Philosophy Now Forum

Think of an apple. The light reflects from it and hits the retina and disappears. Electrons are released as the result. The rest is a chain electric pulse that reaches the brain. And the subject of experience, quale, is formed there. Quale is either an electromagnetic field that is directly experienced by the mind or it is something that is created by the subconscious mind/minds (that is the subconscious mind that creates dreams so it has the capacity to create the reality that we experience when we are awake too). Either way, the real color of the apple is not what we experience since even the light that is reflected from the apple is quale this quale disappears when it hit the retina.

Go on.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 9:05 pm Think of an apple. The light reflects from it and hits the retina and disappears. Electrons are released as the result. The rest is a chain electric pulse that reaches the brain. And the subject of experience, quale, is formed there. Quale is either an electromagnetic field that is directly experienced by the mind or it is something that is created by the subconscious mind/minds (that is the subconscious mind that creates dreams so it has the capacity to create the reality that we experience when we are awake too). Either way, the real color of the apple is not what we experience since even the light that is reflected from the apple is quale this quale disappears when it hit the retina.

How would ANY of 'you', human beings, even KNOW what the 'real' color of 'an apple' IS?

NONE of 'you' can. So, how could a 'logical' question be asked in relation to, 'What is the 'real' color of 'an apple'?'

The world exists, exists independent of us, and is apprehended by us as it is (*not in its entirety but as it is). We **apprehend it directly, without the aid of, or intervention of, [insert hypothetical whatsis] and without constructing a model or representation of the world somewhere in our heads.

*If you take into account perspective (where the observer stands in relation to the observed); intervening, inconstant, possible, distortions (water instead of atmosphere, for example); and the inherent limits of the observer himself; then what is seen is as it is.

**Direct realism, of course, is not just about sight. Hearing, taste, smell, touch: the entire interface of a person, as he's in the world, is the concern of the direct realist. That's why I define it as I do. Apprehension covers it all, the whole of a person's direct contact with the world.

There cannot be a true reality of a real color [absolute] of an apple.

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1]
It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

PH: What-is definitely is!
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34792
Note the groundless basis of 'what-is'.

Age wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 12:52 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 9:05 pm Think of an apple. The light reflects from it and hits the retina and disappears. Electrons are released as the result. The rest is a chain electric pulse that reaches the brain. And the subject of experience, quale, is formed there. Quale is either an electromagnetic field that is directly experienced by the mind or it is something that is created by the subconscious mind/minds (that is the subconscious mind that creates dreams so it has the capacity to create the reality that we experience when we are awake too). Either way, the real color of the apple is not what we experience since even the light that is reflected from the apple is quale this quale disappears when it hit the retina.

How would ANY of 'you', human beings, even KNOW what the 'real' color of 'an apple' IS?

NONE of 'you' can. So, how could a 'logical' question be asked in relation to, 'What is the 'real' color of 'an apple'?'

My point is that we cannot know. Do you agree or disagree?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 1:37 am The world exists, exists independent of us, and is apprehended by us as it is (*not in its entirety but as it is).

How do you know that the real world exists? Do you have an argument against the simulating world or Matrix?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 1:37 am We **apprehend it directly, without the aid of, or intervention of, [insert hypothetical whatsis] and without constructing a model or representation of the world somewhere in our heads.

If the experience happens somewhere in our head then it is obvious that we don't apprehend things directly. That is true since there is a distance between the sensory system and a place in the brain.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 6:48 am There cannot be a true reality of a real color [absolute] of an apple.

You cannot be sure. We are not sure whether the world is real or not. I have no argument against or in favor of it.

The question doesn't even make sense to a model dependent realist.

One can take any term (blue, orange, tree, cloud, planet, beer, chicken) and ostensively define it to be the "real color of an apple".

That's how semiosis works.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 9:05 pm Think of an apple. The light reflects from it and hits the retina and disappears. Electrons are released as the result. The rest is a chain electric pulse that reaches the brain. And the subject of experience, quale, is formed there. Quale is either an electromagnetic field that is directly experienced by the mind or it is something that is created by the subconscious mind/minds (that is the subconscious mind that creates dreams so it has the capacity to create the reality that we experience when we are awake too). Either way, the real color of the apple is not what we experience since even the light that is reflected from the apple is quale this quale disappears when it hit the retina.

It's a very odd use of the word 'quale' if it is referring to something 'reflected from the apple that disappears when it hits the retina'. That would be something precisel NOT EXPERIENCED, EXTERNAL TO MIND. It might triggers what most people would call qualia. So, right there you are using quale in such an idiosyncratic way this will lead to a lot of confusion, I would guess.

Second: qualia (now in the mind) either are electromagnetic fields experienced by the mind or something that is experienced by the mind (subconscious).

I think it is better to just conlude that qualia are a facet of mind. Otherwise they become something external to mind experienced by mind (and via what senses)?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 4:43 pm It's a very odd use of the word 'quale' if it is referring to something 'reflected from the apple that disappears when it hits the retina'. That would be something precisel NOT EXPERIENCED, EXTERNAL TO MIND. It might triggers what most people would call qualia. So, right there you are using quale in such an idiosyncratic way this will lead to a lot of confusion, I would guess.

Second: qualia (now in the mind) either are electromagnetic fields experienced by the mind or something that is experienced by the mind (subconscious).

I think it is better to just conlude that qualia are a facet of mind. Otherwise they become something external to mind experienced by mind (and via what senses)?

Wow! That's such an outdated and restricted world-view.

We have the language/vocabulary (even though it hasn't entered popular use yet) to speak about so many other mental phenomena!

qualia -- mental what-its-like-ness
quantia -- mental how-big-it-is-ness
quidia -- mental what-it-is-ness
quandia -- mental when-it-is-ness
quotia -- mental how-many-ness
quotiensia -- mental how-often-ness
ubia -- mental where-it-is-ness
etc

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 4:48 pm Wow! That's such an outdated and restricted world-view.

We have the language/vocabulary (even though it hasn't entered popular use yet) to speak about so many other mental phenomena!

qualia -- mental what-its-like-ness
quantia -- mental how-big-it-is-ness
quidia -- mental what-it-is-ness
quandia -- mental when-it-is-ness
quotia -- mental how-many-ness
quotiensia -- mental how-often- ness
ubia -- mental where-it-is-ness
etc

Do those categories fit with bahman's choice of models? How so, how not? How do those terms or really the ideas around them differ from what I said. Or, I just realized, you may be pulling my leg. I don't mean that snarkily. I was playing with words elsewhere and it reminded me of that. And I googled those terms, some of them, and then again in Google Scholar and couldn't find them. But....taking it seriously. To me they seem like subcategories of qualia and not a specific ontology of qua-phenomena.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 5:16 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 4:48 pm Wow! That's such an outdated and restricted world-view.

We have the language/vocabulary (even though it hasn't entered popular use yet) to speak about so many other mental phenomena!

qualia -- mental what-its-like-ness
quantia -- mental how-big-it-is-ness
quidia -- mental what-it-is-ness
quandia -- mental when-it-is-ness
quotia -- mental how-many-ness
quotiensia -- mental how-often- ness
ubia -- mental where-it-is-ness
etc

Do those categories fit with bahman's choice of models? How so, how not? How do those terms or really the ideas around them differ from what I said. Or, I just realized, you may be pulling my leg. I don't mean that snarkily. I was playing with words elsewhere and it reminded me of that. And I googled those terms, some of them, and then again in Google Scholar and couldn't find them. But....taking it seriously. To me they seem like subcategories of qualia and not a specific ontology of qua-phenomena.

They are not sub-categories of qualia. They are additional categories over and above the category of qualia.

Just Google better. They are in public use: https://twitter.com/keithfrankish/statu ... JOMt6KpZwg

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 5:17 pm They are not sub-categories of qualia. They are additional categories over and above the category of qualia.

Yes, I more or less got that you meant that...
But again..

Do those categories fit with bahman's choice of models? How so, how not? How do those terms or really the ideas around them differ from what I said.

Also could you link me to where those terms are used. I googled some and then Google Scholared them and couldn't find references. I get they haven't trickled down to popular use, but where are they used? And mainly, in what model?
How do these other 'things' relate to the issue I was discussing with Bahman? Or was it that I or we just mentioned qualia?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 5:21 pm Also could you link me to where those terms are used. I googled some and then Google Scholared them and couldn't find references. I get they haven't trickled down to popular use, but where are they used? And mainly, in what model?

They aren't used in a model. They are used informally. It's a vocabulary allowing for more nuance when talking about explicit mind-stuff.

It's a vocabulary which allows for more clarity when expressing one's mental models.

https://twitter.com/keithfrankish/statu ... JOMt6KpZwg


To use an analogy:

There are vocabularies which restrict you to talking only about colors; while extended vocabularies allow you to speak about electromagnetic waves in general.


Similarly: Current vocabularies restrict you to talking only about qualia; while extended vocabularies allow you to speak about <we need a new phrase here> in general.