What is qualia?

[Dalek Prime]

Been reading Bertrand Russell, and the first thing he discusses is sense data, which seems now to be called qualia, since 1929, and seems to have been expanded to include things such as emotional states. Seems strange to lump sense data with emotions. Is an idea a quale too?

[Dalek Prime]

On a separate question, how does qualia explain the blind who can draw with perspective?

http://www.unbelievable-facts.com/2013/ ... named.html

Now I do note that lines converge in touch, much as in vision, as noted here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17048738

Nonetheless, it is an astonishing thing to move from perspective up close by touch, to distant objects, visually, on canvas.

[Obvious Leo]

Been reading Bertrand Russell, and the first thing he discusses is sense data, which seems now to be called qualia, since 1929, and seems to have been expanded to include things such as emotional states. Seems strange to lump sense data with emotions. Is an idea a quale too?

To be honest I'm not all that crazy about the idea of qualia, Dalek, because the term seems to mean all things to all men. I try to avoid using the word for this reason and I wouldn't be sorry to see the word "quantum" vanish from the lexicon for precisely the same reason. However if we accept the word qualia as it is generically understood then any mental state must qualify as a quale. I certainly reckon it's valid to lump sense data with emotions because our emotional states most certainly affect our cognition and must therefore be defined as senses. Our emotional states have a bio-chemical origin which can be mentally induced or physically induced but either way it affects the way our minds work. Any man who has shared his life with a woman during the reproductive phase of her life can attest to this but men are by no means immune to such bio-chemical influences either. It's only usually far less apparent because it's not so obviously cyclical.

In my view most of the confusion surrounding qualia devolves from the myth of Cartesian dualism and the non-existent mind/body problem. Modern cognitive neuroscience simply doesn't acknowledge the existence of such a dichotomy and thus Chalmers' so-called "hard problem" of consciousness simply doesn't exist. Cognitive neuroscientists speak of consciousness as "embodied cognition" and this more inclusive term defines consciousness as an electro-chemical PROCESS. Nowadays the "Santiago" model of cognition, developed by Maturana and Varela, is widely accepted as the most sophisticated embodied cognition model for consciousness which incorporates the data available through modern MRI technology. The human mind is a very complicated piece of kit, so this science is still very much in its infancy, but with the aid of very powerful computers and remarkably sophisticated software it's advancing more rapidly than most other sciences. The Human Connectome Project is the most ambitious project in the history of science and one which dwarfs the Human Genome Project by many orders of magnitude in terms of the amount of data it will collect over the next couple of decades. This project aims to do no less than model every single electro-chemical connection in the human brain. Just to blow your mind with some numbers we're talking about a hundred billion neurons connected by perhaps a hundred trillion synapses, each of which fires according to a range of different action potentials. Some clever bugger managed to work out that this means the human brain contains more binary logic gates than there are ATOMS in the universe. Chew on that one.

Bit by bit we are learning more and more about our mental states and the more we learn the less mysterious they become. It is only to be hoped that the "science of the gaps" that is qualia will eventually go the way of Descartes' little homunculus, straight into the wastebasket of ideas no longer needed.

[Dalek Prime]

Thanks Leo. May I ask who the main proponents of qualia were?

Yes, I can see how these things would be better explored using MRI technology. Before, we couldn't see how the brain reacted to stimulus, internally. Huge difference in explorative techniques.

I don't think it helps to lump so much stuff in with external data, personally. Terms can get confusing, and bogged down.

On a side note, speaking of homunculii, someone came very close in an argument with me in saying sperm and eggs were alive in themselves (in a sense, tiny gamete humans). So it hasn't completely disappeared.

[Obvious Leo]

Yes, I can see how these things would be better explored using MRI technology. Before, we couldn't see how the brain reacted to stimulus, internally. Huge difference in explorative techniques.

Indeed. And bear in mind that MRI is still a very new technology whose potential has nowhere near been fully explored. Just as chemistry was the science of the 19th century and physics was the science of the 20th, biology is destined to become the science of the 21st century because those other two sciences have finally given us the knowledge and technology needed to investigate that most complex of phenomena, the science of life. At this point we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

. May I ask who the main proponents of qualia were?

As a proper scientific concept qualia is primarily a 20th century idea, although it developed from some older ideas rooted in mysticism and the occult. ( In my opinion it didn't develop very far beyond these and I grit my teeth when I write "proper scientific concept", but I hasten to add that this is only my opinion, although it's an opinion which is widely shared.)

As I suggested most biologists would ridicule the notion of qualia but many philosophers remain steadfastly attracted to them. They're not an entirely useless notion but opinion seems to be divided squarely into two bitterly opposing camps. These guys don't even talk to each other, let alone drink beer together. Each side seems to regard the other as a gang of dickheads.

Those in favour: David Chalmers, J.B Maund, V.S Ramachandran, Erwin Schrodinger.

There are quite a few more but essentially they all say the same thing. Qualia are not physical. Obviously they can offer no explanation for what they are and neither will they ever be able to. The non-physical lies beyond the reach of science.

Those against: Daniel Dennett, Marvin Minsky, David Lewis, Michael Tye.

Once again there are quite a few others but these likewise all say essentially the same thing. Qualia are nothing more than the emergent properties of entirely physical mental processes. Almost all of these processes remain unknown, but in principle at least they are knowable.

[Dalek Prime]

Thanks again Leo. I'm picking up quite a bit from you and Russell. On the side, I'm trying to sort all the different schools of philosophy, what they share, and how they branched. Qualia seems a good start point, from what I've observed thus far.

[Obvious Leo]

Thanks again Leo. I'm picking up quite a bit from you and Russell. On the side, I'm trying to sort all the different schools of philosophy, what they share, and how they branched. Qualia seems a good start point, from what I've observed thus far.

Are you enjoying Russell? I've always felt that he was one of the easier philosophers to read because of his literary style but I'd be interested in a second opinion. Literary style doesn't seem to be a highly valued commodity for many philosophers but this is not a view I share. Once words are committed to print their ownership passes from the writer to the reader. If you expect your reader to understand what you're banging on about you should use forms of language which are familiar to him. It's not rocket science, n'est ce pas?

[Dalek Prime]

Absolutely enjoying Russell. So much so, I've posted in Book Club his "The Problems of Philosophy", as a fantastic, highly accessible introduction to philosophy, not having a philosophy background, myself. I'm learning quite a bit. It's almost an exciting read, if I may say.

Btw, what the heck is attofishpi on about in the religion forum? What cheek.

[Obvious Leo]

Btw, what the heck is attofishpi on about in the religion forum? What cheek.

Perhaps a laxative might help the poor bugger.

[Dalek Prime]

I'd go with cholera, myself. Funny how, just above, you talked about emotional states. This is one

[Obvious Leo]

Funny how, just above, you talked about emotional states. This is one

I would prescribe a calming toke of quality home-grown washed down with a glass of red.

Dr. Leo (M.D.)

[Dalek Prime]

Funny how, just above, you talked about emotional states. This is one

I would prescribe a calming toke of quality home-grown washed down with a glass of red.

Dr. Leo (M.D.)

I'm allergic. But thanks. I'll let you deal with this... thing called a person.... and won't interfere.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I used to consider that science had the key to understanding the world, and would even be able to attempt the big questions. Since 1450 science has managed to unpack us from a scary world of superstition and fear. For that I thank it. But with maturity I realised the the real role of science was description. It only explains by description.
There is no valid question in science that begins with "why". That is unless you can use 'why" in it's "how" form. In other words any question that cannot be re-configured to ask "how" is not even a scientific question.
"Why" is the sky blue, in scientific terms is really "how does it appear blue to our eyes". "Why" am I here, is really "how did humans get here".

The universe is cold indifferent and vast. There seem to be no real answers to the big questions, and no real questions in the first place. Those that attempt the answers are usually, confused, inward looking, anthropomorphising.

Let the descriptions go on. If you want to listen to "why" questions - go to church.

Descriptions lead to a better understanding. If you describe the vast umbrella of stars as rotating every 24 hours, rather than the earth moving, then you don't get to reach for the stars, because you don't know where they are. But why they are there in the first place is not really a question at all. You might as well ask "why me?"

[Hobbes' Choice]

Funny how, just above, you talked about emotional states. This is one

I would prescribe a calming toke of quality home-grown washed down with a glass of red.

Dr. Leo (M.D.)

I'm allergic. But thanks. I'll let you deal with this... thing called a person.... and won't interfere.

No one is allergic to pot. Have you tried eating it in a cookie?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Thanks again Leo. I'm picking up quite a bit from you and Russell. On the side, I'm trying to sort all the different schools of philosophy, what they share, and how they branched. Qualia seems a good start point, from what I've observed thus far.

Are you enjoying Russell? I've always felt that he was one of the easier philosophers to read because of his literary style but I'd be interested in a second opinion. Literary style doesn't seem to be a highly valued commodity for many philosophers but this is not a view I share. Once words are committed to print their ownership passes from the writer to the reader. If you expect your reader to understand what you're banging on about you should use forms of language which are familiar to him. It's not rocket science, n'est ce pas?

Depends what you read. Russell wrote nearly 100 books, many which he called his "pot boilers" were very friendly and accessible to the general public for whom they are designed. Then there is the heavy stuff: Principia Mathematica is not for the feint hearted.