3 ms·

I mean, the evidence is there all the time, experienced continuously. That is unless you do not have qualia?

naasking 4y ago
Perceptions taken at face value are not evidence. Evidence is an observation interpreted within a consistent body of knowledge. Our consistent body of knowledge is inconsistent with the naive perceptions of qualia. You can take the position that qualia are direct evidence and so our body of knowledge is mistaken, or you can take the position that qualia are likely deceptive and so cannot be taken as direct evidence, just like all of our other perceptions. I'm constantly amazed how many people think the former position is more plausible.
- dougmwne 4y ago
  I walk around on legs. I can’t be sure if I am moving because of the legs or through some other action. Some people who dislike the idea of legs are telling me I don’t really have legs.
  - naasking 4y ago
    If you also claim that your legs let you walk on water and sometimes even walk off a cliff without falling, then I'd agree your analogy is in the right ballpark.
    - dougmwne 4y ago
      Yes I agree there, that I’m saying my legs are magical and others are telling me they don’t exist at all.
      - naasking 4y ago
        So then we agree, you are saying your legs exist and are magical and therefore our understanding of the world must be wrong, and I am saying that our understanding of the world implies that magic doesn't exist and so you must be mistaken about the magic of your legs.
        dougmwne 4y ago
        No, I am saying the analogy is that my legs exist and may or may not be magical and therefore our understanding of the world must be incomplete because it has no explanation for legs in the first place magical or otherwise, and you are saying that our understanding of the world implies that magic doesn’t exist and so I must be mistaken about the magic of my legs and probably their existence as well.
        naasking 4y ago
        Saying "our understanding of the world is incomplete because it has no explanation for qualia" is a classic, fallacious god of the gaps argument. In fact we do have the beginnings of viable neuroscientific theories of consciousness, including qualia [1], thus showing that the claims of a hard problem were just the same old smoke and mirrors we've seen time and time again in claims to human specialness, just like with vitalism. [1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116933119 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116933119 > and you are saying that our understanding of the world implies that magic doesn’t exist and so I must be mistaken about the magic of my legs and probably their existence as well. Nah, our only disagreement is over the magic. I don't deny the perceptions of qualia, simply their special, "ineffable", "experiential" character that you implicitly conclude they must have. That's the magic that doesn't fit into our body of knowledge and that's the only "hard problem" of consciousness, a problem that doesn't really exist because it's based on erroneous assumptions, as described in the paper above. Just like placing a pencil in a glass of water gives the illusion that the water has broken the pencil, so your introspective perceptions trick you into erroneous conclusions about your awareness.
        dougmwne 4y ago
        But what exactly is the erroneous conclusion here? It clearly exists widely and many people report having it. We don’t know how it works or its mechanism. We have no idea how to create more of it outside of having babies. We have no idea if animals have it. A recently dismissed Google employee was unable to prove to himself that a chatbot didn’t have it. A physical explanation would require completely new science as science has almost no existing concept of the phenomenon.

Perceptions taken at face value are not evidence. Evidence is an observation interpreted within a consistent body of knowledge. Our consistent body of knowledge is inconsistent with the naive perceptions of qualia. You can take the position that qualia are direct evidence and so our body of knowledge is mistaken, or you can take the position that qualia are likely deceptive and so cannot be taken as direct evidence, just like all of our other perceptions. I'm constantly amazed how many people think the former position is more plausible.

dougmwne 4y ago
I walk around on legs. I can’t be sure if I am moving because of the legs or through some other action. Some people who dislike the idea of legs are telling me I don’t really have legs.
- naasking 4y ago
  If you also claim that your legs let you walk on water and sometimes even walk off a cliff without falling, then I'd agree your analogy is in the right ballpark.
  - dougmwne 4y ago
    Yes I agree there, that I’m saying my legs are magical and others are telling me they don’t exist at all.
    - naasking 4y ago
      So then we agree, you are saying your legs exist and are magical and therefore our understanding of the world must be wrong, and I am saying that our understanding of the world implies that magic doesn't exist and so you must be mistaken about the magic of your legs.
      - dougmwne 4y ago
        No, I am saying the analogy is that my legs exist and may or may not be magical and therefore our understanding of the world must be incomplete because it has no explanation for legs in the first place magical or otherwise, and you are saying that our understanding of the world implies that magic doesn’t exist and so I must be mistaken about the magic of my legs and probably their existence as well.
        naasking 4y ago
        Saying "our understanding of the world is incomplete because it has no explanation for qualia" is a classic, fallacious god of the gaps argument. In fact we do have the beginnings of viable neuroscientific theories of consciousness, including qualia [1], thus showing that the claims of a hard problem were just the same old smoke and mirrors we've seen time and time again in claims to human specialness, just like with vitalism. [1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116933119 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116933119 > and you are saying that our understanding of the world implies that magic doesn’t exist and so I must be mistaken about the magic of my legs and probably their existence as well. Nah, our only disagreement is over the magic. I don't deny the perceptions of qualia, simply their special, "ineffable", "experiential" character that you implicitly conclude they must have. That's the magic that doesn't fit into our body of knowledge and that's the only "hard problem" of consciousness, a problem that doesn't really exist because it's based on erroneous assumptions, as described in the paper above. Just like placing a pencil in a glass of water gives the illusion that the water has broken the pencil, so your introspective perceptions trick you into erroneous conclusions about your awareness.
        dougmwne 4y ago
        But what exactly is the erroneous conclusion here? It clearly exists widely and many people report having it. We don’t know how it works or its mechanism. We have no idea how to create more of it outside of having babies. We have no idea if animals have it. A recently dismissed Google employee was unable to prove to himself that a chatbot didn’t have it. A physical explanation would require completely new science as science has almost no existing concept of the phenomenon.