I'm going to trim away the quote spaghetti in this one since I hate how that method of communicating makes a wall of text even more of an eyesore.
I will not, however, stop pointing out how stupid you are no matter how indignant you get. I suggest you stop asking right now
. Barring hate speech or the rare request from a moderator I am not under any obligation to be polite on this board so long as my posts have substance in addition to vitriol. My first post was positively tame compared to some of the shit you will get called if you hang around here for any significant length of time. Trust me, I've been there and I'm no worse for the wear. You
, on the other hand, will be in violation of the forum's debate rules if you refuse to address or concede points simply because of my tone. No, really, go into the Announcements forum and read them, because this is not going to get any easier for you if you keep the Miss Manners attitude.
By the way, I find it funny that you think you can deduce emotional intelligence based on posts on an internet forum. Armchair philosophy AND armchair psychoanalysis of a stranger you met online *? You're on a roll today.
So, you can call me stupid, but I can't say you lack emotional intelligence, despite the fact that I remain civil, and you haven't known me except a few posts, while you've been railing insults like an angry child?
Honestly, if the forums are really how you say they are, then I will not be sad to leave. I have a life, you know, and the forum is one website on the internet, among millions. There are plenty of others where human beings can discuss ideas, rather than trolls verbally assaulting eachother while providing arguments.
It's called human civility. If you act in real life how you act on these forums, then you'll only be making life harder on yourself and be a huge detriment to society and the happiness of society in general.
Lets take this in reverse order, because why save the best part for last when I can emphasize what a complete ignorant (or dishonest) fool you are?
For those who do not care to click on the wikipedia link provided, "Mary's room" is a thought experiment wherein a neuroscientist named Mary is raised in a room that somehow has no colored light in it. Basically Plato's cave-- the only non-magical way to do this is to keep the lighting dark enough that only the rods in your eyes would be stimulated. The depression this woman must suffer... anyway. Mary knows what color is in an academic sense including knowledge of what objects should look like what and how the brain reacts to light. Presumably Mary's education has at least a cursory introduction to the electromagnetic spectrum and the physics of light and color-- we'll see the significance of this shortly. According to the metaphysics of the guys who wrote this thought experiment, until she has seen color with her own eyes Mary does not have "true" knowledge of color. The obvious corollary for epistemology is that she cannot say color exists until she has experienced it personally. This means that a complete description of the universe must incorporate platonic forms-- er, I mean Qualia. Gotta keep up with the philosophy buzzwords of the day, kids!
[placed out of order for more streamlined response to Qualia argument]
Mary will still be able to identify different spectra of light provided she has the right equipment, however, and more-- this is where the part about the electromagnetic spectrum comes in. How does your theory of Qualia address the unimaginably vast spectra of light humans cannot
see with their eyes such as infrared, radio, ultraviolet, and X-rays? How does it account for those colors which are not found on the electromagnetic spectrum, such as magenta
(which is a product of low luminance or saturation rather than a specific wavelength)? Are x-rays as unreal as my sentience to you, since you can perceive neither directly? Is the color magenta more real to you than the emotions of my pets since you can see it directly?
You still don't understand the idea of Qualia at all. It's not that the brain is a black box and neurons are just for show, it's that behind the neurons, computational ability, and sensory input, there's a raw perception of the universe, unrelated to the sensory input presented. It's just a raw perception; a bat's Qualia would be the same as a human's, despite radically different neruological systems and sensory capabilities and system's. It's as though all the sensory input and computational ability feed into the Qualia, like a sort of interface that is used, in the same way that I use a computer monitor to interface into a stream if trillions of electrons encoded into data.
So, in a sense, in this model, to provide an analogy;
Qualia would be a computer user, and the human brain would be the graphics software on the computer, while the universe as we know it would be all the data inside the computer.
I perceive the universe of data in which these forums exist through my computer's graphics processing.
While, I, myself, am not in the computer world, and I, as an entity, would not be detectable by means of hacking software.
You could detect my computer, and my software, but you could not detect my flesh-and-blood body.
I perceive the physical universe in which my computer exists through my brain's sensory and computational abilities.
While, I, myself, my Qualia, would not be detectable by means of physical study.
You could detect my brain and it's sensory and computational abilities, but you could not detect my Qualia.
IMO, this model is far more elegant than believing that because we haven't discovered something we won't, and that some sort of conduluted string of logic can turn mathematical equations into my perception of the world. I truly fail to see how a large number of computational chemical reactions can cause my sentience, this model with Qualia makes far more sense.
i.e. (important scientific principle) Lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself
The only evidence against this model is the lack of evidence; therefore there is no evidence against it, and I find it highly appealing to my reasoning, intuition, logic and most of all, to my observation.
And now, I quote professor Einstein:
"I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being
Even he understood the very way in which we perceive the universe is very distant from all the mathematical equations we use to describe it, however accurately.
But, If you're truly attached to the idea that there's nothing more to my perception than known mechanical processes, you're fully welcome to start an organization for the ethical treatment of Furbys. From a physicalist viewpoint, where philosophical zombies are impossible, their hunger is just as real as ours, so why should we let a Furby go hungry?
What about our enslavement of computers? Or inanimate matter? If our brains are just fellow computers, isn't this a type of slavery?
Or is it okay because computers aren't as smart as us? So can the smart enslave the dumb?
The conclusions you draw from this experiment are complete horseshit because you assume that our neruoscientist Mary will see anything at all when taken out of the magic sensory deprivation room. Experimental data on animals (specifically cats raised in rooms with repeating patterns on all the walls-- its a more practical setup than the one imagined for Mary) directly falsify this assumption. A brain not exposed to a certain stimuli during the critical time of its development will have difficulty in the best of times identifying that stimulus when confronted with it later in life, because-- and I know this might shock you-- the parts of the optic cortex that are supposed to compute that data were not properly developed thanks to their disuse. In other words, Mary will be colorblind due to her upbringing, and as a neuroscientist this won't be outside her expectations.
[*snip* (placed above for more streamlined conversation)]
Mary's inability to see color due to her lack of exposure is beside the point.
If you could stagnate the neurons responsible for perceiving color and prevent them from dying due to lack of input, then she would perceive something new when she walked out of that room, despite having learned everything there is to know about color.
The fact that you bring in something so totally besides the point indicates that you clearly don't understand what the point of a thought experiment is at all. A thought experiment is to identify a single aspect of something and bring it to light, through an analogy we can all understand.
What you've suggested, however, is that a thought experiment is a hypothesis on the way to becoming a theory. The fact that you state experiments refute Mary's Room based on unimportant facets of the thought experiment show that you think Mary's Room is a hypothesis, in which case it would have been proven incorrect. But it's not a hypothesis, it's a thought experiment, it brings to light a specific facet of an idea in a way we can all understand, ignoring actual inability to perform it in reality.
This doesn't disprove Mary's Room any more than the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics can be disproven by an experiment involving an actual Schrödinger's cat.
Take for instance the Chinese Room Argument; while it would be impossible for someone to flip through so many massive books and scribble notes on paper as described; that fact is clearly beside the point.
Just as Mary's inability to see color due to lack of exposure is beyond the point. The point is that no matter how much I tell you about the experience of being inside a shuttle launch; you will never really know what it's like to ride the shuttle until you do it. Just replace the "shuttle launch" with anything.
(You can refer to similar experiences, such as lying on your back and acceleration in your car, but this only strengthens my argument because you only know what those are like from tangible experience
, which is the whole point of Qualia, the gap in-between tangible experience and a description of any kind.)
Mary's room is not a thought experiment-- it is in fact a very old, repeatable scientific experiment that I learned about in basic psychology class. Facts are superior to ignorance. Deal with it, Mr. "emotional intelligence".
Since we are going in reverse order, you will now define "sentience", and explain why it cannot have a mechanistic explanation. You will explain why your concept of a philosophic zombie has any knowledge-value or ethical usefulness to scientists and philosophers alike. I would get on that, because your posts have some rather embarrassing parallels to historic apologetics concerning cruel treatment towards animals. I for one would not want to be associated with live vivisection and other such nastiness the "philosophic zombie" argument has enabled in the past.
So would you call starving a furby a form of cruelty, then?
To be safe, I would treat any being with an organic brain that displays some significant level of intelligence as though it is not a philosophical zombie. By definition, you cannot demonstrate what is or isn't a philosophical zombie. However, there is a staggering amount of evidence that it's directly linked to the organic brain, which is fundamentally identical in humans and other large animals, particularly mammals.
May I note that earlier you implied my argument is religious, with a smirk, implying that you meant a religious argument is unreasonable because it is not objective to finding the truth, a common view among atheists. But now you're using an argument against me that isn't in the interest of finding the truth: that my viewpoint has lead to animal cruelty in the past.
So, is truth the only thing that matters? If so, you cannot use the animal cruelty argument. If not, then your earlier sacrilegious statement must be taken back.
Still going in reverse order. Your arguments implicitly assume that perception continues to exist after you stop looking at something. That this seems to imply that you think objects need to be perceived to keep existing is lol-worthy by itself for the solipsistic implications it has, though by implications I am of course referring to your blatant solipsism in arguing that everyone but yourself is a "philosophic zombie". The problems with this position go way beyond mere metaphysics of Qualia and into the realm of basic epistemology, an long argument in itself and one which can adequately be resolved by literally admonishing you for talking to yourself.
It seems to imply, but I never said that, and I never implied it. I have no idea where you got the idea that I think things stop existing when you look away. All I said is that perception continues to exist despite a lack of input.
Lastly, the "mass is Qualia" argument. Mass is mass, gravity is gravity. But you cannot equivocate the two, which is what an ontology of "Qualia" would appear to do according to your argument.
P.S. the edit button has a time limit that helps keep it from being abused mid-debate. Consequently double posting is not against the rules here, and "ghetto edits" are the solution more than a few people use when they had something to add after their ten minutes were up. Have you lurked here at all before deciding to waltz in all high and mighty, declaring who does and does not have high emotional intelligence?
P.P.S. * behind this monitor, I was practically laughing at you. Thing about the internet psychoanalysis act? Forum debates are not in real time, so I have all the time I need to put exactly as much mockery into my words as I think you deserve.
Equivocation isn't what this is at all. I'm not sure what definition you're using, but equivocation is misunderstanding a term.
Unless you mean to say they aren't equivalent, in the sense that mass and energy are equivalent. I'd honestly like to see you back up your claim.
Also, you seem to be saying that because mass isn't equivalent to gravity, that Qualia cannot be equivalent to mass. Well, that doesn't make any sense, to be flat and honest. I have no idea how that logic flows. But for the sake of argument, mass is
equivalent to energy, in case you didn't know.
And, for a given distance to the center of mass, you can mathematically show that gravity is equivalent to mass.
The strength of the force of gravity can be found with only the distance and the mass of an object. For a 2-body problem where one body is significantly more massive than another, such as a planet and an orbital vehicle.
F = Gm/r^2
It's high school math. The force of gravity is that "F", and the force of gravity is the only way we can measure it at the moment, so pretty much as far as we can tell that is
gravity. Gravity is a force.
E = mc^2
When you examine these two equations, you'll realize that mass actually is equivalent to gravity, assuming that E=mc^2 means it's equivalent to energy.
G is a constant, c^2 is a constant. Let's call all our constants "K". As I said earlier, this is for a set distance from the center of the mass, or "r":
F = Km
E = Km
Though the units are now different, I would call that equivalence.
Anyways, that was overkill. In order to invalidate your claim I merely had to give an example where mass is equivalent to something else. And it is, to energy.
"Barring hate speech".
I honestly find that bit disgusting. It is a blatant disrespect to my constitutional freedoms, which many millions of soldiers, and I would happily, gave their life to defend.
Perhaps you're from Europe, where hate speech is a law where those in power can shoot down opponents they don't like for being too provocative (even if it is the truth).
I also don't see how that rule is enforcable. How can you tell why
I decide to stop posting? Maybe you won the argument. Maybe I'm simply not going to reply. Or maybe it's because of your tone. It's impossible to show.
I'm sorry if anyone finds that honesty is provocative, but that's the truth.
I have my own observation of Qualia. If you confess to feeling emotion or sensation of any kind, then you do, too, assuming you're not a philosophical zombie.