The Existential Crisis

[uwot]

Existence. Or do you prefer the "quantum fields" answer?

You know me; I like a bit of quantum fields. It's a workable hypothesis. Existence, as Parmenides noted, is the only thing we know exists, and that could be anything.

[Belinda]

Cannot bands be understood as bell curves some of which are quite peaked at the top?
Thanks again for filling out my knowledge about physics.

The bell curve can only be "fitted" if you establish the precise min/max bounds - a range of values. Which is the original problem of defining "orange" and "purple"

The bell curve on the range between 0 and 10 has a median of 5.

But the choosing to fit the bell curve at 10 is arbitrary. Why not a bell curve on the range of 0 to 8? Or 0 to 12? Or 0 to 1000?

Thanks I understand.

[uwot]

My very point is that all categories are made up a posteriori experience.

Bit like your points.

[Skepdick]

Bit like your points.

BIT like my points.

Information is ontological. Makes for a useful monist metaphysic.

[Belinda]

Spectrum, if qualia don't exist why does your coloured pic of the spectrum give my eyes such a pleasant treat?

[Skepdick]

Spectrum, if qualia don't exist why does your coloured pic of the spectrum give my eyes such a pleasant treat?

The best answer I have is "Because it does.". It should be good enough?

"Qualia" is a word that we made up. Like the word "red".

Your emotional response to observing the spectrum is not made up.

[Belinda]

Spectrum, if qualia don't exist why does your coloured pic of the spectrum give my eyes such a pleasant treat?

The best answer I have is "Because it does.". It should be good enough?

"Qualia" is a word that we made up. Like the word "red".

Your emotional response to observing the spectrum is not made up.

Emotional response is a process. What is the difference if any between process and entity?

My emotional sensibility qualified that pic of the pretty spectrum. Qualified/ qualia . Verbs and nouns.

[Skepdick]

Emotional response is a process. What is the difference if any between process and entity?

I think they are just different words for the same thing. To me everything is a "process", but that's because of a peculiarity in my metaphysic.
I accept the CTD principle.

With respect to emotional response the key property to me is that it's autonomous - it works however it works. I don't think you could choose to have a different response to that picture.

Try feel angry by seeing it. Can you? I can't.

My emotional sensibility qualified that pic of the pretty spectrum. Qualified/ qualia . Verbs and nouns.

Well. I could similarly ask "Is there a difference between qualification and classification?". Classified/class is just verbs and nouns too.
It seems synonymous/analogous.

Most of all - it sounds to me like good ol' emotional intelligence. You are able to recognise, classify and label your emotions.

Which is not a whole lot different to "How many colors do you see?"
The answer to which is "As many as you can uniquely recognize.".

The same with emotions. Which seems apt for the phrase "Experiencing the full range of human emotions."
People who aren't emotionally intelligent have very primitive languages to talk about their emotions. Happy. Angry. Sad.

Is like talking about "red", "blue" and "green" without knowing about hue, brightness, saturation, colourfulness.

[Sculptor]

What he is missing is that the human experience (qualia) is defining the bands. As far as physics goes its a smooth analogue of differential wavelengths and no colour exists in nature.

What you are missing is that I am not missing any of that. My experiences don't come in boxes/bands - unlike yours.

Qualia don't exist.

If they did you should have absolutely no problem answering the question "How many boxes/bands do you see?"

image processing - Generate Color Spectrum using Python - Stack Overflow 2020-06-18 12-22-20.png

Physics says this is a purely analogue smooth and unbanded sequence. What you "SEE" is inside your head, they are called qualia.

[Skepdick]

Physics says this is a purely analogue smooth and unbanded sequence. What you "SEE" is inside your head, they are called qualia.

Moron. Do you see any bands in the spectrum? How many?

You understand that the heat you feel on your skin and the color you see in your head are part of the same smooth analogue, yes?

The word "qualia" doesn't fucking tell me anything!
Exactly like the word "red" doesn't tell me anything!

[FlashDangerpants]

Spectrum, if qualia don't exist why does your coloured pic of the spectrum give my eyes such a pleasant treat?

The best answer I have is "Because it does.". It should be good enough?

"Qualia" is a word that we made up. Like the word "red".

Your emotional response to observing the spectrum is not made up.

Emotional response is a process. What is the difference if any between process and entity?

My emotional sensibility qualified that pic of the pretty spectrum. Qualified/ qualia . Verbs and nouns.

It's conceptual, but at such a low level and dealing in such fundamental concepts that you don't get much opportunity to see the mechanics in action so we aren't well equipped to think about it this way. I do know a couple of good examples though.

When it comes to colors, you won't find any mention of the colour blue in truly ancient sources, so by the time Homer's epics were written down, the colour existed, but for the original author, it seems likely they didn't see blue at all. It's as if somebody had to notice it and make up a word for it before anyone else really understood and saw it. Nothing physiological is likely to have changed though.
https://www.sciencealert.com/humans-did ... ce-science

You can probably experience this sort of thing for yourself if you want. It's common for people who take wine tasting courses where they learn a new vocabulary to describe flavours to report subsequently that they gain the ability to taste new flavours they had never experienced before AFTER they get the conceptual framework to place those flavours into.

Weird shit, right? But delve around in the brain and it seems the bases senses are linked to everything else such as memeory and language centres and so on in a way that defies the common sense assumption that each bit of your brain does one specific task as ideas or whatever roll down a factory production line.

[Atla]

I have no idea what "red" means in any precise sense!

Well next time you get a red light, and there are big trucks coming from both sides, you should remember that red is just an invention of stupid philosophers, and you don't believe in it.

[Skepdick]

Well next time you get a red light, and there are big trucks coming from both sides, you should remember that red is just an invention of stupid philosophers, and you don't believe in it.

THIS MEANS STOP.
THIS MEANS GO.

I've never seen a traffic light that shows "red".

[Atla]

Well next time you get a red light, and there are big trucks coming from both sides, you should remember that red is just an invention of stupid philosophers, and you don't believe in it.

THIS MEANS STOP.
THIS MEANS GO.

I've never seen a traffic light that shows "red".

Or maybe

THIS MEANS STOP.
THIS MEANS GO.

You should stick to this one, show them who's boss.

[uwot]

When it comes to colors, you won't find any mention of the colour blue in truly ancient sources, so by the time Homer's epics were written down, the colour existed, but for the original author, it seems likely they didn't see blue at all. It's as if somebody had to notice it and make up a word for it before anyone else really understood and saw it. Nothing physiological is likely to have changed though.
https://www.sciencealert.com/humans-did ... ce-science

You can probably experience this sort of thing for yourself if you want. It's common for people who take wine tasting courses where they learn a new vocabulary to describe flavours to report subsequently that they gain the ability to taste new flavours they had never experienced before AFTER they get the conceptual framework to place those flavours into.

This kinda ties in with what I say about philosophy being story telling. A 'story' is a conceptual framework that very often has it's own language, the current shouting match about 'qualia' being a case in point. Having to learn someone else's conceptual framework so that you can, in some cases, quite literally see and taste the same things takes some effort. The thing is, once you speak the language you see things which are so obvious to you, you think anyone who can't see it is either blind or stupid. Conversely, the people who can't see something assume those who can are delusional.

Weird shit, right?

Right! But as Thomas Kuhn said: "When reading the works of an important thinker, look first for the apparent absurdities in the text and ask yourself how a sensible person could have written them."
Anyone interested in this stuff can read 'Through the Language Glass' by Guy Deutscher here: https://archive.org/stream/ThroughTheLa ... s_djvu.txt
Or there's a much shorter piece on Kuhn's take by yours truly here: https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996