[extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time! [Was: Qualia Bet]

[gts]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 01:32:48 -0500, Marc Geddes <m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au>  
wrote:

>  Which observer's view-point
>  should be picked out as the 'objectivity correct' one?
>  Green is not in the object I'm telling ya.

Well, the obvious question is, "If green is not in green objects, then why  
don't people see them as red or some other color?"

Something objective about green objects must cause them to appear  
"greenish."

I'm sorry to keep mentioning that old fuddy-duddy John Locke, but his  
old-fashioned explanation seems perfectly reasonable to me: the real,  
objective, primary qualities of green objects are arranged in such a way  
that they give rise to secondary qualities, better understood as the  
powers of objects to cause qualia in our experience. If these powers are  
derived from real objective qualities then why not call them real and  
objective for our purposes?

As far as I can tell, the presence of an observer is the only real  
difference between primary and secondary qualities. If our goal is to  
objectify qualia then we need only separate them from the observer. I  
believe G.E. Moore attempted this, no? Any thoughts on his approach?

> The idea that we experience the world directly is an
> even bigger mistake than the fallacy of the Cartesian
> Theater.
>
> Suppose for instance that someone is afraid of snakes.
>  They have a 'fear qualia' whenever they see the
> snake.  Surely you can see that the 'fear qualia' is
> not in the snake?  Nor does it make any sense to say
> that there are 'green qualia' in green objects.

This brings up a nagging point in my mind. I see a difference between pure  
sense data and emotional feelings like fear. Both are subjective  
experiences and are normally labeled qualia, but is there not a difference  
between them?

The Cartesian Theater seems to me to pertain to the first kind of qualia,  
but not the second.

-gts