Telepathy is not illogical...

[tar]

Baby Astronaut,

 

I don't want you taking the heat for the quantum post alone. I know it was a "what if" suggestion, to help my wondering. Which it did.

However not exactly as planned.

Swansont's word for quantum entanglement's inability to transfer any information, much less a quale, should be taken as stipulated. He knows the facts.

However, as an analogy, to what I was trying to get at, it's got some promise. We are after all connected to each other in many many real ways. Same species, with the same basic structures for sensing, perceiving and thinking. Same basic needs, same basic reward structure, same basic logic and on top of that, the history of culture, knowledge and insights, that many people, that pay attention to the same stuff, share. Certain individual brains, are thus primed and ready to imagine what another person with the same history might be thinking.

 

So who needs telepathy to explain anything? Telepathy is illogical. The wonder is in the facts.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited October 14, 2009 by tar

[Edtharan]

Edtharan,

If I have made a certain analogy in my brain and you explore its strengths and weaknesses, after I have relayed the analogy to you, using known mechanisms, you overlay what you know of my thinking, with what you know to be true and you look for the gaps. You hunt for what I have failed to notice, or for what I might have noticed. A great deal of information passes between us. You effect the thoughts in my head, and I effect the thoughts in yours. But its not magic, it's the way we work. The actual information that passes through the computer screen might be meager, a certain amount of characters, represented each by a short series of ones and zeros. But the meaning behind the arrangement the information passes, is best known by me and you.

What you are talking about here is called "Processing". It is where you take some information, then run it through a process (that might involve adding other information to it) and getting a result. This is NO different than what a CPU in a computer does. Would you consider the functioning of your computer's processor to be Telepathy?

 

The way the brain processes information is through a distributed associative network. Associative networks process information by forming associations between them, links between the data it previously receives and has stored and then using those associations to derive the result.

 

As you can see, an "Analogy" is just one of these associations (you are saying one thing is like another). If you convey that analogy to me, then what my brain does is process that analogy by forming more associations and testing them.

 

This is not telepathy. This is no different than what is done in databases by computers (although the brain is more complex). That is, unless you consider your computer as being capable of telepathy (and if such a simple system is capable of it, then all animals should be capable of it and then evolution would have exploited it - as evolution hasn't, then we can rule out this too).

 

Anybody, or anything can sense the characters on the screen.

But it takes a human brain to recognize the characters as words with meaning behind them.

It takes a human brain, that can read English to notice the meaning of the words.

And one that has read this thread to put them into context.

And one like yourself that knows TAR's brain from experiencing other TAR messages, to determine what information is contained or missing.

 

Regards, TAR

The reason we recognise the words on the screen is that we have associations between those shapes (letters) and the sounds (the words spoken). We then have associations between those sounds and events that have occurred in our lives (education).

 

This is not telepathy. No information (beyond what has been transmitted by sharing that analogy - and you seem to agree that the transmission of that analogy does not constitute telepathy) has actually been transmitted between our minds.

 

As you seem to agree Prior Knowledge does not constitute telepathy. So why do you think that the education I have, and my experience of you (all of which is prior knowledge) now constitute telepathy?

 

It seems to me that on one hand you are saying that 'X' can't be telepathy, but then turning around that saying that 'X' is telepathy.

 

Either you think it is, or you think it isn't.

 

Either Prior Information is not considered as being telepathy, or it is considered telepathy (but then how do you reconcile this with information being transmitted now, as in 1 seconds time it would be then prior information and now considered telepathy).

[tar]

Edtharan,

 

I am not saying our ability to read each other's mind is telepathy.

 

I am saying we can know more about what somebody else is thinking than the information that is transmitted in any one real known unmagic message. Or for that matter, in just learning of someone else's situation.

 

Today there was a 6 year old boy suspected stranded in a helium balloon in Colorado, and the whole state was trying to find a way to rescue him. I remembered a time when I was young that a 6 year old boy in our summer home was missing. The whole lake community was out looking for him. Searching high and low, calling his name, diving in the lake with scuba gear, the authorities were contacted and everyone was frantic. He had fallen asleep on a bench behind the dinner table, unseen if you passed the table or looked under it. Remembering the incident, I stopped my wondering about what the 6 year old was thinking, up in the ballon, and considered what the family was feeling and thinking and I hoped that the boy had just fallen asleep on a bench behind the dinner table. They found him hiding in a box in the attic. They didn't know why the brother had said he saw the 6 year old getting into the basket of the baloon.

 

My point being, that I imagined what the boy was thinking, stranded up in the baloon, and he wasn't even up there, but I could imagine what he might be thinking if I put myself in his place, at his age. And I have a pretty good idea of what the family was thinking during the time he was missing, and how they were thinking and feeling when he was found, because I witnessed first hand a similar experience. A computer couldn't have the thoughts and feelings I had today, unless it had had the same experience I had 45 years ago. And it couldn't have the same thoughts and feelings unless it had a human brain, and knew what loss was, and what parents feel and think of their offspring, and how a community feels when one of their own is missing and in mortal danger. How will the computer register the relief and the exasperation, without a human brain, without the human chemicals punishing and rewarding? Without the ability to put itself in human shoes. How will the computer compute a human quale without a human brain?

 

I am not claiming any telepathy occured today or ever. Telepathy is illogical. But human thoughts can be had by humans, because they are human, and have a human perspective. No other species can have human thoughts (chimps have chimp thoughts). No artifical machine made of metal and silicon can parallel process the ones and zeros into a human quale. Come close? Sure. Become aware? Sure. Why not. But they would be aware of a human designed machine if they did. They would have a machine quale, and we wouldn't be able to understand what they were thinking, even though we designed them, nearly as well as we can understand what another human is thinking.

 

AI might be possible. Depending on your definition. But artifical human intelligence would be artifical. The only way to come close would be to give the machine a way to reward itself and miss the reward, a way to reproduce and care about living. Ways to get sick and die. Ways to move around and have a perspective. Ways to stub its toes, and pick its nose when nobody is looking, and feel ashamed when caught. Ways to hunt and kill. Nurture and protect. Win and lose. Complete and fail. Compete and be defeated. Be selfish and protective about its kin. Gather its own energy, etc. etc. Might as well just make some mitochondria and set it down and see what it does in a few million years. But then that would not be our idea...or was it?

 

Regards, TAR

 

P.S. I do not think we can transmit or receive thoughts. I agree that telepathy is illogical in every respect. Just think we can read each other's thoughts by having an analogous one that we ascribe to the image of another brain we hold in our brain.

[Edtharan]

P.S. I do not think we can transmit or receive thoughts. I agree that telepathy is illogical in every respect. Just think we can read each other's thoughts by having an analogous one that we ascribe to the image of another brain we hold in our brain.

But, still this would not be "reading" another's thoughts, this is instead imposing your own thoughts onto you imagined mind of another person.

 

There is no reading in this. It is in fact the opposite.

 

The danger in thinking like this is that you are making assumptions about that other person, so if you think that you are "reading" something form them, then you are ignoring information that is coming in.

 

Sure, you might (mostly) get it right , but because you are imposing your own assumptions about the way they are feeling/thinking, you will also get it wrong. This is how misunderstanding can occur and if it is assumptions about another, then that can make them feel taken for granted and cause problems.

 

So this is a actually not a very good way to go about trying to understand how others feel or think. What you need is to look at how they are actually thinking and feeling not what you expect them to think and feel.

 

As an example (because it does happen a lot on forums - including one), what if I assumed something about you based on past experiences:

 

If I were to assume, from past experiences in dealing with people on forum, that because you disagree with me, that you are going to get angry and threaten me (this has not actually occurred to me but I do know someone who it did occur to - not on this forum though). then if you disagreed with me, I might take this as the start of a downward spiral that will end with you threatening me.

 

Have I actually "read" something about you? No. I don't think you would do that (this is just an example), but if that was my past experiences, then my assumptions would be wrong and the actions I then take based on that would be, in my mind, valid (especially if those actions caused you to get angry, etc).

 

So as you can see, just because in your past you have had experiences that made you feel one way, doe snot automatically mean that other people will feel the same way.

 

To assume that they do is wrong and you are not reading anything from them (you are in fact shutting down your reading because you "Know" how they feel and don't need to see how they actually feel.

 

(And, as the saying goes: To Assume is yo make an Ass out of U and Me. )

[tar]

Edtharan,

 

But as Rebecca Saxe found (links in iNows "Religion Hijacks" thread, posted by JillSwift,) There is a region in our brain, that we develop age 3-5 and onward, that allows us to put ourselves in other's shoes. We are not really able to do this, but it seems we have the equipment, to imagine another entity's thinking. We take the information we have about something or somebody and build a model, within our own brain of that entities mode of operation. We can run it through its paces, overlaying our thinking process onto the model, imagining what we would think and feel if we were in their shoes. Sure we get it mostly wrong, we are not them. But we get it a little bit right, and adjust the wrong stuff, as we learn more about the other mind in question. And if we are communicating with the other mind, and being somewhat honest about our thoughts and feelings, in both directions, the image, becomes truer and truer to life. I certainly know what pleases and displeases my wife, to a much greater degree of accuracy than I know what pleases and displeases you, or iNow, or JillSwift, or Mooeypoo, or Forufes, or Grandpa. But I have hints and clues and rough draft models of each of you, beginning construction in my mind.

 

Certainly we can be way wrong, in trying to build this overlay model. Everybody has their own unique set of individuals, experiences, insights, and bank of knowledge, that they use to imagine another with.

 

We pigeon hole, and generalize, draw analogies true in some senses and false in others. Sometimes we give others to much credit, most of the time, not enough.

 

But consider how well you can know somebody that you are friends with, that you pay attention to, that you know a lot about, and who knows a lot about you. This isn't magic. And a strong piece of the equation is that two people can communicate a great deal, if they have half a mind to do so. And why can they do this? Because they both have the same basic equipment. The same or very similar genes, that put together a human body, brain and heart. We have the same input devices, eyes, ears, nose, touch and taste. The same brain structure, the same internal reward system, the same kind of logic circuits. So the first perspective we know we have on the world, we can easily attribute to another (this model of the other we construct in our head.)

 

Right now its the bottom of the 11th inning in game two of the ALCS- whoops Alex Rodrigues just hit a home run. I was going to say, that being the Yankees were down 3-2 to the Angels, I could imagine that a large number of the 40,000 or so in Yankee Stadium were probably hoping that A-Rod would hit a homerun and make a victory possible or at least force a 12th inning. I think I read their minds.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited October 18, 2009 by tar
Read their minds...correctly.

[Edtharan]

But as Rebecca Saxe found (links in iNows "Religion Hijacks" thread, posted by JillSwift,) There is a region in our brain, that we develop age 3-5 and onward, that allows us to put ourselves in other's shoes. We are not really able to do this, but it seems we have the equipment, to imagine another entity's thinking. We take the information we have about something or somebody and build a model, within our own brain of that entities mode of operation. We can run it through its paces, overlaying our thinking process onto the model, imagining what we would think and feel if we were in their shoes. Sure we get it mostly wrong, we are not them. But we get it a little bit right, and adjust the wrong stuff, as we learn more about the other mind in question. And if we are communicating with the other mind, and being somewhat honest about our thoughts and feelings, in both directions, the image, becomes truer and truer to life. I certainly know what pleases and displeases my wife, to a much greater degree of accuracy than I know what pleases and displeases you, or iNow, or JillSwift, or Mooeypoo, or Forufes, or Grandpa. But I have hints and clues and rough draft models of each of you, beginning construction in my mind.

Yes, I have even mentioned these Mirror Neurons myself (in this thread even). However, these mirror neurons also activate when we see a robot do things too. But, as you said computers don't have Qualia, so these neurons are not being triggered by something that is innately human about the subject.

 

Actually back onto qualia, how can you know that a computer doesn't ahve qualia? How can you know that I have qualia?

 

The answer is: that you can't. You can not tell if something does or does not have qualia, so any "theory" about reading minds based on this premise has a major flaw (that qualia exist at all).

 

Can you prove to me that you have qualia? Can I prove to you that I have qualia. Again the answer is no.

 

If you can not show that something exists, how can you show (or even say) that it exists?

 

Also the process you are talking about (refining a "model" of a subject) is already done by computers and they can do it much better than we can (in certain aspects of behaviour - just do a quick google search and you will see the extent this is being applied). It is often used in research to make models of human behaviours and in the last couple of decades this method has been revealing much about human behaviours that we didn't know before.

 

So, as computers are doing this, and you are saying this is what you mean by "reading" another mind, then computers are able to read another mind (by your definition).

 

BUT: You also said that having qualia was essential for this ability. But you have also said that computers do not have qualia.

 

I can not reconcile your proposition with the evidence in front of me. As I said before a solution without a problem begs for a problem to exist and people will try to fit the solution to whatever problems come along.

 

This is what I think you are trying to do. Mirror Neurons do not allow us to "read" minds, they allow us to mirror another's actions better. Motivation and thoughts associated with those mirrored actions are purely up to the observer and involve no information being transmitted from the other doing those actions.

[Baby Astronaut]

....to make models of human behaviours and in the last couple of decades this method has been revealing much about human behaviours that we didn't know before.

I'd like to see the data on that, if you would. A google search based on the quote above turned up nothing relevant.

 

The key words I used...

 

models of human behaviors in last decades reveal much we didn't know

[tar]

Edtharan,

 

I did get frustrated with Mooeypoo, when I first came aboad this forum, but I got over it, when I understood her purposes a little better.

 

I get frustrated with myself when I keep derailing iNow's threads, cause I haven't gotten him right yet, and my "contributions" are often not noteably helpful.

 

I did get angry at Edmond Zedo on a personal level, and on behalf of the board, because of a power slight he leveled, toward me, and the others who where entertaining his hypothesis, and proposing deficiencies and suggestions. My impulse was to challenge him, then I reconsidered and thought that if he thought so little of me, he could do perfectly well without me, so I divorced him, thrice. I was hoping to make him see that peer review was critical to bringing objective knowledge to the fore. Anything else he was up to, he was up to for his own satisfaction alone. Evidently he felt he could do whatever he was doing "by self".

 

Now, I know I have my own agenda, and I'm just the pot calling the kettle black, but Grandpa, and Forufes and I, don't think that strict adherence to the scientific method, is the only way to get at the truth.

 

(Yankees just won Game 2 on a throw to second that skipped past the second baseman into left field. Clap Clap Clap. ALLRIGHT.)

 

We think (and I am putting thoughts in the models of them that I have in my head) that one can come to conclusions, based on musing and observations of themselves and others, that have been logically arrived at by a consideration of the evidence. That we cannot cite all the sources, all the books we have read, the people we have talked to, the experiences we have had, all the insights we have stacked up, to come to our conclusions, is why we are more suited for psuedoscience, than the science threads, but facts and truth is what we are trying to deal in, as surely as those here that can run rings around us with mathematical prowess and esoteric knowledge.

 

We want to learn, and we want to teach. ALL of us. We want to share our insights and gain the insights of others. We are all human. Sure I feel good when I "win", and I enjoy a mental chess match, and that is selfish. But I am not the only one that is satisfied by being right. Its in our wiring. But I like to think that what is true about what I contribute to these threads will be incorporated in the thinking of anyone that reads it, and what is false will be pointed out, or ignored, or debunked, for the benefit of all.

 

Just to give you a heads up on my agenda, I think that we are in and of this reality, that we have grabbed form and structure and our pattern from a universe that tends toward entropy, and all life on this planet is thus alligned in a fleeting moment of being in the vastness of space and time. That this is a wonderful thing, and our individual human conciousness is founded on the fact that we are aware of the particular perspective of one lifetime, of one human organism, and as such we should enjoy being, and make it possible for others to do the same, in our lifetime and beyond.

 

And I aim to prove scientifically that that is what we have been doing, and what we will continue to do. Each in our own way, to the benefit of those entities we align with, and to the detriment of those entities that stand in our way, or are destroyed by our quest.

 

Regards, TAR

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Edtharan,

 

I didn't say machines couldn't have qualia, I said if they did they would be machine qualia, not human qualia. And yes I can assume quite factually that our qualia is similar, just happening in different brains.

 

Regards, TAR

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think, therefore you are.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Can you prove to me that you have qualia? Can I prove to you that I have qualia. Again the answer is no.

 

You couldn't ask that question unless you already assumed your qualia and my qualia.

The proof is in the premise. Silly to answer your question "no", when it is so obviously a yes.

[Edtharan]

Now, I know I have my own agenda, and I'm just the pot calling the kettle black, but Grandpa, and Forufes and I, don't think that strict adherence to the scientific method, is the only way to get at the truth.

 

/snip

 

And I aim to prove scientifically that that is what we have been doing, and what we will continue to do. Each in our own way, to the benefit of those entities we align with, and to the detriment of those entities that stand in our way, or are destroyed by our quest.

:confused:

 

First you state that you are not interested in using the scientific method, and then you say that you are trying to prove something scientifically.

 

If you are going to prove something scientifically, then you have to use the scientific method: That is what proving something scientifically means.

 

We think (and I am putting thoughts in the models of them that I have in my head) that one can come to conclusions, based on musing and observations of themselves and others, that have been logically arrived at by a consideration of the evidence. That we cannot cite all the sources, all the books we have read, the people we have talked to, the experiences we have had, all the insights we have stacked up, to come to our conclusions, is why we are more suited for psuedoscience, than the science threads, but facts and truth is what we are trying to deal in, as surely as those here that can run rings around us with mathematical prowess and esoteric knowledge.

This was how the ancient Greeks used to think, The problem that they found was that it didn't work...

 

They used observations, but then used musings to come up with the explanations. And, it does work for certain things (like maths), it doesn't work for figuring out how the universe works.

 

They even came up with an explanation for why their explanation didn't match reality (instead of seeing that they were wrong and adjusting their explanation to take into account reality). One of them, Plato, came up with the idea that their musings actually lead to the real world, but that this world is like the projection of the shadow of the real world (it is known as the Platonic realm). Any difference between what they came up with and reality was put down to "lumps and bumps" of the "surface" the shadow was projected onto.

 

In the end, because of this way of thinking, they came up with explanations of the universe that did not resemble how the world worked at all and over time the "model" that was used became more and more divorced from the real world until it was completely useless. Eventually the scientific method came along and the requirement that any explanation must match with reality was introduced and understanding of the universe took off.

 

All of modern society could not exist without this one restriction: "explanations must match with reality". It is only in the last 360 or so years since this was introduced (with the scientific method), and since then we have discovered more about the universe and in the whole 300,000 years of human existence (including the time of ancient Greece).

 

Abandoning this requirement, therefore, seems like a really big mistake. What is the purpose of coming up with an explanation for something if the universe is not like that at all.

 

What is the advantage of explaining rain using the tears of unicorns, because it sounds more reasonable to me, than using evidence based reasoning that has the constraint "must match reality" and reaching the explanation of air pressure, humidity and temperature?

 

Basically my approach is this: Reality trumps all. If it is not real then it doesn't exist.

 

Turth (whatever it is) has to be subject to reality.

 

If you even just think about it for a second, you can see why this has to be so. If you are going to explain something that is real, then what you are explaining must first be shown to be real.

 

There is a quote (I'm not sure who said it - although I think I remember it from a Startrek episode):

 

"Nothing unreal exists."

 

I didn't say machines couldn't have qualia, I said if they did they would be machine qualia, not human qualia. And yes I can assume quite factually that our qualia is similar, just happening in different brains.

Again, only if they really exist can this statement be made. And, if qualia do exist, what evidence do you have that ours are similar? Can you directly know my qualia? No, you said so yourself.

 

So there is no evidence that qualia exist, and there is no evidence that if they did exist that they have to be the same (or similar).

 

See the real point I am making here is: Evidence. It is pointless trying to argue that something exists or has certain properties if there is no evidence for its existence (or what it is actually like).

 

Without a reference to whatever is being discussed, how can we know what is being discussed?

 

For example: How can we discuss if Zegbat's are black or white if we don't know what a Zegbat is, for all we know they might be green (btw: I made them up so they don't actually exist).

 

You couldn't ask that question unless you already assumed your qualia and my qualia.

The proof is in the premise. Silly to answer your question "no", when it is so obviously a yes.

Not at all. To ask: Does X have Y does not presuppose that Y exists at all.

 

For example: Do you have a Unicorn embedded in your back?

 

First of all, this does not require that Unicorns exist. If they don't then the answer is "No".

 

Second, if unicorns did exist, this does not mean that it is even possible for them to become embedded in someone back.

 

So if I ask: Can you prove that you (or I) have qualia? Then if (and only if) qualia exist, does the second part of the question (can you prove that you ahve them) come into play.

 

If qualia don't exist, then you, of course, can't prove that you ahve them. Just as you can't prove you have a unicorn embedded in your back (but you can prove that you don't have that unicorn problem - but if you do, you should probably go see a doctor about it, I heard that they can fester... ).

[tar]

Edtharan,

 

I aim to prove using the scientific method. Meaning it is already apparent to me by regular old musing, and I'll have to take it step by step to prove it as objective fact, to everybody else.

 

However, if you will not allow me qualia, as a premise then you will have to explain to me again, what you DO consider a fact to be.

 

Give me your qualia, and my qualia as a starting point, or else I have no idea what you mean by peer review.

 

René Descartes (French pronunciation: [ʁəne dekaʁt]), (31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650), also known as Renatus Cartesius (Latinized form),[2] was a French philosopher, mathematician, physicist, and writer who spent most of his adult life in the Dutch Republic. He has been dubbed the "Father of Modern Philosophy", and much of subsequent Western philosophy is a response to his writings, which continue to be studied closely to this day. In particular, his Meditations on First Philosophy continues to be a standard text at most university philosophy departments. Descartes' influence in mathematics is also apparent, the Cartesian coordinate system allowing geometric shapes to be expressed in algebraic equations being named for him. He is credited as the father of analytical geometry. Descartes was also one of the key figures in the Scientific Revolution.

 

 

 

Regards, TAR

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.[3] Philosophy comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία [philosophia], which literally translates to "love of wisdom".[4][5][6]

 

P.S. I was completely wrong in thinking I knew what the family was thinking that had the 6 year old hiding in the attic and the runaway helium balloon. Turned out it was a hoax, a publicity stunt.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Lets say I am looking at two bean plants, and I watch them grow over a couple months and they both climb up the fence and have similarly shaped leaves an similar looking beans grow on each, and I dissect one of the pods from one plant and find beans inside, and take apart one of the beans and see what it looks like inside, I taste it, and note its color and texture and shape and size and all sorts of characteristics.

 

What form of magic are you suggesting would cause me not to be able to find a pod on the other plant that also had similar beans inside with the same texture and color and shape and size and taste?

 

Regards, TAR

[Baby Astronaut]

Edtharan did you catch my last post #132?

[tar]

Edtharan,

 

Sorry I keep getting defensive and emotional, during this discussion.

 

I am trying to think of an explaination, a "proof", that my qualia and your qualia are of very similar nature.

 

And I am very much interested in a "no magic" explaination.

 

We internalize the external world. We have to because the external world is known by a brain that is quite unmagically constrained inside a skull. We, both you and I, consider that we are experiencing, a real world, that takes up a lot more space and time, than is available inside our skulls at the moment.

 

So how do we internalize, and consider real, everything we see, hear, touch, taste and smell? Why is it, that we can both agree that the moon is real, when Edtharan, exists entirely in one skull(of one body, brain, and heart combo), and TAR exists entirely in another combo?

 

The combos have some distinct similarities. Both are collections of chemicals. Nothing but chemicals actually. But chemicals in a very distinct and complex arrangement, that have quite a history, behind finding themselves in such an arrangement.

 

Hydrogen clumped, compressed into stars whose internal furnaces brewed up some heavier elements, exploded and strew their contents about, to be reclumped into our solar system and planets and the Earth and the moon. Complex molecules formed in the primoridal muck, and certain arrangements split and rebuilt the same pattern from available chemicals. The arrangements that were best at splitting and rebuilding, did so. Complex patterns associated with each other, and certain associations were better than other associations at continuing the associations than others. Some associations of complex patterns proliferated, by virtue of the ability they had to fit, to work, to exist, and those patterns repeated themselves. The ones that accidently oriented themselves in a way that increased the availability of energy and material, to copy the pattern, were the patterns that lasted. Certain patterns where consumed by other patterns, or overshadowed or beat other patterns to the required energy and chemicals. The fittest survived, and certain structures worked, cells to collect material in, organization of material in the cell, certain arrangements of the cells, structures to collect energy and chemicals, structures to sense energy and material, and structures to orient the organism in the most workable orientation.

 

Funny thing, Edtharan and TAR organisms wound up with almost the exact arrangement of chemicals, associations, structures and senses. And funny thing, but both combos can look up, and see the same, real piece of stuff.

 

Tell me how I accomplish this feat, in a different manner than you do.

My qualia and your qualia are very much the same thing. And we both experience the same moon.

 

You and I internalize the same reality, using the same chemical structure, the same organization, the same complex mechanisms.

 

I know I have qualia, you know you have qualia, they are of the same reality, occurring in very similar copies of the same pattern.

 

What more proof do you need?

 

Regards, TAR

[Edtharan]

Sorry, I've been out of the loop a bit due to being in hospital for shoulder surgery (and now have a neural stimulator connected to my shoulder).

 

I'd like to see the data on that' date=' if you would. A google search based on the quote above turned up nothing relevant.

 

The key words I used...

 

models of human behaviors in last decades reveal much we didn't know[/quote']

Yeah, that search term you used is pretty vague.

 

Have a look at this video from TED:

 

That is a pretty good overview of some of the things I ahve been talking about. Computing is getting powerful enough to start to directly simulate human neural cortical columns. This is of course cutting edge stuff today and is based on the many other computer model that have been developed over the last few decades.

 

Along with fMRI and other methods of detecting the activities of the brain and neurons, this is leading us to quite accurate model of how our brains work.

 

I am trying to think of an explaination' date=' a "proof", that my qualia and your qualia are of very similar nature.[/quote']

What I have been saying is that is impossible, so there is no way to determine that your qualia are the same as mine. Also, "qualia" is a term that was created before they knew much about the brain (first used in 1929).

 

Qualia are about how it feels to have a mental experience, however, this feeling is also a mental experience. This means that any qualia you ahve has a qualia associated with it and we end in an infinite regression of qualia to describe what a qualia "feels" like.

 

From this, the term "Qualia" is not very useful. It is like trying to explain what an English word means to someone who does not speak English and you only speak English.

 

Also when people speak of qualia, they assume that there is some kind of common pool of experience that we can connect to. But, for instance if someone was colour blind and they were trying to explain the colour they see (the qualia) to someone without colour blindness, then these two would not have a common pool of qualia to use.

 

Also, if you listen to the video from TED that I posted above, they talk about how no two neurons in your brain are the same and no neuron in my brain is the same as one in yours.

 

Qualia were invented to describe the way the brain works without looking at how it really works. In other words, they made assumptions, and science has proven many of these assumptions wrong.

 

We internalize the external world. We have to because the external world is known by a brain that is quite unmagically constrained inside a skull. We, both you and I, consider that we are experiencing, a real world, that takes up a lot more space and time, than is available inside our skulls at the moment.

The brain does this through a hierarchical organisation of the information in an associative network.

 

In other words, the brain does not work in the same way as a computer (but yet it is still a Universal Turing Machine). Computers store information in a flat file method. Each piece of information (file) is its own separate entity.

 

In the brain each piece of information is broken up into different components (like edges, colour, sound, etc) and relationships between them are then stored to represent the actual piece of information (and yes, colour, sound, edges are all information too and are also broken down and stored and associations between these components are also stored).

 

This is actually a very efficient way of storing massive amounts of similar information and processing that information quickly.

 

The other thing is the information is not just stored hierarchically, but it is also in a network. Specifically a "Small World" network.

 

This is a type of network that has predominantly short links between entities in the network (neurons), but it also has long ranged links (between regions of the brain). These types of networks are fractal in nature and are extremely efficient at transmitting signals all over the network but still allowing for local effects (many other networks are like this including human social networks and even the internet).

 

So as we experience the world, our brain stores the information about the world in this hierarchical manner, but also constructs small world network associations between these pieces of information.

 

One of the hardest thing to do with computer vision is to enable the computer to see part of an object and for the computer to successfully work out what that object is. For us, we can do this without any real effort (or seeming effort). The reason is in the different way we sort and process information. recent advancements in computer vision have been using the hierarchical + small world network association approach and they have been making very rapid advancements.

 

Using this approach, computers have been able to "internalise" the world around them (and process it too) in a way that seems that they couldn't do it "inside" their "skull". The processors are faster and more memory is available, but even then, running the old software that used the compartmentalised system that computers were built for still is not able to compete with this associative network approach.

 

Even very simple Neural Networks have amazing information storage and processing capabilities (and none of it by magic).

 

I aim to prove using the scientific method. Meaning it is already apparent to me by regular old musing, and I'll have to take it step by step to prove it as objective fact, to everybody else.

Then you will fail. Even if you were correct in your conclusions as the method you are proposing is not the scientific method (so you will fail to prove something using the scientific method if you are not using the scientific method ).

 

With the scientific method, you don't start from a conclusion and then try and find things that prove it. What you do is start from observation, then you try and come up with an explanation of that observation, then based on evidence check if your explanation works or doesn't work, and then modify or abandon your explanation based on how well it matches with further observations.

 

You are starting form "This is what I want things to be like" and then trying to find a justification for that initial assumption.

 

As this is not the scientific method, you will fail to prove your assumptions scientifically.

 

Another way of putting it is: You are putting the cart before the Horse.

 

You are trying to come up with an explanation for a phenomena before you actually know what that phenomena is, and before you know if that phenomena really exists.

 

So if you want to proceed, start back at square one and state the phenomena you are trying to explain. But, remember, if there already exists an explanation, then you have to say why the old explanation is wrong and yours is right in a way that can be tested that will conclusively determine which is right or wrong.

 

You also have to show evidence that the phenomena you are trying to explain exists. This is what is meant (in the first instance) by evidence. You have to show evidence that what you are explaining exists.

 

Secondly, if there already exists an explanation for the phenomena, you have to show evidence that the old explanation is wrong. This is more evidence that is needed.

 

Thirdly, the explanation you come up with must be shown to be accurate. This means that it must make predictions about the phenomena that can be tested and evidence is needed that your explanation is right. You might be able to show that the phenomena exists and that the current explanation is wrong, but if you don't also show that your explanation is right, then you haven't achieved your goal.

 

So far, you haven't really stated what you are trying to explain and not shown its existence, and the explanations you have tried to create "explain" different phenomena, but these already have explanations (and you haven't shown those explanations are wrong).

 

However, you do seem to have a collection of explanations from all over the place (and are trying to shoe horn them into something). You are trying to take explanations for one type of phenomena and apply it to a different phenomena, but as these explanations were designed for these other phenomena, they won't work (and these other phenomena already ahve valid explanations).

[tar]

Edtharan,

 

Sure the TED talk said that no neuron was the same, but it also talked about the ghostly electrical patterns that took shape in the columns, and the fact that we all share the same fabric. The talk talked about our internalizing the outside reality. It was actually backing up my conclusions, at every step. There was nothing he said that I disagreed with, and everything he said fit nicely with my explaination. I watched the talk before I read your response to my post, and was very surprised and confused that you thought you were using it to back up your position when it was backing up mine, to the letter.

 

 

Qualia are about how it feels to have a mental experience

 

Is this your definition? I was talking about a quale AS the thought, the feeling is the thought, the thought is the feeling. There is no infinite regression involved. That our qualia, taken together, are an analogue of the universe is expressed in the TED talk. That's what I said in my proof.

That you and I agree we each have an analogy of the same universe inside our separate skulls proves to me, that our qualia are very similar. The moon is the moon. To me and my qualia and to you and your qualia. How can we agree on all the facts about the moon if the analog of it, in our respective brains is not the same.

 

And on my use of the scientific method. I use the facts that others have found, and talked about, that correspond to the facts that I have observed, as facts, as evidence. I am not making stuff up and then trying to fit the facts to it. I am taking all the facts I know, fitting them together, so that none are impossible, none are magic, all are real, excepted by others, facts, and looking at what therefore can and cannot be true. If I come to a conclusion, based on this process and it is consistent with known mechanisms, known stuff, then it is a possibly good, true conclusion to come to. If somebody else has already come to the same conclusion, or is about to come to the same conclusion. All the better.

 

Regards, TAR

[Edtharan]

Sure the TED talk said that no neuron was the same, but it also talked about the ghostly electrical patterns that took shape in the columns, and the fact that we all share the same fabric. The talk talked about our internalizing the outside reality. It was actually backing up my conclusions, at every step. There was nothing he said that I disagreed with, and everything he said fit nicely with my explaination. I watched the talk before I read your response to my post, and was very surprised and confused that you thought you were using it to back up your position when it was backing up mine, to the letter.

Hmm. I think you are trying to argue against something that is not my position. I never said that we don't internalise, but instead, that they way you were using it was wrong.

 

You were trying to say that internalisation allowed us to "read" another person's mind.

 

I also never said that Qualia didn't exist, I just asked for proof that they did (as an example of what evidence you need for your argument - and I ended up having to supply it). And, even if qualia do exist there is no evidence (even in that video) that they must be the same. For example, I can run both Windows and Linux operating systems on the exact same computer hardware. So even if we had two structurally identical brains, this does not mean that they have to have the same qualia.

 

My position was not against your position, but I was trying to question it and see if there were any hole in it. I was, according to the scientific method, testing you explanations for accuracy (even though I am not quite sure what they are trying to explain that has not already been explained). I am also showing that there is evidence against your propositions and initial assumptions.

 

Is this your definition? I was talking about a quale AS the thought, the feeling is the thought, the thought is the feeling. There is no infinite regression involved. That our qualia, taken together, are an analogue of the universe is expressed in the TED talk. That's what I said in my proof.

That you and I agree we each have an analogy of the same universe inside our separate skulls proves to me, that our qualia are very similar. The moon is the moon. To me and my qualia and to you and your qualia. How can we agree on all the facts about the moon if the analog of it, in our respective brains is not the same.

That definition is not mine, but the dictionaries definition (in my words).

 

According to Dictionary.Com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/qualia):

n. pl. qua·li·a (-lē-ə)

A property, such as whiteness, considered independently from things having the property.

 

And Wikipedia states it as (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia):

"a term used in philosophy to describe the subjective quality of conscious experience"

 

Ii is a philosophical construct, not empirical. It is about the subjective experience of an event/object.

 

If you are going to create your own definition of a word, then of course you can make it mean anything you want. But if you are going to do that, it is better to invent a new word than use an existing one.

 

The problem of using qualia (as defined by dictionaries) is that the experience we feel is also an event, and therefore leads to an infinite regression of quale.

 

The pattern of activation of those neurons is not a Quale. The quale is what those activation of neurons causes us to feel. As the definition of qualia states, the quale is independent from the thing with the property.

 

So if a rose causes a series of activations in the brain, then these activations are the representation of the properties of that object (rose). Therefore the Qualia associated with it must be how we respond to those properties. But this is also just neural activation, and so for the qualia to exist we have to know how it feels to have quale. And thus leading to infinite regression.

 

But if we drop the whole concept of qualia and instead look at what is actually going on in the brain, then what we get is a information broken down into fine details and stored in an hierarchical manner within an associative network.

 

But what about some of the arguments for qualia? Like the inverted spectrum argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia#The_inverted_spectrum_argument):

 

Using the Hierarchical/Associative Network description, then what is occuring is that the association of "Colour" is being changed. This way nothing else has to change about the objects, but it accounts for why this is possible.

 

As the information about objects are stored in associations of the hierarchical data (the various aspects like colour, size, edges, and such) of the object, and these associations are not absolute (they can be created or even changed), then all that is needed is to change the association (or create a new one) as to the colour of the objects.

 

With the knowledge argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia#The_knowledge_argument):

 

Argues that qulaia exist because the person did not know what something is like until they experience it. With the Hierarchical/Associative Network description this can be resolved because it is the association between the senses and the knowledge that was missing. Until the sense encounters the stimulus, then no association between the stimuli and anything else in the brain can exist.

 

And because of all that, using Qualia in your explanations are problematic as you have to account for all this evidence against it.

 

And on my use of the scientific method. I use the facts that others have found, and talked about, that correspond to the facts that I have observed, as facts, as evidence. I am not making stuff up and then trying to fit the facts to it. I am taking all the facts I know, fitting them together, so that none are impossible, none are magic, all are real, excepted by others, facts, and looking at what therefore can and cannot be true. If I come to a conclusion, based on this process and it is consistent with known mechanisms, known stuff, then it is a possibly good, true conclusion to come to. If somebody else has already come to the same conclusion, or is about to come to the same conclusion. All the better.

This is what I was talking about. You are "assembling facts" to prove something, but you haven't defined what you are trying to prove first.

 

I also never said that you are making stuff up (but apparently you are making stuff up about what I say). In fact, what you describe is exactly the opposite of what I said.

 

I was saying that you are collecting "facts" and then shoe horning them into whatever you can and applying them where they don't apply.

 

Science is not about "assembling facts" and then putting them together in new ways.

 

Instead, science is about observing an event and then trying to explain that event. Then once an explanation has been made, you use facts to try and disprove that explanation.

 

This is what I keep trying to tell you: You are not doing science unless you use the scientific method.

 

What you are doing is not the scientific method, so it will be therefore impossible for you to prove your propositions scientifically. Sure you might prove them according to your own methodology, but you will not have proved it scientifically (or made it match with reality - it might, but with your method there is no guarantee it will).

 

Science works by Abductive reasoning and then checking this with both Deductive reasoning and Inductive reasoning (by using observations of reality).

 

What you are saying you are doing is just Deductive reasoning. But, you are making assumptions as to the initial facts (that qulaia exist and such). If these initial assumptions are wrong, then the conclusions you draw are also wrong.

 

As this thread is about Telepathy, then I am only assuming that you are trying to "explain" telepathy. But you are not actually trying to explain it, you are trying to prove some new version of telepathy (that is not telepathy).

 

Also, you state that you want to do this scientifically. But, when I try to explain that you are not using the scientific method you dismiss this.

 

This is why you ahve to clearly state what it is you are trying to explain. However you say you are trying to prove something, well science doesn't try to prove anything, but instead tries to explain things. The only "proof" that science uses is proof that an explanation is false.

 

It is also why you have to follow the scientific method if you want to do this scientifically. If you fail to use the scientific method, then you automatically fail to prove it scientifically (because that is what is meant by scientifically: Using the scientific method).

 

So, in conclusions (and summing it all up in as small as I can): If your methodology is not scientific, then you are not doing science, and if your initial assumptions (facts if you will) are wrong, then you conclusions will be wrong.

 

Qualia have not been proven to exist. they are a Philosophical argument and not based on the physical reality of how the brain works. You can try and use Abductive reasoning and use the way the brain works to explain qualia, but this also relies in qualia actually existing (which has to be established first). This means that using Quale in your "facts" is wrong as it is not a "Fact" but an unproven assumption (with evidence against it).

 

As your whole argument rests on the using Quale, then this makes your entire argument very shaky.

[tar]

Edtharan,

 

The pattern of activation of those neurons is not a Quale. The quale is what those activation of neurons causes us to feel. As the definition of qualia states, the quale is independent from the thing with the property.

 

Not quite sure, but I think you are suggesting that qualia are not physical.

 

(Considering that fact that I have never been able to tell the difference between deduction, induction, and abduction, I'll just duct, and let you parse it as you will.)

 

There is something real that circles the Earth, which we (you and me) call the moon. It has properties that manifest themselves in my brain by neurons connecting and firing in various arrangements, patterns, and sequences. These quale are independent from the moon itself. Our experience of the firing in various arrangement, patterns, and sequences of our neurons, IS what we experience, what we feel, what we think, what state our brain is in. The moon is not in our brain, a representation, an analog of it, is all we can muster. Ever.

 

You ever see the moon? Me too. How can you consider it real? All you have ever experienced is the state of your brain. My duct is that somewhere along the line, some other brain had the same quale, a similar brain state, and mentioned it to you. Your brain state and the other's brain state had a similar component that you both agreed on. "YOU SEE THAT ROUND THING TOO!"

 

The premise of qualia, in my brain being similar to the qualia in your brain is so very obviously a requirement for us to communicate about anything, to call anything objectively real, is so real, so true I need not explain it. It is a given. I do not share such quale with rocks, or trucks, or computers. But I do share them with about 4billion living humans (and have evidence that dead humans had similar qualia while they were alive) and certain of my quale I share with other mammals as well.

 

That the exact combination of qualia in my brain is different than the exact combination in your brain is also a sure thing. Your qualia are the sum total of all your experiences, everything you have seen, heard, smelled, tasted, everything you have felt, everything you have thought about, everything you have read, everybody you have met, everywhere you have been, everything you have internalized and my experiences have been different, and our focuses have been different and physical differences in our brains are sure to allow one or the other of us to process faster, make different connection, recall more or whatever. But the differences do not negate the over abundance of similarities, when it comes to our ability to internalize the external world in roughly the same fashion. And considering the very close stuctural nature of our senses and our brains, there are many qualia we have, that we have almost exactly in the same manner.

 

Stare at the center of some small colorful object for 35 seconds, and then look at a blank white sheet of paper or a white wall, and tell me the shape of the object does not appear, in complimentary color, to you, on the white field.

 

Then I will consider we do not have similar qualia.

 

Regards, TAR

 

P.S. I am rather sure you will have the same experience as everybody else with working vision.

[Edtharan]

Stare at the center of some small colorful object for 35 seconds, and then look at a blank white sheet of paper or a white wall, and tell me the shape of the object does not appear, in complimentary color, to you, on the white field.

 

Then I will consider we do not have similar qualia.

 

Regards, TAR

 

P.S. I am rather sure you will have the same experience as everybody else with working vision.

First of all, this has absolutly nothing to do with qualia or even neurons. It has to do with the actual cells in the eye that detect colour (Cone cells). These cells produce a chemical that when light of a certain frequency hits them they break down and cause an electrical change that can be detected by the cell and passed on to the neurons that connect with it.

 

These cells produce these chemicals at a finite rate, but they can become depleted of this chemical (especially in bright light, or if you look at a certain colour for a long time). Once depleted, they take time to rebuild their supply of the chemical.

 

When you stare at a coloured dot for a while, the chemical becomes depleted, then when you look at a white surface, all the colours are entering the eye, but because those cells are depleted of their chemical, when the light hits them, they don't fire and you don't see the colour that should be there. Instead (because it is white light entering) you see a mixture of the other colours (the complimentary colours).

 

This is a photo/chemical phenomena (and is a direct consequence of the physical properties of the interaction between the photons and the chemical reaction they cause) and nothing to do with qualie at all.

 

This is further evidence that you are just trying to shove any explanation into your pre-set idea, without looking at what is really going on. You are not interested in reality, you are only interested in what sounds like it might work.

 

Not quite sure, but I think you are suggesting that qualia are not physical.

Actually yes, this is exactly what I am saying: Because that is what they are defined as. they are specifically defined as a non physical phenomena. It is when philosophers have tried to make them a physical phenomena that they fail as a concept.

 

And, again it is a case of people trying to create a new explanation (which is not based on empirical observation) to explain something that already has a valid explanation (and that doesn't disprove the current one and doesn't predict anything the current one doesn't). Also, the explanation doesn't allow us to use it to make predictions about the system, so it fails in its usefulness as well.

 

(Considering that fact that I have never been able to tell the difference between deduction, induction, and abduction, I'll just duct, and let you parse it as you will.)

This might be useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

 

There is something real that circles the Earth, which we (you and me) call the moon. It has properties that manifest themselves in my brain by neurons connecting and firing in various arrangements, patterns, and sequences. These quale are independent from the moon itself. Our experience of the firing in various arrangement, patterns, and sequences of our neurons, IS what we experience, what we feel, what we think, what state our brain is in. The moon is not in our brain, a representation, an analog of it, is all we can muster. Ever.

If you redefine the word Qualia to mean anything you want, then you can make it mean anything you want. The problem with this is that if you define it to be something that is totally different to what is the accepted meaning of the word, it just create confusion.

 

Qualia are defined as being a non-physical phenomena and not representative of a given brain state.

 

If you are going to use brain states as the definition of qualie, the the problem arises that no two people have the same brains states, even when viewing the exact same event. So if you are going to try and redefine qualia as being the physician brain state of an observer, then I can say conclusively: No two people will ever have the same qualia. Which is bad for your proposal because it relies on them having the same brain states (or very similar as to be practically indistinguishable).

 

You keep using two people who share a lot on common as your proof of this, and even say that communication would be difficult (if not impossible) for people who don't have such similar brain states for a given event. The problem with this is that there are lots of people who have very different brain states (or qualie if you are going to use brain states as qulaia). People with colour blindness, people who are blind or deaf, or even people with Synesthesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia). There are a lot more people like this than you think, but we don't seem to have any problem communicating with them despite them having extremely different brain states and even qualia (as per the dictionary definition of it).

 

There is so much evidence against this initial assumption that you can not use it. The assumption is proven wrong. Which means, for your proposition, you have to restructure it so that it does not rely on this initial assumption.

 

You ever see the moon? Me too. How can you consider it real? All you have ever experienced is the state of your brain. My duct is that somewhere along the line, some other brain had the same quale, a similar brain state, and mentioned it to you. Your brain state and the other's brain state had a similar component that you both agreed on. "YOU SEE THAT ROUND THING TOO!"

Question: What is experiencing the state of the brain here?

 

This harks back to the old and disprove "Homunculus" concept of the brain, that there was a "thing", a homunculus that observed the world through your brain.

 

What this homunculus was supposed to be ranged form a "Soul" to a physical structure in the brain (like a sub organ/brain that watched the rest of it). This has been thoroughly disproven, and the line of argument you are trying to use here will only work if you invoke a homunculus as the "observer" of the brain states (but then what is the nature of this homunculus and does it have brain states or quale?).

 

The premise of qualia, in my brain being similar to the qualia in your brain is so very obviously a requirement for us to communicate about anything, to call anything objectively real, is so real, so true I need not explain it. It is a given. I do not share such quale with rocks, or trucks, or computers. But I do share them with about 4billion living humans (and have evidence that dead humans had similar qualia while they were alive) and certain of my quale I share with other mammals as well.

As I states above, there are so many different ways that people experience the world (colour blindness, deafness, blindness, Synesthesia, etc) that you can't make the statement that human "quale" are necessarily similar (so either you need to supply proof, or drop the necessity for it form your proposition) and communication is possible (I have even managed to communicate what music is like to someone who has been 100% deaf from birth). This completely disproves this statement that quale have to be similar to allow communication.

 

 

That the exact combination of qualia in my brain is different than the exact combination in your brain is also a sure thing. Your qualia are the sum total of all your experiences, everything you have seen, heard, smelled, tasted, everything you have felt, everything you have thought about, everything you have read, everybody you have met, everywhere you have been, everything you have internalized and my experiences have been different, and our focuses have been different and physical differences in our brains are sure to allow one or the other of us to process faster, make different connection, recall more or whatever. But the differences do not negate the over abundance of similarities, when it comes to our ability to internalize the external world in roughly the same fashion. And considering the very close stuctural nature of our senses and our brains, there are many qualia we have, that we have almost exactly in the same manner.

But, according to you, the quale must be similar to allow communication. However, an uncle of mine is colour blind and I manage to communicate ok with him, even about colours. It take a bit of communication to understand that his view of colours is different, but with that knowledge I can successfully communicate information about colour to him (I just change the association of the word for a particular colour I am talking about). This could be done with a very simple computer program (the search and replace function in any word process or could do it - and that would be much more than is necessary).

 

In other words, the Quale do not have to be all that similar for communication to occur. This claim is completely wrong, and so using it as an initial assumption in your proposition is invalid (if you want to be correct, in any way, about your conclusions).

 

 

It doesn't matter how right you think you should be, or how much sense these arguments make, the fact remains that there is evidence that states that your initial assumptions that you are basing your proposition on do not match with reality.

 

If we are discussion reality here, and not a fiction story, then you can no longer use these initial assumptions because they are not real (because there is evidence that states they can not be real).

 

This gives you two options:

 

1) abandon your whole proposition

 

2) rework your proposition so that it doesn't use these initial assumptions.

 

You seem to think I am arguing against your reasoning, but I am not. I am arguing that your initial assumption that you are basing your reasoning from are invalid. As these initial assumptions are invalid, it does not matter how rigorous your logic, or how much sense your arguments make. If the initial assumptions are wrong, then your conclusions are wrong.

Edited October 25, 2009 by Edtharan
spelling errors

[tar]

Edtharan,

 

Qualia are "what it is like" to experience something.

 

I am arguing exactly against there being a separate thing that experiences me. I am that thing.

 

A human being, with a fully functioning brain, senses, body, heart, and life supporting environent WILL experience qualia. I do it all the time. You do it all the time. Everybody that is alive, and everybody that ever was, knew what it was like to be them.

 

There is no soul, that can be separated from the brain, body, heart combo, and the supporting environment, and continue to have qualia of the same sort that you and I as living humans have.

 

The spirit, the pattern though, is something that can be entertained.

 

We have a lot of things, that we experience, that are not really there in any physical sense, except for their relationship to other things.

 

You know I am a proponent of emergent properties, of emergent entities.

You know I believe that everything has a mechanism, a physical reality upon which it is based.

 

Certain things, like consciousness, are not reducable to one quantum of consciousness, unless you assign some sort or flavor of consciousness to matter and energy itself. This may or may not be required.

 

What is an important distinquishing factor between a lump of random matter, and a human being, is that the human being is arranged in a human being pattern, a human being arrangement, and has a particular complex mechanism that internalizes the patterns of the world outside its skin, remembers them and uses them to its advantage. It "feels like" something to be a conscious human. We all have qualia.

 

Regards, TAR

 

P.S. I knew all that about the cones, and perception and all, that is why I gave the example. That experience feels the same to you, as it does to me, BECAUSE we have the same equipment.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Edtharan,

 

Thanks for the synethesia link. I didn't know about it.

 

Given synesthetes' extraordinary conscious experiences, researchers hope that their study will provide better understanding of consciousness and its neural correlates, meaning what the brain mechanisms that make us conscious might be. In particular, synesthesia might be relevant to the philosophical problem of qualia,[4][28][63] given that synesthetes experience extra qualia (e.g., a colored sound).

 

Interesting to me, was as I read it, I "understood" what it would be like. That I do similar things when I think/experience. Not that I associate/see colors with letters, or numbers in a clock face configuration, or the same personality in different "characters" on the page, but I make connections in more than one sense. The only example I came up with so far, in my own thinking/remembering, is that often I associate a particular thought with where I had it. For instance, I often muse on subjects while on long interstate drives, and I remember the "scene" I was looking at, where I was, when I had a particular muse. The imagining of the place on the road, brings the memory of what I was thinking about once while there, and the recall of that particular unique thought brings the spot to mind.

 

I believe these associations have a lot to do with how we think at all. Most of the synesthetes in the article had their associations with characters or sounds. Interesting to me is that symbols and sounds are what make up human language.

 

One of my philosophy professors in college told me once, that it is difficult to "think" about anything, without using language. Words, math, written notes, some sort of symbol system. Some sort of association, one sort of thing to another.

 

That we can each in whatever ways we do it, make these associations, is where I argue that our qualia is similar. You may have a different clock in mind when you think of a clock face, than when I think of a clock face, you might imagine 12 numbers in a circle and I might just have marks on mine, or you might be imagining a digital clock, and I see Big Ben, but we are both recalling a device whose purpose it is to mark time.

 

Getting back to "reading each other's minds". If you know someone well, and let's say its someone who sees purple "A"s, and you are driving along with her/him and see a huge black A on the side of the road, you know what color the huge A is to her/him, without asking.

 

Regards, TAR

[omnimutant]

Unfortunately, it's most peoples replies in threads like these that keep me from enjoying these forums as much as I'd like too.

 

So many people are so quick to just assume that there is no provable evidence for such a phenomenon. Not because they have actively searched every possible potential piece of evidence about the topic. Most likely because, in their extremely limited scope of Knowledge and inner circles, these kinds of things are an easy target, and will usually get enough support from others if they lash out trying to disprove a concept they might other wise be completely unfamiliar with. Yes like most of you I too am merely speculating on your intentions.

 

Just because you can't comprehend something doesn't make it non existent. Just because someone spent 5 minutes in a control environment trying to set up a provable test and failed does not mean it doesn't exist(sarcasm). It has been mentioned that this phenomenon has been studied for hundreds of years. Chances are, we all know our histories pretty well, that any evidence of such a thing would be treated as heresy against one religion or another and easily dismissed by the state, church, and yes scientific communities, at least up until as recently as the last say 75 years or so(and even still today it's widely considered "taboo"). So it completely boggles my mind that so many people with so much passion for trying to understand how stuff works, and theorizing on so many amazing things in life, who share the same history of discoveries being lost forever because of time, religion and governments, would turn such a blind eye so fast on such a topic.

 

I think much of the problem lies in the readers inability or even desire to understand what it is thats actually being discussed. In half of this topic people cannot even agree on what it is the other half is trying to "disprove". I think in the future on such topics the Creator should better define exactly what it is they are proposing. Saying Telepathy means about a million things to a million different people. You can't argue on a generalization and yet thats all this entire topic has been.

 

I am greatly disappointed in how many people dismiss what they consider to be "unprovable" in general. Nothing is truly provable. Proof is simply enough people being convinced over time, experimentation and social teachings that something makes sense. It's all based on perception and how many people can be convinced of that perception which make an idea generally accepted as proof. That is until someone comes along and alters perceptions the other way, proving old theories wrong because of a new condition or exception that was discovered over a long enough time frame.

 

So my point is, that it seems rather pointless to sit here and argue about how something can't exist instead of maybe trying to find out if it could or does.

 

I'm posting in this topic to convey that this sort of thing does exist in some form. Not necessarily how some movie or fortune teller has changed your perception of it. But I have often had instances of "esp" for lack of a better word and "telepathy" not so much in the "classically" stated way, but none the less it has happened. I don't know exactly why or how, but I know I have many times in my life. I've had images of future events play out exactly as foreseen and in many cases with conditions I never experienced until the incident. Places I've never been to until the innocent are exactly as I had visioned, things people have said are exactly what they said during the same set of visual experiences witnessed in the mini "visions" if you will. I have felt someones presence and communicated with very select people whom I was close to emotionally without the usual suspects of every day communication.

 

Is it repeatable? Not very often. But it has been done. Actually thats not entirely true. I have repeated immediate future visions many times in succession before. It happens at random but when it does occur I become aware of it happening and can repeat it at that time many times in a row. Some call it lucky guesses. I play dice games a lot and can often predict my opponents throw of the dice for the next 10 sometimes more throws in succession when "it" kicks in. Call it precognition or whatever you want i get that far more often then telepathy.

 

What I believe is that it's not some supernatural "power" or "gift" from the heavens or whatever. I believe it has more to do with the way we perceive this existence that we call reality and pretty much tramples on the concept of linear time. I will be glad and look forward to having future discussion about that perception very soon so long as some of you haters can just listen and try to understand before ripping every single sentence into some out of context gibberish for your own personal amusement. I'm not some mind reader who's going to solve some crime at will or read your fortune. Most of this stuff comes to me and others who really do experience it randomly, though when it does happen we can tell and are able to capitalize on it by staying in the same frame of mind for a significant duration with enough focus.

 

I think this subject is simply beyond our current understanding as human beings to really hone in on and explore scientifically to the point of some kind of accurate extremely repeatable prediction model. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Maybe we simply are not able to grasp the concepts needed to explore this properly with our very limited understanding of how things work.

 

We can only understand what were willing to accept(even if we at first don't understand it) and if you dismiss things you do not understand as not logical or possible your really limiting yourself to whats already been discovered. At that point You might as well quit while your ahead. Science is about discovery and trying understand what we don't already know. If you only stick to what you know your only exploring history.

 

Anyway sorry for my 1/2 rant 1/2 somewhat whatever the hell it was. I do love these forums but every time I visit them I'm only on for about a week before I get tired of listening to all the usually unfounded negativity.

Edited November 6, 2009 by omnimutant
For gramer and clarification also removed some ranting :)

[the tree]

any evidence of such a thing would be treated as heresy against one religion or another and easily dismissed by the state, church, and yes scientific communities, at least up until as recently as the last say 75 years or so(and even still today it's widely considered "taboo").

Or,you could read some relevant history.

So it completely boggles my mind that so many people with so much passion for trying to understand how stuff works, and theorizing on so many amazing things in life, who share the same history of discoveries being lost forever because of time, religion and governments, would turn such a blind eye so fast on such a topic.

How do you not get the difference? Some evidence being suppressed is not the same as a giant absence of evidence being acknowledged.

I am greatly disappointed in how many people dismiss what they consider to be "unprovable" in general. Nothing is truly provable. Proof is simply enough people being convinced over time, experimentation and social teachings that something makes sense....

The issue it not that it is unprovable, it is that there is no reason whatsoever to suspect that there is a single grain of truth to it and many reasons to suspect otherwise.

[HOMER-16]

While as of right now we can't prove or disprove it, you cannot just say 'well, we haven't proven it so I'll say it's false'

 

To do so would be incredibly big-headed and close minded of you.

 

We cannot absolutely say ys or no on this issue.

 

I am inclined to think that telepathy is possible but not by brain waves.

 

Here I refer to my theory posted in this section. Now if (and I mean 'if') my theory is true then that could explain this.

[walkntune]

I am inclined to think that telepathy is possible but not by brain waves.

 

I think I agree here with you! I don't think it would be a thought process as much as it would be away to communicate intuitively.

I believe it is the very nature of how animals communicate with nature.

How birds fly south or relate to magnetic field of the earth, some animals traveling thousands of miles for a particular mate.

How ants communicate and know what to do to form such a great working colony that they do.

How a mother knows her daughter is in danger with no apparent knowledge.

Here I refer to my theory posted in this section.

I did not find your theory but i was curious to read it.

 

I believe the answer might lie somewhere in intuition!

[JillSwift]

While as of right now we can't prove or disprove it, you cannot just say 'well, we haven't proven it so I'll say it's false'

Why? We (as in every human) do this all the time, with an infinite number of possible subjects.

 

To do so would be incredibly big-headed and close minded of you.

No, it would not. "Closed minded" means rejecting ideas regardless of validity. I can easily say "Telepathy is bunk" while being open to changing that opinion if real evidence comes to light.

 

We cannot absolutely say ys or no on this issue.

Which is true of everything, really. No one knows anything absolutely, even if they believe they do.

 

I am inclined to think that telepathy is possible but not by brain waves.

 

Here I refer to my theory posted in this section. Now if (and I mean 'if') my theory is true then that could explain this.

The problem isn't what you believe to be true or not true, nor is it what anyone else believes or not. The problem is evidence, or in this case, the conspicuous absence of it.

 

Any hypothesis about the mechanism behind a phenomenon that has not yet been established is by nature untestable. Ignoring the important step of establishing the existence of a phenomenon before trying to understand the mechanism of the phenomenon makes for pseudoscience.

[HOMER-16]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45616

 

Why? We (as in every human) do this all the time, with an infinite number of possible subjects.

 

Well, you could do it but it doesn't make you correct.

 

No, it would not. "Closed minded" means rejecting ideas regardless of validity. I can easily say "Telepathy is bunk" while being open to changing that opinion if real evidence comes to light.

 

What I meant by it is if you just assumed just like that and was rejecting it no matter what like you said.

 

Which is true of everything, really. No one knows anything absolutely, even if they believe they do.

 

Fair enough. I agree whole heartedly.

 

The problem isn't what you believe to be true or not true, nor is it what anyone else believes or not. The problem is evidence, or in this case, the conspicuous absence of it.

 

Any hypothesis about the mechanism behind a phenomenon that has not yet been established is by nature untestable. Ignoring the important step of establishing the existence of a phenomenon before trying to understand the mechanism of the phenomenon makes for pseudoscience.

 

Yes, and until we can find and understand those mechanisms it will remain pseudoscience. But sometimes it is better to look ahead as it were to see what the next 'step' should be. Loosely said.

[JillSwift]

Yes, and until we can find and understand those mechanisms it will remain pseudoscience. But sometimes it is better to look ahead as it were to see what the next 'step' should be. Loosely said.

Phenomenon first, mechanism second.

 

In the post you link to, you assume a phenomenon: Duality.

You offer no evidence for duality. Parsimony says if you don't need an entity and there is no evidence for the entity, discard it.

 

As you offer no evidence for human duality, all your conclusions and hypotheses of mechanism are, by definition, pseudo-scientific.

 

There's no point in looking where you next step might be if you've already lost your footing.