nyan_sandwich comments on The raw-experience dogma: Dissolving the “qualia” problem - Less Wrong

2 Post author: metaphysicist 16 September 2012 07:15PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (340)
Tags: qualia consciousness

Comments (340)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 18 September 2012 01:42:53AM 0 points [-]

see pearl

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 19 September 2012 03:20:30AM *  0 points [-]

So how would I use this description of "effect" to taboo the word in the following sentence?

The mass of an electron has an effect on the properties of hydrogen.

Or would you argue that the above sentence is incoherent.

Comment author: [deleted] 20 September 2012 08:30:16PM 0 points [-]

It's not incoherent.

I don't know. I don't understand pearl's reduction of causality. I just know it's there.

Mathematical relations like "hydrogen properties are dependent of electron mass" might not fit the causality concept. Or maybe I just can't make the math jump.

Anyways, what are you gaining by these questions? Do you have some grand solution that you are making me jump thru hoops to find? Do you think I have some grand solution that you are jumping thru hoops to squeeze out of me?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 20 September 2012 10:05:51PM 0 points [-]

Anyways, what are you gaining by these questions? Do you have some grand solution that you are making me jump thru hoops to find? Do you think I have some grand solution that you are jumping thru hoops to squeeze out of me?

I'm trying to show you that materialism in the sense you seem to mean here is ultimately incoherent.

Comment author: [deleted] 20 September 2012 10:17:46PM *  0 points [-]

You'll have to explain your position. I can't see it. To clarify what I think, take "me" as a node, and recursively build a causality graph (Pearl's thing) of all the causes that lead into that node. By some theorem somewhere, that graph will be connected. Then label that graph "my map of the universe" and label it's compressing model "physics". That is what "materialism" means to me.

I've just realized, tho, that the rest of you might attach a different concept to "materialism", but I don't know what it is. Can you give me a steel-man (or a straw man (or a nonmaterial entity)) version of what "materialism" means to you?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 22 September 2012 03:43:05AM 0 points [-]

To clarify what I think, take "me" as a node, and recursively build a causality graph (Pearl's thing) of all the causes that lead into that node. By some theorem somewhere, that graph will be connected. Then label that graph "my map of the universe" and label it's compressing model "physics". That is what "materialism" means to me.

I think you are making a category error with respect to what Pearl's theory actually does.

Comment author: [deleted] 23 September 2012 12:42:55AM 0 points [-]

care to expand? His bayesian networks stuff is for modelling causal relationships. Am I confused?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 24 September 2012 10:54:58PM 0 points [-]

This comment by Argency explains what I mean by causality being incompatible with pure materialism.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 19 September 2012 07:01:15AM 0 points [-]

I suspect you mean "affects."

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit