The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
siva wrote: ↑May 10th, 2022, 10:55 pm
" But in my thinking we are nothing but the Conscious Experiences of our Minds"
What do you mean by this?? are you saying that we are a sum total of our "conscious experiences" or our identity at any point in time "just the present conscious experience"?
I view our identity as "consciousness/awareness simpliciter", meaning we are that which is aware (the subject) and experiences occur to us and in us!!
I mean that we are the Conscious Light that we Experience. We are the Conscious Sound. We are the Conscious etc. There could be an Experiencer but I'm thinking more and more that there really is no Experiencer but just the Experiences. You cannot detect your own Experiencer except indirectly through Experiences. Without Experiences the Experiencer is truly Nothing. So it is logical to conclude that the Experiencer does not even really Exist. Only the Experiences Exist and you are these Experiences. Understanding that you are Light (and all Experiences) is a fascinating Realization that will change your whole concept of Being. You will be released from the Point view of Being to a whole new Distributed view of Being.
The very idea of experience by definition means there is an experiencer.. How to make sense of experience without an experiencer?? I agree that there is no need for an individual subject/human being, but I don't seem to get the idea of experience without an experiencer. Can you elaborate this further?
You say "Understanding that you are Light (and all Experiences) is a fascinating Realization".. Are you implying that we are that which appears as the light (and all experiences)?? then I would take that as our true identity and completely with you.
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 11th, 2022, 7:26 am
The Experience of Redness that I have in my Conscious Mind really does not have anything to do with the Red Electromagnetic Light out in the External World.
Really? Has nothing to so with it? Then what is the basis for calling it a "red" experience?
The Redness Experience is Correlated with having Red Light (670nm) hit your Retina. But this is just Correlation. The Experience of the Redness tells you nothing about the Red Light. The red Light is an Oscillating (Tera Hz) Phenomenon, but the Redness Experience is completely without any hint that it is Correlating with an Oscillating Phenomenon. Think about the actual Conscious Experience of Redness. The Redness Experience is how we Detect the Red Light, but the Experience itself is a Surrogate Experience that has nothing to do with the actual Red Light. It is merely a convenient pairing of two categorically different Phenomena. Red Light happens in the External World but you Experience Redness in the Internal Mind World. While Dreaming of course there isn't even any Red Light to Correlate with if your Dream contains a Redness Experience for some Object.
I had thought that there might be slight differences in different peoples Experience but I'm not talking about slight differences I'm talking about radical Categorical differences in how different people See. Even if you had your Red an Green swapped in your Brain you would still be seeing a Color and you would think that Green is Red. But the people I'm talking about don't seem to have an Experience of anything like a Color Qualia. They say that Colors are pretty mundane and they don't ever understand the special Experience of Redness or Greenness.
Each color is "special" because it is distinctive, distinguishable from other colors. What else do you think makes it "special"? "Special" in what way? Is this perhaps some sort of aesthetic or emotional response you have to it?
Colors are each Special by their pure simple Conscious Experience of them. Definitely not any Aesthetic or Emotional content to them, they are just interesting Phenomenon that are not Scientifically Explainable by Science yet. I Experience the Colors themselves devoid of any Emotion or Aesthetic senses.
In fact they don't think you can have an Experience of Color without many encounters with that Color and building Emotional connections and Memories with that Color.
For me Redness is something that I Directly and Immediately Experience. No Associations or Memories need ed.
Yes, you immediately and directly experience redness --- provided red light is striking your retina, or when recalling it from a previous exposure to red light. That is an association. Any experience you may have that is not associated with exposure to red light is not a "red experience," or "Experience of Redness."
There is a Huge Explanatory Gap when you say you can Experience Redness from a Memory. What is a Memory of Redness? How is it stored? Where is it? How are Chemical changes (the Neural Plasticity) ever going to store a Redness Experience? I think when you contemplate the Redness Experience a little Deeper you will find that Redness cannot be stored.
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 10th, 2022, 7:34 amBut these is just my observations after many years of talking to the people that deny Qualia even exist.
Before asking whether qualia exist, the meaning of "qualia"—the particular one presupposed and used in the question—should be clarified first! For one can consistently deny the existence of qualia in one sense of the term and affirm their existence in another sense of the term.
When I have talked to the Qualia deniers I make sure that the target of discussion is a specific Sensory Conscious Experience and I usually use the Redness Experience. There is only one way to look at the Redness Experience, and you either have it and therefore understand it, or you don't have it and are eternally stymied by it. Do you deny the existence of a Redness Quale as I have talked about it?
I have commented on that thread. This thread is not about the usefulness of Qualia, but is more about the unbelievable possibility that some people might not have certain Qualia. As far as the usefulness goes, we are Blind without the Visual Qualia (Visual Experience). The Qualia are the result of the next step in the Processing (Unknown at this time) after Neural Processing. I say the next step happens in the Inter Mind, but that's a long story.
siva wrote: ↑May 10th, 2022, 10:55 pm
" But in my thinking we are nothing but the Conscious Experiences of our Minds"
What do you mean by this?? are you saying that we are a sum total of our "conscious experiences" or our identity at any point in time "just the present conscious experience"?
I view our identity as "consciousness/awareness simpliciter", meaning we are that which is aware (the subject) and experiences occur to us and in us!!
I mean that we are the Conscious Light that we Experience. We are the Conscious Sound. We are the Conscious etc. There could be an Experiencer but I'm thinking more and more that there really is no Experiencer but just the Experiences. You cannot detect your own Experiencer except indirectly through Experiences. Without Experiences the Experiencer is truly Nothing. So it is logical to conclude that the Experiencer does not even really Exist. Only the Experiences Exist and you are these Experiences. Understanding that you are Light (and all Experiences) is a fascinating Realization that will change your whole concept of Being. You will be released from the Point view of Being to a whole new Distributed view of Being.
The very idea of experience by definition means there is an experiencer.. How to make sense of experience without an experiencer?? I agree that there is no need for an individual subject/human being, but I don't seem to get the idea of experience without an experiencer. Can you elaborate this further?
You say "Understanding that you are Light (and all Experiences) is a fascinating Realization".. Are you implying that we are that which appears as the light (and all experiences)?? then I would take that as our true identity and completely with you.
We assume that there must be an Experiencer but the Experiencer cannot be an Experience so therefore you can never know what the Experiencer is. It does take a little thinking outside the Box but the question must be asked: What if there really is no Experiencer? Maybe Experiencing Redness is Being Redness. We Experience all the Experiences because we are the Experiences. An Experiencer Experiencing Redness might just be Redundant and Unnecessary. If you are an actual Experiencer then how does that work? What is that redness? When you understand that you are the Redness, this will become more clear.
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 12th, 2022, 7:57 amWhen I have talked to the Qualia deniers I make sure that the target of discussion is a specific Sensory Conscious Experience and I usually use the Redness Experience. There is only one way to look at the Redness Experience, and you either have it and therefore understand it, or you don't have it and are eternally stymied by it. Do you deny the existence of a Redness Quale as I have talked about it?
No.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
siva wrote: ↑May 10th, 2022, 10:55 pm
" But in my thinking we are nothing but the Conscious Experiences of our Minds"
What do you mean by this?? are you saying that we are a sum total of our "conscious experiences" or our identity at any point in time "just the present conscious experience"?
I view our identity as "consciousness/awareness simpliciter", meaning we are that which is aware (the subject) and experiences occur to us and in us!!
I mean that we are the Conscious Light that we Experience. We are the Conscious Sound. We are the Conscious etc. There could be an Experiencer but I'm thinking more and more that there really is no Experiencer but just the Experiences. You cannot detect your own Experiencer except indirectly through Experiences. Without Experiences the Experiencer is truly Nothing. So it is logical to conclude that the Experiencer does not even really Exist. Only the Experiences Exist and you are these Experiences. Understanding that you are Light (and all Experiences) is a fascinating Realization that will change your whole concept of Being. You will be released from the Point view of Being to a whole new Distributed view of Being.
The very idea of experience by definition means there is an experiencer.. How to make sense of experience without an experiencer?? I agree that there is no need for an individual subject/human being, but I don't seem to get the idea of experience without an experiencer. Can you elaborate this further?
You say "Understanding that you are Light (and all Experiences) is a fascinating Realization".. Are you implying that we are that which appears as the light (and all experiences)?? then I would take that as our true identity and completely with you.
We assume that there must be an Experiencer but the Experiencer cannot be an Experience so therefore you can never know what the Experiencer is. It does take a little thinking outside the Box but the question must be asked: What if there really is no Experiencer? Maybe Experiencing Redness is Being Redness. We Experience all the Experiences because we are the Experiences. An Experiencer Experiencing Redness might just be Redundant and Unnecessary. If you are an actual Experiencer then how does that work? What is that redness? When you understand that you are the Redness, this will become more clear.
yeah i seem to understand what you are saying. i come from the POV of non-dualism where there is no separation between the experiencer and experience.. you are saying that just the experience exists, and i am saying just the experiencer exists.. take the water in ocean and wave analogy.. you are saying just the wave exits, i am saying just the water exists.
it is clear that the ultimate reality of the wave is water (my view)
You are telling that the ultimate reality of water is wave or are you claiming that each of the waves has its own reality and exist ??
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 11th, 2022, 7:44 am
I mean that we are the Conscious Light that we Experience. We are the Conscious Sound. We are the Conscious etc. There could be an Experiencer but I'm thinking more and more that there really is no Experiencer but just the Experiences. You cannot detect your own Experiencer except indirectly through Experiences. Without Experiences the Experiencer is truly Nothing. So it is logical to conclude that the Experiencer does not even really Exist. Only the Experiences Exist and you are these Experiences. Understanding that you are Light (and all Experiences) is a fascinating Realization that will change your whole concept of Being. You will be released from the Point view of Being to a whole new Distributed view of Being.
The very idea of experience by definition means there is an experiencer.. How to make sense of experience without an experiencer?? I agree that there is no need for an individual subject/human being, but I don't seem to get the idea of experience without an experiencer. Can you elaborate this further?
You say "Understanding that you are Light (and all Experiences) is a fascinating Realization".. Are you implying that we are that which appears as the light (and all experiences)?? then I would take that as our true identity and completely with you.
We assume that there must be an Experiencer but the Experiencer cannot be an Experience so therefore you can never know what the Experiencer is. It does take a little thinking outside the Box but the question must be asked: What if there really is no Experiencer? Maybe Experiencing Redness is Being Redness. We Experience all the Experiences because we are the Experiences. An Experiencer Experiencing Redness might just be Redundant and Unnecessary. If you are an actual Experiencer then how does that work? What is that redness? When you understand that you are the Redness, this will become more clear.
yeah i seem to understand what you are saying. i come from the POV of non-dualism where there is no separation between the experiencer and experience.. you are saying that just the experience exists, and i am saying just the experiencer exists.. take the water in ocean and wave analogy.. you are saying just the wave exits, i am saying just the water exists.
it is clear that the ultimate reality of the wave is water (my view)
You are telling that the ultimate reality of water is wave or are you claiming that each of the waves has its own reality and exist ??
Of course the Wave is made out of Water so both Exist, but I don't think this is the right analogy for what we are talking about. We do know what Water is and what Waves are, at least to the best that Science can explain it. The problem is that we don't know what an Experience like Redness is and we don't know what an Experiencer could be.
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 13th, 2022, 10:12 amOf course the Wave is made out of Water so both Exist, but I don't think this is the right analogy for what we are talking about. We do know what Water is and what Waves are, at least to the best that Science can explain it. The problem is that we don't know what an Experience like Redness is and we don't know what an Experiencer could be.
Water waves aren't "made out of water", because they are dynamic properties of water.
"wave = a periodic disturbance in a medium or space. In a travelling wave (or progressive wave) energy is transferred from one place to another by the vibrations (see also STATIONARY WAVE). In a wave passing over the surface of water, for example, the water rises and falls as the wave passes but the particles of water on average do not move forward with the wave. This is called a transverse wave because the disturbances are at right angles to the direction of propagation. The water surface moves up and down while the waves travel across the surface of the water. Electromagnetic waves (see diagram) are also of this kind, with electric and magnetic fields varying in a periodic way at right angles to each other and to the direction of propagation. In sound waves, the air is alternately compressed and rarefied by displacements in the direction of propagation. Such waves are called longitudinal waves.
The chief characteristics of a wave are its speed of propagation, its frequency, its wavelength, and its amplitude. The speed of propagation is the distance covered by the wave in unit time. The frequency is the number of complete disturbances (cycles) in unit
time, usually expressed in hertz. The wavelength is the distance in metres between successive points of equal phase in a wave. The amplitude is the maximum difference of the disturbed quantity from its mean value."
—Oxford Dictionary of Physics (8th ed., 2019)
As I already mentioned in previous posts, one suggestion is that experiences are patterns of neuroelectrical waves in the brain (brainwaves).
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 13th, 2022, 10:12 amOf course the Wave is made out of Water so both Exist, but I don't think this is the right analogy for what we are talking about. We do know what Water is and what Waves are, at least to the best that Science can explain it. The problem is that we don't know what an Experience like Redness is and we don't know what an Experiencer could be.
Water waves aren't "made out of water", because they are dynamic properties of water.
"wave = a periodic disturbance in a medium or space. In a travelling wave (or progressive wave) energy is transferred from one place to another by the vibrations (see also STATIONARY WAVE). In a wave passing over the surface of water, for example, the water rises and falls as the wave passes but the particles of water on average do not move forward with the wave. This is called a transverse wave because the disturbances are at right angles to the direction of propagation. The water surface moves up and down while the waves travel across the surface of the water. Electromagnetic waves (see diagram) are also of this kind, with electric and magnetic fields varying in a periodic way at right angles to each other and to the direction of propagation. In sound waves, the air is alternately compressed and rarefied by displacements in the direction of propagation. Such waves are called longitudinal waves.
The chief characteristics of a wave are its speed of propagation, its frequency, its wavelength, and its amplitude. The speed of propagation is the distance covered by the wave in unit time. The frequency is the number of complete disturbances (cycles) in unit
time, usually expressed in hertz. The wavelength is the distance in metres between successive points of equal phase in a wave. The amplitude is the maximum difference of the disturbed quantity from its mean value."
—Oxford Dictionary of Physics (8th ed., 2019)
As I already mentioned in previous posts, one suggestion is that experiences are patterns of neuroelectrical waves in the brain (brainwaves).
Waves aren't made out of Water? What are you talking about now. Oh, you mean the mathematical definition of a wave? Ok let me say it another way: Water Waves are made out of Water.
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 16th, 2022, 7:35 amWaves aren't made out of Water? What are you talking about now. Oh, you mean the mathematical definition of a wave? Ok let me say it another way: Water Waves are made out of Water.
No, I mean the physical definition of waves as disturbances in a physical medium (such as water and air) which transfer energy from place to place. A water wave (wave in water) isn't itself a kind of stuff; so it isn't made (out) of water, which is a kind of stuff. The surface of a mass of water can be (said to be) wavy or wave-shaped, with wavy or wave-shaped water consisting of water molecules. But waves in the relevant physical sense aren't masses of stuff (materials) or things (substances), but dynamic properties of e.g. masses of water or air. So a water wave (wave in water) isn't itself something consisting of water molecules, but a dynamic property of something consisting of water molecules.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 16th, 2022, 7:35 amWaves aren't made out of Water? What are you talking about now. Oh, you mean the mathematical definition of a wave? Ok let me say it another way: Water Waves are made out of Water.
No, I mean the physical definition of waves as disturbances in a physical medium (such as water and air) which transfer energy from place to place. A water wave (wave in water) isn't itself a kind of stuff; so it isn't made (out) of water, which is a kind of stuff. The surface of a mass of water can be (said to be) wavy or wave-shaped, with wavy or wave-shaped water consisting of water molecules. But waves in the relevant physical sense aren't masses of stuff (materials) or things (substances), but dynamic properties of e.g. masses of water or air. So a water wave (wave in water) isn't itself something consisting of water molecules, but a dynamic property of something consisting of water molecules.
Consul is correct. Waves can exist in all manner of media - in EM waves space, sound waves in the air, ocean waves, metal resonance, seismic waves, the list foes on.
Philosophical zombies do not exist. They are a thought experiment proposed by David Chalmers in describing the hard problem of consciousness.
