Theres not supposed to be a good explanation of qualia
That’s a perfect example of why it seems sensible to “reject the whole topic”.
I’ve already explained why that’s an anti pattern. If you had rejected the very idea of magnetism when magnetism wasn’t understood, it would not now be understood. Or meteorites, which actually were rejected for a while.
That’s just picking ‘worship’ instead of ‘explain’.
There’s not supposed to be a good explanation of qualia currently.
Qualia aren’t supposed to be inexplicable, just unexplained. It’s not like there are just two states “hopeless woo” and “fully explained right now”.
Yes, I defy the assumption that qualia are “supposed to be subjective”. I would expect ’having surgery under anesthesia or not” to not be entirely subjective.
So it’s still subjective, so long as subjective means “not entirely objective”.
I don’t think there’s any good reason to expect that we won’t – at least someday – be able to observe ’subjective experience
Who said otherwise? You seem to have decided that “qualia are subjective experiences and we don’t understand them” means something like “qualia are entirely and irredeemably subjective and will be a mystery forever”.
It’s almost always the case that claims come in a variety of strengths … But outgroup homogeneity bias will make and it seem like your outgroup all have the same, dumb claim. If you are attacking the most easily attackable form of qualiaphilia, you are weakmanning.
Maybe we will have qualiometers one day, and maybe we will abandon the very idea of qualia. But maybe we won’t, so we have no reason to treat qualia as poison now.
I’ve already explained why that’s an anti pattern. If you had rejected the very idea of magnetism when magnetism wasn’t understood, it would not now be understood.
I’m rejecting the idea of ‘qualia’ for the same reason I wouldn’t reject the idea of magnetism – they both seem (or would seem, for magnetism, in your hypothetical).
I’m rejecting ‘mysterious answers’, e.g. “Theres not supposed to be a good explanation of qualia”.
Who said otherwise? You seem to have decided that “qualia are subjective experiences and we don’t understand them” means something like “qualia are entirely and irredeemably subjective and will be a mystery forever”.
Sorry – that’s not what I intended to convey. And maybe we’re writing past each other about this. I suspect that ‘qualia’ is basically equivalent to something far more general, e.g. ‘information processing’, and that our intuitions about what ‘qualia’ are, and the underlying mechanics of them (of which many people seem to insist don’t exist), are based on the limited means we have of currently, e.g. introspecting on them, communicating with each other about them, and weakly generalizing to other entities (e.g. animals) or possible beings (e.g. AIs).
I also suspect that ‘consciousness’ – which I’m currently (loosely/casually) modeling as ‘being capable of telling stories’ – and us having consciousness, makes thinking and discussing ‘qualia’ more difficult than I suspect it will turn out to be.
Maybe we will have qualiometers one day, and maybe we will abandon the very idea of qualia. But maybe we won’t, so we have no reason to treat qualia as poison now.
What I’m (kinda) ‘treating as poison’ is the seemingly common view that ‘qualia’ cannot be explained at all, i.e. that it’s inherently and inescapably ‘subjective’. It sure seems like at least some people – tho maybe not yourself – are either in the process ‘retreating’, or have adopted a ‘posture’ whereby they’re constantly ‘ready to retreat’, from the ‘advances’ of ‘objective investigation’ and then claim that only the ‘leftover’ parts of ‘qualia’ that remain ‘subjective’ are the ‘real qualia’.
I’m rejecting the idea of ‘qualia’ for the same reason I wouldn’t reject the idea of magnetism – they both seem (or would seem, for magnetism, in your hypothetical)
Seem what?
I’m rejecting ‘mysterious answers’, e
The lack of explanation for qualia is not intended as an answer.
I suspect that ‘qualia’ is basically equivalent to something far more general, e.g. ‘information processing’,
If you could show that , that would be an explanation. Staring that an A is, for no particular reason, a B is not explanation.
What I’m (kinda) ‘treating as poison’ is the seemingly common view that ‘qualia’ cannot be explained at all
You say it is common , but no one in this discussion has made it , and you haven’t named anyone who has made it. And inexplicability is not part of the definition of “qualia”.
Winding back:-
I’m not convinced that statements like “qualia clearly exist” are informative. It feels like a ‘poisoned idea’, e.g. because of the connection with ‘p-zombies’.
Theres nothing about inexplicability there , either. But there is something about wrongthought ,.ie.zombies.
So it’s still subjective, so long as subjective means “not entirely objective”.
Everything in the universe is (arguably) physical—there is nothing that exists that’s not entirely objective and entirely accessible to external inquiry.
To the extent that qualia are subjective, their subjectivity needs to be an entirely objective property—otherwise it wouldn’t exist.
Everything in the universe is (arguably) physical—there is nothing that exists that’s not entirely objective and entirely accessible to external inquiry.
That’s true only if the evidence supports it.
To the extent that qualia are subjective, their subjectivity needs to be an entirely objective property—otherwise it wouldn’t exist.
That’s the opposite of rationality. In rationality, evidence determines theories,not vice versa.
I’ve already explained why that’s an anti pattern. If you had rejected the very idea of magnetism when magnetism wasn’t understood, it would not now be understood. Or meteorites, which actually were rejected for a while.
There’s not supposed to be a good explanation of qualia currently. Qualia aren’t supposed to be inexplicable, just unexplained. It’s not like there are just two states “hopeless woo” and “fully explained right now”.
So it’s still subjective, so long as subjective means “not entirely objective”.
Who said otherwise? You seem to have decided that “qualia are subjective experiences and we don’t understand them” means something like “qualia are entirely and irredeemably subjective and will be a mystery forever”.
It’s almost always the case that claims come in a variety of strengths … But outgroup homogeneity bias will make and it seem like your outgroup all have the same, dumb claim. If you are attacking the most easily attackable form of qualiaphilia, you are weakmanning.
Maybe we will have qualiometers one day, and maybe we will abandon the very idea of qualia. But maybe we won’t, so we have no reason to treat qualia as poison now.
I’m rejecting the idea of ‘qualia’ for the same reason I wouldn’t reject the idea of magnetism – they both seem (or would seem, for magnetism, in your hypothetical).
I’m rejecting ‘mysterious answers’, e.g. “Theres not supposed to be a good explanation of qualia”.
Sorry – that’s not what I intended to convey. And maybe we’re writing past each other about this. I suspect that ‘qualia’ is basically equivalent to something far more general, e.g. ‘information processing’, and that our intuitions about what ‘qualia’ are, and the underlying mechanics of them (of which many people seem to insist don’t exist), are based on the limited means we have of currently, e.g. introspecting on them, communicating with each other about them, and weakly generalizing to other entities (e.g. animals) or possible beings (e.g. AIs).
I also suspect that ‘consciousness’ – which I’m currently (loosely/casually) modeling as ‘being capable of telling stories’ – and us having consciousness, makes thinking and discussing ‘qualia’ more difficult than I suspect it will turn out to be.
What I’m (kinda) ‘treating as poison’ is the seemingly common view that ‘qualia’ cannot be explained at all, i.e. that it’s inherently and inescapably ‘subjective’. It sure seems like at least some people – tho maybe not yourself – are either in the process ‘retreating’, or have adopted a ‘posture’ whereby they’re constantly ‘ready to retreat’, from the ‘advances’ of ‘objective investigation’ and then claim that only the ‘leftover’ parts of ‘qualia’ that remain ‘subjective’ are the ‘real qualia’.
Seem what?
The lack of explanation for qualia is not intended as an answer.
If you could show that , that would be an explanation. Staring that an A is, for no particular reason, a B is not explanation.
You say it is common , but no one in this discussion has made it , and you haven’t named anyone who has made it. And inexplicability is not part of the definition of “qualia”.
Winding back:-
Theres nothing about inexplicability there , either. But there is something about wrongthought ,.ie.zombies.
Everything in the universe is (arguably) physical—there is nothing that exists that’s not entirely objective and entirely accessible to external inquiry.
To the extent that qualia are subjective, their subjectivity needs to be an entirely objective property—otherwise it wouldn’t exist.
That’s true only if the evidence supports it.
That’s the opposite of rationality. In rationality, evidence determines theories,not vice versa.
So, for that to be otherwise, people would need to find that the (human) brain breaks the laws of physics. Otherwise it’s true.
Fundamental subjectivity can exist without breaking physics.
But not subjectivity that wouldn’t be fully objective at the same time.
Subjectivity that is not also objectivity is what I meant by fundamental subjectivity.