Do you think that some physical effects are not caused sufficiently by physical causes? — khaled
So what is ‘physical’? — Wayfarer
What we study in physics. — khaled
Do you think that some physical effects are not caused sufficiently by physical causes? Because it's that or epiphenomenalism. — khaled
Epiphenomenalism is true and we can prove it:
If there would be a mind effect, this effect could be captured by the physicists, they will eat everything what has an effect and define a force to it.
What remains can only be an epi. Q.e.d. ! — SolarWind
The body is too big to be treated as a quantum system. — khaled
The body's molecular complexes may be adapted by the evolutionary process for extreme sensitivity to energy fields that haven't even been discovered yet, but which we must honestly admit probably exist. — Enrique
↪SolarWind
"Epiphenomenalism is true and we can prove it:
If there would be a mind effect, this effect could be captured by the physicists, they will eat everything what has an effect and define a force to it.
What remains can only be an epi. Q.e.d. !" — SolarWind
This assumes that something will remain. I don't think so. — khaled
It is the other way to eliminate qualia. However, this would mean that ethically speaking, any genocide would be the same as breaking stones. — SolarWind
I doubt qualia can be treated as a good basis for ethics. Especially given that you can't even tell anyone else has it other than yourself. How do you know the keyboard you're typing on right now isn't in extreme pain? Those are the questions you have to ask when you propose an ineffable, private qualia. — khaled
...this would mean that ethically speaking, any genocide would be the same as breaking stones. — SolarWind
One could seriously maintain that the torture victim is in fact not suffering at all, as even if he/she had been suffering, that wouldn't lead to them screaming, it wouldn't lead to anything. For all we know they love the torture! Let's give em more! — khaled
We are faced with the amazing situation of not being able to prove something intuitively true. — SolarWind
Exactly. I cannot know it. But I can accept it as plausible that I am not the exception in the universe. — SolarWind
Which is more probable?
1) I am the only human being who has qualia.
2) There is a principle which material configuration has qualia. — SolarWind
And you have 0 reason to believe they are experiencing the same qualia as you, if any qualia at all. — khaled
There is an infinitesimally narrow gap of realization if someone has EXACTLY the inner configuration of oneself. — SolarWind
Now it would be extremely implausible that a small deviation would lead to a completely different qualia (or no qualia). That would be very discontinuous. — SolarWind
Anything is possible, but that doesn't get us anywhere. — SolarWind
But as you said, qualia must be completely separate from any physics, or else the physicists will consume it as some force or other. So you have no reason to believe that a clone of you, with the exact same matter configuration, would have the same, or similar, or any qualia. — khaled
would mean that the qualia would still have to depend on something else. — SolarWind
What should be that? — SolarWind
Again note, that this is assuming same physical configuration = same Qualia. Which you have no reason for believing either. — khaled
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.