3 ms·

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 ha

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.

naasking 4y ago
> But what exactly is the erroneous conclusion here? [...] A physical explanation would require completely new science as science has almost no existing concept of the phenomenon. That is the erroneous conclusion. "Qualia", whatever they are, fits squarely into physicalism and there exists literally no evidence that anything more is required. The paper I linked is proof that qualia can be accounted for within science as it exists. Again, you're asserting a god of the gaps. > It clearly exists widely and many people report having it. People report perceiving phenomenal experience in the same way that they report seeing water breaking pencils: https://scienceathomekids.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/IMG_9251-795x596.jpg https://scienceathomekids.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/IMG... That doesn't mean that water actually breaks pencils. The meaning of any observation is always interpreted within a consistent body of knowledge. The problem is that people really want to take the perception of their experience as a direct observation of reality that doesn't need to go through that interpretation step, and that's simply incorrect.