I agree that the idea of qualia is just a term and that the complexities of perception have been discussed by many ways by various writers without use of the word. It is probably simply that the term gives a specific framework for thinking about perception. Certainly, that has been my experience of reading and thinking about the term. I do wish to hold onto the term but with some fluidity, recognising that in some ways the term is a bit of a tangent, probably if the word qualia is used too concretely as if it solves many contradictions in perception.

Just as a question for people to think about: what do you see if you close your eyes? Some people see only darkness. Some but not all of the time I see geometric shapes and patterns, more in the right one recently. It may be due to the phosphenes or rods and cones. Is this the internal subjective qualia?

I am definitely an s-zombie today because I have a cold. It is not the cold that is the problem though, but that I feel that I can't go out in public places in case its Omicron. But, most people are zombies in some form or another and life becomes more and more like cyberpunk horror, with or without stimulants.

There are plenty of people in our culture who do spend their whole lives zombified on drugs, especially alcohol. Mind you, I have to admit that I can't do much in the morning without 2 cups of coffee.

Yes, these are all valid means of knowledge and it does seem that the materialist reductionist perspective is given prominence. This is especially true within psychology in the debate as to whether psychology is a science. I know a lot of people who have studied psychology as a BSc and quibble over people who have studied it as s BA, as if it less valuable or valid.

It does seem that emotions are a main aspect in between the brain and sentient experience. If too much emphasis in understanding the nature of consciousness is based on the brain it could leave out the whole role of bodily experience in viewing the mind. There is the whole realm of emotional intelligence rather than just approaching life from the 'head'. The emphasis on mindfulness within psychology is important in this respect, in making the focus not simply about cognitive processes.

I have found that caffeine helps with clear rational thinking and, this was initially through taking caffeine tablets when I was a student. I sometimes took more than the recommended dose and my thoughts were racing. I was using it like a form of speed and it was during this time that I stopped going to church and questioned religion.

Smoking dope was extremely pleasant and I found it good for closing my eyes and seeing inner imagery. I tried acid twice and it definitely seemed to open up a different kind of reality, beyond the one of day to day awareness, more like the one described in shamanism I am not sure that I ever got back into my body though because my physical coordination has seemed worse, although it was never that great. But, swallowing morning glory seeds was great in the sense that I could see images on the door but was not completely stoned and was able to sketch the images. The biggest problem with morning glory seeds is that they are coated in poison to deter people from eating them. I had stomach ache during the night after taking them and, perhaps, 2 packets of seeds are somewhere inside me still.

I haven't had any illegal drugs in a long while. I drink wine sometimes when I am reading, but try not to get to carried away with this. I got lost a few times after being out late at night after drinking and reading in pubs. I am still looking for the perfect elixir and do experiment with herbal medicines, including the herb, Passiflora, which I do find does help with sleep. Absinthe is a bit tempting to try but I am not sure that it such a good idea..

I do intend to try to read other writers on the topic and, would like to read CI Lewis in particular. The ideas within art and music are interesting too and even if they fall a little outside of philosophy, they probably raise the whole area of phenomenology in the arts.

As I was the person who asked the question I am still wondering how useful the idea of qualia is. There has been so much interesting discussion on the thread, but it is probably an area in philosophy which people will never agree about. It does seem that the terms subjectivity and consciousness are such buzz words in philosophy and it is possible to go round in circles at times, with the issue of qualia being somewhat in this.

I can remember the first time I ever came across the word qualia and how it took me a while to grasp and, then, I realised it was a almost a bit of a puzzle. I have mentioned the idea of qualia to friends who don't read philosophy and some seem to relate to the idea easily and the concept seems to make more sense to some than others. I am inclined to think that the idea of qualia is useful to some extent, but with some limitation, in the way in which it can become a bit of a knotty tangent at times.

Happy birthday and plenty of 'glorious experiences', to enable you to make more pictures and poems.

I managed to get hold of and read Dennett's, 'From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds(2017), for his later views on qualia. One important remark which he makes is that, ' Qualia are supposed to be somehow internal, subjective properties that we are acquainted with more directly, when we are slightly less directed with their normal external causes_ real red stripes, and so on in the world'.

I have read the comments in the thread and it does remain a complex issue. Previously, I had not been particularly impressed by what I had read by Dennett. However, at this specific moment, his writing is making sense to me of qualia being the link between the objective aspects of the world and the way it is transmitted in subjective internal states. The actual transmission of information may be important, as in music as a form of Vibrations which form into meaningful songs.

Another important remark which Dennett makes, which may be useful for reflection is:
'Doggedly pursuing the idea that qualia are both the causes and the intentional objects (the existing intentional objects) of introspection leads to further artifactual fantasies, the most extravagant of which is the idea that unlike our knowledge of other kinds of causation, our knowledge of mental causation is infallible and direct; we can't be wrong when we declare that our subjective beliefs about the elements of our conscious experience are caused by those very elements. We have "priviledged access" to the causes of our or sources of our introspective convictions. No room for any tricksters here.' In other words, in most instances we believe that our perceptions of the external world on the basis of our subjective experience.

Of course, there may be some exceptions, like in the way different people may recall details of an events differently, especially critical events. But, this may be more about the specific role of attention in perception and the way in which our own internal narratives weave their way into perception, with potential for distorting it.

[reply="Mww;63201

It is difficult to disentangle aspects of the brain and sensory awareness. When I first developed an eye problem, to the point of being referred to an eye specialist; several years ago, I wondered how much came down to reading late at night, as well as overthinking. It may be that there are precautions to be advised, likreading digital devices which give off blue light at night. However,it is possible that it may go beyond this, as I was aware of struggling with negative emotions at the time of developing eye problems. This is my own experience and wonder about that,in connected with thought and the way it has effects in daily life experiences. So, brain and the role of thought may be complex.




.

This thread was one which I created several months ago, so I am trying to tune into it again. That may even be relevant to the issue because specific thoughts arise at times and states of consciousness. So much may be about specific moments, and mindfulness of this. It may be that thoughts arise almost spontaneously at times, but they are probably connected to aspects of awareness which are form of subtext to the most conscious aspects of awareness. In other words, some thoughts may arise out of the blue, but they may be aspects of subliminal awareness, which have not been expressed, or formulated into words, previously.

It was only after a few eye problems that I became aware that the retina is actually part of the brain. It may play more of a significant role in consciousness than many realise. Some descriptions of sensory perception make vision, hearing and other aspects of perception, including touch appear as if they are add on features, but it may be they are the key aspects of consciousness. In connection with your post about 'images' it could be asked what are images, and whether images are simply that? The nervous system may be very complex.

Interesting, and it may be that we are 'zombies' or
'robots' I have read some of the writers, but not all,but do wonder if there are certain criteria of self awareness, and to what extent this may be established. I am not wishing to collapse the problem to that of relativism, but am wondering how the nature of thoughts can be critiqued. How do we evaluate thoughts and their significance?

It could be asked where in the mind do thoughts come and how much is a posteroi or a priori. Each of us lives in a world of subjective experience, based on social meanings and logic, and thoughts may come somewhere in between. Plato spoke of the Forms outside of us and current perspectives in cognitive psychology speak of the way human beings are hardwired, which may include some innate aspects of human nature, as well as human nature. But, in understanding thoughts it may be about trying to put together the various sources which come into play in understanding the divergent sources of the streams of thought processes.

Yes, I have been wondering about where dreaming and hallucinations are placed within qualia. This shows the way in which subjective consciousness takes on the role of distorting and giving an 'alternative' take on 'reality'. I once had a thread on dreams and this raised questions about the subconscious aspects of mental processing.

However, hallucinations are particularly interesting because so many people, especially in the form of -psychosis,'. It would appear that the mind is capable of playing tricks in distorting perception in waking consciousness at times. There is also the whole realm of illusions of perception, such as those described by Oliver Sacks. It is possible to even ask what are illusions? Part of thinking about illusions and delusions may come down to validation and falsification through understanding shared experiences of others. If I am seeing an alien being in a room and I am aware that I am the only one who can see the alien, this may give rise to my perception being a hallucination.

It is interesting to see this thread pop up suddenly and it probably is connected to qualia. The idea of thoughts as 'shadows of our feelings' of Nietzsche is interesting here. I also wonder where dreams fit into this because they may be shadows of thoughts and feelings.

I have been looking at so much activity on this thread, and trying to read it. The whole question of qualia is so complex. On the personal level, I wonder how much comes down to perception in the arts. Each of us may draw or paint a different impression of a person or an object. Part of this may come down to skill in the rendering of likenesses. However, it may also come down to the unique aspects of perception. For example, it may be that the appeal of Seurat or Van Gogh may be in connection with the way in which such artists are able to take viewers into specific and unique ways of seeing.

I am really wondering what comes next. In England, where I am, it still the situation of many aspects of social activities not returning to normal. At the moment, there is the situation of yet another new variant. Many people have taken 3 vaccines and there are still fears of many dying. It is so complex, but the whole situation and the spectrum of fear and so many restrictions is making life so difficult for many and, no one seems to know what, or how many new variants are in our midst.

I am trying to keep positive but it is so difficult because by the February it will be 2 years of coping with the pandemic and, how for many, it is has turned life upside down.

Helen Keller was such an interesting example of many issues which defy conventional understanding of the nature of perception, its limitations and the furthest scope of possibilities. It may be that so many of what is taken for granted is the mere basics, and writers like Oliver Sacks may depict more unusual feats of the human mind and perception.

Cameras are interesting as a way of captivating pictures and it may be that the whole process of recording of images and sounds is important here. It may be important in understanding the way in which ideas and images are stored and transmitted as aspects of what may be understood as 'mind', and human experiences , and this may have some significance in what may be the inbetween area, referred to in the idea of 'qualia'.

Yes, the idea of the retina may be extremely important in the understanding of brain processes. I had never thought about it all until I was told that I had some underlying retinal abnormalities and read about how the retina is part of the brain. This lead me to wonder to what extent is the whole process of thinking and interpretation of experiences linked to the process of perception. It may be asked to what extent do the aspects of sensory awareness are influenced by cognitive aspects of understanding, or vice versa?

I am sure that my question is the most stupid and basic philosophy question ever asked but it, can be asked.What is a brain, as an aspect of processing reality and perception?

I wonder so much about the retina and the brain in the whole process of perception. Personally, I have been to eye clinics, with a variety of eye problems and some unusual aspects showing up in eye scans. This was one of the underlying factors which lead me to consider the nature of perception and its physical basis. The eyes and the brain may say so much about the process of perception, including aspects of psychology and philosophy.

I am reading and thinking about the many replies on the thread, but a little perplexed as there are many responses and it is such a complex area of philosophy. The whole nature of perception in thinking about 'reality', and human experiences raises so much questioning about how human understanding goes, in understanding of what may be perceived and what may be the basis of underlying aspects of 'reality'.

I may be wrong in my understanding of qualia, but I have understood it to be more about questions arising about perception and objectivity. For example, does each person experience colours identically, or what lies beyond subjective perception, and the nature of 'objective' aspects which are underlying individual human experiences. I guess that shared experience does point to the possibility that there may be some metaphysics behind human experiences.

I probably came with some kind of bias against Dennett, but I am trying to read his ideas and see strengths as well as weaknesses. Part of the problem for me in evaluating his ideas may be seeing how his ideas developed over time, rather than in one book. Somehow, I have often thought that he was the thinker who suggested that consciousness was an illusion, but having made half way through, 'Consciousness Explained', it seems here that he regarded consciousness as an aspect of the inner life of human beings. But, I probably need to finish the book in order to evaluate, and look at some further developments of his ideas.

The problem may be that in philosophy there are so many 'bogeymen' and it is the point where it is worth weeding through the 'trash' and getting to the important parts. Of course, each person has to decide this individually, but it may be that looking at certain concepts, like 'qualia', may be important in the process of demystifying areas explored by academic philosophers.

I am not really a big fan of Dennett. It was just that I came across his book, 'Consciousness Explained' (1991) while I was out and about today. I was more impressed by his writings than I expected I would be. Of course, he is a big name in philosophy, but I have wondered about the notion of 'qualia' for several months, so I thought it worth raising for critical thinking on a forum. It may be useful for many if the idea, and the perspective of Dennett, is looked at ans explored critically.

I definitely find that qualia is an aspect which is used to explain aspects of reality which cannot be explained easily by idealism, realism or materialism. So, when you ask what qualia means to me, it probably comes down to a complex area between metaphysics and phenomenology. It is a difficult, fuzzy area, but I do wonder if the term 'qualia' is used at times as a way of avoiding some of the most difficult questions in philosophy.

I do indeed wonder if 'qualia' is 'a preserve ' of certain academics'. It is simply that on a daily basis of reading ideas in philosophy, I keep coming across the idea, and wondering what it may fuzz over or attempt to explain. I am questioning the concept and area, but do wonder about the usage of the term and, how it may be a whole way of academics 'glossing over' complex areas of philosophy, which they cannot really explain.

I just happened to come across a book in a charity shop today by Daniel Dennett, 'Consciousness Explained' it was written in 1991, so it may not be a representative of his current thinking. However, it has a whole chapter on ideas on qualia. I had not come across the idea until I started using this site and have seen it as area in between questions of perception and aspects of metaphysics of reality. So, I created this thread partly in my own understanding of this area in philosophy and, also with a view to how it stands with other people's understanding of how 'qualia' fits into their thinking. I also do read on neuroscience, because it may shed so much light on the mind, but, of course, philosophy is a bit different from psychology, with a much wider frame of reference, so my own questioning of 'qualia' is about the areas of existence which may go beyond psychological examination and what may be considered as metaphysical speculation.

Part of the problem which I see is that certain objective aspects of reality are easier to see than others. Those are the ones backed up by empirical evidence, as well as those of logic. However; logos and mythos are two aspects of understanding life and, the way of imagination involves story and narrative meaning. Even though it includes shared cultural meanings, it is constructed on a subjective basis, and each person has a unique 'reality' and it is not fixed, but fluid, shifting in accordance with interpretation of life experiences.

Your thumbnail is very distinct. The cross looking, or perplexed, philosophical child.

The question of how the Western world does think about the mind and brain is interesting, although as far as I am aware there is underlying debate about idealism and materialism even amongst Buddhists. I am not sure how the brain and mind issue fits in relation to the perennial philosophy of Aldous Huxley.I know that you read this book, so do you have any idea about how it links in any way.

Perhaps, it is worth getting lost in the terms at times and stepping into the murky areas of confusion. Perhaps, it may be worth taking risks, rather than being 'careful', because it may be that rethinking leads to new possibilities...

A lot of fun and games in this thread today, and, perhaps this is how philosophy should be, including the ongoing ins and outs of the mind and body problem!

I guess that with regard to the unique parts of personal identity, a lot depends on the aspects which are most fundamental, including the genetic components and environmental factors. However, there is so much which comes down to subjective interpretations and meanings. In a way, each of has own sense of internal meanings and narrative stories, which comprise the whole nature of identity. I asked the question, 'Who am 'I', but this also is the 'Who am I? ', which Erik Erikson points to as being the essential part of identity and identity crisis, especially important in adolescence. The whole experience of exploration during adolescence is about experimentation, and even rebellion.

So, personal identity is about finding a unique path in life and links to the issue of 'Know Thyself' and authenticity. This involves the existential aspects of life choices. Also, it may be that one knows who one is more in retrospect than in an advance, because it may be that many of the acts which the person does may be spontaneous and may be different from the way they would have imagined they would have acted. So, while the question of the sense of identity involves the ongoing sense of becoming, this also involves assimilation of previous choices and integration of this as an ongoing fluid sense of the ''I' of existence.

The idea of the 'mind' involving a whole interaction with the environment makes sense in many ways, especially with regard to the whole body. After all we are not just heads, with other parts dangling on as extra parts. The whole experience of the body includes the whole relationship between the physical aspects of the environment, such as factors like being hot or cold, what food and fluid has been taken in, and these also affect the brain and thought processes.

It would also follow that social aspects affect the mind too, and the whole emotional aspects of life, which are interconnected with the brain. Human beings are affected by the quality of the relationships they have with others. Self worth and self esteem, even the will to live and purpose are based on aspects of interpersonal interaction and how this contributes to a sense of the quality of a person's life and sense of wellbeing.