Personally I think it’s silly as hell. Qualia is obviously a biological component of experience… Not some weird thing that science will never be able to put in to words.
I’ve been listening to a lot of psychology podcasts lately and for some reason people seem obsessed with the idea despite you needing to make the same logical leaps to believe it as any sort of mysticism… Maybe I am just tripping idk
I agree, that is seems like either a cheap way out and/or a simple play with words about how to define consciousness.
That’s not nearly enough as a definition. A simple mechanical feedback loop can do it without any biology. It would totally have conciseness with this definition, which would pretty much amount to panpsychism, which you reject (and I agree). Anyway, it’s also only a teleological definition (starting from the outcome) and not an explanation at all.
I think a good explanation of consciousness should involve an emergent process to explain the gradual scale of consciousness. Thoughts about thoughts about thoughts and so on. This should also explain unconscious mental states as simple thoughts without much meta states going on.
Thats not the usual question. It’s: “Is my red different than yours? And how could I ever know if and in what way?”
We totally can and again, not the point that people who talk about qualia make. It’s:“Can we objectify what it feels like to experience the red?”
It’s your experience of what it feels like to be piecing together a whole heap of sensory data. It’s not presented by anything to anything else.
The idea of objectifying a subjective experience that is entirely bound by time seems impossible on its face. We would have to simulate the universe forward and back, which isn’t physically possible, let alone theoretically.
Can we objectify what it feels like to experience red?
What red? The Redness of Mars that only applies from certain positions in the universe? The redness of other galaxies that only applies based on the slight speed of your head movement at the moment of observation? Mars isn’t Red on Mars.
There is far too much baggage loaded with the word Red to ever objectify it.
I’m not asking this question, so no need to answer it. I’m just correcting you on three wrong statements you made about the discours about qualia. About what questions are and aren’t involved in the discours. Because you invented your own strawmen questions, and tried to answer those. Anyway, from your answer here and to other comments, it seems, like you completely accept everything that proponents of qualia say about them. They would answer the same way. Do you even have any critique of the concept as such?
I hope I didn’t sound to critical, like I said, I mostly agree with your conclusions, I just think they need more careful arguments.
Oh yeah this aint no thesis paper or anything, I came here for discussion not preaching to the choir. I assume I am wrong but steelman my own beliefs, thats how you grow baby.
But in general I just think asking someone to objectively define red is nonsense. Any subjective agent is incapable of objectivity. Does this undermine my entire argument? Probably? Thats the fun of it.
Ah, I get it. Yes it’s fun 😊
It literally is possible theoretically
Okay I am going out on a limb here… but i feel like the laws of thermodynamics disagree. To perfectly simulate our universe would require the same amount of energy that is put in.