can't discuss them because you're completely blind to them.
>Because they told me they saw yellow when I stimulated it
So if I make a robot that seems to respond to yellow with the correct label and tells you it sees yellow, you then know it really experiences yellow? How?

New age voodoo for tech bros.

>>20818681
i witnessed this qualia cancer in 2009 with 4chin falling to pieces. it won't happen again. It would be dreadful if it happened so.

>>20824114
How do you sleep then? Does your mind ever shut off?

>>20824425
My post was a joke, basically that they go into a loop whenever trying to explain it.

a spook

>>20818739
>You can't explain qualia to someone who doesn't have it.
then explain it to someone who has it. if you have it you should be able to explain it, unless you don't have it?

>>20819621
why re you even in this thread? so many irrelevant tangents. it's like you talking and talking and saying fucking nothing

>>20819621
"electrical activity" is just how "consciousness" (the primordial light-field) instantiates in this universe with these fundamental constants. brains are the omphalic tokens of private monads. you know so little

>>20825539
how can he know you have it if you cant understand what hes talking about?

>>20825749
that's the point isn't it? he has to talk about it to find out

>>20825758
what it's like to experience something. the X-ness of X. anti-qualiafags are such infuriating autists. it's not that hard

A feeling or experience that is impossible to describe.

>>20818703
Animal stops and realizes he's an animal. Now what?

>>20823107
We all have the same nervous system, the same sensory organs, the same electrical and chemical signals. How can anyone believe individuals' perception can differ.

>>20827153
>How can anyone believe individuals' perception can differ.
Nobody does. The point is we can't check. That has implications, especially for retards that can't conceive of the idea that their models aren't the same thing as reality.

>>20818706
Btw I meant this as in all this, what we're doing, what's happening now

>>20818681
the most basic, fundamental level of experience and perception, on which categories are formed
The "white" and "cold" of snow
Close your eyes, enter a dark room without any light, you dont see anything but you "see" the color black, you experience blackness

>>20819577
Damn are you stupid
Tell me the reason why wavelenght 450 causes the experience of blue and wavelenght 700 the experience of red

>>20824404
>Because they told me they saw yellow when I stimulated it

That's it right there. You needed them to tell you because you can't actually see what they see. That's the hard problem.

Subjective experience with a distinguishable quality

That which perceives.

>>20818681
Thought formations