4 ms·
> I find the classical argument with color qualia very convincing (in fact, I thought about it before even knowing what qualia were...). Nothing you can find ou
by the8472 5y ago
> I find the classical argument with color qualia very convincing (in fact, I thought about it before even knowing what qualia were...). Nothing you can find out about wavelengths, cones, rods, neurons and so on will tell you why you see red the specific way you do, and whether my perception of red corresponds to yours or my "red" is actually your "green".
Red being green makes no sense. Let's simplify a bit and say you have a neuron for hearing the word "red", one for the visual stimuli "red" and then a sensory fusion/abstract concept of red. Several layers up you'll also have one for a "stop sign" (which also takes inputs like octagon shapes and some white letters). There are many other, more distant associations of course, we have many neurons after all.
The spoken words, physical wavelengths and stop sign design are more or less physically or socially fixed. If you magically swapped some red and green neurons then those physical stimuli wouldn't change. The brain would be forced to rewire all the associations until it arrived at the original connections again. Or it would suffer from observable mispredictions such as being more likely to respond to a green rather than a red stop sign.
Why would there be a free-floating "qualia green" neuron connected to "visual red" that is yet somehow disconnected from "physical green" and why wouldn't it update once it became miswired?
- Al-Khwarizmi 5y agoSuppose that I see red the way you see green. Then, when I see a stop sign or a fire extinguisher, I'm seeing the color that you would call "green". But of course, I have been told since birth that fire extinguishers, stop signs, etc. are red, so I would naturally call that color red. And in the same way, if I see green the way you see red, when I look at grass I would be perceiving the same color that you see when you look at a stop sign. But I would call it green, because everyone knows grass is green, what else would I call it? There would be no disagreement between us about what objects are red, no way to tell that we see them differently, and no real-world consequences that would force to rewire any neurons, because our ways of perceiving the world would both be coherent and equally valid.
- mopierotti 5y agoBy that sense, if qualia have no discernible impact on any part of the system, in what sense do they exist? One can take this thought further. Red vs green light have real physical properties that affect one's subjective experience of them. For example different colors' physical properties change the way that they are perceived in low light conditions, the way they are perceived when placed next to other colors, etc. So at the end of the day even if hypothetically one person's qualia for red is swapped for green, you end up with a green that acts an awful lot like a red for all intents and purposes in the brain. Edit: So my personal hunch is that qualia can't be meaningfully said to exist.
- civilized 5y ago> Suppose that I see red the way you see green. Then, when I see a stop sign or a fire extinguisher, I'm seeing the color that you would call "green". Are you sure it is possible to pluck the color I'm seeing out of my head, and the color you're seeing out of your head, and compare them side-by-side, like we could compare two different colors of paint on a piece of paper? I'm not so sure about that. It seems to depend a lot on what phenomenon "how you see a color" actually refers to. If "how you see a color" refers to the neural patterns excited by light of the relevant wavelengths, and you and I have the same neural patterns, then we see the color the same way. There is no metaphysical layer on top that can make one of those experiences green and the other red.