Isn't the introduction of qualia meant to show that not all forms of information can be rendered in the third person, which is what would be required to give a complete scientific explanation of something. — Wosret
I would go further and say that not even general, second hand information is really explained, or understood deeply... — Wosret
Isn't the introduction of qualia meant to show that not all forms of information can be rendered in the third person, which is what would be required to give a complete scientific explanation of something. Qualia being a form of information is stipulated in the Mary the super scientist thought experiment, as she is said to learn something new upon first person experience, the quality of the thing, that she couldn't possibly learn second hand. — Wosret
It seems to me to be the complete opposite - that qualia are meant to show that all information is third-person. It is the attribution of the first-person to information that is faulty. Information is always about some thing that isn't the information itself. — Harry Hindu
No. From the horse's mouth: "There are many aspects to the first-person mystery. The first-person view of the mental encompasses phenomena which seem to resist any explanation from the third person." - http://consc.net/notes/first-third.html
You can say that he's wrong, or whatever, but not dispute what it is "meant" to convey. — Wosret
They lose me here. Can you explain the significance of invoking a hologram to read the wavefields of matter? — MikeL
Does it suggest the memory is out there too and anybody can read it? — MikeL
I have not problem with the brain being a receiver (not sure of the context of it being a transmitter though - of ideas maybe?) — MikeL
hologram is created inside our head, of out there. — MikeL
the brain constructs a hologram of it — MikeL
It can transmit memories and ideas (from where?) into 'it'. — MikeL
I can build a house in the field, or I can imagine a house in the field - both are projections and both are equally real? — MikeL
Projecting memories into the public matter field. Can you read my memories if I stare at a tree and then you stare at the same tree? I don't get it. — MikeL
But how can you stand by the claim that the imagined house and built house are of equal realness? — MikeL
In philosophy, it is always someone "just saying it". What Chalmers is "just saying" shouldn't be taken to be more than what I am saying. We're both simply interpreting sensory data. What are Chalmer's sources?Gots sources for the horses? Or is it more just you saying it? That's fine and all. Just asking. — Wosret
How is looking at a person's body as a whole, or looking at a sunset, or the Eiffel Tower different than looking at a brain? To say that you are having neither a first person or third person view when looking at a brain seems to imply that neither exists even when looking at a sunset or the Eiffel Tower.As for whether I'm having a first or third person experience of someone's phenomena states by looking at their brain, I'm having neither (that's the whole damn point). Looking at someone's brain cannot be construed in any sense that I can fathom of a third person account of what happened to them that day. — Wosret
I don't get it. First you say that you are having neither a first person nor third person view, now you are saying that you are having both at once. How do you know that your qualitative experiences aren't being rendered symbolically too?A third person account of that is rendered hermeneutically, symbolically, archetypally, generically, utilizing the categories, which I then interpret, and distill down to my own first personal qualitative experiences, in order to attain the essence of what is being conveyed. — Wosret
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.