/sci/ - Science & Math

>that feel when the IQ fundie triptroll meme is getting kinda stale

even "qualia", if you're using it in the sense I think you are, is physical matter

where is EK and Harriet? i've been away for a year

>>4645167

Yea, the thing with quality are just that their properties seems non-physicalistic.

But no one is denying ( well some may but fuck them) that we're Cartesian dualism into the trashcan.

>>4645168
Their trips are around, not sure if the original people are or not.

>>4645168
They are still here. i saw them yesterday

>that feel when no physicalism (because of qualia)

fuck it.

the perceptions im bound within are good enough for me.

I am a staunch determinist. if you think we have free will, you are terribly mistaken

>>4645205
The point is moot. We have executive function, whatever its nature.

>>4645207
"executive function" is an illusion, merely a product of our brain's arrogance. we don't have control over said functions, we only think we do

>>4645212
Semantics. You're missing the point.

Executive function is a real part of how the mind works, and having weak executive function makes for impulsive and generally shitty people. I'm not saying it isn't deterministic.

>>4645214
>"having weak executive function makes for impulsive and generally shitty people."

that's a highly arguable generalization.
the role of executive function in no way makes determinism a "moot point'

>>4645219
I fail to see how it makes a difference, and as such, it's moot.

But hey, enjoy pretending that this philosophical issue is relevant in daily life.

>>4645226

>implying the issue of free will/determinism has no consequences/implications

do you even science?

>>4645235
>could have easily convinced me by giving a compelling counterexample, but has not
Nice talking with you.

>>4645237
dude i would have done the same thing. If you don't care, why should other people convince you to?

Real IQ fundie here. I didn't start the thread.

>>4645167
Definitely not. Everything physical can be communicated, which is impossible for qualia.

>>4645205
Determinism and dualism don't contradict each other.

>>4645243
I didn't say I didn't care. I said it was irrelevant - like arguing about whether we are brains in a vat.

It makes no difference either way to any of my actions.

>>4645246
Hey look, someone who looks like he knows how to use this triptroll meme properly!

>>4645235
This has nothing to do with science. It's purely an issue of philosophy.

>>4645248
It affects both.

>>4645247
>implying "trip troll meme"

I have always argued in favor of science and rationality. If anyone is a troll, then those who I had to correct.

>>4645252
No, it doesn't. Both dualism and determinism are outside of science.

Determinists are completely wrong, have no evidence whatsoever to back up their "arguments", and are for the most part just trying to be edgy. What happens in the future is completely dependent upon the choices you make leading up to that point. Sure there is some certain outcome that is certainly going to happen, but it is not already determined.

Get mad faggot. Or don't, the choice is yours.

>>4645255
The inquiry and investigation of the concepts of free will determinism etc. begin in the realm beyond science, ie. philosophy, but the consequences and answers certainly do affect science. Are you too stupid to understand this?

>>4645258
I see what you did there. Fact is that determinism and free will are both unfalsifiable.

>>4645248

do you really fail to see its application to the sciences?

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems_theory
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

>>4645260
The answers do not affect science. Nowhere does science make any assumptions regarding free will / determinism. Science assumes physical determinism, but that's unrelated to the kind of determinism contradicting free will.

>>4645262
They aren't unfalsifiable. We just don't have the necessary tools to conduct such an experiment in which to falsify them. Yet the absence of tools is a limitation of us, not of the aforementioned concepts supposed inherent unfalsifiability.

'We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.'

>>4645267
It seems you lack the education to talk on the topic. Dynamic systems (colloquially reffered to as "chaos theory") are entirely deterministic.

>>4645268
only if you believe the brain is 'metaphysical', ie not composed of matter and acting in a way determined by natural law. your brain is composed of the same damn particles that are believed by some to act deterministically

>>4645268
Of course it does. For example, the investigations of many neuroscientists is driven by their quest to discover deterministic or free will properties to the brain/mind.

How is this not science being affected?

>>4645271
It is not about the absence or the lack of a tool, but about the impossibility of such a tool existing.

>>4645276
The brain is physical, the mind isn't. As OP correctly pointed out, qualia are an example of non-physical parts of consciousness.

>>4645262

The notion that for whatever reason our choices are being made for us and we have only the illusion of control is so stupid and baseless that I hardly care if freewill is falsifiable or not. It simply is not worth the time of day.

>>4645278
Neuroscientists can't really do research on free will. This would require making qualia physically impossible, which is inherently impossible.

>>4645282
Right. Then why do you waste time posting ITT?

>>4645281
But qualia isn't something which is universally accepted to exist. The eliminativist materialists deny the very existence of qualia, and even amongst the various compatibilists/idealists, there is disagreement as to what qualia actually constitutes. So to claim qualia as actually existing is already incorrect, because there is no consensus. The very notion of qualia is still debatable.

>>4645283
Whether or not you think they "can't" doesn't mean they aren't.

The fact is, they are. Meaning that the notions affect science. Good day.

>>4645282
your choices aren't "made for you", but rather are occurring as a result of all events preceding that choice. they are the only thing which could occur, at that moment, due to the preceding circumstances

>>4645281
that the mind is not "physical" is an erroneous assumption. it simply defies the universe, and exists as some metaphysical entity? such an idea is as illogical as assuming a God exists. there is no evidence. to me, it is apparent that the mind is simply the result of the mechanisms of your physical brain (ie chemical impulses, etc)

>>4645287
Anyone who experiences qualia, will agree on their existence. There might be some actual philosophical zombies and there are definitely some people too dumb to grasp the concept of qualia. That doesn't render it incorrect.

>>4645287
>But qualia isn't something which is universally accepted to exist.
Are you saying you don't have subjective experiences?

>>4645286
Deterministic behavior does not mean you can't experience the sensation of choice nor the desire to actualize the choice, it just means that these sensations creating the illusion have also been predetermined.

>>4645290
You just state the opposite of what I said? Cool argument.

>>4645292
>the absence of evidence is evidence of absence

Is that what you're saying? Not only that this would be horribly stupid, it also wouldn't be applicable here. There is evidence for dualism and against physicalism: Qualia and self awareness.

>>4645295
I never claimed the opposite.

>>4645292

"Made for us" in the sense that we cannot make any other choice but some predetermined horse shit. You know what I mean.

>>4645287

There is always someone with a stupid opinion. Simply having an opinion doesn't make it a correct one.

>>4645293
It is all dependent on human convention. Yet, you are speaking in terms of absolutes. Qualia does not absolutely exist. Qualia exists to x amount of people. And not all of the people within x would agree to qualia existing as y or z. So your statement does nothing to validate the claim of qualia existing outside of claiming that many people believe it to
exist.

Many people to believe God to exist. Does this mean he exists? It provides no validation. This isn't difficult.

>>4645294
My experience does not matter. Whether or not I say this or that, there are those who explicitly deny it and not without reason. This is a heavily debated topic within academia.

>>4645306
>There is always someone with a stupid opinion. Simply having an opinion doesn't make it a correct one.

Then what makes it correct? And does this property which makes things correct observably exist relative to qualia?

Oh look, now it's starting its own threads to troll.

qualia is rooted in physical processes. Not being able to have it communicated is irrelevant.>>4645145

>>4645307
The existence of people who have qualia is enough to constitue the existence of qualia. I think you misunderstood the difference between a universal and an existential quantifier.

>>4645301
you're desperately holding on to outdated,esoteric philosophical terms which have been abandoned by mathematicians, scientists, and philosophers. Qualia? try and use more scientifically valid words.

Also, define "self-awareness". being aware of yourself is a result of the combination of sensory abilities (feeling yourself, seeing yourself, hearing yourself) and brain development over time

>>4645311
No matter whether it's rooted in physical processes or not. Qualia themselves are non-physical. Somehow the physical must interact with the non-physical, but finding out how this works is beyond science, because science is limited to the physical.

>>4645297
Aw, baby has no retort. But here let me simplify it for you.

Neuroscientists are explicitly stating that x research is being done to investigate deterministic or qualitative/free will aspects of the mind. You stated that such concepts have no affect on science. These neuroscienctists are basing their scientific lives around these concepts.

You then state they can't. Your reasoning as for why they can't is because it would violate the rules of qualia, which implies qualia does exist, which is not even close to approaching the general consensus, especially in science. Yet, let us say that hypothetically, all of science accepted qualia, according to your definition, as an absolutely defined property of reality. The fact that these neuroscientists are still conducting said experiments, whether or not it the research is in accordance with qualia, still means that the concepts of determinism and free will affect science.

You are retarded. Good day.

>>4645316
I will continue using a philosophical term when talking about a philosphical phenomenon. We can't talk "scientifically" about qualia, because qualia are not amenable to science. Expressing disdain for the concept as well as ad hominem attacks won't impress anyone. Keep that kindergarten rhetorics to your real life.

>>4645314
>bunch of hippies trip on acid and shrooms all night and see a multitude of demons, ghosts, speak to Jesus, God, Gautama, and Jerry Garcia

The existence of people who have conversation with God and Jesus is enough to constitute the existence of God and Jesus. I think you misunderstood the difference between a universal and an existential quantifier.

JOSEPH SMITH WAS RIGHT, HE SPEAKS THE TRUTH

>>4645326
The phenomena you're talking about are definetely non-physical, unfalsifiable and not amenable to science.

>>4645324
it seems one of the main arguments for qualia is regarding the perception of light. we understand the physical properties of light, how light is transduced by the eye (whose processes we also understand), and how the brain further processes that information. this is all physical, qualitative, observable, provable. qualia, on the otherhand, muddy's the waters by providing some complex concept based on semantic masturbation. try to find me any reputable neuroscience publication from the past 10 years publishing anything regarding "qualia".

>>4645328
>implying I was amending my statement to science
Are you really so illiterate that you perceived this?

I am simply showing you the consequences of your logic. So whether or not my statement is "amendable to science" or "nonphysical" is irrelevant. Because according to your logic, these claims would be no more valid than that of qualia.

>>4645318

Can qualia exist without a host?

Qualia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Qualia (disambiguation).
Qualia ( /ˈkwɑːliə/ or /ˈkweɪliə/), singular "quale" (Latin pronunciation: [ˈkwaːle]), from a Latin word meaning for "what sort" or "what kind," is a term used in philosophy to refer to subjective conscious experiences as 'raw feels'.

>'raw feels'

>>4645332
So your problem is that you don't understand qualia. Since you fail to understand the often used example of light, I'll give you another one. You can easily imagine how it feels to move your right or your left arm. But how would it feel to have a third arm and to move that third arm? Can you imagine it? How it would feel like?

>>4645333
These things are valid. The only problem with them is that people incorrectly assume these things to have impact on the physical world. This would be a scientifically testable hypothesis.

>>4645337
How am I supposed to know this?

>>4645342
so this arguement is that because you can imagine things that don't exist (in this sense, an extension of your own body), then determinism is falsified? laughing neuroscientists and physicists

>>4645348
Then imagine a thing that exists. Imagine you were a dolphin and had a sense for perception of magnetism. How would perceiving magnetism feel like?

>>4645349
just state your argument clearly.

>>4645349

He doesn't understand it and he doesn't want to. Just let him be a turd.

>>4645346
Actually, you incorrectly assumed that I was implying that these people were stating that these phenomena had consequences on the physical world.

However, to entertain your retardation, answer me this. I feel pain in my hand while resting my hand on the burner of a stove. I then move my hand it knocks over a box of cereal. My "qualia" would have then had consequences on the physical world.

One more thing, why on Earth did you conclude that science on deals with the physical? Simply because the most dominant paradigm in science has always been materialism does not mean that science requires that of "material". Science is empirical observation. Meaning observation and experimentation. To entertain your masturbation further, if such non physical things were to exist, could one not observe oneself experiencing qualia?

Seriously, do you understand anything?

>>4645354
Excuse me, but I can't help you understanding a concept that you intentionally refuse to understand.

>>4645355
Thanks. That's what I figured out.

why do I torture myself
State an arguement that supports "qualia" without claiming the existence of unobservable or unclassifiable phenomena

>>4645346
Good luck with that logic, considering that the psychotic delusions of a schizophrenic are of equal worth as the inductive reasoning of an entire academic collective.

>>4645368
I did not say they were of equal worth.

>>4645375
Oh? And why would one be less valid than the other within the confines of your logic?

>>4645381
The more people agree on it, the more valid it becomes. Most people would agree on qualia existing, because when being introduced to the concept, they might see that it gives a name to something they have already experienced / thought of.

>>4645381
don't argue with him bro, he thinks nonexistent entities have validity in the outcome of physical events

>>4645391
Are you claiming that you don't have subjective experiences?

>>4645396
Don't reply to him. He's either shitposting or mentally impaired. I suggest you use 4chanX to automatically filter his posts.

>>4645388
>More people believe in intelligent design than evolution.

Guess intelligence design is more valid

cool logic bro

>>4645388
>The more people agree on it, the more valid it becomes.

>>4645396
If by that, you mean I experience a unique situation that elicits a certain physiological and neurological response in my body that no one else is technically experiencing at that moment?

>>4645400
You're wrong. More people believe in evolution than in intelligent design, but that's irrelevant, since evolution is making scientific (testable) statements about the physical world. As long as we're dealing with the physical world, we can assume objectivity and don't need to rely on peoples' beliefs.

>>4645401
>>4645400

>>The more people agree on it, the more valid it becomes.

>>4645391
I don't mind, I'm shitting all over him anyways.

>>4645396
>>4645399
also

>that tripfag samefagging

>>4645401
>>4645412
Have you ever heard of the scientific community?

>>4645416
I don't samefag. When I decide to put my trip on, I stay with it.

>>4645414
>implying the agreement of the scientific community is synonymous with "people"
>implying that the terms of agreement are the same as in a typical dinner conversation about which sports team is better

>>4645423
>implying the scientific community doesn't consist of people

>>4645409
All rely on experience and observation, so why can't non physical things be experienced and observed. And if they can, why can't they be science?

>>4645430
There's a difference between objective observation and subjective experience. The former can be communicated and thus can be subject of science. The latter is inherently not amenable to science.

>>4645430
thoughts, which seem to be the focal point of qualia arguments, are the results of physical, measurable, observable, classified processes in the brain.
.
non-physical=non-existent

>>4645424
Then if the scientific community = people, why make the distinction? Charles Manson is of no less truth than Richard Feynman. Oh but I forgot, the validity of claims relies on majority opinion right? Well consideing 2.1 billion people on Earth are Christian, meaning they testify to the "truths" of the Bible, I guess a lot of us are going to Hell.

You will go far in academics my friend

>>4645424
>Implying you can call the masses of borderline retarded biologically redundant piles of protoplasm as scientists
>Implying the opinions of people who can't multiply 14 by 12 count

>>4645444
Please stop posting. You have nothing to contribute to science threads and all you do is shitposting in shit threads.
<<< pic related was your most quality contribution to /sci/ so far
Please go back to /b/.

>>4645437
There is nothing objectively knowable in science. Science understands this, why don't you?

>>4645453
>get mad
>reduce a collective of posts merit to a single post made in humor

>>4645448
Why do you intentionally misinterpret my posts? I told you that this is not what I said.

>>4645454
>Implying that science is a conscious entity

>>4645457
That's his average quality. Just sayin. Out of all tripfags he's the most retarded right now.

>>4645453
Confirmed for Iq Fundie without his trip on.

>>4645458
>Says exactly this for a multitude of posts
>Tries to deny it when exposed for the retard that he is

>>4645458
>the more people agree on it the more valid it becomes

Yes it is.

>>4645454
Are you saying that observations are not objectively true?

>>4645464
>Has the retarded posts of IQ fundie right in front of his eyes
>Still claims that another is worse

>>4645469
How does this imply any of the nonsense you posted?

>>4645473
Absolutely.

>>4645465
Don't worry about it, you will never be as retarded as Iq Fundie.

>>4645477
I stressed that you claimed that the more people believe in a subject the more valid it becomes while you were attempting to deny it.

>>4645475
He is much much worse. Other than IQ fundie he is not trolling but seriously retarded.

>>4645478
Are you trying to come up with solipsism again?

>>4645484
Up until now his statements were accurate and with accordance to agreed upon scientific conventions and norms, while the rest of you were using nothing buy ad hominems.
Shows who the real retard is.

>>4645486
Because that's a wrong conclusion. There's a difference between directly experiencing something and abstractly believing in it.

>>4645488
No, it has nothing to do with it.

>>4645473
Yes. This is well understood in science. Axioms of math are presupposed assumptions. Scientific theory is what appears to be most accurate at the time relative to what our empirical evidence is telling us. It is engaged as objective when dealing with some concept that no longer has conflict, but it is never claimed to truly be absolute.

>>4645490
I guess you're him without the trip.

>>4645493
Then tell me why observations are not objective.

>>4645494
I wasn't talking about the scientific theories. I was talking about their evidence, i.e. observations that have been made.

>>4645496
Most likely. You can even sense the preachy whining.

>>4645504
Yes... and the theories can never be objective because the observations never can be. That is exactly what I just said.

Once again your illiteracy is showing.

>>4645512
This is at least twice wrong. The theories can never be objective because in order to be scientific, they have to be hypothetically falsifiable. The observations on the other hand are objective.

>>4645505
>implying IQ fundie is a single person, and not a group of people that have learned the same trolling style

>>4645519
That post was not about me.

>>4645504
I'll lay it out for you.

You claim qualia to exist.

We show that there is no majority consensus testifying to the existence of qualia.

You claim any experienced non physical entity can exist, yet the validity of such a claim is dependent on the consensus of people (of any sort).

We show you the consequences of such logic leads to the dark ages kind of thinking.

You claim that science can't test for the existence of qualia because it is non physical.

We show you that science does not require physical entities to imploy the scientific method.

You claim that scientific observation is objective.

You prove to have no undwrarandig of science.

You have been wrong about every single claim you have made.

>>4645519
>implying IQ fundie

We were just shocked to find a worse retard than IQ fundie: "corvus corax".

>>4645516
How are the observations objective? Give me one example of an objective observation. Just one.

>>4645529
>You claim qualia to exist.
I do.

>We show that there is no majority consensus testifying to the existence of qualia.
You never showed this. You claimed it without evidence.

>You claim any experienced non physical entity can exist, yet the validity of such a claim is dependent on the consensus of people (of any sort).
I did. Please note that "experienced" is different from "abstractly believed".

>We show you the consequences of such logic leads to the dark ages kind of thinking.
No, you just misinterpreted my post / didn't understand it.

>You claim that science can't test for the existence of qualia because it is non physical.
I proved that it follows from the definition of qualia and the use of an axiom that is always assumed in science.

>We show you that science does not require physical entities to imploy the scientific method.
You did not show such a thing and you can't show it, because it's utter nonsense. Science can only operate in the physical world.

>You claim that scientific observation is objective.
They are. You trollishly claiming the opposite is futile.

>You prove to have no undwrarandig of science.
Whatever "undwrarandig" means... I don't know that word.

>>4645529
Holy shit my phones auto correct freaked. Understanding*

>>4645540
Observe an object falling down. How is this not objective?

>>4645544
In that case you're wrong. My understanding of science seems to be better than yours.

Funny story, I woke up this morning and decided that I was going to make a serious attempt at arguing in favor of qualia. I don't necessarily believe in the stuff, but I like to play the devil's advocate every once in a while.

But then I saw this half-assed attempt at a discussion. This thread is fucking awful.

Quit posting in >That feel, >My face, and >Implying threads, you faggots.

>>4645546
Because there is already a presupposition of the notion of falling object etc etc etc

>>4645552
Discussing qualia on /sci/ is a bad idea. Not only that qualia are not a topic of science, /sci/ is also full of trolls and even some genuine mentally impaired posters who deny them and refuse to consider them.

>>4645553
How does that make it less objective? If we agreed on what it means to fall down and on what object we look at, then we can objectively observe the object to fall down or not to fall down.

>>4645559
/sci/ is only full of trolls when you post shitty threads like this.

>That feel

Seriously. Why do people still respond to this? This thread has gone on for 136 posts longer than it should have. Do you people honestly enjoy acting like retards for hours on end?

>>4645569
I didn't start the thread. Someone used my trip for trolling purposes.

>>4645569
>Do you people honestly enjoy acting like retards for hours on end?

YES WE DO AND THERE"S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT

>>4645569
I predict it will hit the bump limit.

>>4645543
You never showed this. You claimed it without evidence.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia#Critics_of_qualia
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia#Other_issues
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia#Proponents_of_qualia

>See no general consensus.

I mean for fuck's sake, it is in the wiki.

>I did. Please note that "experienced" is different from "abstractly believed".

How is it different? In abstractly believing something I am still experiencing the abstraction. Unless you can prove otherwise.

>No, you just misinterpreted my post / didn't understand it.

>The existence of people who have conversation with God and Jesus is enough to constitute the existence of God and Jesus. I think you misunderstood the difference between a universal and an existential quantifier.

I literally replaced the subject in your sentence and kept everything else the same. There is no misrepresentation nor misunderstanding.

>>4645588
>I proved that it follows from the definition of qualia and the use of an axiom that is always assumed in science.

What axiom? Also, since when was there a universally agreed upon definition of qualia?

>You did not show such a thing and you can't show it, because it's utter nonsense. Science can only operate in the physical world.

>Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2]

>Measurements are arbitrarily decided upon through consensus
>Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience.

Explain to me the part about physical world.

>They are. You trollishly claiming the opposite is futile.
Explain to me how direct and indirect observation or experience is objective.

>>4645563
Objective

>of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

>If WE agreed on what it means to fall down and on what object WE look at,

>>4645588
>You never showed this.
Showed what?

>In abstractly believing something I am still experiencing the abstraction
Do you agree that there's a difference between saying "I believe in X" and "X happened to me"?

>I literally replaced the subject in your sentence and kept everything else the same.
That's where you went wrong. You can't arbitrarily replace words without paying attention to the meaning. I could as well take a sentence of yours and make it nonsensical or even wrong by substituting words of yours with words that don't fit in.

>>4645573
Put more effort into your trolling, please.

>>4645605
>You never showed this.
>Showed what?

>>We show that there is no majority consensus testifying to the existence of qualia.
>>You never showed this. You claimed it without evidence.

>>>You never showed this. You claimed it without evidence.
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia#Critics_of_qualia
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia#Other_issues
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia#Proponents_of_qualia

>hur im fucking retarded


>Do you agree that there's a difference between saying "I believe in X" and "X happened to me"?

The difference is irrelevant if both are facets of experience. All beliefs are directly related to experience. And the belief itself constitutes its own aspects of experience.

>That's where you went wrong. You can't arbitrarily replace words without paying attention to the meaning. I could as well take a sentence of yours and make it nonsensical or even wrong by substituting words of yours with words that don't fit in.

In what way was the meaning changed? Your statement is only applicable if the meaning of your statement was changed. It wasn't.

>>4645593
>What axiom?
The axiom that everything that is objective (physical) can be communicated.

>Also, since when was there a universally agreed upon definition of qualia?
The closest we come to a definition is by naming the core aspects that would need to be included in every possible definition of qualia, i.e. them being purely subjective and not communicable.

>Explain to me the part about physical world.
You explained it in the part you quoted from wikipedia. "Gathering empirical and measurable evidence" means that whatever is to be observed has to be physical. Otherwise it wouldn't be empirically gatherable or measurable.

>Explain to me how direct and indirect observation or experience is objective.
I gave you an example of an observation: An object falling down. So far you failed to tell me how this isn't objectively observable.

>>4645598
So you're back to solipsism?

>>4645610
I do not troll and I did not start the thread. Most people on here know my tripcode.

>>4645621
>The difference is irrelevant if both are facets of experience
No, the difference is still important because it makes clear that one is an aspect of experience and the other isn't.

>>4645626
>You explained it in the part you quoted from wikipedia. "Gathering empirical and measurable evidence" means that whatever is to be observed has to be physical. Otherwise it wouldn't be empirically gatherable or measurable.

Where is this physical qualifier in the definition of empirical or measurement?

>Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement#Standards

>With the exception of a few SEEMINGLY fundamental quantum constants, units of measurement are essentially arbitrary; in other words, people make them up and then agree to use them. Nothing inherent in nature dictates that an inch has to be a certain length, or that a mile is a better measure of distance than a kilometre. Over the course of human history, however, first for convenience and then for necessity, standards of measurement evolved so that communities would have certain common benchmarks. Laws regulating measurement were originally developed to prevent fraud in commerce.

>The axiom that everything that is objective (physical) can be communicated.

See above.

>The closest we come to a definition is by naming the core aspects that would need to be included in every possible definition of qualia, i.e. them being purely subjective and not communicable.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia#Definitions

>There are many definitions of qualia, which have changed over time. One of the simpler, broader definitions is "The 'what it is like' character of mental states. The way it feels to have mental states such as pain, seeing red, smelling a rose, etc."[3]

What was that about universally accepted definition?

>>4645651
So you want to inanely discuss wikipedia definitions?

>>4645626
>The axiom that everything that is objective (physical) can be communicated.
If were allowed to introduce axioms like that. I have one:
A1. IQ Fundie is a slightly autistic retarded.

>tqw I'm right

>>4645643
>No, the difference is still important because it makes clear that one is an aspect of experience and the other isn't.

Why is it important? Also both can be experienced.

>>4645630

Conceding already? These are the definitions.

>>4645654
Baby can't handle being wrong? I thought you said the validity of things were based on conensus?

Are these definitions not the consensus? If they are, then you are wrong.

>>4645657
>Why is it important? Also both can be experienced.
It is important because it shows why your second sentence is wrong.

>These are the definitions.
No, they are not. There is no such thing as "the" definition. We're not talking about math here, where we have rigorous definitions.

>>4645655
>slightly
Objection.

>>4645655
Your axiom is arbitrary, while the one I listed is among the implicit assumptions of science.

>>4645664
>It is important because it shows why your second sentence is wrong.

It is not wrong because a belief can be directly experienced, but your previous statements was addressing that which led to the belief which was experience. So in that context a belief would be a product of experience, however, as I already stated, this does not mean belief itself can not be experienced, nor would any of this violate the initial claim

>>You claim any experienced non physical entity can exist, yet the validity of such a claim is dependent on the consensus of people (of any sort).

Which led us to

>>The existence of people who have conversation with God and Jesus is enough to constitute the existence of God and Jesus. I think you misunderstood the difference between a universal and an existential quantifier.

Which you responded with.

>That's where you went wrong. You can't arbitrarily replace words without paying attention to the meaning. I could as well take a sentence of yours and make it nonsensical or even wrong by substituting words of yours with words that don't fit in.

Then.

>In what way was the meaning changed? Your statement is only applicable if the meaning of your statement was changed. It wasn't.

Which you have yet to respond to. If you can't, then this is where your train of logic inevitably leads.

>>4645664
>No, they are not. There is no such thing as "the" definition. We're not talking about math here, where we have rigorous definitions.

Glad you finally agree that qualia has no definite definition. I am glad you finally agree that science doesn't have to be 'x' way.

>>4645669
>implicit assumptions
Bullshit. Science doesn't implicitly assume anything about language. Communicability is not a scientific property.

>>4645669
Got a source for that? I have actually shown you the definitions, and I see nothing of the sort.

>>4645678
>a belief can be directly experienced
The contents of a belief can be experienced, but they don't need to be experienced. The belief by itself is not an experience, but more abstract.

>In what way was the meaning changed? Your statement is only applicable if the meaning of your statement was changed. It wasn't.
It was and already explained this. See my sentences above.

>Glad you finally agree that qualia has no definite definition. I am glad you finally agree that science doesn't have to be 'x' way.
While there is no rigorous definition, there are features that are always included when talking about these things. For qualia this is their impossibility to be communicated. For science this is for example the limitation of scientific methods to the physical world.

>>4645688
Good luck doing science on something you cannot communicate. I'd love to see you talk about it or write a paper on it.

>>4645695
See >>4645699

>>4645696
>It was and already explained this. See my sentences above.
Ha ha you are so immensely full of shit. You didn't explain how the meaning was changed once.

You've been talking about this shit

>The contents of a belief can be experienced, but they don't need to be experienced. The belief by itself is not an experience, but more abstract.

for the last like 5 posts, there is no mention of how the meaning of the statement we are talking about right now was changed.

And as for that statement ^

You could say the same thing. Experience itself is more abstract. You are isolating it, because neither actually exist without the believer and the experiencer. So once again, this is not applicable to our discussion, because we were explicitly talking about someone (the believer or experiencer) believing and experiencing. But nice try.

>While there is no rigorous definition, there are features that are always included when talking about these things. For qualia this is their impossibility to be communicated. For science this is for example the limitation of scientific methods to the physical world.

Definite features are qualities of what kind? Definitions. You are contradicting yourself once again. You are really quite the semantic abuser.

>>4645699
That doesn't address, let alone refute my point. Whether communication is an essential tool in science is irrelevant to whether communicability is an actual, scientifically relevant property. It simply isn't. Science doesn't say or assume shit about a proposition or a concept having to be communicable in order to be X, or that a lack of communicability would imply it to be Y. This is cockjuggler sophistry, not fucking science.

>>4645699
Words are nonphysical abstract entities and they are easily communicable. We are disputing the necessitation of physicalness. Not of communication.

>>4645715
>You didn't explain how the meaning was changed once.
I can't do more than explaining it to you. If you're unable / unwilling to understand (are you a troll?), then there's nothing more I can do for you.

>Definite features are qualities of what kind? Definitions.
That's why I initially called them "definitions", before you made me realize that in fact they are not definitions, but only features that would have to be included in definitions.

>You are really quite the semantic abuser.
That's you, not me.

>>4645719
If you can't communicate it, you can't make it amenable to science. What's there not to understand?

>>4645724
Of course words can be non-physical. I never claimed the opposite. The implication is only one-directional: If something is physical, it can be communicated. Of course there can be non-physical things that can be communicated as well, but qualia are not among these.

>>4645732
>If you can't communicate it, you can't make it amenable to science. What's there not to understand?
Yeah, that's kinda not what we're talking about here at all. The claim I'm arguing against isn't "It can't be communicated, therefore, it's nonscientific nonsense", but "It can't be communicated, therefore, it serves as evidence of non-physicalism.".

>>4645745
If something is physical, it can be observed / measured. Then we can assign a name or even a unit to it and thus communicate it. Ergo all physical things can be communicated.

>>4645729
>I can't do more than explaining it to you. If you're unable / unwilling to understand (are you a troll?), then there's nothing more I can do for you

Quote it then. Where did you say this? You can't do it.

>that in fact they are not definitions, but only features that would have to be included in definitions.

How does address the issue that there is no universally accepted definition of qualia? How does this address that there are those who contend with the existence of qualia, which you claimed absolutely existed?

Where have you once refuted this?

>Then if the scientific community = people, why make the distinction? Charles Manson is of no less truth than Richard Feynman. Oh but I forgot, the validity of claims relies on majority opinion right? Well consideing 2.1 billion people on Earth are Christian, meaning they testify to the "truths" of the Bible, I guess a lot of us are going to Hell.

Where have you once given evidence to the necessity of physicalness in science? Where have you once given evidence to the axiomatic necessity of communicability in science?

You have been completely shit on. Every argument that has been presented to you has been left hanging.

And don't give me HURR I RESPONDED TO IT LOOK ABOVE. Then show me where. Quote it, but you can't, because you are full of shit.

>>4645736
Communicate an atom to me physically. (Don't use non physical words).

>If something is physical, it can be observed / measured.

And once again. I presented to the definitions of measurements and empirical (observational) evidence/research, and it does not state any of this. What evidence do you have for this? Who is claiming this besides you?

inb4 HURR ITS ABOVE LOL SEE xD

>>4645752

I am able to explain my qualias to you using language. We can even conduct a massive statistical research to find relationhips betwen peoples qualias and elaborate models

>>4645753
>Quote it then. Where did you say this? You can't do it.
I'm not gonna quote all of my posts ITT. Read them again and you'll see it. (assuming that you're not trolling)

>How does address the issue that there is no universally accepted definition of qualia?
If you read and understood the sentence you quoted, you would have seen that I agree there is no "universal definition", but that's unimportant anyway because all we need to derive the non-physicality of qualia are certain features.

>How does this address that there are those who contend with the existence of qualia
I addressed this issue earlier. There might be some people genuinely not having qualia (philosophical zombies) and some people genuinely so mentally deficient to not understand the concept of qualia. None of these groups eliminates the existence of qualia in those who experience them.

>Where have you once given evidence to the necessity of physicalness in science?
Tell me how science is supposed to deal with the non-physical, when science is based on objective observations and measurements.

>Where have you once given evidence to the axiomatic necessity of communicability in science?
Tell me how you would do science with something incommunicable.

>>4645755
>Communicate an atom to me physically.
"Atom". There I did it. It's a word that corresponds to something physical.

>>4645758
>I am able to explain my qualias to you using language.
Go ahead and describe how your "blue" looks like.

>>4645752
>If something is physical, it can be observed / measured.
Only if the means of observation and measurement are available, which may very well not be the case as far as our conscious experiences are concerned.

>Ergo all physical things can be communicated.
No, only those physical things can be communicated, which we have studied enough to be able to conceptualize and express in language. If there's a physical phenomenon you don't understand, you cannot communicate it properly without it having to be non-physical.

Again, communicability is not a scientific property. If you want to harp on it for the sake of your sophistry, be my guest, but don't call it science.

>>4645783
>Only if the means of observation and measurement are available
This was included in what I said. It must be at least hypothetically observable.

> which may very well not be the case as far as our conscious experiences are concerned.
Nope. It is inherently impossible to observe something that cannot be communicated.

>If there's a physical phenomenon you don't understand
This is not a matter of understanding. We're talking about observations. Observations can be given names. No one was talking about explaining them. That's a different thing.

>communicability is not a scientific property
It is. Without being able to be communicated, something can't be subject to science.

>>4645766
>I'm not gonna quote all of my posts ITT. Read them again and you'll see it. (assuming that you're not trolling)
The picture is for you, you great /sci/ aspie, you.

>If you read and understood the sentence you quoted, you would have seen that I agree there is no "universal definition"... features.

Oh, now you agree.

>I addressed this issue earlier... None of these groups eliminates the existence of qualia in those who experience them.

And now we return to :

>The more people agree on it, the more valid it becomes. Most people would agree on qualia existing, because when being introduced to the concept, they might see that it gives a name to something they have already experienced / thought of.

Which leads to

>>Then if the scientific community = people, why make the distinction? Charles Manson is of no less truth than Richard Feynman. Oh but I forgot, the validity of claims relies on majority opinion right? Well consideing 2.1 billion people on Earth are Christian, meaning they testify to the "truths" of the Bible, I guess a lot of us are going to Hell.

Which is essentially collective solipsism and authoritarianism of the masses. COOL STORY BRO

>when science is based on objective observations and measurements.

>And once again. I presented to the definitions of measurements and empirical (observational) evidence/research, and it does not state any of this. What evidence do you have for this? Who is claiming this besides you?

Picture is applicable again bro.

>Tell me how you would do science with something incommunicable.

Well lets see. I'd observe and measure and come to conclusions.

>>4645792
>The picture is for you, you great /sci/ aspie, you.
I see no picture.

>I'd observe and measure and come to conclusions.
If you can observe or measure it, you can give it a name or even a unit. Then it can be communicated. Things that cannot be communicated cannot be observed or measured.

>>4645770
Nah sorry bro, you communicated it to me non physically. T he word may be a representation of something physical, but the word itself, which was that which was used in communication was non physical.

It was a good try though.

Also I forgot my picture.

>>4645802
By this reasoning nothing can be physical, because all words are non-physical. Cool solipsism, bro.

>>4645801
>Things that cannot be communicated cannot be observed or measured.

So before man had language of any kind, there was no observation.

So besides humans with language, no other specie can observe.

I think this is a perfect ending for a terrible thread. enjoy your autism

>>4645813
MUTE AND PARALYZED PEOPLE CAN NOT OBSERVE

>>4645813
This is not about the actual but about the hypothetical existence of language. If something cannot even hypothetically be given a name, it cannot be subject of science. And to stay with your trollish example: Humans are the only animals doing science. Riddle me this.

>>4645821
They can. Being communicable is a statement about hypothetical possibilities, not about actual spoken language.

>>4645790
>This was included in what I said. It must be at least hypothetically observable.
Which makes no sense. If there's a phenomenon, real or hypothetical, which you don't comprehend (like dualism, etc.), then you cannot hypothesize about the observability of its mechanisms.
>Nope. It is inherently impossible to observe something that cannot be communicated.
Okay, but something that cannot be communicated due to a lack of understanding of the subject matter isn't eternally damned to incommunicability. There was a point in time where people could not conceive of, let alone communicate germs, despite them being perfectly physical and observable. They were simply not observable *back then*.
>This is not a matter of understanding.
Of course it is. We don't understand dualism or the mechanics of "qualia", therefore, we cannot communicate them coherently. Which, however, does not necessitate those concepts to be either non-physical, or even existent at all.
>It is. Without being able to be communicated, something can't be subject to science.
See:
>>4645719

>>4645823
>>4645826

>>4645826
The cognative dissonance is great in this one.

>>4645835
>If there's a phenomenon, real or hypothetical, which you don't comprehend (like dualism, etc.), then you cannot hypothesize about the observability of its mechanisms.
I didn't do such thing. I did not claim to understand its mechanisms, neither did I say anything about their observability. I only made a statement about the non-observability of qualia, which evidently follows from their defining features.

>something that cannot be communicated due to a lack of understanding of the subject matter
This has nothing to do with understanding. It is an inherent property of qualia to be purely subjective and incommunicable. It's not a problem of technological limitations. It just follows from their definition (yes, I used the word "definition" again) that they can never be communicated, irregardless of any technological advances.

>We don't understand dualism or the mechanics of "qualia", therefore, we cannot communicate them coherently.
No, it's the other way round. We cannot communicate qualia and that's why we can't understand the mechanisms of dualism.

>>4645850
Why?

>>4645850
It's "cognitive" btw and not "cognative".

>>4645849
Since when is using logic in arguments considered a symptom of autism?

>>4645864
>please respond

>>4645885
Yes. It's a question, so I expect an answer.

Our understanding of the mind is still little, but implying a non physical nature of it is too extreme.

>>4645888
What makes it "too extreme" when there is evidence?

>>4645889

So your evidence that the mind or the qualia or whatever that shit is, is non physical, is that I cannot describe to you how my color blue is like?

>>4645895
That's an example, but yes, that's the basic idea.

>>4645898

But once the cognitive agent disappears, mind is gone, which means it was originally physical

>>4645898
Nor can I describe exactly what an atom is.

I can give an abstract definition. But I can do the same for blue.

>>4645904
1. How do you know it disappears, if it was only accessable by the "cognitive agent" and not to you?
2. Even if we assume the disappearing being the case, how can you conclude physicality of the mind from there? All we could conclude is that it somehow depends on a physical host.

>>4645861
>It's "cognitive" btw and not "cognative".
He's been told cognitively dissonant sufficiently many times to know this by heart.

>>4645907
No, you can't do the same for your subjective "blue". You can describe the physical perception of blue etc, but not how it subjectively feels like.

>>4645729

>are you a troll?

>>4645913
As long as no one explains why I'm "cognitively dissonant", I have to reject these lame trolling attempts.

>>4645912

If I damage a certain part of my brain, I can no longer perceive pain, so I cant give subjective values of what pain is for me. Same reason I person born deaf cant tell what loud means for them. So all these subhective experiences are rooted in physical structures.

>>4645925
They occur together with physical perceptions. That's true. How does this answer my question?

>>4645915
You can't even describe nor communicate what a table is. You can describe, perhaps, what it's most commonly used for, but not what it is.
Shit being communicatable has nothing to do with it being subjective, and everything to do with being a high-level concept.
I hope you are not going to start arguing that tables prove non-physicality.

>>4645935
I can communicate tables. I can describe how they look like, what they are used for etc. And most importantly I have the word "table" and whenever I use it I can be sure that others know what I mean. "Table" refers to a class of physical objects. When we see a table, we can call it "table" and agree on doing so.

IQ Fundie, if Qualia are not physical (ie not comprised of matter or energy), what (in your opinion) form do they take?

take off the trip and we'll take you seriously

until, then you're a retard

>>4645947
How am I supposed to answer this? All I can do is prove that they are non-physical. I'm not a philosopher and it's not my task to create a full theory of dualism.

1. Everything that can be communicated exists.
2. Qualia can not be communicated.
3. Qualia don't exist.

/thread

>>4645949
He'll remain a retard for as long as he spouts retarded shit.

>>4645941
>confirmed for never having socialized in his life

Once in my freshman year of college, me and my inebriated friends were talking about happy we were when we got accepted into university. That awesome ecstatic feel. We described how we reacted and how we felt, and most importantly we all knew exactly how each of us felt. This is a basic human tool called empathy. Autists don't have it.

Or for the non virgin fags, for example.

>that feel when she lets you come inside

>>4645953

>>Denying the antecedent.

>>4645953
>1. Everything that can be communicated exists.
X implies Y. That means if we observe X (something being communicable), we can conclude Y (it existing). We don't make a statement about what happens when X is not the case.

My blue and your blue only differ in wavelength, we can be exposed to different gradations and pick the one that fits my qualia, and you do the same, them compare wavelengths (numbers not subject to subjectivity)

>>4645979
>didn't understand what qualia are

>>4645971

ijustsaidthat.jpg

>>4645980
No, you didn't. You incorrectly used the implication by assuming the opposite direction to follow.

>>4645971
Let me try again.

Proof by contradiction:
1. Assume qualia to be existent.
2. Everything that exists can be communicated.
3. Then qualia could be communicated.
4. That contradicts their definition.
5. We arrive at a contradiction. Ergo qualia cannot be existent.

>>4645985
Different guy.

>>4645987
With #2 you restrict "existence" to "physical existence". Of course qualia wouldn't "exist" then, because they're non-physical. You can twist semantics as much as you want, it doesn't change the fact that many people experience qualia.

>>4645985

I'm >>4645969

What you described is denying the antecedent, which is what I said.

I didn't claim qualia are non existent due to incommunicability.

>>4645991
How am I supposed to see that? You're anonymous.

>>4645993
Alright then, I couldn't see that you're not him. You don't have a tripcode.

>>4645992
>With #2 you restrict "existence" to "physical existence".
No, just existent things in general.

>>4646003
Quite arbitrary definition of "existence". How did you get there?

>>4645941
I can describe how they look like, what they are used for etc.
You can't.
How many legs does a table have? 0, 1, 3, 4, or more? What material is it made of? Does it need to have a flat surface? Which color is it? Or can it be transparant? Must there be space for legs? What is the size of a table? The mass? The shape?
And what are they used for? Is a table that is not used for having dinner on still a table? How about a table that was intended to have dinner on, but it just never happened?

The only way to describe a table is the operationalist way: A table is an object of which nearly all people agree upon that it is a table.
Similarly, blue is the color on which nearly all people agree that it is blue.
Consciousness is the thing on which nearly all people agree that it is consciousness.

>Dualism

>>4646014
First line should be greentext.

>>4646007
>How did you get there?
I looked at common attributes of all existent things and found communicability to be one.

You could easily prove this wrong by naming something that does exist while lacking communicability. It should be something other than qualia, though, because that would only lead to a circular line of reasoning.

>>4646014
>The only way to describe a table is the operationalist way: A table is an object of which nearly all people agree upon that it is a table.
Alright.
>Similarly, blue is the color on which nearly all people agree that it is blue.
Alright. That's the word "blue", but not the subjective experience of "blue".
>Consciousness is the thing on which nearly all people agree that it is consciousness.
And what is that?

>>4646018
>I looked at common attributes of all existent things and found communicability to be one.
That's circular. In order to look at existent things, you already need to have a definition of existence.

>because that would only lead to a circular line of reasoning.
Oh you.

Im starting to see the analogy

Qualia ~God
Non communicability ~ Non observability

Basically more 'Cant be explained by empirical tools therefore it must be non physical' bullcrap.

>>4646018

What about lack of existence whilst being communicable? Or have you covered that by making 'existence' such a broad term as to make it meaningless?

If you define existence as communicability, then the statement "if it's communicable, it exists" becomes "if it's communicable, it's communicable".

A non-statement if ever I've seen one.

>>4646023
>And what is that?
I can't answer that, just like I can't answer what a table is. I can only recognize consciousness when I see it. And I know some very basic general characteristics of it.

Also:
It's not just about words, but about any references.
If I refer to "the subjective experience of blue", that is obviously a higher level construct. Hence, "the subjective experience of blue" is what most people agree on that "the subjective experience of blue" is. They may differ quite a lot, just like a stretched dinner table differs from the little foldable tables in a train. Unless they differ so much that we feel they should not be considered the same thing. In which case "the subjective experience of blue" does not even exist.

>>4646044
When you see a specific instance of a table, you can start to describe it. You can't do the same with your subjective experience of blue.

>>4646026
>That's circular. In order to look at existent things, you already need to have a definition of existence.
I thought you were asking specifically how I reached the conclusion of all existent things being communicable. If you want my definition of existence in general, you can just look it up in any dictionary. I don't think my definition is in any way different from the norm, or restrictive. Your earlier assertion in this regard was completely baseless.

>Oh you.
Well, any examples?

>>4646050
>it is like the blue of the sky
>it is like the blue of your pants
>it has 4 legs
>it is square

>interedependent exchange of symbology

>>4646056
What is your definition then?

>>4646037
>What about lack of existence whilst being communicable? Or have you covered that by making 'existence' such a broad term as to make it meaningless?
No, what about it?

>If you define existence as communicability
I don't.

>A non-statement if ever I've seen one.
Yeah, you should probably not put it in my mouth.

>>4646057
>it is like the blue of the sky
>it is like the blue of your pants
These do refer to physical forms of blue, not to subjective experiences. Imagine I was colorblind insofar that I can't see the color blue. I know what wavelength is called "blue" and people can show me pictures of "blue" things, but I can't see anything that is "blue". Think of it like "blue" was invisible to me like any other non-visible wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. How would you explain to me how it feels like to see "blue"?

>>4646018

Surely existent things only become communicable after their discovery?

If that is the case then they were, before discovery, both existent and incommunicable.

That would hold for all things at some point in human history.

>>4646064

My apologies if I misunderstood. I had read it as communicability being the hallmark of an existent thing, and didn't see any other additions to the definition used in your argument.

I probably missed something.

>>4646050
So, congrats. But you missed the point.
The higher level construct of "table" is not a subject to science either, that's what I'm trying to tell you.
Sure, we can scientifically study a specific table, it's weight, shape, number of legs, etc (and hence I can describe a specific table), but never tables in general.

Just because we cannot describe or scientifically study "the subjective experience of the color blue", does not mean that we cannot scientifically study its structure, and what happens in the brain, etc.

"Table" is to "a table", as "the subjective experiences of the color blue" is as to "processes that happen in the brain when the color blue is perceived."
Both are high-level versus low-level.

>>4646077
No, it's a big difference. In tables you can't study the abstract concept, but you can examine concrete instances. In qualia it's the exact opposite. You can name the abstract concept, but you can't take a closer look at examples.
If I didn't know what a table was, you'd show me some pictures of tables and I would learn what a table is.
If I was unable to see the color blue, you couldn't explain to me how it looks like.

>>4646068

If showing someone a table and, essentially, saying 'a table is something with those physical attributes' teaches them what a table is, showing them something that is blue and telling them 'blue is something with those optical attributes, irrespective of the physical attributes' teaches them what the colour blue is.

>>4646157
As I said, in the hypothetical scenario of me being colorblind and not able to see blue, you could tell me what wavelengths are called "blue". But you can't tell me how blue looks like. That's the point. Qualia cannot be communicated.

qualia is physics
there is no metaphysics

>>4646199
If you want to participate (assuming you're not shitposting), can you please post more than a wild claim? I mean like for example explaining your reasoning. And please read the thread to see if some of your arguments have already been posted.

>dualism

>>4646211
>can you please post more than a wild claim?
Look who's talking.

>>4646217
How is this an argument? Btw I'm always fully explaining my reasoning.

Read and weep

>>4646212
How is Marx related to dualism?

>dualism

>>4646258
Who is this guy and how is he related to dualism?

>>4646183

In the hypothetical situation of someone lacking all senses you couldn't describe anything to them whatsoever.

I don't see how that's a failure of communicability, it seems to me to be that persons inability to receive said information and not the inability of the information to be described.

I might be wrong, of course.

>>4646183
Yes you can. You can simulate Layer II of the occipital lobe and produce the color blue in their vision field.

>>4646183
Yes you can. You can stimulate Layer II of the occipital lobe and produce the color blue in their vision field.

>>4646279
It is what qualia are about. We can improve the hypothetical scenario. Let's say I can't perceive the color blue, but I learned to call certain things "blue", just because others always say they are "blue". It has no meaning to me and I just memorized to call them "blue". Now I can talk to others about "blue" things without seeing "blue". Am I different from others then?

>>4646291
Can you? How do you know it will succeed?

>>4646293
If you speak with this group about an object collectively which has some properties that defy your definition of blue, yes.

For example, say you were taught the color "blue" implied "apple". If we spoke of a blue car, you would be confused.

>>4646295
Because I've done it in a lab with mice?

http://bme.usc.edu/assets/003/49758.pdf

>>4646301
Now imagine you could see a new color. For example you can see ultraviolet light that is not visible to others. You see that color and it is different from every other color you think "normal" people can perceive. How would you describe your perception?

>>4646293

Again that would be down to an individuals inability to perceive or process some particular kind of information, I think.

If someone is, hypothetically, cognitively challenged in a manner that means they simply cannot comprehend even the most basic laws of physics for example, does that mean that the laws of physics can be deemed incommunicable?

I think it simpler and more accurate to say that it is a failing of that individual brain to process the data, rather than a failing of the data itself.

>>4646305
Lurker here.
Thank you for this link.

>>4646305
Well, I'm not gonna read throug a lot of uninteresting technical details. How do the researchers know what color a mouse subjectively experiences? I mean, it's quite hard to ask a mouse.

>>4646318

You would describe your perception just as you have; 'I can see ultraviolet light'.

In that case the number of people switches, so as to be a failing in the brain of the majority when compared to the broader spectrum processed by the individual in question.

>>4646318
You couldn't with a language, as the brain would not be able to transcribe it into a visual phosphene.

What you could do, however, is monitor the person's brain while they experience this color and determine the neuronal code used to produce this sensation and what neurons are involved in the handling of it. You can them stimulate the persons' brain who would like to experience the color.

Sadly, our occipital lobe is limited to the colors we can see. This might be changeable with genetics, however.

>>4646322
Now consider the following: You are talking to another person. He seems to communicate normally. How can you know he actually consciously is aware of the things in the same way you are? How do you know he's not just a biological robot, programmed to react the way he does, but without feeling anything?

>>4646332
You can stimulate the brain, sure. But when a person says, he sees "blue", how do you know his "blue" is not your "red"? How do you know he sees the world exactly like you do?

>>4646334
You can describe the physical perception, no doubt. But what if others want to know how it feels like? How would you describe it? That's exactly the incommunicability of qualia.

>>4646342
Because everyone agrees on color (except for very small shade variations). People will argue about pink/purple or blue/green/teal/turquoise, but you don't ever see one person say "that's green" and another person say "um, no, that's orange" for example.

>>4646342
One can see how the brain is wired. Most people have nearly identical wirings, hence they experience the colors the same way.

>>4646338

I suppose you'd need to define 'feeling'.

It may well be that you yourself are, as you put it, a 'biological robot' that is pre-programmed to react to stimulus. Emotion may well be just one link in the causal chain that leads to the end reaction.

>>4646348
This answer doesn't work. They cud have learned to associate different experiences with the same word.

>>4646338
Not the same person, however you could again analyze his brain activity and determine which parts are being stimulated to produce said "feelings".

I think you are confused between the concept of something being physical, and something not being able to be converted into another language. We cannot communicate brain signals into certain things directly, our auditory cortices do not allow us to do this.

Another example of this is with mathematics and physics. You can use mathematics to describe physical phenomena, but you cannot write down a Lagrangian for a free particle on a piece of paper and see a particle pop out of free space and imitate your potential and conditions set by your Lagrangian.

>>4646348
That's not what I was asking for. I mean one person sees it the way you see "red", but he learned to label it "blue" in order to properly communicate with others like for example you who call it "blue".

>>4646342
You can observe in your brain what neuronal code is being used. The occipital lobe is largely universal between individuals, this is why we can monitor what people see inside their heads with a computer.

>>4646358
If he learned to call it blue, then wouldn't people find it funny that he's going around calling red things blue?

>>4646357
No no no. That's not the problem. The problem is that I can see brain signals and I can hear the person saying what he feels, but I don't know what he actually subjectively feels. When using words, he already rips off all qualia to transmit objective information.

>>4646346

What do you mean by what it 'feels like'? I'm unaware of any 'feeling' when perceiving colours, it is only the 'physical perception' that I am aware of.

Maybe there's something wrong with my brain?

>>4646363
This doesn't solve the problem of not knowing what the person feels. The only thing I can see is a correlation between brain activity and words that are communicated, but the raw feels can't be communicated.

>>4646365
If I am understanding correctly what you mean by qualia, you could again analyze his brain activity and produce the same results in your own head. Again, I haven't read this entire thread but all sensations have a physical neuronal-mapped counterpart in the brain, they just need to be determined by observation.

The experiences you feel are a result of the firings of these neurons, which perturb the conscious experience resulting from the collective firing of an abundance of them.

>>4646364
Well he wouldn't call red things blue. He calls red things red and blue things blue, but he to him blue things look the way red things look to us.

>>4646371
>but the raw feels can't be communicated.
They can. We can stimulate portions of the brain for happiness, others for curiosity, others for laughter.

The degree of this sensation depends on both the amplitude and frequency of the stimulation.

We can also use neurotransmitters to encourage certain bunches of neurons to fire.

>>4646367
I don't know what it means to you to "see" a color. By this I don't mean the physical process of perceiving light and processing it neurally, I mean how you consciously perceive a color.

>>4646375
I can see his brain activity and he tells me he sees blue. I can induce exactly the same brain activity and see blue. But how do I know that his "blue" looks like mine?

>>4646378
Wow. I'm a block head. Sorry. I just finally understood what you were saying. Like one person sees everything as the negative image of what I see, but they use the same words to describe objects that we both look at.

That's scary to think about actually. And there's no way 2 people can compare what they see with each other?

>>4646387
The conscious experience is the neurons firing.

Consciousness results when neurons all over the brain fire simultaneously in a "harmony" and in a feedback loop, in a sense, and have communication with one another.

>>4646383
You still don't understand what qualia are. I'm sorry, but I see no point in giving you more examples. Please try to read the wikipedia article or other sources.

>>4646399
Exactly. Now you got it. Congratulations.
We can use words to communicate, but subjectively they can have totally different meaning to different persons.

>>4646395
There is a region in the occipital lobe which universally produces the blue color. (You can determine it, of course, if you don't believe the empirical evidence, by stimulating your own brain)

We can do this with mice by exposing them to various kinds of light and training them to do something in response to each. We then monitor the brain activity and see the same colors produce the same activities in the brain.

>>4646400
Sorry, but you're just repeating platitudes that are unrelated to what I posted. I'd like to ask you to google for qualia and to inform yourself about the topic, since my posts are obviously not sufficient in explaining it to you.

>>4646411
It might produce the color blue, but that doesn't say anything about how the person sees that color. All we can observe is that he says he sees "blue".

>>4646412
I understand what "qualia" are. I'll use >>4646378 for reference.

If his color "red" was different, it would be in a different part of the brain, and would connect to different neuronal bundles. It would not correspond to the same part, and thus not produce the same perturbation.

Bump limit has been reached. Noko activated.

>>4646409
Interesting. What about describing the color with words that don't describe the color?

Okay. Take black for example.

Do these words "feel" like they go with "black"?
Zero
End
Death
Stillness
Sickness
Suffocation

>>4646421
But that is the person seeing the color! If those neurons weren't there, and the DNA wasn't there for other neurons to understand what this and that meant, the conscious component to experience this color wouldn't exist!

>>4646428
No, you don't understand what qualia are. The problem is that even when we see exactly the same brain activity, we can't say what the person subjectively feels or sees. He calls it "blue" and it originates from the same areas of the brain that we know to be responsible for "blue", but to him subjectively it looks like the color you call "red".

ITT: A tripfag talking to himself. He clearly lacks the freedom to separate himself from the thread.

>>4646387

I think it might just be a failing in my understanding.

When you say 'feel', I can only relate that to either the sense of touch or an emotional response. I have neither when perceiving a colour, unless that colour triggers a memory of course - but in that case I have an emotional response to the memory, not the colour.

I don't know that it matters in the end, as long as we use the same words to describe the same objective things.

If you subjectively see what I would call 'red' when perceiving a wavelength in the blue section of the spectrum, but call it blue, it makes no difference.

I think we perceive wavelengths in similar ways, due to the similar composition of our brains, but barring a complete blindness to blue it won't affect us in any tangible way.

>>4646431
I don't think that works. Associating certain words with a specific color is a learnt thing and comes with the process of socialization. It doesn't say anything about the qualia, just about semantical rules.

>>4646444
I just thought about that, too, after I wrote it. I can easily associate those words with things I've already "seen", funerals, space, etc..

Hmm.

>>4646436
I'm sorry to tell you that you still don't understand it. Please refrain from repeating the same platitudes over and over again. They have been posted some hundred times. Try to look for better descriptions of the qualia problem on the internet.

>>4646439

Qualia may just be some abstract philosophical idea that doesn't exist in the real world, then.

If the brains are composed the same and are stimulated in the same area with the same stimulus the resulting subjective response will be identical.

>>4646443
Of course it makes no difference when we communicate. That's exactly how language works. It rips off the qualia and only transmits the objective aspects. When we receive the words, we relate them to our qualia and don't need to know those of other persons.

>>4646448
I'm already glad that finally someone in such a thread understood the problem.

>>4646439
>He calls it "blue" and it originates from the same areas of the brain that we know to be responsible for "blue", but to him subjectively it looks like the color you call "red".
Again, for the sensation to occur within consciousness it must be interpretable by other neurons. Signals are sent and understood from the way which neurons fire, and the way that other neurons understand the signals. Consciousness is all neurons being able to understand all details in exactly the same manner, and forming a network based on it. The color could not be produced if other regions of the brain could not understand that "red" meant "red".

If other neurons do not understand how to interpret the color "red", the experience, or "qualia" would not be the same.

>we can't say what the person subjectively feels or sees.
We can, as we understand to a well enough detail the neural correlates to consciousness.

>>4646454
Your last sentence is not scientific. The objective response is the same, i.e. the person saying what he sees. We can't say anything about the subjective response.

>>4646463

Excuse my ignorance, but does any evidence exist for the existence of qualia in the first place?

I can understand it as a product of differing brain composition, but not within two or more brains that are composed in the same manner.

>>4646476
>We can't say anything about the subjective response.
If we have a control group that thinks "red" is "blue", and the same areas are stimulated, then we do.

>>4646473
Please, please stop posting this way. You repeat and repeat, yet you fail to understand the problem. Go look up qualia. Look for explanations and example scenarios and hopefully you will understand what it's about.

>>4646468
This is actually really nerving. The brain just idles and spits out a error message when trying to think of a way to describe a color as though I had never seen it before. Seems impossible.

>>4646480
The only evidence is of subjective nature, i.e. us experiencing subjective aspects together with physical perceptions. There can be no objective evidence for pure subjectivity.

>>4646476

What is the subjective response if not changes in brain state? I understand that it is also objective, but barring some otherworldly separation of mind and brain the objective change in brain state relates directly to the subjective experience of that person.

>>4646482
We can't find such a control group. Remember that everyone calls the same physical colors "red" and "blue", but there might be people who subjectively see those exactly the opposite way you do, while of course showing the same brain activity.

>>4646485
Exactly. You understood it. Many others here don't. Can you help explaining the problem to them?

>>4646483
Why then, if you outright deny neural correlates to consciousness, does other sensations such as laughter result in an observable quantity if the same parts of the brain are stimulated?

For example, laughter. Same region of the brain. Same "ha ha" response from all subjects.

>>4646498
>We can't find such a control group.
We can if we teach mice to act certain ways to certain colors, switching what they would do on some colors/some mice, then looking at the brain activity.

>but there might be people who subjectively see those exactly the opposite way you do, while of course showing the same brain activity.
>while of course showing the same brain activity.
This denies the neural correlates to consciousness then, and thus you are claiming that consciousness is no longer a physical thing, rather a heuristic abstraction of neuronal processes. I have nothing more to say if this is the case.

>>4646493
We can't say anything about the persons subjective experience or how it is related to the brain states. In order to make any statement on this issue, the person would be required to communicate his subjective experience, which he can't. He can only rip off the subjective aspect and communicate the objective part by giving it the name he has learned.

>>4646510
>to consciousness, does other sensations such as laughter result in an observable quantity if the same parts of the brain are stimulated?

that should be

>why do other sensations such as laughter result in an observable quantity if the same parts of the brain are stimulated?

>>4646498

What other components do you believe there to be to experience outside brain activity, exactly?

The entire argument for the existence of qualia seems, from what I've read here, to be unfalsifiable. As such it is hardly science.

It is interesting, though.

>>4646510
Laughter as a physical reaction is of course observable. That's different from the subjective experience.

>We can if we teach mice to act certain ways to certain colors, switching what they would do on some colors/some mice, then looking at the brain activity.
No, we can't. We only have control over the brain activity and the physical perception, not over the subjective experience.

>This denies the neural correlates to consciousness then, and thus you are claiming that consciousness is no longer a physical thing, rather a heuristic abstraction of neuronal processes.
It doesn't deny anything, but if you read the thread, you'd have read that this is one possible conclusion.

>>4646519
Of course it is not science. It is pure philosophy and inherently not amenable to science.

>>4646511

What evidence is there for a separation of objective brain change and subjective consciousness change with regards to human experience?

>>4646524
>Laughter as a physical reaction is of course observable. That's different from the subjective experience.
But, if all observables correspond to the same regions of the brain in all subjects, why can we not infer that all non-observable traits, such as the color red, aren't in the same location (and thus the same) in all individuals?

>>4646530
The only evidence for subjective experience can be subjectively experiencing it. This sounds circular, I know. But it pretty much shows how their can be no scientific approach to subjectivity.

>>4646535
Because we can't observe it. We can't know anything about subjective experiences. The person cannot communicate them.

I think I've run out of things to say in this thread, barring any evidence for dualism that doesn't take part in circular reasoning surfacing.

>>4646542
I understand it isn't observable, I'm just asking why you side with Dualism when Physicalism clearly has the advantage of Occam's razor.

>>4646536

I'd say that points more to the lack of real subjectivity - as defined as being separate to objective brain changes, as I've said - existing than to it being an inherently unobservable but existent thing.

>>4646543
This applies not only to dualism. It applies to physicalism as well. It seems that except for the one guy who understood it now, all other posters I'm talking to are not willing / not capable of understanding qualia and instead keep repeating unrelated or fallacious babble about neuroscience, where it actually doesn't apply.

>>4646547
I do not tend to dualism. It just naturally comes up in any discussion about qualia, because of the impossibility to explain qualia in physicalism.

>>4646553
It does if you consider a physical correspondence to consciousness in the brain.

We do not observe things in the universe which are not physical, hence many people side with physicalism as consciousness would clearly be the only exception.

>>4646552
Then you still don't understand qualia.

>>4646557
Okay, well if this is the case I understand your reasoning now. The topic of the thread ">that feel when no physicalism (because of qualia)" just got me a little upset, so I apologize for spewing neuroscience at you.

>>4646559
What if consciousness is non-physical? Well, we'll never know.

>>4646553

There's a difference between not understanding an argument and not agreeing with it.

I understand that you believe subjective experience is unobservable by anyone but the person having it, and cannot be expressed through language.

I also agree that trying to imagine blue as being red is very difficult, or impossible.

However, I disagree with the idea that there is anything outside neurological changes involved with the experiences had by that person.

I'd also add that it's rather intellectually lazy to simply label those who disagree with you as having misunderstood the entire concept.

>>4646564
I did not start the thread. My tripcode is well-known and sometimes used by trolls.

>>4646557

The impossibility to explain something that cannot be proven to exist, and cannot be falsified, is hardly a failure.

>>4646567
Okay. If it's not a matter of understanding, but of opinions or beliefs, you could have easily said this instead of posting your opinions as if they were scientific facts. A lot of confusion and anger could have been avoided.

>>4646576
Now you're playing with the word "existence" again.

>>4646579

I don't think I've posted any opinions as if they were scientific fact.

What I have been doing is asking for any evidence of consciousness being something 'other' than changes in brain state.

Asking questions, not making claims.

>>4646581

Not at all, if you can explain why you believe that there is a dualistic separation of consciousness and brain I'd happily concede that the probability of qualia existing had increased.

>>4646590
You posted these questions with a specific attitude, just like that post I'm replying to right now. As long as you don't post your definition of "existence", I won't prove anything to you. Maybe your definition explicitly excludes qualia? I don't really care anymore btw. Arguing semantics after bump limit is not the way I want to spend my evening.

>>4646608

Fair enough. Enjoy your night.