> Colin Hales wrote:

> No, I said I didn't understand what you meant - and now I don't think you
> do
> either.  You have apparently come to the recent realization that science
> just
> creates models and you never know whether they are really real (and most
> likely
> they aren't) but for some reason you have seized upon qualia as being the
> big
> problem.  You don't know whether electrons or tables or the Sun is really
> real
> either.
> If science explains qualia - and I think it will - the explanation will be
> in
> terms of a model in which this or that variable produces this or that
> qualia -
> like 700nm photons hitting your retina causes red qualia.  I understand
> now
> that's not what you want.  So maybe you could give an example of what a
> theory
> in the "science of qualia" might be like.

No recent realisation. This has been drving me nuts for years. I'm just
trying to wake everyone up. There is 1 problem with what you say
above...what you outline is not an explanation at all. It's a description.
This is only an explanation in a metaphoric or folk-psychological sense
that assumes that the 'rule' is causal. The rule is not causal.

( minor point btw qualia are not generated at the retina. Their generation
is causally connected to an experienceless event in the retina...).

An example: dynamic hierarchies of structured fluctuations.

>>It's the single biggest problem
>> there is: we don't have one! Science cannot make any justified,
>> authoritative prediction as to the phenomenal life of a rock, a
>> computer,
>> the internet or the plumbing in Beijing or, especially, a scientist.
> That's because you don't want to use an opertional definition of
> "phenomenal
> life" and science can't work on just words defined in terms of other
> words.

This is _not_ just words. Let's do an antroplogical study of you right
now. Say I am a biologist...normally I study the mating behaviour of
penguins. But today I am studying the scientific behaviour of humans.

My research question?

This 'thing' phenomenality/qualia/phenomenal consciosness, what its its
relationship to scientific behaviour? I devise an expermient. I put a
coffee cup in front of you and my experiment is as follows:

Q1. How much science can you do on this coffee cup?
A1. ....You give a list.

Now I ask you to close your eyes.

Q2. How much science can you do on coffee cups now? More or less.
A2. Less.

My research question is answered: "Phenomenal consciousness is a necessary
causal precursor to scientific behaviour". This is not some glib
philosophical nuance. This is in_your_face empirical proof. Right there.

>>Take a
>> look at Science magazine's July 2005 issue where 125 questions were
>> posed
>> that face scientific inquiry over the next quarter century. The top two
>> questions:
>> 1. What is the universe made of?
> Stuff that kicks back when you kick it.
>> 2. What is the biological basis of consciousness?
> Brains.

WRONG! There's a whole description missing. The one you use to do science.
The mind! It is the only thing that told you there is a brain! Without the
mind (qualia) you wouldn't have any notion of anything whatever.

I'm sorry. Pehaps read up on the issue. You've managed to miss the entire
discourse. The guys who wrote the science mag article have...Science
magazine also thinks your answer is wrong too.. otherwise they wouldn;t
think it a valid question.

colin hales

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to