4 ms·

Isn't qualia defined as whatever it is that humans experience? Without getting into solipsism and p-zombies (aka "NPCs"), humans possessing qualia seems tauto

Isn't qualia defined as whatever it is that humans experience? Without getting into solipsism and p-zombies (aka "NPCs"), humans possessing qualia seems tautological.

goatlover 4y ago
It’s a technical philosophical term for sensations like color and smell, which denotes they are subjective experiences of sensory information, as opposed to objective properties out there in the world.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  Technically, its the technical philosophical term for subjective experiences generally. Any discussion about it, however, is fairly deep navel-gazing, because it excludes and cannot be distinguished by any objective, testable, material effect.
  - skissane 4y ago
    > because it excludes and cannot be distinguished by any objective, testable So, if you give people the “Mary the colour scientist” thought experiment, the vast majority of people give the answer consistent with the existence of qualia. That is something “objectively measurable”. Furthermore, I think it is important when someone asks the kind of question you are asking, to inspect what “objective” and “measurable” actually mean. Ultimately, something is “measurable” if some human has the subjective experience of performing that measurement (whether directly or indirectly). Similarly, something is “objective” if some human has the subjective experience of communicating with other humans and confirming they make the same measurement/observation/etc. To object to subjective experiences (qualia) on the ground that they are not “objective” or “measurable” is self-defeating, because “objective” and “measurable” presume the very thing being objected to.
    - jameshart 4y ago
      > something is “objective” if some human has the subjective experience of communicating with other humans and confirming they make the same measurement/observation/etc. Me and a dog both agree that steak tastes great. Me and a plant both agree that there's warmth and light that comes from the sun Me and the ocean both agree that the moon is out in the sky and goes round in a circle So... the ocean has subjective qualia relating to the moon's gravitational pull?
      - Winsaucerer 4y ago
        In what way do you and plants and you and the ocean 'agree'? I'm not sure how to make sense of these claims. I'm not even sure that you and the dog agree on this matter, but I can make more sense of that.
        jameshart 4y ago
        Just poking at the 'human' part of the definition. Because if we want to ever be able to answer a question like 'does this AI system experience qualia', we need a definition that doesn't rely on 'well, qualia are a thing humans have, so... no'
        skissane 4y ago
        When I have a social-emotional interaction with another human being, of a certain quality, that interaction produces in me the conviction that they must be really conscious, as opposed to a psychological zombie. Of course, I only personally have that kind of interaction with a tiny subset of all humans, but I generalise that conviction from those humans which provide its immediate justification, to all humanity Which means, if there was an AI with which I could have that kind of interaction, I would likely soon develop the conviction that it was also really conscious, as opposed to a psychological zombie. Existing systems (for example, ChatGPT) don't offer me the quality of social-emotional interaction necessary to develop that conviction, but maybe some future AI will. And, if an AI did create that conviction in me, I likely would generalise it – not to every AI, but certainly to any other AI which I believed was capable of interacting in the same way
anongraddebt 4y ago
My understanding is that, within the academic literature, nearly everyone accepts qualia in as much as qualia is simply the subjective character of an experience/sensation. The disagreement is over how exactly to cash that out, and whether - and to what extent - the non-physical comes into play.

Isn't qualia defined as whatever it is that humans experience? Without getting into solipsism and p-zombies (aka "NPCs"), humans possessing qualia seems tautological.

goatlover 4y ago

It’s a technical philosophical term for sensations like color and smell, which denotes they are subjective experiences of sensory information, as opposed to objective properties out there in the world.

dragonwriter 4y ago
Technically, its the technical philosophical term for subjective experiences generally. Any discussion about it, however, is fairly deep navel-gazing, because it excludes and cannot be distinguished by any objective, testable, material effect.
- skissane 4y ago
  > because it excludes and cannot be distinguished by any objective, testable So, if you give people the “Mary the colour scientist” thought experiment, the vast majority of people give the answer consistent with the existence of qualia. That is something “objectively measurable”. Furthermore, I think it is important when someone asks the kind of question you are asking, to inspect what “objective” and “measurable” actually mean. Ultimately, something is “measurable” if some human has the subjective experience of performing that measurement (whether directly or indirectly). Similarly, something is “objective” if some human has the subjective experience of communicating with other humans and confirming they make the same measurement/observation/etc. To object to subjective experiences (qualia) on the ground that they are not “objective” or “measurable” is self-defeating, because “objective” and “measurable” presume the very thing being objected to.
  - jameshart 4y ago
    > something is “objective” if some human has the subjective experience of communicating with other humans and confirming they make the same measurement/observation/etc. Me and a dog both agree that steak tastes great. Me and a plant both agree that there's warmth and light that comes from the sun Me and the ocean both agree that the moon is out in the sky and goes round in a circle So... the ocean has subjective qualia relating to the moon's gravitational pull?
    - Winsaucerer 4y ago
      In what way do you and plants and you and the ocean 'agree'? I'm not sure how to make sense of these claims. I'm not even sure that you and the dog agree on this matter, but I can make more sense of that.
      - jameshart 4y ago
        Just poking at the 'human' part of the definition. Because if we want to ever be able to answer a question like 'does this AI system experience qualia', we need a definition that doesn't rely on 'well, qualia are a thing humans have, so... no'
        skissane 4y ago
        When I have a social-emotional interaction with another human being, of a certain quality, that interaction produces in me the conviction that they must be really conscious, as opposed to a psychological zombie. Of course, I only personally have that kind of interaction with a tiny subset of all humans, but I generalise that conviction from those humans which provide its immediate justification, to all humanity Which means, if there was an AI with which I could have that kind of interaction, I would likely soon develop the conviction that it was also really conscious, as opposed to a psychological zombie. Existing systems (for example, ChatGPT) don't offer me the quality of social-emotional interaction necessary to develop that conviction, but maybe some future AI will. And, if an AI did create that conviction in me, I likely would generalise it – not to every AI, but certainly to any other AI which I believed was capable of interacting in the same way

anongraddebt 4y ago

My understanding is that, within the academic literature, nearly everyone accepts qualia in as much as qualia is simply the subjective character of an experience/sensation. The disagreement is over how exactly to cash that out, and whether - and to what extent - the non-physical comes into play.