[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 352 KB, 1600x1064, zombies-eating-meat-hd-wallpapers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5270751 No.5270751[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What reason is there to believe in qualia? They don't seem real to me. Every time you try to describe what they are, you only describe their correlates

Some philosophers have asked, how do you know that when you see red, the same "qualia" is experienced as when I see red (perhaps you experience something like my blue)? Well I would go further, how do you know that when you see red, it is the same as the last time you saw red? "I remember". No you remember seeing a red object, how can you say whether "the experience of red" was the same each time? You don't even know what the experience of red is, what statements are true or false about this supposed object. All you know is there are objects that are red and you saw them.

I'm beginning to think that this whole "persepective" or "experience" thing is overrated, it wouldn't be the first time our general intuitions led us to certainty regarding the incoherent. It could very well be that we naturally assume qualia are real for some socio-biological reason, similar to why people tend to assume morality is objective, it facilitates a certain way of interacting with each other.

Maybe believing in qualia is something our brains just tend to naturally, like believing in causation? Despite there being no conceivable evidence for either phenomena, believing in them doesn't really damage us, on the contrary, causation seems inherent to our motivative functions.

So what do qualia do? Why do we think in such terms? Maybe it helps us fear death. The subjective experience of death is thought of primarily as an end of qualia, that is, of the many kinds of ways to die, that is the unifying factor (except in the case of life after death, which may then be a defensive belief against the fear of the end of qualia). Fearing death seems like an appropriate motivating influence, it seems to be the biological influence behind the existence of pain at any rate. Maybe pain and all qualia don't exist we just have dispositions to behave in a certain way and dispositions to think in a certain way about these pains

>> No.5270755

>>5270751
Pls change the pic, this is a SFW board.

>> No.5270771

Subjective experience is an undeniable fact. Some philosophers even say it is the only undeniable fact we can be sure of. Certainly it does require a scientific explanation. As you pointed out in your post, it is extremely difficult to find a scientific explanation because subjective experience is hard to formalize objectively. Congratulations, OP, you discovered the hard problem of consciousness.

>> No.5270777

>>5270771

No I'm saying what if there is no hard problem?

>Subjective experience is an undeniable fact

what makes you think it's undeniable? I'm denying right now

>> No.5270779

>>5270755
if you're on 4chan while at work, you kind of deserve to be fired

>> No.5270795

>>5270777
You are denying your own subjective experience? That's ridiculous. On the very unlikely off-chance that you're not trolling, you must be born with an extremely rare (possibly even unique) neurological dysfunction. Get in contact with a neuroscientist. Scanning your brain and finding out the cause of your defect might yield a breakthrough in understanding consciousness.

>> No.5270806

>>5270795

why is it ridiculous though? it may be ridiculous but i'm trying to figure out what is ridiculous about it.

it seems like you can only give me "well its obvious bro, don't you see?", and that's all I can give myself too, it seems like the only evidence for qualia is an instinctual desire to believe in them

>> No.5270812

>>5270795

basically I'm saying what if the difference between conscious and subconscious thought/perception is merely a belief, a disposition to claim that they are different?

>> No.5270832

The spooky thing about qualia is that even if they didn't exist, we would probably still act exactly as if they did.

>> No.5270847

>>5270832

right exactly, so why believe they exist? it seems like nothing would change at all if they didnt exist, we would believe all the same things, we would act all the same ways, so in what way can they even be said to exist?

>> No.5270848

>>5270779
That's not the point. This kind of graphic material is against the rules and should be deleted immediately.

>> No.5270850
File: 87 KB, 500x800, philosotards REKT by Sam Harris.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5270850

>>5270777
⇒I'm denying right now

Top kek. Never change, philosotards. You can also deny gravity and evolution, it only makes you look even more retarded. This is why you will never be accepted by scientists.

Here is a description of the hard problem written by a man with a PhD in neuroscience:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness

>> No.5270878

>>5270850

but see, evolution and gravity have a clear place in our ontological framework. gravity describes matter's tendency to move towards a center of mass. evolution describes how small changes in genetic material over time add up to large scale changes in physical appearance and function

i can't figure out, though, what subjective experience does, what role it plays in our conception of "what is?"

ill definitely read that paper though

>> No.5270879

>>5270751

>2014
>eliminative materialism

shiggy

>> No.5270882

>/lit/ users trying to discuss philosophy
topkek

>> No.5270886

>>5270850
You're gay, and your arrow that doesn't make text green sucks

>> No.5270895

>>5270850
What contemporary philosophers deny gravity and evolution? Who says that water isn't two parts H and one part O? Why do you think that philosophers deny the hard problem of consciousness? If anything, it's the philosophers who insist that it exists and the STEM-lords who refuse to agree.

>> No.5270941

>>5270878
⇒i can't figure out, though, what subjective experience does, what role it plays in our conception of "what is?"
I'm sure scientists will find out soon. By phrasing it this way you accepted the hard problem btw. You acknowledge subjective experience and you ask for its function and its mechanisms. Thanks for invalidating the inerudite Dennett sophistry of your OP post just like Dennett himself invalidates his own imbecilic drivel all the time.

>>5270895
⇒Why do you think that philosophers deny the hard problem of consciousness?
Because just like OP I read Dennett and was absolutely disgusted by his anti-scientific attitude of denying a phenomenon instead of explainig it. He is on par with creationists and his rhetoric is just as cringeworthy: A lot of thought experiments AGAINST his claims, zero arguments supporting his claims, and a lot of straw man "if u disagree, ur a dualist" accusations.

>> No.5270961

>>5270850

it seems like that article doesn't really explain it either. he even admits that the only evidence for consciousness is that he believes it exists, it's circular.

if anything he has me even more convinced that there is no hard problem of consciousness

at what point do creatures become complex enough to have subjective experience? not asking in the empirical sense, that question requires serious experiments and research. I'm asking what you think such an answer would look like?

i mean do you think there was a population of nearly-vertebrate proto-lifeforms with no subjectivity and then one day, one of them evolved just enough complexity to have subjectivity, to stop being an automaton? and then they were just the only one of their kind with any subjectivity?

>> No.5270973

>>5270941

>I'm sure scientists will find out soon. By phrasing it this way you accepted the hard problem btw. You acknowledge subjective experience and you ask for its function and its mechanisms. Thanks for invalidating the inerudite Dennett sophistry of your OP post just like Dennett himself invalidates his own imbecilic drivel all the time.

i dont get this response

I can ask for the role/mechanism/function that souls or magic play in our ontology without accepting that they exist.

Why can't I do the same about qualia?

>> No.5270983

>>5270961
That or panpsychism

>> No.5270987

>>5270961
How can you seriously in the same post deny the hard problem and then proceed to ask the exact questions the hard problem asks? You are promoting the hard problem and showing us his difficulties better than anyone else could.

>> No.5271001

>>5270987

>How can you seriously in the same post deny the hard problem and then proceed to ask the exact questions the hard problem asks? You are promoting the hard problem and showing us his difficulties better than anyone else could.

just because you have an immeasurably strong and consistent reaction to these questions doesnt mean that I do or that everybody else will. In my opinion, thinking about these questions compels me to believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with the distinction "subjective" and "automaton", whereas you seem to believe these questions somehow prove that subjectivity is a thing

>> No.5271003

>>5270973
Why would you want an explanation for something that you believe doesn't exist?

>> No.5271010

>>5271001
Science doesn't care about your dogmatic beliefs. Come up with a scientific explanation or STFU.

>> No.5271011

>>5270941
What's wrong with dualism?

>> No.5271012

>>5271003

If I had an explanation for them I might not think they don't exist lol, I dont think you're thinking very hard about what you are saying

I dont believe in magic either but I would love to hear an explanation for magic from somebody who does believe in magic

>> No.5271022

>>5271010

what are you saying? are you claiming that qualia have been proven scientifically and that it is my responsibility to explain scientifically why that's not true?

>> No.5271023

>>5271011
It has no evidence, it doesn't provide a satisfying explanatory mechanism and its support is only based on an argument from ignorance.

>> No.5271027

How does a thing even like move? It's so strange. Maybe the whole world is a soul.

>> No.5271032

>>5271022
Subjective experience happens and does require a scientific explanation. Science will explain it some day, no matter how hard it makes you cry.

>> No.5271034

>>5271027

how?

that doesn't seem strange, that's biomechanics

why?

that's more strange. why do things move, why are there fundamental forces like electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force?

>> No.5271043

>>5270941
I mean, I agree about Dennett. "Consciousness Explained Away" and all that. I'm just saying that, in my experience, philosophers are the ones fretting about qualia, not neuroscientists.

>> No.5271044

>>5271023
A theory could emerge that's fundamentally dualistic and has those things you want. Are there really any better alternatives?

>> No.5271046

>>5271032

I still really get it, it seems like you can do nothing but INSIST, with no evidence, that qualia exist. Which I am sympathetic too, I most certainly believe that when I see blue, it is the same every time, but I can't figure out why I believe this and I want to.

>> No.5271051

>>5271046

still dont* really get it

>> No.5271054

>>5271034
How is mechanics even then? The how runs jsut as deep as the why.

>> No.5271055

>>5270878

Subjective experience also has a clear place in our "ontological framework," being that it is our access point to literally everything. To deny subjective experience is self-contradictory, as you have to have in the first place to declare that you don't.

>>5270850

That's the first thing I've read from Harris that hasn't made me want to throw myself from the nearest window.

>> No.5271060

>>5271023
What kind of dualism are you talking about? Are you aware that dualism =/= belief in a soul?

>> No.5271063

>>5271054

it depends on what you mean. I think the "why" can't really be answered, every explanation of "how" can be given a more fundamental of "how", but that doesn't invalidate the less fundamental descriptions

>> No.5271065

>>5271043

Spend a lot of time around neuro-scientists, do you?

>> No.5271066

>>5271046
The evidence is, look in front of you. There it is.

>> No.5271077

>>5271055

>Subjective experience also has a clear place in our "ontological framework," being that it is our access point to literally everything.

it seems to me like nerve endings are our access point to "literally everything"

>To deny subjective experience is self-contradictory, as you have to have in the first place to declare that you don't.

why? do you think a robot could not declare that it doesn't have subjective experience? you could say that robots don't "declare", but then you're essentially begging the question by claiming that "declaration" is only possible by beings with subjective experience

>> No.5271085

>>5271066

i see a computer, i see walls, i see my hands

computer + walls + hands, ergo, qualia exist ??

>> No.5271087

>>5271046
How many more times are you gonna tell us that you DON'T know? Are you really that proud of your ignorance that you need to parade it around? Provide a scientifically testable mechanism or shut the fuck up and stop wasting everyone's time with a useless exercise in clumsy sophistry.

>> No.5271089

>>5271065
Enough.

>> No.5271096

>>5271055

>To deny subjective experience is self-contradictory, as you have to have in the first place to declare that you don't.

this argument is akin to a theist saying when an atheist claims "God doesn't exist, why would he let evil into the world" is contradictory because asking why "he" let evil into the world assumes God exists

>> No.5271102

>>5271087

jesus dude you seem very upset, i still dont undersatnd what you are asking for, a scientifically testable mechanism for what? i haven't claimed there's some phenomena that you deny, so what explanation are you seeking?

are you asking for a physical explanation of qualia? I don't have one, which is one reason why I don't believe in them.

>> No.5271106

>>5271102
Everything you can't explain doesn't exist? Wow, your world must be very empty.