On 07 Aug 2011, at 16:31, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.08.2011 14:51 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Aug 7, 2:44 am, Evgenii Rudnyi<[email protected]> wrote:
On 07.08.2011 05:12 Craig Weinberg said the following:
We can always infer qualia. It doesn't mean our inference is
correct. In this case I'm pointing out that the inference
doesn't require a learned language. My point is that math is not
nature, but nurture. If it were otherwise, I would expect the
effects of alcohol intoxication or smaller brain cortex to make
an animal more logical rather than more emotional. Emotion is
more primitive than symbolic logic.
Please note that according to experimental results (see the book
mentioned in my previous message), pain comes after the event. For
example when you touch a hotplate, you take your hand back not
because of the pain. The action actually happens unconsciously,
conscious pain comes afterward.
The pain comes to 'us' after the event. That's not to say that the
cells of your burned finger are not in pain already. Cellular pain
may not be the same experience of course as a trillion cell human
being's version of it. We have to ramp up the significance of the
sensation. Cells die all the time, so their damage may not feel as
'expensive' to us who, all things considered, consider our own
fingers pretty highly.
Whether individual cells can experience pain is, I guess, an open
question. It seems that there are no experimental results to this end.
What I meant was that the action to remove the hand is done
unconsciously. I am not sure that pain in cells is the reason, in my
view rather sensor neurons give signals to the brain and then it
causes the action. All this however happens unconsciously and pain
as we feel it comes after the action.
As far as the book, it looks good at the beginning but then seems
like it creeps back down away from the hard problem. Most of what you
The book considers experimental results and the Hard Problem is
formulated in the context of experimental research. The book
actually offers no solution, its goal rather to show the problem. To
this end, the authors first tries to employ normal scientific
knowledge as long as he can. This is why I like it. Yet, the book
states pretty clear that the Hard Problem (Qualia) is right now
incompatible with contemporary scientific knowledge.
There is no scientific way to put a frontier between scientific
knowledge and scientific beliefs. I am glad that the author sees there
is a problem between qualia and what I would call only the current
scientific naturalistic beliefs.
The incompatibility is between mechanism and materialism.
Bruno
have quoted I agree with and have considered often. Here's my answers
to his qualia questions:
...
Thanks. The problem is that you use your own language to model the
world and it seems to be far away from that I get used to, hence no
comments from my side here.
Evgenii
http://blog.rudnyi.ru
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
