13 ms·

> The issue is that the mind is by nature subjective and wholly private, inaccessible to outside observers. Not by nature, it's not. Unless you define it to ha

by KK7NIL 2y ago

> The issue is that the mind is by nature subjective and wholly private, inaccessible to outside observers. Not by nature, it's not. Unless you define it to have some immeasurable spiritual quality to it which is obviously not experimentally discoverable and so of little use discussing here. > This is where the pillar of quantifiability breaks down, and barring advances in techniques for inspecting the brain with greater spatial and temporal resolution it's hard to see how one can quantify what cannot be directly observed. Pretty much every experiment has a massive amount of relevant states which we cannot quantify. There's a whole lot of quarks in 1 kg of steel but we don't need to know all of their states to measure macro quantities like its temperature and strength. The mind has proven very reluctant to this sort of useful and measurable macro properties. It's a typical case of a chaotic system. Perhaps innovations in the modeling of such complex systems (not too different from the advancements we're seeing in ML) will be the key to better insights into the mind.

ryandv 2y ago
> Not by nature, it's not. Unless you define it to have some immeasurable spiritual quality to it which is obviously not experimentally discoverable and so of little use discussing here. There is no need to bring in "spirituality" (at least, as commonly and colloquially understood) or "souls" into the picture - see for instance qualia, whose existence is self-evident, and yet are also not amenable to examination by external observers. Irrespective of how much you can pick and probe at the brain and measure wavelengths of light, there is "something it is like" to actually experience the phenomenon of "red", and this experience itself is not readily accessible to objective/quantitative methods. > It's a typical case of a chaotic system. Perhaps innovations in the modeling of such complex systems (not too different from the advancements we're seeing in ML) will be the key to better insights into the mind. I could be convinced that minds are ultimately emergent phenomena of plain physical and mechanical processes which are too frighteningly complicated for us to analyze with contemporary methods.
- KK7NIL 2y ago
  > is not readily accessible to objective/quantitative methods. Just because the mind is not readily quantifiable with current technology doesn't mean that it's subjective "by nature". > for instance qualia, whose existence is self-evident, No, it isn't and I see no way to test for "qualia" so, applying Newton's flaming laser sword, it's not worthy of debate. It's a very dangerous thing to draw conclusions about empirical phenomenon from metaphysics. I suggest you stick to the scientific method when trying to understand the empirical world, it has been far more successful than philosophical rambling.
  - ryandv 2y ago
    > No, it isn't and I see no way to test for "qualia" You are verifying the existence of qualia every instant of your existence. It's the most immediately apparent empirical fact conceivable, since it is sensory experience itself, and you are testing its presence by the mere fact of being alive (philosophical zombies [0] notwithstanding). > Before she left her room, she only knew the objective, physical basis of those subjective qualities, their causes and effects, and various relations of similarity and difference. She had no knowledge of the subjective qualities in themselves. [0] I suggest you confirm the definitions and senses of terms you criticize before being so dismissive of them. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/#Irreducible https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/#Irreducible
    - altruios 2y ago
      The experience of qualia doesn't define any test. By what metrics would we even test it against? Are qualia orderable in any way? Do they have weight, a size, or substance? Do processes of material 'exist' physically in any meaningful sense? We have not devised a test for others' qualia, and the only evidence we have of qualia is our own experience, which is a model of objective reality and not reality itself. Bringing up philosophical zombies: we can't know if everyone inhabits their own universe, independent of each other, filled with zombie replicas. From anyone's perspective: that scenario would be 100% indistinguishable from what Occom's razor suggests. It therefore follows the qualia do not exert any sort of physical presence. There are nonphysical things that we consider to exist. Numbers being the prime example (har de har har). Numbers do not physically exist, but are a property we impose on various groups (of which we distinguish in our own mind). Similar processes like experience do not 'physically exist' but is a property of physical existence (of which, we politely assume of other people to possess, and not call them zombies).

by KK7NIL 2y ago

ryandv 2y ago

> Not by nature, it's not. Unless you define it to have some immeasurable spiritual quality to it which is obviously not experimentally discoverable and so of little use discussing here. There is no need to bring in "spirituality" (at least, as commonly and colloquially understood) or "souls" into the picture - see for instance qualia, whose existence is self-evident, and yet are also not amenable to examination by external observers. Irrespective of how much you can pick and probe at the brain and measure wavelengths of light, there is "something it is like" to actually experience the phenomenon of "red", and this experience itself is not readily accessible to objective/quantitative methods. > It's a typical case of a chaotic system. Perhaps innovations in the modeling of such complex systems (not too different from the advancements we're seeing in ML) will be the key to better insights into the mind. I could be convinced that minds are ultimately emergent phenomena of plain physical and mechanical processes which are too frighteningly complicated for us to analyze with contemporary methods.

KK7NIL 2y ago
> is not readily accessible to objective/quantitative methods. Just because the mind is not readily quantifiable with current technology doesn't mean that it's subjective "by nature". > for instance qualia, whose existence is self-evident, No, it isn't and I see no way to test for "qualia" so, applying Newton's flaming laser sword, it's not worthy of debate. It's a very dangerous thing to draw conclusions about empirical phenomenon from metaphysics. I suggest you stick to the scientific method when trying to understand the empirical world, it has been far more successful than philosophical rambling.
- ryandv 2y ago
  > No, it isn't and I see no way to test for "qualia" You are verifying the existence of qualia every instant of your existence. It's the most immediately apparent empirical fact conceivable, since it is sensory experience itself, and you are testing its presence by the mere fact of being alive (philosophical zombies [0] notwithstanding). > Before she left her room, she only knew the objective, physical basis of those subjective qualities, their causes and effects, and various relations of similarity and difference. She had no knowledge of the subjective qualities in themselves. [0] I suggest you confirm the definitions and senses of terms you criticize before being so dismissive of them. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/#Irreducible https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/#Irreducible
  - altruios 2y ago
    The experience of qualia doesn't define any test. By what metrics would we even test it against? Are qualia orderable in any way? Do they have weight, a size, or substance? Do processes of material 'exist' physically in any meaningful sense? We have not devised a test for others' qualia, and the only evidence we have of qualia is our own experience, which is a model of objective reality and not reality itself. Bringing up philosophical zombies: we can't know if everyone inhabits their own universe, independent of each other, filled with zombie replicas. From anyone's perspective: that scenario would be 100% indistinguishable from what Occom's razor suggests. It therefore follows the qualia do not exert any sort of physical presence. There are nonphysical things that we consider to exist. Numbers being the prime example (har de har har). Numbers do not physically exist, but are a property we impose on various groups (of which we distinguish in our own mind). Similar processes like experience do not 'physically exist' but is a property of physical existence (of which, we politely assume of other people to possess, and not call them zombies).