We have constructed our understanding of the universe based on what we have, not on what we truly need. While this understanding is useful, there are many gaps in it. If I were to mention them, a million new topics would emerge, so let’s omit that for now.
Qualia does not fit into this framework—not because it isn’t real; first-person experience is obviously real—but because we can’t integrate it into our current understanding, so we just ignore it. The fact that something is missing in our understanding of consciousness isn’t just a problem for philosophers. As you’ve seen, many neuroscientists try to find a materialistic explanation for qualia, but none have found a definitive answer. The point isn’t that qualia isn’t necessary, but that it can’t be incorporated into our understanding because, as I’ve said many times, we don’t presuppose any property in matter from which first-person experience could emerge. This isn’t my invention; aside from the philosophers I’ve mentioned, physicists like Roger Penrose and Max Tegmark, as well as neuroscientists like Christof Koch and Giulio Tononi, have expressed similar ideas.
For example, Roger Penrose argues that consciousness cannot be a computational problem because, according to him, the way our cognitive functions work seems to indicate the presence of deeper processes. This is why Penrose introduces quantum mechanics into the discussion of human consciousness. But let me tell you that introducing quantum mechanics into consciousness adds a non-local dimension to conscious experiences, as he suggests that quantum entanglement could be part of the process. In other words, Penrose is placing the root of consciousness outside of space (and maybe even time, as quantum phenomena often exhibit strange temporal properties). And while his ideas may be unproven, new evidence is pointing in the direction of confirming this hypothesis. For example:
N. S. Babcock, G. Montes-Cabrera, K. E. Oberhofer, M. Chergui, G. L. Celardo, and P. Kurian, Ultraviolet Superradiance from Mega-Networks of Tryptophan in Biological Architectures, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 128, 4035–4046 (2024). https://pubs.acs.org/doi/epdf/10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c07936
This paper shows that microtubules seem to exhibit superradiance that matches quantum entanglement, something predicted by Penrose.
Others argue that consciousness is a state of matter or a problem of information integration. But the more we delve into what consciousness is, the less material it appears to be, with Penrose’s case being the most notable, where consciousness could be rooted in physical phenomena that are independent of space—in other words, that consciousness could have non-local properties. This could potentially explain the famous combination problem of panpsychism (just saying).
Anyway, I think that when one delves into these topics and examines not just our understanding of reality but our understanding of consciousness, one finds many things that are still unexplained and could lead us to a completely different scenario than the simplistic materialistic one you seem to defend.
Anyway, this has strayed far from the original post, so I’m not sure if it’s appropriate to continue here or if I should start another thread. I’ll leave it to the mod to decide.
Nope, you’re trying to insert the deity you need into the gaps again.
And everytime science closes one, apologists move their deity into another one, it’s called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Really, you were keen to claim science was studying qualia yesterday, what has changed I wonder? No matter, invisible mermaids don’t fit anyway in our scientific understanding either, are we then to believe they are possible.
Just as we once didn’t understand lightning, and the superstitious were keen to insist this meant it must be supernatural, the same argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy the superstitious use to peddle irrational claims for miracles.
Though of course there is widespread criticism of the idea still from both philosophers and science in particular, as the idea of panpsychism (which is what you’re peddling here) is unfalsifiable, and you’ve been unable to offer any objective evidence, let explanation of how qualia or panpsychism remotely evidences any deity, which again is what you’re peddling here.
Could have is semantically the same as could not have, and you can demonstrate nothing approaching objective evidence for this, yet human consciousness is never seen in the absence of a functioning physical brain, and it disappears every time that physical evolved brain dies, which is objective evidence that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain, even if science doesn’t yet fully understand how the brain causes it.
It is an objective fact that the material exists, and it is an objective fact that human consciousness exists, and it is an objective fact that human brains evolved, and it is an objective fact that human consciousness is never seen in the absence of a functioning human brain, and it is an objective fact that human consciousness disappears every single time that physical brain dies.
Furthermore, and as has already been explained, researches have stimulated different emotions in patients, then observed different areas of the brain being activated in an MRI scanner, no inexplicable supernatural magic is evidenced or required. The same is true of pain of course, and all are subjective experiences, what you are calling qualia.
What you’re adding is a) unfalsifiable, and b) cannot be supported with anything approaching objective evidence, and thus violates Occam’s razor, and this has been pointed out repeatedly, yet you repeat the same claim over and over again without ever honestly addressing these facts.
Endless repetition won’t help, as the same objections offered at the start are still valid objections now.
This is exactly the point, they don’t advance our understanding of how the brain produces consciousness one iota.
As are all unfalsifiable ideas, that produce no data to examine, like magic, and unicorns and mermaids and fairies et al. Which is no doubt why apologists are so keen to pretend qualia can be touted as “evidence” for deities and inexplicable supernatural magic.
Oh look, it’s “let’s play duplicitous apologetics with science” time once again …
Mythology fanboy speak for “boo hoo, those nasty scientists based their conclusions on real world data instead of my mythology based fantasies”. Suck on it.
What we “need” is to pay attention to reality, instead of wasting time with made up shit, though this is a lesson mythology fanboys like you continue to pretend you don’t need to learn.
Oh look, it’s that favourite pastime of mythology fanboys, carping at science. Guess what, Looby Loo, scientists have alighted upon vast classes of entities and interactions, that the piss-stained authors of your sad little Bronze Age mythology were incapable of even fantasising about. Not only that, but those same scientists have placed said classes of entities and interactions, into usefully predictive quantitative frameworks of knowledge, of a sort that the scribblers of your Bronze Age mythology would have regarded as magic.
Indeed, I’m minded to note at this juncture, that the nomads who scribbled your tedious little Bronze Age mythology, knew nothing about the existence of five major continental land masses on this planet, and if you live on one of those land masses, this should be a source of embarrassment to you.
Plus, given that science as we know it has only been able to operate uninterrupted for around 350 years, that it has achieved what it has, is in stark contrast to the failure of religion to advance even elementary knowledge over 5,000 years of human history.
Garbage. Every time mythology fanboy mouths on sticks arrogantly pontificate on this, they end up being given an education they weren’t expecting.
Now let’s see what other drivel you’re serving up, shall we?
So in the space of three posts, you’ve moved on from asserting that your precious “qualia” are supposedly of fundamental importance to scientific inquiry,to asserting that your precious “qualia” supposedly don’t fit into a scientific framework. This level of apologetic flailing does not surprise me in the least, it’s standard mythology fanboy incompetence.
That’s a bare faced lie, and one you’ve set yourself up to be exposed over with your own “citations” and “quotes”. I love the smell of mythology fanboy failure in the morning.
Oh wait, those experiments I mentioned, centred upon determining still images and movies observed by test subjects, depended directly upon the first person experience you’ve just hilariously asserted that scientists purportedly “ignore”.
You really are an amateur at this, aren’t you?
And mythology fanboys like you never found any answers for phenomena that DID have a readily deducible material explanation, because you were too busy asserting that “Magic Man did it” was all we needed to bother with. Lightning, amyone?
Oh, and your appeal to god of the gaps gails for obvious reasons.
You obviously never bothered reading any of the literature you love to claim supports your assertions, have you?
The literature on vision alone is replete with relevant ideas on the matter. Indeed, one of these features in that fMRI work I’ve mentioned. It might be instructive to bring that work here in a future post.
Penrose is well known for uttering assertions in the public sphere that [1] are outside his area of expertise, and [2] are criticised heavily by other scientists for being unscientific. I wouldn’t be so ready to latch on to him.
Having watched research into quantum computers feature prominently in the science press over the past few years, I’m in a position to laugh at your apologetics here.
Indeed, if you had ever bothered to attend a proper physics class devoted to quantum physics, you would have learned quickly that computation forms a significant part of the subject.
Indeed, entanglement itself has a computational basis - the nonzero value of the commutator of two quantum operators.
Not strange enough to justify woo. See above.
Did you actually READ that paper?
Here’s a direct quote from the discussion:
In other words, he’s already admitted that there’s a big problem to overcome. But of course your apologetics conveniently skipped that part.
Blind, unsupported assertion. Discardable on that basis.
If you think ultraviolet signal amplification is “independent of space”, you really need to re-take all your science classes from scratch.
You do realise that “non-local” implies spatial separation BY DEFINITION?/
Once again, I love the smell of mythology fanboy failure in the morning.
You’re fond of blind unsupported assertions, aren’t you?
You’re now implying that consciousness isn’t a part of reality?
This is becoming more hilarious by the minute.
“Not yet explained” does NOT mean “insert woo and fantasy here”.
Do tell us all what is more simplistic than “Magic Man did it because my favourite Bronze Age mythology says so”?
Funny how what you deride as “simplistic materialism” succeeded where “my mythology says so” failed dismally. Indeed, several million peer reviewed scientific papers document in exquisite detail, the evidence that testable natural processes are SUFFICIENT to explain the vast body of observational data obtained over the past centuries, and as a corollary, that cartoon magic men from pre-scientific mythologies are superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.
Ah, you noticed that as well, hard to miss really, pretty funny though. Now either these qualia, as @JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU claimed just yesterday, are of vital importance to science, or they can form no part of our current scientific enquiry, as he has also claimed repeatedly to use argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, in an attempt to reverse the burden of proof, either way someone seems to be making it up as he goes along.
Also what is it with philosophers, and finding new terms very few people have heard of, for existing things people already recognise, qualia refers to the subjective experiences that form part of our consciousness.
Also what happened to his claims about panpsychism evidencing a deity? Now we seem to have gone back two places to qualia? Apparently if panpsychism is true, and all matter is capable of subjective experience, then the universe is capable of subjective experience, then…it all gets a bit hazy…but god is not just possible then, but plausible. Why, was never actually made clear, those dots seems destined to remain unjoined.
"As Keith Frankish argues, any view who seeks to take “qualia” or “phenomenal experience” seriously and yet purports that no fundamental extension of our scientific toolset is required will need to do two things
Explain scientifically what qualia are, thereby presumably dispelling notions of privateness, ineffability, etc.
Argue why qualia are nonetheless qualitatively special, so that they merit the label of phenomenal properties.
If they don’t do 2) then their view effectively collapses to (strong) illusionism. Illusionists like Frankish and Dennett typically agree with dualists that no such account can be given and thus reject the whole category of phenomenal experience.
So that takes care of the claim it is vitally important to science, the position it is beyond current scientific enquiry makes it unfalsifiable, thus I’d have to reject it and withhold belief.
“The problems with panpsychism are at least fourfold: the theory is 1) untestable, 2) there’s no evidence for consciousness of inanimate matter, 3) there’s no explanation how the “rudimentary” consciousness of molecules and atoms can combine to produce to the complex consciousness of humans and (surely) other mammals, 4) and we have made no progress in understanding consciousness by considering or adhering to panpsychism. It seems to be a view that, ultimately, will not help us understand consciousness.”
Qualia is not up for debate; panpsychism is debated as a possible explanation for qualia.
Panpsychism does not advance our material understanding of consciousness in the same way that knowing all the biological and physical processes of a plant tells us nothing about the presence or absence of subjective experience in plants.
You haven’t understood the problem, and I dislike speaking in circles.
Perceive the physical processes in my brain? Like being able to know, for instance, specifically when and how much dopamine is released in a particular situation? Or, for instance, at how many Hz a particular synapse is firing in my brain?
I made no such claim, didn’t mention qualia in that post at all in fact? So yet another tedious straw man, no doubt another hilariously ironic lecture on my honesty will ensue…
I know, I have posted that fact to you repeatedly, though why you’re repeating it back to me is baffling?
Jesus wept, yet another straw man, since I have never claimed otherwise, in fact I very specifically, and repeatedly have pointed out that panpsychism is unfalsifiable, again why you’re repeating my own facts back to me is utterly bewildering?
You’re wrong, same as you were every other time you’ve posted this lie.
All the evidence of the relentless repetition of your claims suggests otherwise, but I don’t care how you feel about your repetition, only that it is again relentlessly irrational (see 2 textbook and dishonest straw man fallacies above), and doesn’t address the objections offered at all, beyond your tedious repetition.
I do start to wonder if English is your first language?
An individual who lived in an era when failing to make sycophantic noises about a cartoon magic man from a Bronze Age mythology, led to one being barbecued by murderous mythology fanboys.
Don’t kid yourself. I’ve been dealing with mythology fanboys and their apologetic drivel for 15 years. The only one exhibiting anger here is you, much as you’re trying to suppress it.
Correction, reality wins, as it always has done when up against mythology fanboy assertions.
We can objectively test the presence of consciousness in a human brain, it has been explained to you exhaustively, we cannot do that for any plant, yet again you peddle this tired false equivalence fallacy as if you think we won’t notice.
Stick a plant in an MRI, and subject it to emotional stimuli, publish your results, I shall look forward to your triumphant return to parade your success, as I always keep an open mind.
