4 ms·

>Colors, smells, pains, etc. are not part of the mathematical or physical description, so you can't simply dismiss the problem of qualia by labelling it as dual

>Colors, smells, pains, etc. are not part of the mathematical or physical description, so you can't simply dismiss the problem of qualia by labelling it as dualism. Where do the colors, tastes, feels come from? What sort of math would result in those experiences? Predictive coding in the interoceptive and control networks of the brain, actually. Sure, it doesn't explain everything, but it pretty well dispels the intuition that makes p-zombies conceivable and explains the vast majority of the empirical and phenomenological facts to be explained.

westoncb 9y ago
> Predictive coding in the interoceptive and control networks of the brain, actually. Sure, it doesn't explain everything, but it pretty well dispels the intuition that makes p-zombies conceivable and explains the vast majority of the empirical and phenomenological facts to be explained. Could you point to something related to predictive coding and control networks explaining anything phenomenological (or give an argument)? From what I can tell the two are completely orthogonal. Edit: I should add that my suspicion is you are mistaking a system which is isomorphic to relationships between phenomenological entities with something which could account for the presence of the entities themselves. I would recommend checking out the comment here from user 'theoh' on the "relations are what matters" perspective.
goatlover 9y ago
How do you get anything other than likely correlation from "Predictive coding in the interoceptive and control networks of the brain", and what does it have to do with physics or math? At most, you've provided a biological basis for consciousness. But why would any of that result in color, pleasure, etc?
- yorwba 9y ago
  How would anybody ever get anything other than likely correlation?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - visarga 9y ago
    In order to check a correlation we test it's causal predictive power in new situations. Causation has a special property that it can be used to simulate the future, while correlation does not.
  - goatlover 9y ago
    In physics there are causal explanations, and in math there are proofs. If the best you can do is correlation, then Y isn't explained by X.
- visarga 9y ago
  > But why would any of that result in color, pleasure, etc? Because it doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists inside an agent, that is inside the world. And the agent has to achieve a goal, to maximize utility, by learning to act intelligently. This creates a complex value system for states and actions. The values are used to select our actions, and we experience them as "qualia". So colors and pleasures are just sensory experiences accompanied by their action-values. In the end it's all a game, and qualia is generated by the game. We're mistakenly searching for qualia in the brain, while it was all around us, in the game itself. The brain is but one part of it.
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  > But why would any of that result in color, pleasure, etc? Why wouldn't it? Not everyone shares your underinformed intuitions. Predictions about light are colors, predictions about reward are pleasure, etc.

westoncb 9y ago

> Predictive coding in the interoceptive and control networks of the brain, actually. Sure, it doesn't explain everything, but it pretty well dispels the intuition that makes p-zombies conceivable and explains the vast majority of the empirical and phenomenological facts to be explained. Could you point to something related to predictive coding and control networks explaining anything phenomenological (or give an argument)? From what I can tell the two are completely orthogonal. Edit: I should add that my suspicion is you are mistaking a system which is isomorphic to relationships between phenomenological entities with something which could account for the presence of the entities themselves. I would recommend checking out the comment here from user 'theoh' on the "relations are what matters" perspective.

goatlover 9y ago

How do you get anything other than likely correlation from "Predictive coding in the interoceptive and control networks of the brain", and what does it have to do with physics or math? At most, you've provided a biological basis for consciousness. But why would any of that result in color, pleasure, etc?

yorwba 9y ago
How would anybody ever get anything other than likely correlation?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- visarga 9y ago
  In order to check a correlation we test it's causal predictive power in new situations. Causation has a special property that it can be used to simulate the future, while correlation does not.
- goatlover 9y ago
  In physics there are causal explanations, and in math there are proofs. If the best you can do is correlation, then Y isn't explained by X.
visarga 9y ago
> But why would any of that result in color, pleasure, etc? Because it doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists inside an agent, that is inside the world. And the agent has to achieve a goal, to maximize utility, by learning to act intelligently. This creates a complex value system for states and actions. The values are used to select our actions, and we experience them as "qualia". So colors and pleasures are just sensory experiences accompanied by their action-values. In the end it's all a game, and qualia is generated by the game. We're mistakenly searching for qualia in the brain, while it was all around us, in the game itself. The brain is but one part of it.
eli_gottlieb 9y ago
> But why would any of that result in color, pleasure, etc? Why wouldn't it? Not everyone shares your underinformed intuitions. Predictions about light are colors, predictions about reward are pleasure, etc.