= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Peterdjones comments on Three consistent positions for computationalists - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (176)
There are broadly speaking two versions of physicalism: ontological physicalism, according to which everything that exists is material, spatio-temporal, etc; and epistemological physicalism, according to which everything can be explained in physical terms. Physicalism can be challenged by the inexplicability of qualia in two ways. Firstly, qualia might be physically inexplicable because they are not physical things, which contradicts ontological physicalim. Secondly, the phsyical inexplicability of qualia might be down to their having a first-person epistemology, which contradicts epistemological physicalism. Epistemological physicalism requires that eveything be explicable in physical terms, which implies that everything is explicable in objective, descriptive, public, third-person terms. If there are some things which can only be known by acquantance, subjectively, in first person terms, then it is not the case that everything can be explained in physicalese. However, ontological physicalism could still hold.
Or, you could notice that the apparent inexplicability of qualia is a sign that you are confused. ;-)
OK. You understand qualia, Please de-confuse me on the subject.
Have you read the LessWrong Sequences yet?
I have. I don't understand qualia either. Do you have a particular relevant link you were thinking of?
ps: "You should really read the sequences" is telling people to read 1,000,000 words or go away, and as such is functionally equivalent to an extremely rude dismissal. Please don't do that. Link to a particular post if you actually think the pointer is helpful, i.e. make it an actually helpful pointer rather than a functionally rude one.
There is a difference between telling someone to go read the sequences, and asking if someone has read the sequences. If you ask, the other person is allowed to say "no, I haven't", and that is useful to know what sort of inferential distances would be appropiate in your explanation.
I think that's splitting hairs. It is still a functionally rude response in the guise of one that isn't, and it's still not actually a helpful response.
Particularly when I know the sequences don't actually explain what qualia are such that we should care about them rather than dimissing them as a circular argument for magic. This post calls them things that "cannot arise from computable processes", which doesn't actually answer the question. Are there any I've missed that do?
It seems like you think PJEby was implying with his question that anyone who has read the sequences would understand qualia. I don't think that is what he actually meant.
I would agree that it would have been better if he had been more explicit about why he was asking.
Yeah, it seems to me that it's usually intended to ask something more like "Can I use terminology and concepts found in the Sequences without explaining them further or explicitly linking to them?", though I'll agree that we should replace "Have you read the Sequences?" with something more specific in any case. (Of course, if someone wants to claim that a particular set of posts directly answers someone's question, it's always best to point to the specific posts. Unless they depend on so much before them that it makes sense to link to an entire sequence, which is probably unavoidable sometimes.)
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Jargon needs expansion (and isn't formatted much like a jargon file for newbies).
Pjeby's use of the word 'yet' leads me to agree with David on this one.
I used "yet" because the specific person I was replying to appears to be a new user who has joined specifically to discuss this topic, while being unaware of the relevant basics on the topic.
Based on my own recent past discussions with pjeby, I think that's what he meant.
No, what I meant is that if you've understood the sequences, then you would be able to dissolve questions regarding qualia, in the same way that you'd be able to dissolve questions regarding "free will", and other confusing ideas.
Did you try section 2.5 of "Good and Real"?
Haven't read it, evidently it might be an idea ( /me adds it to the extensive queue). The description looks like large chunks of the sequences already written up as a book.
I mean, I can come up with my own idea of what "qualia" means (starting from "a word that means whatever wins my argument that consciousness is irreducible", mentioning the narrative fallacy and getting more acerb from there), but have trouble coming up with what it could mean as part of such an argument without being really obviously silly ...
edit: Found and glanced at section 2.5 in a PDF. Yeah, "a word that means whatever wins my argument that consciousness is irreducible" looks like the actual substance of the term "qualia" as an argument for irreducible consciousness, i.e. none to speak of. "I feel something! That counts as actual magic, doesn't it?" "Er, no." (The term "qualia" may have uses in a reductionist's conception of consciousness - I might have use for it in thinking about aesthetics - but those uses aren't these ones.)
Neither do I. However, having understood (a certain subset of) the sequences, I am capable of dissolving nonsensical questions about qualia... which is what most discussion of qualia consists of. (I.e., nonsense questions and confusion.)
The uses of words, the mind projection fallacy, reductionism, and part of QM are probably the sequences with the most important tools for dissolving that sort of confusion.
Some of them. I have read Block, Chalmers, Dennet, Flanagan, Jackson, Levin, Nagel, Searle, etc, etc as well. Which sequence did you have in mind?
For this discussion, the one of principal relevance is the one on the use of words, especially the mind projection fallacy (including the non-existence of mental or supernatural entities). Reductionism would be useful as well, and quantum physics.
The quantum physics part is particularly helpful for disabusing one's self of many naive intuitions about object identity, that otherwise lead to belief in things like souls, or consciousness as something separate from bodies, or the idea that an exact duplicate of you wouldn't actually be you. If you don't get at least that much about the basics of physics, then it's way too easy to believe in fairy tales when they have words like "consciousness" and "qualia" attached.
In other words, human beings are born with various intuitions (hardwired into the brain, as has been shown by experiments on babies who can't even talk yet) that, without sufficient education, we use as the basis for reasoning about minds and reality. Huge amounts of philosophy and "common sense" reasoning are then based on these false premises.
Of course, this makes most philosophical discussions equivalent to nothing but hot air: reasoning based on false premises. Attempting to refute the conclusions without first refuting the premises is pointless, which is why I keep pointing to the Sequences. They contain the necessary information to refute the premises that support the vast majority of philosophical and supernatural nonsense. (Such as some of Chalmers's and Searle's, for example.)
Of course, if you don't agree that physics, cognitive science, and Bayesian updates based on them are the basis for reaching an objective conclusion, then this discussion is entirely moot. That's why I asked whether you've read the sequences -- and implicitly, accept their premises about the nature of reasoning, as well as the specific facts of physics and cognitive science -- so I can determine whether there's anything worth talking about.
Zombies?! I never said a word about zombies...
It would have been helpful to say how it is relevant.
That mental entities don't exist at all is a very bold claim: much bolder than the claim about the supernatural that you bracket it with, and one that many physicalists would disagree with. Moreover, neither claim follows from the very general consideration (which in itself I do not contend) that there is a "mind projection fallacy".
What do you mean by "reductionism would be useful"? If there were a generally accepted reduction of qualia, there would be no problem of qualia. There isn't such a reduction. So are you talking about promissory reduction (we have to believe it will arrive one day)....or what?
I have studied quantum physics, and I don't think my ideas about qualia are based on naive ideas about identity. I think they are based on what I have said they are based on. If you have a criticism that is relevant to something I have said, I will be glad to hear it. I would rather you did not guess at my motivations.
Calling something a "fairy tale" is not an argument. I am still waiting for an argument relevant to something I said.
That argument is a non sequitur. The fact that an intuition is hardwired does not make it false.
That's another non-sequitur based on the on the previous one: you haven't shown that philosophical arguments are mostly based on intuitions. Moreover, you are in danger of throwing out the arguments of your fellow qualiaphobes, such as Dennett.
They contain a bunch of stuff about logic and language that most philosophers (in the anglosphere at least) are vey familiar with. I have read arguments for and against qualia, and found them both to be based on reason. I think it is possible for reasonable people to disagree deeply.
And the equation between philosophy and the supernatural remains uninformed, to say the least.
OK. Someone doesn't like Chalmers's Zombie argument. Guess what? I don't like it either. I know it is possible to have qualiaphilia without p-zombies because my own qualiaphilc arguments work that way. I never mentioned zombies in the first place...
The mind projection fallacy (or more specifically, the Less Wrong sequence on it) is more than sufficient as an explanation for how mental and supernatural entities are perceived; what "many physicalists" may or may not believe is not really relevant here.
I'm saying the Less Wrong sequences on reductionism and quantum physics will be useful in dissolving your confusion about qualia.
But not Bayesian evidence, which is what's relevant on LessWrong.com. This is a community devoted to furthering the practice of Bayesian rationalism, not the discussion of philosophy in general, or what philosophers consider to be reasonable or not reasonable. This is a community that considers dissolution of the confusion about "free will" to be a basic exercise in rationality, rather than an abstruse philosophical question requiring years of argument, or something that's still considered an unsettled open question, subject to disagreement.
...and on LessWrong, we agree that's true... IF and only if one or more of these conditions apply:
If you believe that there is some other way for reasonable people to disagree, then it's a good indication that we're not on the same page enough to bother talking about this at all.
If you think that's just an opinion, you don't get Bayesianism yet; that's why I suggested the Sequences to you, in case you're genuinely interested in being able to settle philosophical arguments once and for all, instead of just having philosophical arguments. ;-)
You didn't need to. Any argument for epiphenomenalism reduces in roughly the same way: if it has an effect, then the effect is phenomenal and reducible. If it doesn't have an effect (i.e. produces no difference in our predicted observations), why do we care?
Ontologically fundamental mental entities of any sort require one to think of the mind as a supernatural entity, rather than a physical one. But it's very hard to notice that you're doing this, because it's implicit in how we think about thinking by default.
What's a "supernatural entity"? The word 'supernatural' is ill-defined: if something exists in the real world, then it is natural by definition.
For the record, I don't think minds are ontologically fundamental per se, because minds are far too complex and they're explained already by physical brains. But it may be that some precursor of subjective experience is fundamental.
Yeah, just like the word 'metaphysics' is ill-defined. If something exists in the real world, then it is physical by definition.
Or to be even more snarky but at least more explanatory: I doubt that 'exists', 'physical', 'meta-', 'super-' or 'natural' are sufficiently well-defined in these contexts for your accusation of ill-definition to hold any weight. If I try to interpret what you're saying in roughly the same manner in which it seems to me that you're interpreting what most folk mean by 'supernatural', except instead of being uncharitable in the direction of being snobbishly literal I reverse it and be uncharitable in the direction of not paying attention to your explicit message, it looks something like this: "People who use the word 'supernatural' tend to be wrong in obvious ways and I like to point this out in a mildly intellectual fashion so that I can feel superior to them; also since I just denounced the enemy tribe you should like me more". But that would be no more accurate a characterization of what you meant, than your characterization of what is typically meant by 'supernatural', and nobody on either side would learn anything from such analysis.
(This comment is not really a reply to User:bogus so much as an expression of annoyance at certain traditional rationalist memes. Sorry you got caught in the crossfire, User:bogus.)
The naive impression of "mind" in general philosophical discussion is a good example of a supernatural entity -- the concept of mind separated from a specific human brain, some almost spirit-like entity.
In order to commit the mind-projection fallacy, you have to forget (really: not notice) that your brain actually exists and is not an objective observer of fact, but only an opinion-generating machine. Thus, discussions of consciousness and "qualia" are hugely hampered by forgetting that the mind is not an abstraction, it's a specific physical thing, and that the various properties being attributed to it in these discussions exist only in the brain of the beholder, rather than in the thing being discussed. (As a natural consequence of physics not having layers or levels.)
Exactly.
I disagree.I don't see the specific application at all.
OK.I'm saying I already know quite a lot about both subjects, and I don't see the application. You need to stop assuming that I am ignorant, and start putting forward relevant arguments. Repetition of "you are confused" won't cut it.
I don't see the relevance of Bayes. The topic is at the level of of clarifying concepts, not of making computations on datasets.
To say that qualia don't exist, as you have been, is philosophy in general. To say that philsophy as a whole is wrong-headed, as you have been, is metaphilosophy. Your position is inconsistent. You say both that philosophy is wrong headed and that a certain philosophical problem is (dis)solved in the Sequences (in a typically philosophical way, dismissed as a verbal/conceptual confusion).
If it is a community based on reason, it will be open to reasoned objections.
That seems laughably naive to me. You don;t have an algortihm for settling phil. arguments, because they do depend on evaluations, and other stumbling blocks you haven't thought of. You think it is just obvious that we should ditch the idea of qualia to retain physicalism and avoid epiphenomenalism. But that isn't an obvious objective fact which other people are toostupid to understand: that is you de-valuing qualia and subjective experience.
I didn't mention epiphenomenalism either, and I don't believe in it..or, rather, I value theories that avoid it.
I haven't said qualia are fundamental. and they are not defined that way.
If you don't think that these arguments can be settled, there is no point in continuing this discussion.
And if you don't think that Bayes matters to updating your beliefs, then you are not a Bayesian rationalist.
The reason I asked about the sequences was to find out whether you were someone trying to learn an application of Bayesian rationalism, or someone who's just trying to have a philosophical argument.
Apparently, you fall in the latter category, which means I have no interest in continuing the discussion.
What is considered "reasoning" by philosophy doesn't reach the level of rigor that is required here... as was amply demonstrated by statements of yours such as:
They only depend on evaluations if you're interested in having an argument, as opposed to finding the truth (with or without a capital T) of a situation. Here, we expect arguments to be supported (or at least not opposed) by physics and cognitive science, in order to be considered "reasonable", and we expect that hypotheses not be privileged.
Why did you link to Zombies: The Movie, which is really fun for people who already understand that the concept of irreducible qualia is nonsense, rather than Zombies! Zombies?, which explains why it is nonsense?
Because "Zombies: The Movie" demonstrates why it is nonsense, and is thus harder to tune out and argue with.
Also, I personally found it much more convincing on the first read than the complex arguments of the other article. ;-)
My conclusion in the Mary's room thought experiment doesn't challenge either of these versions: something new happens when she steps outside, and there's a perfectly good purely physical explanation of what and why. It is nothing more than an artifact of how human brains are built that Mary is unable to make the same physical thing happen, with the same result, without the assistance of either red light or appropriate surgical tools. A slightly more evolved Mary with a few extra neurons leading into her hippocampus would have no such difficulty.
Incidentally, while agreeing with your main point, I feel I ought to challenge the implications of "more evolved." This has nothing to do with Mary's position on some scale of evolution; she could be "less evolved" and have those neurons, or "more evolved" and lack them.
I should have predicted that somebody here was going to call me on that. I accept the correction.
Mary still doesn't have to make anything special happen to her brain have knowledge of anything else. She can still understand photosynthesis without photosynthesising.
She can understand the sequence of chemical reactions that comprises the Calvin cycle just as she can understand what neural impulses occur when red light strikes retinal rods, but she can't form the memory of either one occurring within her body.
Which, yet again, only matters if there is something special about qualia that requires memory or instantiation in the body to be understood. She can understand the Calvin Cycle full stop.