Re: Qualia Question

lesterDELzick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Lester Zick) wrote:
> On 09 Jul 2005 15:15:15 GMT, curt@xxxxxxxx (Curt Welch) in
> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
> >"1Z" <peterdjones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Curt Welch wrote:
> >> > "1Z" <peterdjones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > > Curt Welch wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > > A tooth ache is likewise, nothing more than a description of the
> >> > > > configuration of the human body.
> >> > >
> >> > > So if we explained the physical configuration of a human body with
> >> > > tooth ache
> >> > > to a Martian, the martian would know what hte ache *felt* like ?
> >> >
> >> > To experience a ache, you have to be a body in the correct
> >> > configuration. Unless the Martian changed his body configuration to
> >> > match all the important parts of a human body with a toothache, he
> >> > couldn't experience it.
> >> >
> >> > To experience it, you must be the body.
> >>
> >> But why can't you understand it without having the experience
> >> yourself?
> >
> >What do you think the word "understand" means? You seem to be making
> >assumptions about what understanding is without ever defining it. You
> >seem to be seeing a contradiction in the way you have choosen to define
> >your words.
>
> You know, Curt, this is a real problem and seems to be exactly the
> kind of never ending regression you complain about with respect to
> people who use any language at all to describe what they're talking
> about. The difficulty seems to be whether and to what extent you can
> define words in language any way you want. I don't say you can't but
> there would seem to be some degree of inconsistency or inaccuracy
> whichever way you or anyone else wants to go.
>
> So far we have at least two poorly understood words: "mechanics" and
> "understand". We can undoubtedly add words like "contradiction" and
> "self contradiction" as well as a number of others. So what do we do
> about it? It would seem we have to do something or simply abandon the
> concept of the use of language for analytical purposes altogether.

Well, you seem to have some idea about how to "fix" words. I've not yet
been able to understand what you have done.

I however, take a simple approach - the same one used by science. I ground
the meaning of all my words back to objective facts - data we can all
collect, and verify, and agree on, from the common environment we all have
the power to sense.

The whole problem with the semantic mess LZ is trying to understand (all
our mental terms from mind to Qualia) comes from the problem of grounding a
ton of different words back to the subjective environment (what we can
sense happening in our head - our thoughts etc), AND making the assumption
that the subjective environment is different from the objective
environment.

That is, people talk as if the mind is something different from the brain.
They talk that way because they think the thoughts they can sense happening
in their head, exist in an alternate universe (the universe of everything
mental) We were taught to believe that all the things we can sense outside
our head (light, sound, touch, taste) is physical, and _separate_ from the
mental world.

This creates a contradiction between our language, and the universe we
exist in. It creates a contradiction because it defines two domains of
existence, when in fact, there is only one in our universe.

This contradiction is what creates the explanatory gap. Our language has
it's meaning defined in two separate domains of existence (physical and
mental), when there is only one. And when we try to talk about AI, it
becomes obvious there is a problem. And people like LZ keep asking, "but
how do you create the mental world from stuff the physical world?". "How
do you make a physical machine like a computer create Qualia? How do you
"explain in physical terms, what Qualia is?

The explanatory gap shows up all over the place. But there's only one
cause for it's existence. It's the fact that our language is based on the
assumption that there are two separate domains of existence (the mind and
the body, physical and mental), when in our universe, there is only one.

I can't explain in physical terms how to create this other domain of
existence because the other domain of existence doesn't exist!!! It's an
error in our language created by our forefathers.

As long as anyone chooses to believe that there are two domains of
existence, and as long as they continue to ground the meaning of their
words to these two domains, they will always be caught with a semantic
inconsistence between the universe they exist in, and the one described by
their language.

If you ground the meaning of all words only to the physical domain, and/or,
understand that the mental domain is the same domain as the physical
domain, then all the explanatory problems vanish. There are no problems.
Everything makes sense, and everything fits the data from the physical
world.

The only data in question, is, "are the thoughts we sense happening in our
head, caused by physical objects, just like everything we sense happening
outside our head?" Or, are our mental thoughts caused by something
non-physical?

If you continue to believe that our mental thoughts are not just the
behavior of physical objects (our neurons firing), then you will be stuck
with the explanatory gap, and AI will forever be impossible for you.

If you believe that our thoughts are the actions of the brain, and only the
action of the physical matter of our brain, then you will have your entire
language grounded to physical (and potentially verifiable/objective) data
where it can all be verified, and discussed, objectively. The truth of all
meaning can be verified by collecting, and studying, objective data.

--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt@xxxxxxxx http://NewsReader.Com/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Unification At A Point or Little String 2
    ... Most of the previous postings in this thread were in verbal language, ... arguably the universe was once ... physical universe always has probability 1 of influencing or causing ... think of existence or observability at ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: 4 prohumanist continued
    ... >> Yes, you claim that, but it has no power. ... You hit the nail on the head. ... > because you won't consider the possibility of the existence of an ... How did the universe create itself? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Pupils to pay for illegal parking
    ... Then why use such intemperate and unmoderated language? ... get his head round. ... expressing themselves adequately for a wide variety of reasons, ... Penalty questioned by parent. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Mechanical Dualism versus Naturalized Epistemology
    ... >>>All your arguments are based on the belief that truth exists. ... >> nature and properties of self contradiction in universal terms and the ... Howard Cosell used language to intimidate people. ... >But where in the universe hides universal difference. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Exception to the rule? (Tarski´s T-scheme)
    ... > imply the existence of at least two objects, ... By itself the T-schema implies only that the ... > the relevant instances of the T-scheme depends upon the object language. ...
    (sci.logic)
Loading