How Useful is the Concept of Qualia?

[Belindi]

Yes but a rock is passive so it's already dust awaiting its fate to happen so to speak. A rock exerts no energy to maintain its separate integrity, whereas an amoeba does metabolise stuff from its environment.

The rock is replete with potential energy, which resists entropy rather well. There are a range of ways that entities resist entropy. Like life, stars resist entropy via active processes within (nuclear fission and fusion), which prevent its immense bulk of plasma from collapsing in on itself.

Metabolisms are clearly necessary for small, watery entities to persist in reality. Without metabolic processes, biology quickly gives way to entropy and the stuff dissipates.

Considering boundaries, we humans tend to be about as pragmatic as any other animal. We technically consider our skin to be our boundary, but it's only one possible definition. Like planets, we life forms have a thin "atmosphere" consisting of radiation, gases and evaporated fluids exudes from our pores and a "microbial cloud", which is an extension of the microbiome, and is apparently as individual as fingerprints. There is also a magnetic field.

Being pragmatic, we tend to delineate our boundaries based on that which is solid. But in ontic terms, the clouds and fields around us are part of us, just as the atmosphere and magnetic fields are part of the Earth, but are not counted when measuring the Earth's diameter and mass - again, for pragmatic reasons.

The ontic (impractical) view, for some reason is often more important to me than practicalities, much to the frustration of those I deal with For instance, if we include the atmosphere as being part of the Earth rather than a (permanent) emanation, then we are not living on the Earth, but in it, which emphasises that humans and other life forms are part of the planet, not optional extras that live on the planet.

Likewise, the concept of qualia has value in treating the internal sensation of processing information as a phenomenon rather than an illusion.

Might I then claim that whereas the rock is replete with potential energy it doesn't exist by means of kinetic energy as do we and amoebas? If an earthquake cause a rock to fall the rock does not try to resist gravity as would we but maybe not certain other watery organisms. In this connection ,is there an ontic difference between a live dog and a dog that has metamorphosed into a dead dog, as both are watery organisms?

Your "ontic (impractical) view" is important to me too. It is basically religious in the sense of existential narratives we tell each other. I used to go to a Unitarian church and can well imagine the minister doing sermons like your gestalt and wholistic vision, if the minister had known the sort of science you know. Your vision has ethical implications.

Your ultimate evaluation of qualia I accept whole heartedly.

Does your liking for panpsychism extend to rocks and/or artefacts?

I am more panvitalist than panpsychic. While there have clearly been major emergences in evolution - abiogenesis and brains - I am not convinced that these are absolute. That is, while there are strict cutoffs between alive and not alive, conscious and non-conscious, I don't think they are absolute, rather exponential leaps. It's the difference between a pebble and Uluru, between a puddle and a lake.

So life displays exponentially more dynamism and responsiveness than rocks, but a rock is still minimally responsive, exchanging electrons at its surface with the environment.

This raises the question regarding a particular very large rock about 12,000ks in diameter, that sprouted life and consciousness. Given the tendency for everything to, barring disruption, integrate more deeply, it seems the Earth as a whole is doing that, becoming ever more conscious. Anthropocentric thinkers will dispute this because they see humans as separate from the Earth - "other" beings that live on the Earth and are taking control of the Earth - rather than being one part of it (presumably its brain equivalent).

The process of electron exchange is not the same as sudden death, dissolution. Or does a specific rock exchange electrons faster when it is made into aggregate?

[JackDaydream]

Yes but a rock is passive so it's already dust awaiting its fate to happen so to speak. A rock exerts no energy to maintain its separate integrity, whereas an amoeba does metabolise stuff from its environment.

The rock is replete with potential energy, which resists entropy rather well. There are a range of ways that entities resist entropy. Like life, stars resist entropy via active processes within (nuclear fission and fusion), which prevent its immense bulk of plasma from collapsing in on itself.

Metabolisms are clearly necessary for small, watery entities to persist in reality. Without metabolic processes, biology quickly gives way to entropy and the stuff dissipates.

Considering boundaries, we humans tend to be about as pragmatic as any other animal. We technically consider our skin to be our boundary, but it's only one possible definition. Like planets, we life forms have a thin "atmosphere" consisting of radiation, gases and evaporated fluids exudes from our pores and a "microbial cloud", which is an extension of the microbiome, and is apparently as individual as fingerprints. There is also a magnetic field.

Being pragmatic, we tend to delineate our boundaries based on that which is solid. But in ontic terms, the clouds and fields around us are part of us, just as the atmosphere and magnetic fields are part of the Earth, but are not counted when measuring the Earth's diameter and mass - again, for pragmatic reasons.

The ontic (impractical) view, for some reason is often more important to me than practicalities, much to the frustration of those I deal with For instance, if we include the atmosphere as being part of the Earth rather than a (permanent) emanation, then we are not living on the Earth, but in it, which emphasises that humans and other life forms are part of the planet, not optional extras that live on the planet.

Likewise, the concept of qualia has value in treating the internal sensation of processing information as a phenomenon rather than an illusion.

Might I then claim that whereas the rock is replete with potential energy it doesn't exist by means of kinetic energy as do we and amoebas? If an earthquake cause a rock to fall the rock does not try to resist gravity as would we but maybe not certain other watery organisms. In this connection ,is there an ontic difference between a live dog and a dog that has metamorphosed into a dead dog, as both are watery organisms?

Your "ontic (impractical) view" is important to me too. It is basically religious in the sense of existential narratives we tell each other. I used to go to a Unitarian church and can well imagine the minister doing sermons like your gestalt and wholistic vision, if the minister had known the sort of science you know. Your vision has ethical implications.

Your ultimate evaluation of qualia I accept whole heartedly.

Does your liking for panpsychism extend to rocks and/or artefacts?

I am more panvitalist than panpsychic. While there have clearly been major emergences in evolution - abiogenesis and brains - I am not convinced that these are absolute. That is, while there are strict cutoffs between alive and not alive, conscious and non-conscious, I don't think they are absolute, rather exponential leaps. It's the difference between a pebble and Uluru, between a puddle and a lake.

So life displays exponentially more dynamism and responsiveness than rocks, but a rock is still minimally responsive, exchanging electrons at its surface with the environment.

This raises the question regarding a particular very large rock about 12,000ks in diameter, that sprouted life and consciousness. Given the tendency for everything to, barring disruption, integrate more deeply, it seems the Earth as a whole is doing that, becoming ever more conscious. Anthropocentric thinkers will dispute this because they see humans as separate from the Earth - "other" beings that live on the Earth and are taking control of the Earth - rather than being one part of it (presumably its brain equivalent).

The issue of what is alive is an interesting question, which is partly but not entirely related to consciousness. In human beings, and animals, the important aspect may be about breathing and the medical model sees this this as essential. However, there are lifeforms which don't breathe, like the grass and the trees, but they are still alive. In this respect, it seems that being alive is about an animating factor, probably related to cell division and growth, but the nature of being alive is a clear distinction. For example, crystals are not seen as being alive, whereas insects are, so it is about some underlying animation or sentient aspect, possibly related to pain, but not entirely, as the grass is not understood to experience pain, but it is organic, like vegetables, so life may be be about growth and development as opposed to inert matter but, even that is complicated in the sense that James Lovelock saw the earth as a living being. Lovelock's perspective may embrace life in a slightly different way to most biologists, incorporating panpsychism, but more in the sense of nature and the force which underlies the reality described by physics, as well as biology.

[Sy Borg]

The rock is replete with potential energy, which resists entropy rather well. There are a range of ways that entities resist entropy. Like life, stars resist entropy via active processes within (nuclear fission and fusion), which prevent its immense bulk of plasma from collapsing in on itself.

Metabolisms are clearly necessary for small, watery entities to persist in reality. Without metabolic processes, biology quickly gives way to entropy and the stuff dissipates.

Considering boundaries, we humans tend to be about as pragmatic as any other animal. We technically consider our skin to be our boundary, but it's only one possible definition. Like planets, we life forms have a thin "atmosphere" consisting of radiation, gases and evaporated fluids exudes from our pores and a "microbial cloud", which is an extension of the microbiome, and is apparently as individual as fingerprints. There is also a magnetic field.

Being pragmatic, we tend to delineate our boundaries based on that which is solid. But in ontic terms, the clouds and fields around us are part of us, just as the atmosphere and magnetic fields are part of the Earth, but are not counted when measuring the Earth's diameter and mass - again, for pragmatic reasons.

The ontic (impractical) view, for some reason is often more important to me than practicalities, much to the frustration of those I deal with :) For instance, if we include the atmosphere as being part of the Earth rather than a (permanent) emanation, then we are not living on the Earth, but in it, which emphasises that humans and other life forms are part of the planet, not optional extras that live on the planet.

Likewise, the concept of qualia has value in treating the internal sensation of processing information as a phenomenon rather than an illusion.

Might I then claim that whereas the rock is replete with potential energy it doesn't exist by means of kinetic energy as do we and amoebas? If an earthquake cause a rock to fall the rock does not try to resist gravity as would we but maybe not certain other watery organisms. In this connection ,is there an ontic difference between a live dog and a dog that has metamorphosed into a dead dog, as both are watery organisms?

Your "ontic (impractical) view" is important to me too. It is basically religious in the sense of existential narratives we tell each other. I used to go to a Unitarian church and can well imagine the minister doing sermons like your gestalt and wholistic vision, if the minister had known the sort of science you know. Your vision has ethical implications.

Your ultimate evaluation of qualia I accept whole heartedly.

Does your liking for panpsychism extend to rocks and/or artefacts?

I am more panvitalist than panpsychic. While there have clearly been major emergences in evolution - abiogenesis and brains - I am not convinced that these are absolute. That is, while there are strict cutoffs between alive and not alive, conscious and non-conscious, I don't think they are absolute, rather exponential leaps. It's the difference between a pebble and Uluru, between a puddle and a lake.

So life displays exponentially more dynamism and responsiveness than rocks, but a rock is still minimally responsive, exchanging electrons at its surface with the environment.

This raises the question regarding a particular very large rock about 12,000ks in diameter, that sprouted life and consciousness. Given the tendency for everything to, barring disruption, integrate more deeply, it seems the Earth as a whole is doing that, becoming ever more conscious. Anthropocentric thinkers will dispute this because they see humans as separate from the Earth - "other" beings that live on the Earth and are taking control of the Earth - rather than being one part of it (presumably its brain equivalent).

The process of electron exchange is not the same as sudden death, dissolution. Or does a specific rock exchange electrons faster when it is made into aggregate?

I think the important aspect is that rocks interact with the environment and process information, albeit by orders of magnitude more slowly than life. These orders of magnitude lead to emergent quality, just as a lake has many qualities not seen in puddles.

The issue of what is alive is an interesting question, which is partly but not entirely related to consciousness. In human beings, and animals, the important aspect may be about breathing and the medical model sees this this as essential. However, there are lifeforms which don't breathe, like the grass and the trees, but they are still alive. In this respect, it seems that being alive is about an animating factor, probably related to cell division and growth, but the nature of being alive is a clear distinction. For example, crystals are not seen as being alive, whereas insects are, so it is about some underlying animation or sentient aspect, possibly related to pain, but not entirely, as the grass is not understood to experience pain, but it is organic, like vegetables, so life may be be about growth and development as opposed to inert matter but, even that is complicated in the sense that James Lovelock saw the earth as a living being. Lovelock's perspective may embrace life in a slightly different way to most biologists, incorporating panpsychism, but more in the sense of nature and the force which underlies the reality described by physics, as well as biology.

Yep, I'm largely with Lovelock's Gaia concept, except that he sees humans as harming Gaia, whereas I see Gaia (aka the environment) as shaping humanity and its actions. Humans appear to have a sense of individual agency, but en masse they are largely meat puppets. It appears that the Earth (via humans) has an intense interest in sending blueprints of Earthly forms to other worlds. Once the delivery systems arrive with their cargo, 3D printers will use local resources to create forms that had previously only existed on Earth. That is basically what spores do.

As above, I think the differences between the conscious and the "non-conscious", the "alive" and "unalive" are not absolute, but exponential. As above, exponential differences naturally bring about emergences due to various thresholds of physics and chemistry.

Your breathing point is important, but the core concept is the same for all organisms, whether they breathe or not - a constant exchange with the environment. Life is part of the Earth and needs to maintain contact at all times. Respiration is how many organisms achieve this constant influx, but it can also be done via fermentation. Also, simple microbes have highly permeable membranes that allow the necessary constant interactions with the local environment.

The big questions to me are whether humanity as a whole, entire cultures or the biosphere are connected enough to experience collective qualia - which we would detect about as well as our cells can detect our consciousness. I think such collective consciousness is possible, but it's necessarily speculative.

[Belindi]

Sy Borg wrote:

I think the important aspect is that rocks interact with the environment and process information, albeit by orders of magnitude more slowly than life. These orders of magnitude lead to emergent quality, just as a lake has many qualities not seen in puddles.

So it's difference of degree not a difference of kind. Okay if one is a materialist (physicalist) and I for one can see it that way, as a difference of degree. I love Gaia too even including her dynamic of more and more system that tips over into less and less system. Possibly cyclic, who knows?

However physicalism will not do for the idealist(immaterialist) who thinks all systems and all ideas are functions of what we usually call mind or consciousness.

[Sy Borg]

Sy Borg wrote:

I think the important aspect is that rocks interact with the environment and process information, albeit by orders of magnitude more slowly than life. These orders of magnitude lead to emergent quality, just as a lake has many qualities not seen in puddles.

So it's difference of degree not a difference of kind. Okay if one is a materialist (physicalist) and I for one can see it that way, as a difference of degree. I love Gaia too even including her dynamic of more and more system that tips over into less and less system. Possibly cyclic, who knows?

However physicalism will not do for the idealist(immaterialist) who thinks all systems and all ideas are functions of what we usually call mind or consciousness.

Idealists would need to explain how form can exist without content. There are no examples of this outside of mythology at this stage.

[Belindi]

Sy Borg wrote:

I think the important aspect is that rocks interact with the environment and process information, albeit by orders of magnitude more slowly than life. These orders of magnitude lead to emergent quality, just as a lake has many qualities not seen in puddles.

So it's difference of degree not a difference of kind. Okay if one is a materialist (physicalist) and I for one can see it that way, as a difference of degree. I love Gaia too even including her dynamic of more and more system that tips over into less and less system. Possibly cyclic, who knows?

However physicalism will not do for the idealist(immaterialist) who thinks all systems and all ideas are functions of what we usually call mind or consciousness.

Sy Borg wrote: "Idealists would need to explain how form can exist without content. There are no examples of this outside of mythology at this stage."


Belindi replied:
The absolute idealist explains form too is an idea. Experience creates reality not vice versa. True, you, I, and everyman are limited to subjective experience which is necessary for learning to happen. Subjective experience relates to environment of experience , and content of experience is interaction/relationship between experience and environment.

[Sy Borg]

Belindi replied:
The absolute idealist explains form too is an idea. Experience creates reality not vice versa. True, you, I, and everyman are limited to subjective experience which is necessary for learning to happen. Subjective experience relates to environment of experience , and content of experience is interaction/relationship between experience and environment.

For me, the existence of stars and planets, which preceded life, kills off idealism. One can doubt all manner of small scale phenomena, including the nature of consciousness, but one cannot doubt the objective existence of gigantic cosmic entities.

Most of reality consists of a very thin gruel of radiation, dust and various fields. But the stuff is not all evenly distributed, and there are zones of concentration - the most extreme of these being the stars and planets we know and love.

[Belindi]

Belindi replied:
The absolute idealist explains form too is an idea. Experience creates reality not vice versa. True, you, I, and everyman are limited to subjective experience which is necessary for learning to happen. Subjective experience relates to environment of experience , and content of experience is interaction/relationship between experience and environment.

For me, the existence of stars and planets, which preceded life, kills off idealism. One can doubt all manner of small scale phenomena, including the nature of consciousness, but one cannot doubt the objective existence of gigantic cosmic entities.

Most of reality consists of a very thin gruel of radiation, dust and various fields. But the stuff is not all evenly distributed, and there are zones of concentration - the most extreme of these being the stars and planets we know and love.

When I am being as sceptical as I can be , giant cosmic entities, like so much else, are products of how men experience life. In ordinary conversations I am loving the visions of scientists and artists.