[extropy-chat] qualia

[Brent Allsop]

gts:

> Seems to me that to say 'It's simply a phenomenal property of something in
> our brain' is to avoid the question. How exactly is it that phenomenal
> properties of matter exist and lead to subjective experience?

How does matter have causal properties?  We don't know how - we just know
that they do.  The same can also be said of phenomenal properties.  Our
conscious knowledge is made of phenomenal properties - so we know they
exist.  Just like causal properties - we don't really know why they exist.

> To quote Chalmers, "At the end of the day, the same criticism applies to
> any purely physical account of consciousness. For any physical process we
> specify there will be an unanswered question: Why should this process give
> rise to experience?"

Yes, Chalmers gets very close here.  When he is talking about "any purely
physical account" he is talking about any cause and effect account
observable through our cause and effect senses.  He is ignoring the
possibility that matter also has phenomenal properties which are ineffable
to traditional cause and effect observation.  What - do you expect to see
green when you cut open a brain?  He should not ask: "Why should this
process give rise to experience?"  He should say where and what are these
phenomenal properties which our conscious knowledge is made of.  And what
are the neural correlates or what matter has them?

> > Exactly - electrostimulation is almost exactly effing!
> 
> Assume we have this 'effing' technology, that it resembles
> electrostimulation. We attach the device to person A and flip the switch.
> He reports seeing red. We do the same with person B who also reports
> seeing red. This might seem a success, but is it? How can we be certain A
> and B actually experience the same qualia? How is this method
> qualitatively different from a more basic type of stimulation, such as
> simply asking A and B to gaze at the same red wall?
> 
> Rather than stimulating the retina you are (presumably) stimulating
> certain neurological structures associated with 'redness'. You must be
> assuming that the same structures exist and work identically in every
> brain, yes?

Yes exactly.  Red is and always will be red.  Certainly the neural correlate
that has red will always have the same red in any mind.  Certainly there is
a good chance some people represent 700 nm light with different phenomenal
properties than others.  The left hemisphere of our brain can have red and
the right hemisphere of our brain can have green.  Some how this is all
unified into one conscious world and we know the difference between these to
phenomenal properties even though they are occurring in two different
hemispheres of our brain.  Once we start hacking our brains - we will be
able to similarly merge multiple minds and experience shared conscious
worlds (or shared spirit worlds if you will).  Then we will know for sure
that red, and the same neural correlate that always produces it for you, is
the same for me.  Right?


Will someone hurry and take my bet? ;)  I want to make some money before
someone finally discovers and realizes the obvious.


Brent Allsop