4 ms·

Related to this would be Nagel's paper, "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" We can't say what sort of echolocation sensation a bat has anymore than Mary can say what

Related to this would be Nagel's paper, "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" We can't say what sort of echolocation sensation a bat has anymore than Mary can say what a color looks like before she leaves the black and white room. We're in the same position when it comes to bird vision. We can't say what the world would look like with four primary colors. What does that fourth primary color look like? We don't have a word for it because we don't see that color. Or for that matter, what would the rest of the EM spectrum look like if we could see it all? What would a scientific theory that could answer these sorts of questions look like? Saying physicalism is false because it can't answer the questions above is not to say naturalism is false. There's no magic or supernatural stuff here. It just means our scientific description of the world lacks the subjective. There is a fundamental epistemological limit to our ability to know how to combine the two. It doesn't mean the world itself has such a division. We just can't cognate how to reconcile the two.

Khelavaster 4y ago
I'm pretty sure detailed enough differential brain imaging of bats echolocating and not in different circumstances would eventually reveal the secrets of bat echolocation processing.
- goatlover 4y ago
  And how would that processing tell us what sort of sensation that bat has when using echolocation? Do you think doing this for birds would reveal what the fourth primary color looks like? If the answer is it wouldn't look like anything (for us), then there's something science can't tell us.
tshaddox 4y ago
> There is a fundamental epistemological limit to our ability to know how to combine the two. It doesn't mean the world itself has such a division. We just can't cognate how to reconcile the two. I’m not convinced there’s any indication of a fundamental limit to our cognitive abilities. What if we just don’t know how subjective experience works in the same normal way that we’ve not known how other stuff works until we figured it out?
- goatlover 4y ago
  I don't know either, it's just that the problem seems to be hard in a fundamental way. We would have to show how something like brain processing results in subjective experience in a way that isn't just correlation. The explanation would somehow have to show how the subjective emerges. How it's determined by the physical processes. Then we could go make computers conscious.
- HEmanZ 4y ago
  You’ll end up in a category of your own if you “figure out” subjective experience. You’d be the greatest philosopher that ever lived. It’s not the same problem as figuring out how the brain works physically or how subjective experiences compare in peoples brains or observable states, but whether say our experience of seeing red is the same. Or what it’s like to be a bat. You can’t break that barrier, there is not observation into another subjective. It’s like Heisenberg Uncertainty, at a certain point we reach the unobservable and by the nature of our existence can’t know what’s beyond.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    I hope I didn’t make it sound like I think it would be some iterative invention like a better mouse trap, or some isolated Eureka! moment from someone who just thought hard for a bit. Perhaps that’s possible, but it feels unlikely. On the contrary, it would likely be a fundamental shift in our mode of thought and mode of explanation, less like huge discoveries like general relativity or quantum mechanics, and more like the Scientific Revolution or the Enlightenment.
  - temphypercube 4y ago
    You're just assuming that, though. All evidence is correlational. We observe phenomena, and build causal models. The particles move this way when near this bit of metal. Given this, what's "really" there? The magnetic field, or the magnetic potential field? I don't think there's great cause to say that this is a seperate magisterium. We just have a paucity of data compared to what future beings will have. When everyone can spin up a hundred simulated copies of their brain and trace thought-patterns in realtime, it'll seem much less mysterious.
EdwardDiego 4y ago
On an aside, I've always loved the idea of a computer game where your character's primary sense is smell. But how could you really convey it to a human, except visually? Although maybe something like Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice's audio hallucinations could be a way, whispering voices that tell you the scent blows stronger this way.
- SilasX 4y ago
  Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess does something like this, where you play as a wolf at some point that can you track in-world smells. Kind of a blunt approach though -- the smell appears with a visual indicator that is absent when you're human.
- 31337Logic 4y ago
  Points for mentioning Hellblade. ;-)
User23 4y ago
Human tetrachromats do exist, but it’s X recessive. They can differentiate some hues that others can’t.
- goatlover 4y ago
  I have heard that. Problem is they can't tell us what those hues are. I suppose they could make up new color words, but it won't tell us what those hues look like.
lynx23 4y ago
I use echolocation all the time. Granted, I can definitely not explain how a bat feels, but... I was born with 20% vision, and kept it for roughly 6 years. After that, the world officially went dark. However, my brain was quite stubborn in not accepting that. From that point on, my auditory system, in particular echolocation, took over. My internal field of vision did not change much. Echolocation, and my prior knowledge of the world, was used to build up my idea of my surroundings. At first, that built-up internal image resembled very much how I saw the world prior to going blind. However, after a few years, things started to become abstract. I lost almost all notion of clear-cut edges, and color "perception" smeared itself all over the color spectrum. These days, what I see in my minds eye doesnt really reflect what a sighted person would visualize. However, my minds eye still has the same function, it creates my surroundings in my head such that I can navigate and interact with the world.
- goatlover 4y ago
  That's very interesting. Bat neuroscience might be able to tell us whether bats use echolocation in a similar fashion as you described (they do also have ears and eyes, although many don't have color vision). If not, then probably they have an entirely different experience that humans when using echolocation.
  - Nomentatus 4y ago
    It is different - not metaphysically or entirely, but... echolocation for humans is rather long-wave (although it's experienced as vision.) You can't - I couldn't - see a door edge wise so I could walk into doors pointed right at me. But bats want it for insect location, I'm betting. Much more precise, much higher frequency.
    - lynx23 4y ago
      Sure, bats echolocation is more precise, basically due to the shorter wavelength, which is quite obvious if you think about it. However, what I was trying to hint at is that the function is likely equivalent, while the implementation is definitely more sophisticated when it comes to bats. The function is to build an internal representation of the external world.
atdixon 4y ago
> We don’t have a word for it because we don’t see that color. I think you’re missing the argument. We can easily assign words to things we know exist. That’s not the issue. When we define things (like “naturalism”) we are invoking symbols and their semantics, all the stuff Mary presumably has access to in her room. In her room, Mary already understands subjective experience, the brain mechanics behind it, etc. The realization that there is more outside of Mary’s room suggests that our conceptualizations are limited / not accurate. If that’s the agreed case how can anyone cling to a universal “naturalism” with a straight face? With Mary’s room, haven’t we already accepted that formal statements are incomplete - and therefore would be silly to call universal?
- gpderetta 4y ago
  Words don't excite the same bits of our brains as other physical experiences, so full knowledge of red through words and higher level thoughts is not enough for Mary. But assuming she has perfect knowledge of the the interaction of red wavelength with the eye and perfect knowledge of how the sensory input interacts with her brain, she could stick theoretically optimal electrodes in exactly the right places (or specifically tailored psychedelic drugs) and virtually experience and learn about red before actually seeing it.
_2uwr 4y ago
> We can't say what sort of echolocation sensation a bat has anymore than Mary can say what a color looks like before she leaves the black and white room. Actually we can. For example, there are reports of the older generation dreaming in black and white due to the black and white tv [1], in much the same way, the days event can shape the dreams someone has. On the physical side, because science is now showing how light and other environmental stimuli affect chemical processes in the body and brain [2,3,4], science is not only discovering the ability to emit and measure, but then find instances in nature where its being used. >what would the rest of the EM spectrum look like if we could see it all Ultraviolent is a good example, the lens of the eye tends to block this, but people with no lens due to early cataract operations which just removed the lens, and anomalous lens have reported seeing UV light. [5,6] >What would a scientific theory that could answer these sorts of questions look like? So it depends on whether experts take reports seriously or not, experts applying real scientific conjecture, and/or whether funding and permission can be obtained. We can all detect Infrared (heat) through our skin, but we cant really see it. On another point, which perhaps best describes and exemplifies the boiling frog syndrome is the fact that UV destroys folates, yet we dont really detect as it takes place because its taking place over a larger perceptible window of time [7], at best those suffering from SAD or depression may feel better after a session in the tanning salon or by the end of the tanning session depending on how much UVA light the flo tubes are chucking out. It also highlights that some vegetables like Brussel Sprouts a vegetable high in folates may be harmful to your mental health during winter months, especially considering its a stable for Xmas dinners. But back to the point of what would a scientific theory look like, we already see that ad-hoc practice in action in the scientific world. Generate, Detect, Search for examples, Elucidate, Pontificate. Scientific knowledge is not really performed in a scientific manner because it relies on the ad-hoc, if not, chaotic ability to detect phenomena, a known stumbling block, hindered in part by capitalism of all things and we all know no one person has all the ideas, and we know that some test equipment is massively expensive and in the past didnt exist. So the low hanging fruit of being able to devise tests using our own senses and imagination, think Newton's gravity theory when hit on the head by an apple, or even theory's from ancient Greeks demonstrates that in practice, scientific discovery has been extremely unscientific despite the protestations of its adherents. >There's no magic or supernatural stuff here. It just means our scientific description of the world lacks the subjective. There is a fundamental epistemological limit to our ability to know how to combine the two. It doesn't mean the world itself has such a division. We just can't cognate how to reconcile the two. I'm sure you are aware of the internet and search engines [8,9], if not perhaps films giving tantalizing inspiration and hope [10] of possibility's and insights into how to cognate and reconcile the current and future time beyond the realms of religions which constantly harp back to the past. Not bad for an undergraduate of https://rb.gy/xhuwo9 https://rb.gy/xhuwo9 if I might say so, whilst I might have spent time reading a dictionary, in order to create obedience to authority with the use of uncommon words from the vernacular of the commons, I'm not engaging in it here consciously, because the military have taught me some highly efficient means to get my message across which isn't compatible with those tenets from the law and order fraternity. [1] https://rb.gy/xilvko https://rb.gy/xilvko [2] https://rb.gy/grprda https://rb.gy/grprda [3] https://rb.gy/ahwngn https://rb.gy/ahwngn [4] https://rb.gy/j2dibr https://rb.gy/j2dibr [5] https://rb.gy/7rpejx https://rb.gy/7rpejx [6] https://rb.gy/vwgr1o https://rb.gy/vwgr1o [7] https://rb.gy/yhxhlm https://rb.gy/yhxhlm [8] https://rb.gy/s9wdn6 https://rb.gy/s9wdn6 [9] https://rb.gy/5kte4d https://rb.gy/5kte4d [10]https://rb.gy/hzmop7 https://rb.gy/hzmop7
mannykannot 4y ago
> It just means our scientific description of the world lacks the subjective. Unless we have an independent reason to think that this thought experiment applies only to scientific knowledge, then it applies equally to all fields of propositional knowledge. We can - and do - speak about subjective experiences by assuming that other people have them, and they are somewhat like ours (while recognizing that there are differences: some people are blind, or color-blind, or have synesthesic responses to color), but we cannot communicate what it is like to have those experiences to other people. That this is so is readily reconciled with materialism: firstly, because we cannot experience what it is like for other people to experience color, we cannot develop a common vocabulary for communicating it; secondly, even if we had the vocabulary, our conscious mind does not have the ability to bring about the necessary changes in our brain through willpower alone.

Khelavaster 4y ago

I'm pretty sure detailed enough differential brain imaging of bats echolocating and not in different circumstances would eventually reveal the secrets of bat echolocation processing.

goatlover 4y ago
And how would that processing tell us what sort of sensation that bat has when using echolocation? Do you think doing this for birds would reveal what the fourth primary color looks like? If the answer is it wouldn't look like anything (for us), then there's something science can't tell us.

tshaddox 4y ago

> There is a fundamental epistemological limit to our ability to know how to combine the two. It doesn't mean the world itself has such a division. We just can't cognate how to reconcile the two. I’m not convinced there’s any indication of a fundamental limit to our cognitive abilities. What if we just don’t know how subjective experience works in the same normal way that we’ve not known how other stuff works until we figured it out?

goatlover 4y ago
I don't know either, it's just that the problem seems to be hard in a fundamental way. We would have to show how something like brain processing results in subjective experience in a way that isn't just correlation. The explanation would somehow have to show how the subjective emerges. How it's determined by the physical processes. Then we could go make computers conscious.
HEmanZ 4y ago
You’ll end up in a category of your own if you “figure out” subjective experience. You’d be the greatest philosopher that ever lived. It’s not the same problem as figuring out how the brain works physically or how subjective experiences compare in peoples brains or observable states, but whether say our experience of seeing red is the same. Or what it’s like to be a bat. You can’t break that barrier, there is not observation into another subjective. It’s like Heisenberg Uncertainty, at a certain point we reach the unobservable and by the nature of our existence can’t know what’s beyond.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  I hope I didn’t make it sound like I think it would be some iterative invention like a better mouse trap, or some isolated Eureka! moment from someone who just thought hard for a bit. Perhaps that’s possible, but it feels unlikely. On the contrary, it would likely be a fundamental shift in our mode of thought and mode of explanation, less like huge discoveries like general relativity or quantum mechanics, and more like the Scientific Revolution or the Enlightenment.
- temphypercube 4y ago
  You're just assuming that, though. All evidence is correlational. We observe phenomena, and build causal models. The particles move this way when near this bit of metal. Given this, what's "really" there? The magnetic field, or the magnetic potential field? I don't think there's great cause to say that this is a seperate magisterium. We just have a paucity of data compared to what future beings will have. When everyone can spin up a hundred simulated copies of their brain and trace thought-patterns in realtime, it'll seem much less mysterious.

EdwardDiego 4y ago

On an aside, I've always loved the idea of a computer game where your character's primary sense is smell. But how could you really convey it to a human, except visually? Although maybe something like Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice's audio hallucinations could be a way, whispering voices that tell you the scent blows stronger this way.

SilasX 4y ago
Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess does something like this, where you play as a wolf at some point that can you track in-world smells. Kind of a blunt approach though -- the smell appears with a visual indicator that is absent when you're human.
31337Logic 4y ago
Points for mentioning Hellblade. ;-)

User23 4y ago

Human tetrachromats do exist, but it’s X recessive. They can differentiate some hues that others can’t.

goatlover 4y ago
I have heard that. Problem is they can't tell us what those hues are. I suppose they could make up new color words, but it won't tell us what those hues look like.

lynx23 4y ago

I use echolocation all the time. Granted, I can definitely not explain how a bat feels, but... I was born with 20% vision, and kept it for roughly 6 years. After that, the world officially went dark. However, my brain was quite stubborn in not accepting that. From that point on, my auditory system, in particular echolocation, took over. My internal field of vision did not change much. Echolocation, and my prior knowledge of the world, was used to build up my idea of my surroundings. At first, that built-up internal image resembled very much how I saw the world prior to going blind. However, after a few years, things started to become abstract. I lost almost all notion of clear-cut edges, and color "perception" smeared itself all over the color spectrum. These days, what I see in my minds eye doesnt really reflect what a sighted person would visualize. However, my minds eye still has the same function, it creates my surroundings in my head such that I can navigate and interact with the world.

goatlover 4y ago
That's very interesting. Bat neuroscience might be able to tell us whether bats use echolocation in a similar fashion as you described (they do also have ears and eyes, although many don't have color vision). If not, then probably they have an entirely different experience that humans when using echolocation.
- Nomentatus 4y ago
  It is different - not metaphysically or entirely, but... echolocation for humans is rather long-wave (although it's experienced as vision.) You can't - I couldn't - see a door edge wise so I could walk into doors pointed right at me. But bats want it for insect location, I'm betting. Much more precise, much higher frequency.
  - lynx23 4y ago
    Sure, bats echolocation is more precise, basically due to the shorter wavelength, which is quite obvious if you think about it. However, what I was trying to hint at is that the function is likely equivalent, while the implementation is definitely more sophisticated when it comes to bats. The function is to build an internal representation of the external world.

atdixon 4y ago

> We don’t have a word for it because we don’t see that color. I think you’re missing the argument. We can easily assign words to things we know exist. That’s not the issue. When we define things (like “naturalism”) we are invoking symbols and their semantics, all the stuff Mary presumably has access to in her room. In her room, Mary already understands subjective experience, the brain mechanics behind it, etc. The realization that there is more outside of Mary’s room suggests that our conceptualizations are limited / not accurate. If that’s the agreed case how can anyone cling to a universal “naturalism” with a straight face? With Mary’s room, haven’t we already accepted that formal statements are incomplete - and therefore would be silly to call universal?

gpderetta 4y ago
Words don't excite the same bits of our brains as other physical experiences, so full knowledge of red through words and higher level thoughts is not enough for Mary. But assuming she has perfect knowledge of the the interaction of red wavelength with the eye and perfect knowledge of how the sensory input interacts with her brain, she could stick theoretically optimal electrodes in exactly the right places (or specifically tailored psychedelic drugs) and virtually experience and learn about red before actually seeing it.

_2uwr 4y ago

> We can't say what sort of echolocation sensation a bat has anymore than Mary can say what a color looks like before she leaves the black and white room. Actually we can. For example, there are reports of the older generation dreaming in black and white due to the black and white tv [1], in much the same way, the days event can shape the dreams someone has. On the physical side, because science is now showing how light and other environmental stimuli affect chemical processes in the body and brain [2,3,4], science is not only discovering the ability to emit and measure, but then find instances in nature where its being used. >what would the rest of the EM spectrum look like if we could see it all Ultraviolent is a good example, the lens of the eye tends to block this, but people with no lens due to early cataract operations which just removed the lens, and anomalous lens have reported seeing UV light. [5,6] >What would a scientific theory that could answer these sorts of questions look like? So it depends on whether experts take reports seriously or not, experts applying real scientific conjecture, and/or whether funding and permission can be obtained. We can all detect Infrared (heat) through our skin, but we cant really see it. On another point, which perhaps best describes and exemplifies the boiling frog syndrome is the fact that UV destroys folates, yet we dont really detect as it takes place because its taking place over a larger perceptible window of time [7], at best those suffering from SAD or depression may feel better after a session in the tanning salon or by the end of the tanning session depending on how much UVA light the flo tubes are chucking out. It also highlights that some vegetables like Brussel Sprouts a vegetable high in folates may be harmful to your mental health during winter months, especially considering its a stable for Xmas dinners. But back to the point of what would a scientific theory look like, we already see that ad-hoc practice in action in the scientific world. Generate, Detect, Search for examples, Elucidate, Pontificate. Scientific knowledge is not really performed in a scientific manner because it relies on the ad-hoc, if not, chaotic ability to detect phenomena, a known stumbling block, hindered in part by capitalism of all things and we all know no one person has all the ideas, and we know that some test equipment is massively expensive and in the past didnt exist. So the low hanging fruit of being able to devise tests using our own senses and imagination, think Newton's gravity theory when hit on the head by an apple, or even theory's from ancient Greeks demonstrates that in practice, scientific discovery has been extremely unscientific despite the protestations of its adherents. >There's no magic or supernatural stuff here. It just means our scientific description of the world lacks the subjective. There is a fundamental epistemological limit to our ability to know how to combine the two. It doesn't mean the world itself has such a division. We just can't cognate how to reconcile the two. I'm sure you are aware of the internet and search engines [8,9], if not perhaps films giving tantalizing inspiration and hope [10] of possibility's and insights into how to cognate and reconcile the current and future time beyond the realms of religions which constantly harp back to the past. Not bad for an undergraduate of https://rb.gy/xhuwo9 https://rb.gy/xhuwo9 if I might say so, whilst I might have spent time reading a dictionary, in order to create obedience to authority with the use of uncommon words from the vernacular of the commons, I'm not engaging in it here consciously, because the military have taught me some highly efficient means to get my message across which isn't compatible with those tenets from the law and order fraternity. [1] https://rb.gy/xilvko https://rb.gy/xilvko [2] https://rb.gy/grprda https://rb.gy/grprda [3] https://rb.gy/ahwngn https://rb.gy/ahwngn [4] https://rb.gy/j2dibr https://rb.gy/j2dibr [5] https://rb.gy/7rpejx https://rb.gy/7rpejx [6] https://rb.gy/vwgr1o https://rb.gy/vwgr1o [7] https://rb.gy/yhxhlm https://rb.gy/yhxhlm [8] https://rb.gy/s9wdn6 https://rb.gy/s9wdn6 [9] https://rb.gy/5kte4d https://rb.gy/5kte4d [10]https://rb.gy/hzmop7 https://rb.gy/hzmop7

mannykannot 4y ago

> It just means our scientific description of the world lacks the subjective. Unless we have an independent reason to think that this thought experiment applies only to scientific knowledge, then it applies equally to all fields of propositional knowledge. We can - and do - speak about subjective experiences by assuming that other people have them, and they are somewhat like ours (while recognizing that there are differences: some people are blind, or color-blind, or have synesthesic responses to color), but we cannot communicate what it is like to have those experiences to other people. That this is so is readily reconciled with materialism: firstly, because we cannot experience what it is like for other people to experience color, we cannot develop a common vocabulary for communicating it; secondly, even if we had the vocabulary, our conscious mind does not have the ability to bring about the necessary changes in our brain through willpower alone.