On Dec 22 2011, 12:18 pm, 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 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.
> 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The
> whole point is that the experience of the WIIL can be achieved and
> built by/for us using third-person data). The WIIL only seems to be
> some kind of metaphysical thing because of its circumstantial
> relatedness with the idiosyncrasies of the POV. 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. 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. The WIIL is all
> accounted for, we know all about it: how it comes to existence, how it
> 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.
So? if you are in the business of sayig that qualia are mysterious
and non phsycial. obviously you would reject such a theory.

> They don’t even try to brainstorm ideas about such a theory.
> 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? Third-party
> analysis. 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?” 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

A stance is absurd if it contradicts facts. But all you have
is speculation.

> 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 what-it-is-likeness (WIIL) of points-of-view (POVs) in our model

You haven;t established that there is WIL-ness of the human
kind in the model, or that human WIL-ness works like
geometical POVs. All you can say is that if it does,
then there is no mystery of qualia.

> 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.
> The same reasons as above I should say go for the qualia of color,
> smells, etc.

Says who? If you could communicate them in some objectivese,
you cold prove your point. Otherwise it is just a hypothesis.

>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.

Ditto. Maybe it is. maybe it isn;t.

>Why can't
> that POV be deduced and inferred from the widely agreed-upon,
> sufficient, scientific data

Do it then. You have a confirmable thesis
. But it isn't true until it is confirmed.

> as qualophiles’ plea for metaphysics
> suggest eludes me so far as i can see, 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.

There;s no guarantee that a model will experience anything in a WIL
sense. it isn't
guaranteed by functional adeuqacy. Flight simulators don;t fly.

> Well, if you remember the story of how architects create specific
> camera-points-of-view (CPOVs) inside their 3D modeling software in
> order to experience a certain point-of-view (POV) of whatever model of
> reality or of their imagination they are designing, maybe building
> color experience inside oneself without ever having experienced colors
> may not seem that unbelievable after all. Remember that RoboMary knows
> everything about the physical world there is to be known. Couldn't she
> simulate (that is by a third-person perspective of course) what the
> brain state of a Mark 19 robot would be upon experiencing colors using
> a computer model of this type of robot and subjecting it to a
> completely digital replica of a LCD monitor screen onto which the
> stolen colorized security videos would be projected onto?

She could. If colour qualia are computatioal,
the simulation will work. if they are more
like the abiity of a flight simulator to fly,
it won;t.  You just have a speculation there.
Intuiting in opposite directions to
qualiaphiles proves nothing.

> Some may retort that what may be a true fact for architecture and 3D
> computer modeling is not even close at explaining special phenomenal
> qualities like colors, pains, etc. But then again, why would that be a
> possibility worth taking into consideration?

Because we should not mistakes possibilities
for facts. Everything you have put forward
is only possibility.

>What qualia is, this what-
> it-is-likeness, is not something metaphysical (at least that is what
> we should a priori consider it if we ever wish to explain it),

Fine. Work on explaining it. If you succed you
will have proved your point. But qualiaphiles
aren't wrong because their guesses are
opposite to your guesses.

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to