Discussion of qualia and the nature and significance of subjectivity are subjects for the numerous threads on David Chalmers and the 'hard problem'. — Wayfarer

Indeed. And I'm sure there will be numerous more threads about it.

, if is right about what you mean, would 'superfluous' be a good word? I'm thinking it's redundant to say I am fast, quick, and speedy. But you're saying there's a different thing going on, but it doesn't actually do anything, and nothing would be different if it didn't exist?

I think 'qualia' in its subjective sense as opposed to its 'sense data' sense is a kind of reification, and maybe the latter is too.
— Janus

I always thought that was the whole point, if qualia does not refer to something with its own ontology above and beyond the physical process of an experience there's really no use to the word at all. — goremand

This is my point. It is something with its own ontology above and beyond the physical process of an experience. It is our experience of hearing an A major chord, whereas a machine only detects vibrations of 440, 553.365, and 659.255 Hz.


, I'm not sure I understand what you think is redundant. I don't mean that in a smartass way. I mean I'm not sure what you're saying.

You can think of it like that, but really your experience of it is nothing over and above your drinking of it, except as an (unnecessary) idea. — Janus

Necessary or not, it is a feeling about drinking it that the machine or very distracted person does not have. Isn't that the point? How can something I have that they do not be a redundant feature? It seems to me this is what consciousness is all about. Would you give it up?

Yes, that's what I mean. That's why it's not redundant. My experience of it is something extra. Something on top of just drinking it.

It seems redundant to say we experience the quality of beer, for example, rather than just saying we drink the beer. Sure, the beer has a taste, but that is not separate from its fizziness and its coldness, and they are all just a part of drinking it. — Janus

I haven't been reading nearly all of this thread, so I don't know if you're speaking from a stance other than what I get reading it in a vacuum. But if I'm understanding, them I disagree. We can pour beer into the gullet of a machine that can detect all of the properties that give it its taste, fizziness, and coldness, and give us a printout of those qualities that far exceeds our own ability to analyze it. But that machine will not experience the beer. You can drink it while engaged in an engrossing, or heated, discussion, and not experience it. I hate beer, and naked women all around me would not sufficiently distract me from the unpleasant experience of it.

The Nihilsum would be a concept that exists(or of existence) between the categories of something and nothing by being neither fully one nor the other but instead exists as a paradox that resists clear categorization. — mlles

Everyone please bear with me. As with many things at TPF, I've never heard of this.

Are you speaking of a category? Or are you speaking of things that fall within this category?

The one that gets the closest to the truth? — Questioner

How is that determined?

Perhaps if I say G. Crombies, people will know what I mean.

I'm not entirely sure how you mean everything. But I like your idea, and have a thought. I propose adding a person, Jane. You are Peter. Alexa and I are both present, observing as you and Jane interact. This is Alexa 3.0. She has visual and olfactory sensors, so observes pretty much what I do. But, while I am having a subjective experience of watching you and Jane interact, Alexa is not. Because there is something it is like to be me, to me, but there is not something it is like to be Alexa, to Alexa. Therefore, there is something it is like for me to experience something, but there is not something it is like for Alexa to experience something.

Glad things are going better. :smile:

What's wrong, Dominic? Cat got your tongue?


:rofl:

Humans have a lot of beliefs that no other species has, and we wouldn't without language. That seems like a significant difference to me.
— Patterner

This is the direction this discussion needs to take. — creativesoul

Since this thread is intended to discuss common ground between the thoughts of humans and other species, perhaps a new thread, discussing differences, in order to better understand human thought?

:up:

Ok. Just wasn't sure if you thought I was saying anything about creation stories, or anything at all in any religious vein.

Sorry about your Thanksgiving. Indeed, a lot of negative possibilities come along with our mental capacity. And the negative crap is, like Yoda said about the Dark Side, quicker, easier, more seductive.

I don't think that explanation comes up in any creation stories. — Athena

Were you still speaking to me when you said this?

I like the acknowledgement of evolutionary progression. However, thinking is something that we do. Thinking is existentially dependent upon certain biological structures that we have. We know that because we have observed and recorded the affects/effects that damaging those structures has on the mind and/or cognitive abilities of the injured. There is no good reason to attribute thinking to creatures that do not have very similar relevant biological structures. — creativesoul

This is from Feeling & Knowing: Making Minds Conscious, by Antonio Damasio:

Sensing is not perceiving, and it is not constructing a “pattern” based on something else to create a “representation” of that something else and produce an “image” in mind. On the other hand, sensing is the most elementary variety of cognition. — Damasio

This is from Journey of the Mind: How Thinking Emerged from Chaos, by Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam:

A mind is a physical system that converts sensations into action. A mind takes in a set of inputs from its environment and transforms them into a set of environment-impacting outputs that, crucially, influence the welfare of its body. This process of changing inputs into outputs—of changing sensation into useful behavior—is thinking, the defining activity of a mind.

Accordingly, every mind requires a minimum of two thinking elements:
•​A sensor that responds to its environment
•​A doer that acts upon its environment

Some familiar examples of sensors that are part of your own mind include the photon-sensing rods and cones in your retina, the vibration-sensing hair cells in your ears, and the sourness-sensing taste buds on your tongue. A sensor interacts with a doer, which does something. A doer performs some action that impinges upon the world and thereby influences the body’s health and well-being. Common examples of doers include the twitchy muscle cells in your finger, the sweat-producing apocrine cells in your sweat glands, and the liquid-leaking serous cells in your tear ducts. — Ogas and Gaddam

Ogas and Gaddam soon talk about the roundworm. In addition to sensors and doers, the roundworm has two thinking elements. One neuron connects the sensors and the forward-moving doers, and activates the movers when the sensors say there is food ahead. Another neuron connects the sensors to the backward-moving doers, and activates the movers when the sensors say there is poison ahead. The stronger the signal a neuron gets from the sensor, the stronger the signal it sends to its mover.

Also, the two neurons inhibit each other. The stronger the signal a neuron receives from the sensor, the stronger it inhibits the other neuron.


The authors of these two books are calling it 'thinking' from the beginning. The roundworm is a step up. It is judging conflicting inputs, and choosing. It might be stretching the definitions of 'judging' and 'choosing'. And maybe it's stretching the definition to say "This process of changing inputs into outputs—of changing sensation into useful behavior—is thinking." But all of this is, surely, the first stage of thinking. The sensors could evolve into eyes, or nose, or whatever. The movers could evolve into a tail, or legs, or whatever. But what connected them in the first ancient life evolved into our thinking. And, even if in only the most primitive sense, they are performing the same functions.

:rofl: Ok then!

Why don't we hold them accountable for there pain and death they cause each other?
— Patterner

Accountability applies only to those who know they've done wrong(those who know better).

Other creatures capable of thought, belief, and/or meaningful experience are utterly incapable of comparing their own thought, belief, and/or behaviour to anything else at all. Knowing better requires having done so. Hence, they cannot know better.

In order to choose better, one must know of better. That's one thing some humans do that no other animal can. So, in this sense, they(language less animals and experience) are utterly different. They cannot form, have, and/or hold any sort of thought and/or belief that requires comparing one's own thought, belief, and/or behaviour to anything else at all, societal ethical standards, moral codes(morality); rules of acceptable/unacceptable behaviour notwithstanding. — creativesoul

Exactly my point.

This is the same way that a die is technically determined if you do the physics equations to predict how it will fall. — Brendan Golledge

After it leaves the hand, that is. When it leaves hand isn't determined.

I must confess I don't know enough about how language-less animals think to know what is old and what is new in our intellectual and cognitive abilities. — Ludwig V

I have no idea, myself. I don't know anything about how certain appendages went from forelegs to wings. I don't know what the intermediate steps were, or when any of them happened. But I think people who study that stuff have a pretty good amount of detail.

Thinking began in single-celled species. Nothing more than sensing light and moving in response to it is more complicated than dominoes knocking each other down. I can't imagine what the steps are between that and what we can do.
-Sensing multiple input, weighing them, and choosing one.
-Storing patterns of input, and referring to it when similar input is perceived.
-Thinking different things because the body develops different abilities.

It's all dizzying.

So even our awesome power to wreck the entire planet has forerunners. The rabbits' power is not different power; rather, the humans have a "super" of a power that animals also have. I think perhaps that's a better way to think of at least some of the features that we have been talking about. — Ludwig V

Sure. Just as, at one time, there was only one species of animal on the planet that had the ability to fly, even though other species were able to move in other ways. We can even see how the ability to fly evolved from how other species were moving. Still, it was a new ability.

At another time, only one species of animal had the ability to breath air, even though other species were able to get oxygen in other ways. We can even see how the ability to breath air evolved from how other species were getting oxygen. Still, it was a new ability.

At the moment, only one species has the ability to think in certain ways/about various types of things, even though other species are able to think. We can even see how the ability to think in new ways evolved from how other species are able to think. Still, it is a new ability.

Physicalism Is Dead — Marc Wittmann

Thank goodness that's finally settled!


:rofl:

There is no ELE like us. It might be a good idea to better understand the things that make us different, rather than deny that we are.
— Patterner
I'm sorry, I don't understand what "ELE" means. But it's a fair point. — Ludwig V

Forgot this. Extinction Level Event.

Does that mean you agree with me? — Ludwig V

You mean with this?

The thing is, it seems to me that since, for better or worse, we are animals in so many ways, it doesn't really make sense to say that we are "utterly" different from other species. — Ludwig V

No two species on earth are 'utterly' different. That's impossible. I couldn't guess what the full list is, but, at the very least, all species have DNA and use glucose for energy. The explanation for this is that all earth species - indeed, all living individuals on earth (assuming no extraterrestrials) - are descended from one common ancestor that had these characteristics. That common ancestor is called LUCA, which stands for Last Universal Common Ancestor.

The closer we and another species are to our MRCA (Most Recent Common Success) on the tree of life, the more characteristics we share.
-We share more characteristics with other primates than we do with mammals that are not primates.
-We share more characteristics with other mammals than we do with vertebrates that are not mammals.
Etc.

Mistake lol

.
Yeah, they can be jerks. Which makes for great videos on fb. :rofl:

Why do you suppose we relate our ethical principles only to use? Why don't we hold them accountable for there pain and death they cause each other? Why do we often kill dogs that break their chain and attack people?

The thing is, it seems to me that since, for better or worse, we are animals in so many ways, it doesn't really make sense to say that we are "utterly" different from other species. — Ludwig V

We still die from diseases, just as other species do. We die if we fall from great heights, which many other species do not. We take in energy the way most other animal species do. Locomotion, respiration, vision, on and on, as much like the other species as they are all like each other.

But humans are super-duper-special; utterly different from other species in so many ways that are hugely important to humans. — Vera Mont

To deny that humans are leaps and bounds above any other species in significant ways is willful ignorance.

Proportionally, we are not the fastest, strongest, or most durable. We can't fly, we can't burrow, we can't swim underwater for more than a few minutes. Yet, because of our intelligence, we surpass every other species in all of these ways, and more. And we can do things no other species can do to the least degree, or is even trying. Such as travel to other celestial bodies, store information outside of our bodies, communicate instantly with the other side of the world, create intelligent entities that are not our biological offspring, and make a good go at destroying life on the planet. There is no ELE like us. It might be a good idea to better understand the things that make us different, rather than deny that we are.

Sadly, intelligence is not restricted by ethics. — Ludwig V

Not buy a long shot.

The earlier discussion centred on the consequences of Cartesion dualism for our treatment of animals. — Ludwig V

Which is all nonsense. People who want to be cruel will spin whatever they can to justify their cruelty.

There are differences between human and animals. There are also similarities. So the interesting part is what “significant” means. Actually, I think the significant differences are the ethical ones. — Ludwig V

Nothing matters more. What makes humans different from other species? What is there answer to the Hard Problem of Consciousness? How did life begin? Did anything exist before the Big Bang? All fascinating topics. And we are driven to explore the unknown, and try to answer questions. But if we do not treat others, human and others, well, then we're filthy creatures pretending to be better than we are.

We have moral obligations to animals – essentially, not to treat the cruelly. But they have not corresponding moral obligations to us; in fact they can’t be judged by our ordinary moral standards – though one could argue that they do have something like the beginnings of a moral sense. — Ludwig V

Some do. But it doesn't matter. No animal other than us can be judged for cruelty. They aren't thinking cruel thoughts when they do anything. They aren't choosing to be cruel. Only we have that capacity.

It appears you are saying humans are not animals. — Athena

Let me rephrase. There is a significant difference between our species and every other species.

Bats are the only mammals that can fly. I'm not saying bats are not mammals.

If you don't think red > blue then I'm not sure we watched the same movie. — Leontiskos

That certainly seems to be the premise in the beginning. But few things are so simple, and The Matrix is not one of them. It's not a simple prison-break story. "Red > blue" is your - and my - personal judgment. It is not the point of these movies.

Choosing to be in the Matrix is not evil. The evil is not giving people a choice. The huge majority do not know they are in pods, living in a simulation, for the benefit of the machines. That's what had to change. That's the point of the movies. We're supposed to think beyond the initial revelation that we get 20 minutes into the first movie.

Morpheus was not evil. He has a blue pill. He didn't have to have one. They didn't have to create one, and he never had to offer it. But he gives them a choice. He explains the situation as best he can, and let's them decide. How many took the blue? Should Morpheus not have permitted it? Neo might have chosen blue, and Morpheus would have lost The One. He could have slipped a red into Neo's food at any point. But he took the chance. He gave Neo the choice.

Then we learn Cypher wants to go back in. Again, he wasn't evil for wanting to go back in. He was evil for betraying and murdering those who wanted to give everyone a choice.

Then we learn that nearly 99% off all test subjects accepted the program as long as they were given a choice.

And it all ends with the Architect's assurance that those who want out will be set free.

The many who chose the Matrix over the real world are not evil for not choosing the real world. The problem is those who do not think everyone should be allowed to choose.

I quite agree. However, while that may explain why there is no species with which we don't have such a social and informational difference, it doesn't explain the social and informational difference. The reason no other species does what we do socially and informationally is that their brains aren't capable of it. When other species have been in close contact with us for millennia, watching and hearing the things we do and how we do them, us attempting to teach them, what other explanation could there be?

Except I don’t think deterministic and random are the only two choices. I don’t think there’s any empirical way to determine whether or not the universe is deterministic. I think it is clear that it’s not random. — T Clark

I agree. And looking back, I see that I wrote while too tired, and was on too many sites. I explained myself badly. Perhaps I'll be able to do better tomorrow. Lol

But I agree that physical determinism and random are not the only two choices, and I think consciousness and free will are proof of another.

If the whole premise of The Matrix is that red pills are better than blue pills... — Leontiskos

That's not the premise of the movie. The premise is not having a choice. Most of humanity is ignorant of the fact that it is in the situation it is in; the machines won't let those who learn about it go; and they kill any who get out that they can find. The wrong is not being given a choice.

Cypher wasn't the villain because he wanted to become a blue. Becoming a blue isn't objectively wrong. It's his preference. He was the villain because he betrayed and killed others in order to become a blue.

And Cypher is not the only one. Again, Architect tells Neo that 99% of test subjects chose the Matrix if given the choice.

Also, at the end of Revolutions, Oracle and Architect meet. This is from their conversation:

Oracle: What about the others?
Architect: What others?
Oracle: The ones that want out.
Architect: Obviously, they will be freed.

Obviously, not all want out. Those who do are not 'better' than those who chose to stay plugged in. Neo didn't sacrifice himself to end the Matrix. The bargain was that, if he beat Smith, the machines would let everyone choose. Choosing to stay doesn't make one a villain.

I've never heard that there is a general consensus regarding from what free will is supposed to be free. But if it's physicalist determinism, then will is free if it is random. I think that's what means by "free".

I'll add that I disagree with #2. If the 'free' means free from determinism, and will is random, then it is free from determinism.

Hence the huge difference isn't a biological difference, but a social and informational difference. — ssu

Yes. But why don't they have the social and informational systems we have? They haven't developed these things, despite being in our homes, seeing and hearing us do everything we do, and being spoken to extensively, for a very long time. Countless generations. Many people have even tried to teach them. Is the reason for the social and informational differences not a biological difference? Their brains cannot do the same things ours can.

The issue with the Matrix for any human is that the humans are not in control at all. Suppose the machines discover that human beings not only are less likely to wake up, but also produce more electricity if the entire 10 billion person population exists in the equivalent of a simulation of the worst Soviet gulags. What stops the machines from implementing such a plan? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Nothing. And that is a problem. I would think it couldn't work that way in this particular fictional setting. But it's a fictional setting, and there's no reason another fictional setting like that couldn't exist.

I suppose the machines have some concern for humanity, since they originally make the simulation a paradise, but there is always the chance they evolve past that sentiment. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't think it was concern. I think they did that because they needed the people to stay blissfully plugged in. They didn't expect paradise to be a problem that people would want to wake up from. The Soviet gulag would be a horror, but I wonder if people would have rejected it as much as they did the paradise. not just because of the old idea that people want conflict, but because it might distract them from noticing something wasn't right. maybe paradise gives you too much free time, and all the nagging little things get more of your attention.

Similarly, they could just find a non-convoluted source of power, and just decide to cull the whole human population. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yeah, just leave billions of humans to starve to death and decompose in the pods.

The unreality of the "perfect simulation" of the Matrix comes to the fore when you consider that the person in the Matrix is essentially powerless because they are trapped in the illusion. It robs them of, if not all agency, then at least important aspects. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It certainly robs them of some important things. Still, they could act as they chose within the confines of the system. And most didn't ever have the feeling that it was unreal, as Neo did. Which is why 99% accepted it when given the choice.

This argument just comes down to our definition of real. This definition of real is that anything that exists is real. Both fake and real are real because they exist. — Hyper

It might be good to use different words? I would say non-physical things are real, and physical things are real.