/sci/ - Science & Math

There is nothing supernatural about qualia. Qualia is just a synonym for subjective experience.

>>6537597
>implying this is in any way related to hos work on quantum mechanics

Einstein fucked his cosin, relativity fucks people up to.

Great insight and ability of reasoning in one field does not always translate to that of other fields. I live in a dorm with a bunch of grad students but we can't even organize a way to keep the kitchen clean.

>>6537612
>>6537612
"Qualia" are a supernatural belief held by dualists and are scientifically meaningless, therefore useless.

>>6537624
There is nothing supernatural or dualistic about qualia. Subjective experience happens and requires a scientific explanation. Go to bed, Dennett.

>>6537597
If anybody wonders, the actual answer why they produce the same sensation is that they produce the same activation in the green and red light cones.
Did people had already worked out how teh eye works back when he said that? Because then it's just super stupid.

>>6537620
this is a very blatant fallacy however. it almost sounds like Schrodinger was reluctant to test a materialistic explanation for colour since the beginning.

The perception of color as a physical phenomenon is pretty much a settled down topic in science. We see yellow on both situations because we only have 3 fucking kinds of cone cells whose reaction "peaks" lie at the wavelengths of red, green and blue respectively, so a low-intensity exposition to red and green produces the same reaction in photoreceptor cells as pure yellow light. Screens trick our eyes this way all the time

>>6537630
Most people who go on about the "hard problem" are usually at least implicitly dualists. They assume the existence of an agent that is "doing the experiencing" that is not identical with the physical state of atoms inside your brain.

>>6537630
>There is nothing supernatural or dualistic about qualia
indeed, qualia doesn't imply supernaturalism, however dualists and religious fags like to spout out qualia as a perfect excuse

>>6537630
Qualia are purportedly these unphysical phenomena that cannot be observed nor communicated. They are therefore not amenable to science. Keep mysticism off /sci/.

>>6537613
was she hawt at least?

>>6537630
>>6537654
>>6537658
Literally baby-tier understanding of qualia. Go read a philosophy book and get out.

>>6537673
I prefer to read science books. Philosophy is subjective nonsense.

>>6537673
Why bother posting? Your insults are unfounded and contribute nothing of value to this discussion.

>>6537679
>Philosophy is subjective nonsense.

is it 2deep4u?

>>6537597

Just because you fail to understand Schrodinger's argument, there is no need to call it laughable.

>>6537597

Could the physiologist account for the sensation of colour if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain?

>No
>No

Pick one.

>>6537597

Subjective experience is now supernatural?

>>6537728
With philosophy, anything is possible!

>>6537719
his argument involves a falsifiable premise about the nature of color that has been scientifically refuted. just because you fail to understand the scientifically demonstrable falsehood in OP's post attributed to Schrodinger doesn't mean you can pretend to know an untouchable interpretation of Schrodinger's argument.

>>6537728
people who believe our reality isn't real and perfect enough would like to point out anything and everything as a compelling proof for the existence of the supernatural. planetary motion and biological diversity and complexity once were (and incredibly still are) used as arguments in favor of god and the likes. it was to be expected that the mysteries of the human mind would be used in the same way

>>6537738
>involves a falsifiable premise about the nature of color that has been scientifically refuted
How?

>>6537738

If you actually read the full text from his book, 'What is life?', you would see that his conclusion was that there is no numerical connection with these physical, objective characteristics of the waves and the sensations that they produce in the mind of a human.

Care to explain how can qualia be accounted for in a material world?

>>6537751
read
>>6537639
>>6537647

>captcha: rod taiipe

What the fuck is "qualia" I see it mentioned a lot, and its often accompanied by butt hurt.

>>6537756

It means subjective experience, materialists try to claim that subjective experience doesn't exist and is equivalent to supernatural concepts in order for their paradoxical train of thought to proceed in harmony.

>>6537752
i'm not claiming qualia is already a solved problem materialistically speaking. what i'm saying is that the specific example Schrodinger gave about yellow doesn't hold water to support the mystery surrounding qualia

>>6537763
well of course subjective experience exists

>>6537613
RELATIV(E)ity

>>6537769


Well, people like >>6537658 actually exist.

>>6537763
>materialists try to claim that subjective experience doesn't exist and is equivalent to supernatural concepts in order for their paradoxical train of thought to proceed in harmony.
You could swap the words materialists and doesn't respectively with mysticists and does and the validity of the statement would be kept.

I'm a materialist and I don't presume certainty over the non-existence of supernatural phenomena. I'm a materialist because we all humans kind of agree that a common natural reality exists, or at least the perception of its existence. Meanwhile no single claim about paranormal stuff has been verified to the same extent scientists all over the world agree with truly amazing and sometimes unintuitive facts. The very few "miracles" that actually avoid explanation after thorough exposition don't prove anything about the supernatural either, because no explanation means we are ignorant, not that we have found a supernatural explanation.

Therefore unless proven otherwise, materialism is my default stance, my null metaphysical hypothesis that awaits to be falsified as it receives more and more support from science, steadily filling the ignorance in the "God of the gaps"hypothesis

>>6537763
What kind of qualia are you talking about? Is this as simple as "well I liked that movie" "well I hated that movie"?
Or differences on more fundamental level?

>>6537825
any kind of experience may be classified as quale. that's the problem of qualia, that they are defined to be unexplainable, so if it has an accepted scientific explanation grounded on physical reality it isn't part of qualia.

the arrogant pretence that there MUST be something about our nature that doesn't pertain to this world is a childish trait still rooted deep under our minds. the mere thought of finding out we might be no special snowflakes in the universe but just part of it chills some to the bones.

>>6537838
Yeah, that's what I was getting at - I tried to read on it but it's almost always described along the lines of "it's just, like, you can't get it man, so it's special"

>>6537763

Wait,
People actually think subjective experience doesn't exist?

>>6537838
>the arrogant pretence that there MUST be something about our nature that doesn't pertain to this world is a childish trait still rooted deep under our minds
Sure and the hard problem of consciousness doesn't exist right? Explain to me how sensory perception can arise from particles accelerating each other.

>that's the problem of qualia, that they are defined to be unexplainable
They are not defined to be unexplainable what are you on about, they just are unexplainable.

>>6538108
"We don't know yet" doesn't mean or imply something outside of material realm

They are defined to be unexplainable - they're defined to be utterly untestable and unfalsifiable, since they are person specific and "impossible to put in words"

>>6537838
>this is not an arrogant assumption. This issue is not black and white there are other ways of thinking about this problem. for example, perhaps this world pertains solely to our nature, it is our nature and inseparable from it, and is therefore neither physical nor qualia, and not a mix either.

>>6537673
>>6537683
he says the same thing (verbatim) every time the subject comes up.

just quotes the first few replies to the thread and ctrl+V's that exact line.

filter him.