4 ms·

Ah, so we weren't talking past each other. You actually do argue that the existence of qualia is an illusion. I would argue that qualia are in fact the only thi

Ah, so we weren't talking past each other. You actually do argue that the existence of qualia is an illusion. I would argue that qualia are in fact the only thing we can be certain does exist. I won't though, because now that you've brought us back into thought-terminating cliche territory, there's little point. > Dennett formed his position after studying neuroscience extensively, so I urge everyone to take it more seriously. I prefer reason over credentialism, personally. All the advanced degrees and study in the world can't make a logically incoherent position correct. The other problem with arguments from authority is that one can always find people with equal or greater credentials who take the opposing view. One of Dennett's better known opponents, for example: > [1] In 1993, Chalmers received his PhD in philosophy and cognitive science from Indiana University Bloomington under Douglas Hofstadter, writing a doctoral thesis entitled Toward a Theory of Consciousness. He was a postdoctoral fellow in the Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology program directed by Andy Clark at Washington University in St. Louis from 1993 to 1995. I assume this means you will give equal weight to his point of view. Otherwise we will be forced to acknowledge that you agree with Dennett not because he's well studied, but because he agrees with you. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers

naasking 2y ago
> I would argue that qualia are in fact the only thing we can be certain does exist. I won't though, because now that you've brought us back into thought-terminating cliche territory, there's little point. As I said, there's nothing thought-terminating about eliminative materialism, and I provided a link demonstrating active work in neuroscience to account for consciousness based on that premise. If it were thought-terminating, why are people developing more thoughts based on it? The only thoughts that are terminated are the attribution of mystical and non-scientific properties to consciousness, which is exactly what you'd expect from actual science. > I assume this means you will give equal weight to his point of view. I have but ultimately didn't find his position persuasive. What I wouldn't do is dismiss his entire position as a thought-terminating cliche though, or assume a deep thinker like Dennett didn't consider an objection as trivial as all of our knowledge being built from qualitative experience. You started this thread by stating that you've never understood the argument behind eliminative materialism, and with the way you've described it so far, I suggest it's because you haven't given it a serious effort.
- roarcher 2y ago
  I read your link. To borrow your phrase, I didn't find it persuasive. The paper promises in several places to address the issue of qualia, but never quite gets around to it. Instead it plays the standard linguistic trick that I hear so often: The things we perceive are illusory (though the paper shies away from using that specific word), therefore qualia are an illusion. Once again, this conflates the content of qualia with the existence of qualia. I find it bizarre that so much energy is devoted to arguing that the content of consciousness is inaccurate, when I've never met a single person who thinks otherwise. Even children understand that their minds can conjure up things that don't exist, and can easily be made to understand that even their day-to-day perceptions are inaccurate. But the vigor with which this argument is pushed makes sense when you realize that the actual goal is to use the ambiguity of the claim "qualia aren't real" (which may refer to either content or existence) to appear to have proven that qualia do not exist while only having to do the work of proving that they are not accurate. Frankly, I find these conversations immensely frustrating for this exact reason. I go back and forth with someone on the only real issue, which is the existence of qualia. They talk in circles and use this semantic sleight of hand to claim that qualia don't even exist and therefore require no explanation, even as they experience them at that exact moment. When I insist on the issue, they claim that I need to try harder to understand their position, even as they actively avoid honestly engaging with my own. Occasionally I am gullible enough to think "you know, maybe there really is something I just don't get" and I cave in and read their proposed literature, only to be met with the same linguistic trickery. This is why I use the phrase "thought-terminating cliche". This entire line of argument doesn't even attempt to answer the real question. It makes a big show out of beating a different but similar-sounding question to death, then quickly dodges around the real one while you're dazzled and hopes you don't notice. And this "explanation" is always bookended with a smug "consciousness is just an illusion (you non-materialist simpleton)". I expect no less going forward, so this conversation has outlived its productivity. Feel free to have the last word if you like.
  - naasking 2y ago
    > They talk in circles and use this semantic sleight of hand to claim that qualia don't even exist and therefore require no explanation, even as they experience them at that exact moment. Let's flip the script then: demonstrate that qualia are real if you think it's so obvious. Every thought experiment that purports to show something meaningful has been fatally flawed and ends up proving nothing. Do you not see how the position that qualia really exist is the one on shaky empirical ground and playing semantic games trying to claim that something non-demonstrable exists? It's Russell's teapot. I literally have no reason to accept your claim that qualia are self-evident, and further, considering the remarkable success of materialist science and that the only "evidence" that qualia exist is a subjective perception from an apparatus that is known to have fatal perceptual flaws, how can you expect anyone who's given this serious thought to take you seriously? I agree the link I gave is not the full story, I said it was the start. It establishes the foundation tackling subjective awareness first, and will be building to qualia in subsequent work. It will take a few decades to root out this mystical nonsense around consciousness, but it will happen just like elan vital before it. Edit: to be clear, I don't think any eliminativist will seriously claim that qualia don't require any explanation. We still need to understand how the illusion works and so why we come to believe we have qualia, we just don't need to explain what qualia are because that's already done by classifying them as an illusion. It's like you're insisting that a psychologist explain what demonic possession is when we now know it's mental illness. We don't need to explain demonic possession, we need to explain mental illness. Similarly, we don't need to explain what qualia are, because they don't exist, but we do need to explain the mechanics of the brain that lead to perceptual illusions of various kinds, like the perception of subjective experience. But, and this is the key, this will happen in the normal course of explaining how the brain works. Nothing special or extra needs to be done. The hard problem is reduced to the easy problem. The paper I linked is a starting point on that path.

naasking 2y ago

> I would argue that qualia are in fact the only thing we can be certain does exist. I won't though, because now that you've brought us back into thought-terminating cliche territory, there's little point. As I said, there's nothing thought-terminating about eliminative materialism, and I provided a link demonstrating active work in neuroscience to account for consciousness based on that premise. If it were thought-terminating, why are people developing more thoughts based on it? The only thoughts that are terminated are the attribution of mystical and non-scientific properties to consciousness, which is exactly what you'd expect from actual science. > I assume this means you will give equal weight to his point of view. I have but ultimately didn't find his position persuasive. What I wouldn't do is dismiss his entire position as a thought-terminating cliche though, or assume a deep thinker like Dennett didn't consider an objection as trivial as all of our knowledge being built from qualitative experience. You started this thread by stating that you've never understood the argument behind eliminative materialism, and with the way you've described it so far, I suggest it's because you haven't given it a serious effort.

roarcher 2y ago
I read your link. To borrow your phrase, I didn't find it persuasive. The paper promises in several places to address the issue of qualia, but never quite gets around to it. Instead it plays the standard linguistic trick that I hear so often: The things we perceive are illusory (though the paper shies away from using that specific word), therefore qualia are an illusion. Once again, this conflates the content of qualia with the existence of qualia. I find it bizarre that so much energy is devoted to arguing that the content of consciousness is inaccurate, when I've never met a single person who thinks otherwise. Even children understand that their minds can conjure up things that don't exist, and can easily be made to understand that even their day-to-day perceptions are inaccurate. But the vigor with which this argument is pushed makes sense when you realize that the actual goal is to use the ambiguity of the claim "qualia aren't real" (which may refer to either content or existence) to appear to have proven that qualia do not exist while only having to do the work of proving that they are not accurate. Frankly, I find these conversations immensely frustrating for this exact reason. I go back and forth with someone on the only real issue, which is the existence of qualia. They talk in circles and use this semantic sleight of hand to claim that qualia don't even exist and therefore require no explanation, even as they experience them at that exact moment. When I insist on the issue, they claim that I need to try harder to understand their position, even as they actively avoid honestly engaging with my own. Occasionally I am gullible enough to think "you know, maybe there really is something I just don't get" and I cave in and read their proposed literature, only to be met with the same linguistic trickery. This is why I use the phrase "thought-terminating cliche". This entire line of argument doesn't even attempt to answer the real question. It makes a big show out of beating a different but similar-sounding question to death, then quickly dodges around the real one while you're dazzled and hopes you don't notice. And this "explanation" is always bookended with a smug "consciousness is just an illusion (you non-materialist simpleton)". I expect no less going forward, so this conversation has outlived its productivity. Feel free to have the last word if you like.
- naasking 2y ago
  > They talk in circles and use this semantic sleight of hand to claim that qualia don't even exist and therefore require no explanation, even as they experience them at that exact moment. Let's flip the script then: demonstrate that qualia are real if you think it's so obvious. Every thought experiment that purports to show something meaningful has been fatally flawed and ends up proving nothing. Do you not see how the position that qualia really exist is the one on shaky empirical ground and playing semantic games trying to claim that something non-demonstrable exists? It's Russell's teapot. I literally have no reason to accept your claim that qualia are self-evident, and further, considering the remarkable success of materialist science and that the only "evidence" that qualia exist is a subjective perception from an apparatus that is known to have fatal perceptual flaws, how can you expect anyone who's given this serious thought to take you seriously? I agree the link I gave is not the full story, I said it was the start. It establishes the foundation tackling subjective awareness first, and will be building to qualia in subsequent work. It will take a few decades to root out this mystical nonsense around consciousness, but it will happen just like elan vital before it. Edit: to be clear, I don't think any eliminativist will seriously claim that qualia don't require any explanation. We still need to understand how the illusion works and so why we come to believe we have qualia, we just don't need to explain what qualia are because that's already done by classifying them as an illusion. It's like you're insisting that a psychologist explain what demonic possession is when we now know it's mental illness. We don't need to explain demonic possession, we need to explain mental illness. Similarly, we don't need to explain what qualia are, because they don't exist, but we do need to explain the mechanics of the brain that lead to perceptual illusions of various kinds, like the perception of subjective experience. But, and this is the key, this will happen in the normal course of explaining how the brain works. Nothing special or extra needs to be done. The hard problem is reduced to the easy problem. The paper I linked is a starting point on that path.