<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 11 February 2017 at 11:37, Colin Hales <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:col.hales@gmail.com" target="_blank">col.hales@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Yikes. I'm currently finding it hard to attend here... up to my armpits in my cellular automata work. I'll try and be brief and attend to the comments in a general sense. It's sat morn here downunder. Time out. <br><br><div>The big one.</div><div><br></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">I can use John
Clark’s remarks as a launching place….<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">“Science is
empirical, it's about observing behavior of people and matter, if the behavior
of 2 things is identical then it would be impossible by definition to
distinguish between them scientifically, …”</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">OK.
Sorry John, but this is where my blood boils? Don’t take this personally. I
have been watching this issue in detail for 15 years. When is the penny gonna
drop? This very comment goes on and on and on and on in many different forms
all over the place ….and nothing ever shifts and the same mistake gets made
over and over and over. FFS.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><Deep
breaths> quasi rant-time.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">In
exactly what way does this OBSERVING happen? It happens in the subjectivity of
the ‘scientific observer’. The first person perspective (1PP) of the scientist.
In the unique context of explaining qualia…. That first person perspective is
both presupposed (the observer is being presupposed) and the explanandum!<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">You
cannot have objectivity without subjectivity. Subjectivity SUPERVENES on
objectivity. What do you think you are objectifying an ‘object’ out of??
SUBJECTIVITY! (as contents of)<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">That
being the brutal fact of being a scientist, you are then forced to admit that
subjectivity is actually _more_ ‘evidenced’ than anything else in the history of
science and has been evidenced in every scientific observation ever made in the
entire history of science. Furthermore the “evidence” is more certain than any
claim about the ‘objective observation’ (sorry </span><span style="font-family:"segoe ui emoji",sans-serif">😝</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">)
of the _contents_ of a 1PP.’<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Can
you (the group I mean) not see this? Isn’t it obvious?<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">==============METAPHOR<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Claiming
that qualia are not evidenced is EXACTLY like claiming that movies don’t
evidence a movie projector. Do you ‘see the movie projector’ when imbued by a
movie? Would you expect to? Of course not!!! Yet that projector is evidenced
nonetheless! <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">At
the same time, the broken stupidity of the arguments say that the only thing
that is real is the _contents_ of the picture (say X) on the movie screen! How
stupid is this? The ‘scientific evidence’ of X provided in a movie about X is
less certain than the evidence that there is a movie projector. In the case of
qualia we are required to explain the existence and nature of the movie
projector … by observing the movie? Crazy crap. Why is simply realising there
is a movie not evidence of a movie? And that when that projector is shut down,
all evidence of X goes with it!! 100% every time. Is this really that hard to
get your brain around?<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">The
projector is qualia physics and the movie is the represented contents of the
qualia. ….. the scientific evidence and
the ‘contents of scientific observation’ part company! That’s all that happens.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">At
the very heart of this is utter bullshit: That somewhere engraved on a cultural
rock from on high, that no one is ever trained in, is not written down,
examined or reviewed – EVER – we identify ‘evidence’ with ‘contents of the 1PP’.
This is nothing but a blindly followed “</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Science is
empirical, it's about observing behavior of people and matter…” unquestioned acculturation. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Can
you now see this? The group I mean. Is it really that hard? <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">END OF METAPHOR ======================<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">We go on and on and on about the
‘lack of observation of qualia’ while demanding it be used on the pain of the
science being thrown out (because OBJECTIVITY didn’t happen) when the _evidence_
of an observer (and therefore qualia) is completely missed … is the existence
of the possibility of objectivity in and of itself.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">What does it take to out this
bizarre blockage?<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">In the case of X = qualia there
is an almost breathtaking confusion between the existence of “scientific
evidence of X” and the “existence of X as contents of consciousness objectified
out of consciousness”.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">What would be the “evidence” of a
scientific observer? That’s what the evidence of qualia is. Of course the
qualia are not observable as “contents of the subjectivity of the assumed
observer”. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">But that does not mean they are
not evidenced. SCIENTISTS are the scientific evidence of qulia. Brutally
reinforced with every observation ever made. Not only that, it’s scientifically
testable! The evidence is ‘laws of the appearances of nature by a presupposed
observer utterly dependent on subjectivity for observation’. Take the
subjectivity away? NO SCIENCE.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">Scientists have to be evidence of
something? Don’t we? FFS why are we NOT evidence of qualia? Do we operate by
magic? Must we have a sacred line drawn around ourselves?<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">So infuriating! Do I really have
to say this again? Isn’t it bloody obvious? Is there something wrong with me?
Why do I even have to say this?<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">The explanandum we seek is NOT
OBSERVABLE but it is DEFINITELY
EVIDENCED. </p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>While it is immediately "obvious" that you need qualia to do science, with some further reflection you should be able to see that is possible that the scientists have no qualia - that they are philosophical zombies. It then requires further argument to show that they are not philosophical zombies. It is not "obvious".<br></div><div> </div></div><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Stathis Papaioannou</div>
</div></div>