On Dec 22, 7:18 am, alexalex <alexmka...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hello, Everythinglisters! > > The below text is a philosophical essay on what qualia may represent. > I doubt you'll manage to finish reading it (it's kind of long, and > translated from anoter language), but if you do I'll be happy to hear > your opinion about what it says. > > Thanks! > > <<<A simpler model of the world with different points of view>>> > > It can often get quite amusing watching qualophiles' self-confidence, > mutual assurance and agreement when they talk about something a priori > defined as inherently private and un-accessible to third-party > analysis (i.e. qualia), so they say, but they somehow agree on what > they're discussing
I feel the same way about quantophiles' confidence in theoretical abstraction and endless capacity to deny the existence of the very subjectivity that they use to deny it with. Agreement is not a contradiction to the privacy of qualia because the privacy of qualia is specific to groups of subjects as well as individuals. Human beings experience universal levels of qualia (physics, chemistry), organic levels (biology, zoology, neurology), anthropomorphic levels (psychology, sociology), and individual levels which are relatively unique or idiosyncratic. We are both human so we share the broader levels, but begin to diverge in the biochemical level as we have different DNA. That divergence grows as the scope of the qualia narrows and deepens toward individuality. >about even though as far as I've been able to > understand they don't display the slightest scant of evidence which > would show that they believe there will ever be a theory that could > bridge the gap between the ineffable what-it-is-likeness (WIIL) of > personal experience and the scientific, objective descriptions of > reality. They don’t even try to brainstorm ideas about such a theory. My hypothesis tries to do exactly that. Check it out sometime if you have a chance: http://s33light.org/SEEES > How are we to explain this what-it-is-likeness (WIIL) if we can't > subject it to what science has been and will always be? By expanding science so that it is more scientific and not shivering in a cave of pseudo-certainty and throwing rocks at people who ask about subjectivity. >Third-party analysis. If science will always be limited to third-party analysis, then it will never be possible for it to address subjectivity, since it is by definition subjective. Since the nature of subjectivity cannot change, science must adapt to fit the reality of the universe. > So, here it is: Qualia, one of the last remaining unresolved > quandaries for us to splinter and rise on the pedestals of science, > but we must stop, qualophiles say, because, .... “Because what?” It's not qualia that must rise to the challenge of science, it is the other way around. > I ask. “Because the what-it-is-likeness of qualia” most of them will > respond. And believe me that is the whole argument from which they > sprout all of the other awkward deductions and misconstrued axioms if > we are to succinctly resume their rigorous, inner-gut, “aprioristic > analysis”. I'll try to expose the absurdity of their stance by making > some analogies while telling the story of how architects and designers > build 3D models of reality with the help of 3D modeling software. > > The 1s and 0s that make the large variety of 3D design software on the > market today are all we need in order to bring to virtual-reality > whatever model of our real world we desire. Those 1s and 0s, which are > by the way as physical as the neurons in your brain Yes and no. 1s and 0s are not physical in the way that neurons are. They have no temperature or specific gravity. They are abstractions we use to understand how we can manipulate semiconductors to act as computation devices for us.The only physicality that 1s and 0s have are as sensotimotive significators in the human mind. In a computer they are not 1s and 0s, but concrete events experienced by doped semiconductors of holding and releasing 'charge' (feeling or proto- feeling or sensorimotive detection-reaction which we consider 'electromagnetic'). > though not of the > same assortment (see below), are further arranged into sub-modules > that are further integrated into other different parts and subsystems > of the computer onto which the software they are part of is running > on, so their arrangement is obviously far from aleatory. One needs to > adopt the intentional stance in order to understand the intricacies, > details and roles that these specific particular modules play in this > large and complex computer programs. > > If you had the desire you could bring to virtual reality any city of > the world you want. Let's for example take the city of Rome. Every > monument, restaurant, hospital, park, mall and police department can > be accounted for in a detailed, virtual replica which we can model > using one of these 3D modeling programs. Every car, plane and boat, > even the people and their biomechanics are so well represented that we > could easily mistake the computer model for the real thing. We modern humans could mistake the model for the real thing, but nothing else in the universe would. Try to grow some real grapes in a virtual Rome and it won't work. 3D models are an aid for human visualization. They have no coherence independent of our usage of them. Rome is a city made of tons of concrete, wood, ceramic, etc. It's located in Italy and filled with living people who are constantly changing the city, etc. A 3D model is an image in our eyes and mind produced by a computer and a graphic display. > Here we > are looking at the monitor screen from our God-like-point-of-view. All > the points, lines, 2D-planes and 3D objects in this digital > presentation have their properties and behavior ruled by simulated > laws of physics which are identical to the laws encountered in our > real world. Not at all. If you throw a virtual stone at your virtual Colosseum, it makes no sound. A picture of a city is not a city. The map is not the territory, even a really good map. >These objects and the laws that govern them are 100% > traceable to the 1s and 0s, that is, to the voltages and transistors > on the silica chips that make up the computer onto which the software > is runs on. We have a 100% description of the city of Rome in our > computer in the sense that there is no object in that model that we > can't say all there is to say about it and the movement of the points, > lines and planes which compose it because they're all accounted for in > the 0s and 1s saved on the hard-drive and then loaded into the RAM and > video-RAM of our state of the art video graphics card. A city isn't made of just points, lines, and planes. That's just one aspect of a human visual representation. It is to say that an accounting spreadsheet is 100% traceable to a factory and it's employees. > Let's call that > perspective, the perspective of knowing all there is to know about the > 3D-model, the third-person perspective (the perspective described by > using only third-party objective data). What's interesting is that all > of these 3D design programs have the option to add cameras to whatever > world model you are currently developing. Cameras present a scene from > a particular point-of-view (POV – or point of reference, call it how > you will). Camera objects simulate still-image, motion picture, or > video cameras in the real world and have the same usage here. The > benefit of cameras is that you can position them anywhere within a > scene to offer a custom view. You can imagine that camera not only as > a point of view but also as an area point of view (all the light > reflected from the objects in your particular world model enter the > lens of the camera), but for our particular mental exercise this > doesn't matter. What you need to know is that our virtual cameras can > perfectly simulate real world cameras and all the optical science of > the lens is integrated in the program making the simulated models > similar to the ones that are found real life. We’ll use POVs and CPOVs > interchangeably from now on; they mean the same thing in the logic of > our argumentation. > > The point-of-view (POV) of the camera is obviously completely > traceable and mathematically deducible from the third-person > perspective of the current model we are simulating and from the > physical characteristics of the virtual lens built into the camera > through which the light reflected of the objects in the model is > projected (Bare in mind that the physical properties and optics of the > lens are also simulated by the computer model). Of course, the > software does all that calculation and drawing for you. But if you had > the ambition you could practically do all that work for yourself by > taking the 3D-model’s mathematical and geometric data from the saved > computer file containing your particular model description and > calculate on sheets of paper how objects from it would look and behave > from a particular CPOV, and more to that, you could literally draw > those objects yourself by using the widely known techniques of > descriptive geometry (the same as the ones used by the 3D modeling > software). But what point would that make when we already have > computers that achieve this arduous task for us? Maybe living in a > period of time without computers would make this easily relentless > task one worth considering. > > So, we can basically take a virtual trip to whatever part of Rome we > want by just jumping inside a CPOV provided to us by the software. We > can see, experience what it is like to be in Rome by adopting whatever > CPOV which will be calculated and drawn to us by this complex but 100% > describable and understandable computer program. The software would be > no mystery to us if we were sufficiently trained programmers, > architects and mathematicians. The WIIL of experiencing Rome will > never be a mystery to us also if we’ll let the 3D design software do > the job of calculating and drawing the CPOV for us. Imagine how absurd that would sound to someone who is blind and lives in Rome. Do they have no WIIL of experiencing Rome? > Of course, as said > above, we can achieve the same WIIL by making strenuous calculations > and draw ourselves on sheets of paper exactly the same POV “painted” > to us by the computer program. Whatever our choice one thing stands to > pure reason: We will achieve to experience the what-it-is-likeness > (WIIL) of Rome by deducing it from objective, third-party data that we > can all share by accessing the program file that contains the 3D-model > third-person description; so there is nothing special about it. My WIIL is almost completely different as an American visitor from what it was like for people who live there. This thought experiment is based on a strawman of qualia, with no resemblance to actual subjective experience. It is to say that by producing a perfect copy of a book written in Chinese, whoever reads it will automatically be able to read Chinese. > The > whole point is that the experience of the WIIL can be achieved and > built by/for us using third-person data). Of course. We have already achieved that: Movies, TV, radio, photographs. All of which are far superior qualitatively at enabling WIIL experiences than anything that computers have achieved separately from those media. > The WIIL only seems to be > some kind of metaphysical thing because of its circumstantial > relatedness with the idiosyncrasies of the POV. It doesn't seem metaphysical to me at all. It is as physical as a quark or a galaxy, it just 'insists' and 'persists' through time rather than exists across space. What is metaphysical is the idea that subjective perception spontaneously emerges from computation. > No need to squander > energy contriving not-worth-considering meanings because of this > relatedness. The WIIL is the intentional interpretation of the > mathematical description of the physical objects' properties and > relationships to each other which the POV describes; it is the > richness and detail of the description of the POV taken as a whole by > whatever is on the other side of the lens. On the other hand the POV > can be accounted for by its mathematical and geometrical description; > it’s all data, 0s and 1s. Then why do you need a lens? Why is there a 'side'? If it's all data, at what point do 0s and 1s start to feel like they are on a side of which intentionally interprets rather than one which performs generic a-signifying data manipulations? >The WIIL and the POV represent the same > thing but each are different interpretations of a specific slice of > the 3D model: one is a reducible, mathematical and geometric > description of a set of objects and how their would appear from a > certain vantage point (i.e. the POV), the other one is the non- > reducible, intentional, apparently immediate interpretation of all > that data contained in the POV taken as a whole. Yes! They are two different (symmetrically opposite to be exact) presentations of the same underlying ontology. The problem is that your view arbitrarily privileges one view as real and the other as 'illusion' or 'metaphysical'. Both are real is some sense, unreal in another, both real and unreal in another, and neither real nor unreal in another. The underlying ontology is in fact the gap which separates and the sense which infers the wholeness underneath the gap. >The WIIL is all > accounted for, we know all about it: how it comes to existence, how it Oh? Like what? What do we know about green that we can explain to a blind person to give them a precise accounting of green? > is 100% physical but non-reducible because of its intentionality, and > how the circumstantial relation to its POV makes it seem as if it’s > something separate from it but that's an illusion. Illusion? Intentionality? Are these things made of 1s and 0s? > The what-it-is-likeness (WIIL) of points-of-view (POVs) in our model > of Rome are unique in the sense that they each have idiosyncrasies in > the arrangement of points, lines, planes, colors and light reflectance > that make up the objects in the model, idiosyncrasies caused by the > perspective that we randomly chose to be a point or a certain area > (lens of the camera) on the map of our 3D model onto which the light > reflected by some of the objects contained in it is projected through. > The WIIL is 100% mathematically, geometrically described and accounted > for by the calculations and drawings done in order to design the POV > that we experience the WIIL through. To make it more clearly lets > describe the relationship between the WIIL and the POV a little more. > The WIIL is not something separate from the POV in one important sense > and here sits the crux of my argumentation: The POV which was inferred > and created from the objective, third-person perspective of the > computer model is the WIIL in the sense that all we need to know if we > are to describe the WIIL is the mathematical description of the POV > and that is all. For someone (or something) to experience objects > contained in the city model through a specific CPOV that is how WIILs > come into existence. The sole act of accessing that POV (i.e, its > mathematical description) is the WIIL. The POV has no WIIL. The WIIL is inferred as an extension of our individual perception. Without a graphic display and eyes to see it, there is no POV. The question "And then what > happens?" has no meaning here because nothing happens next. As I've > said above you can think of POVs as reducible in the sense that they > can be accounted for mathematically by knowing each coordinate of > every point belonging to every object in its description, and you can > think at WIIL as a non-reducible, intentional representation of the > objects described by that POV taken as a whole by the observer sitting > on the other side of the lens. The sole act of acknowledging the > mathematical and geometric descriptive richness of a piece of the > world through the lens of the camera-point-of-view (CPOV) by whatever > remains on the other side of the lens is the WIIL and nothing more is > there to be said; the story is complete. The story has not even begun. There is no such thing as mathematical and geometric descriptive richness, only precision and resolution. There is no world-making quality of perception oozing out of abstract coordinates and points. > Acknowledging the richness in > description of the mathematical and geometric data does not mean that > the observer needs to understand all the intricate equations, > elaborate calculations and geometric deductions; all there needs to be > done is for that observer is to be hit with all that idiosyncratic > data ". “Can you describe this WIIL?" Of course, by providing you with > all the mathematical relations between all the points, planes and > surface properties that describe the POV through which this wholeness > of experience (WIIL) comes to reality. How did i get those points and > planes and their properties? Again, I got them from the third-party, > objective data contained in the 3D-model of the city located on the 1s > and 0s hardwired on the hard-drive of the computer. What do 3-D models have to do with the smell of cheese or the memory of feeling in one's teeth, the blueness of blue. Those are examples of qualia, not a CGI interactive map of Rome. > > Something on privateness now. The WILL is only private in the sense > that only something which experiences a certain POV can experience its > WIIL but that is all. Can this POV be shared with others? Of course. > After we create that CPOV in the computer program we can save it to a > file and send it via email to whatever part of the globe you want for > someone else to experience its WIIL. So, the possibility of sharing it > with others makes it a not very good candidate for privateness. POVs > are only unique, but hardly private so let's not confuse the terms. Sharing the POV still generates individual, private WIILs. I can give you an mp3 but my WILL of that song is that it is a great song but yours may be a boring song. > > The same reasons as above I should say go for the qualia of color, > smells, etc. So, I doubt there is any difference with these types of > experiences. What it is like to see a color is just experiencing the > complete model from a slice of the world from a certain POV. Then it's existence would be redundant and irrelevant. Why should we need more than one sense? What it's like to hear music is nothing like seeing something, even in synesthesia where the sense 'data' is presumably directly translated from one sense modality to another. The data is the same, but the qualia *cannot be translated* even if the end result from a functional perspective might seem the same to an outside observer (ie if I am seeing a base drum sound instead of hearing it, I can produce accurate estimates of the timing, intensity, rhythm, etc of the drum, but I cannot hear it). > Why can't > that POV be deduced and inferred from the widely agreed-upon, > sufficient, scientific data as qualophiles’ plea for metaphysics > suggest eludes me so far as i can see, That's because you don't seem to have given any consideration to what they are actually talking about. I agree that qualia are not metaphysical though, unless you are talking about physics only in terms of material objects as seen from the outside. Qualia is physical alright, which is why they are altered with a molecule like LSD, but there is nothing about the molecule LSD which is significant or interesting without a human nervous system to experience it. > so that's why the they haven't > proved anything yet. I doubt they'll ever will. If we knew almost > everything there is to know about the particles and forces that make > up our world we could be able to build models of whatever brains we'd > like that could experience all there is to be possible designable as > an experience. We can't even bring a dead ant back to life. We should know enough about particles and forces already to do that. > > Daniel Dennett's RoboMarry shouldn't have a hard job at building color > into herself without access to the already build in color-modules that > are part of her 100% silica made brain. And that's our next story. Here's where I de-bunk Dennett's views if you're interested: http://s33light.org/post/14618926856 I'm not familiar with RoboMarry, but I'll debunk that for you if you like another time. Dennett's worldview is obsolete. Mine is superior. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.