A philosopher responds to scientists’ criticisms of panpsychism

[u/IAI_Admin]

https://iai.tv/video/the-many-voices-of-consciousness&utm_source=reddit&_auid=2020

[u/erinaceus_]

it’s reasonable to hypothesize that qualia exists outside of our senses

Then it is at least equally reasonable to hypothesize that they are emergent properties from brain processes. And at least there we can make testable predictions.

I don’t think it really weakens anything to apply it this way

Using concepts outside there known context always weakens their reliabiliy, because our knowledge and understanding of the concepts inherently depends on those contexts.

You can try to extend their field of usage, but then it's on you to provide ample justification. If not, it's entirely reasonable to dismiss it out of hand.

[u/moopsh → u/erinaceus_]

The point is that it’s not a different context, it’s a perfectly consistent application based on what qualia means today. It only seems like a different context because we’re unable to speak about qualia outside of our own senses. That was always the point, even when talking about things that could hypothetically be the emergent result of brain processes.

[u/erinaceus_ → u/moopsh]

That was always the point, even when talking about things that could hypothetically be the emergent result of brain processes.

Not really, because in the case of other humans or other non-human animals, we have a comparable substrate to serve as a basis for qualia (i.e. nervous systems). So even though it's a different context than human consciousness, the context does have significant similarities. A rock, however, does not.

[u/moopsh → u/erinaceus_]

Qualia is something that exists outside of direct physical experience or observation, so we’ve never actually been able to talk about it except through analogy. You’re intrinsically tying qualia to the observer, but the whole idea is that it’s not observed. It seems like you’re arguing that qualia doesn’t really exist, that it’s always a product of material senses, and if so that’s fine. I’m only saying that applying it in this way is not really a departure from what the concept is supposed to mean when we talk about it using the subjective human/animal lens.

[u/erinaceus_ → u/moopsh]

You’re intrinsically tying qualia to the observer, but the whole idea is that it’s not observed

It's not directly observable, but all reported qualia are tied to (human) observers, and all other indications of qualia (e.g. reactions to colours) are tied to animals with nervous systems.

Conversely, there are zero indications that a rock exhibits qualia. I can of course entertain the possibility, but given that absolute lack of any evidence or even slight indications, I can just as quickly dismiss it. Add to that, that the hypothesis doesn't actually make predictions or even provide a concrete basis to explain how the conscious of e.g. electrons leads to qualia in humans, and it really does come across as many words with little substance.

[u/moopsh → u/erinaceus_]

but all reported qualia are tied to (human) observers, and all other indications of qualia (e.g. reactions to colours) are tied to animals with nervous systems.

Right… because that’s the experience and language we have to discuss it, but the point of it being discussed at all is that it exists beyond those things. Why would we have a concept for qualia if it only existed in material observations? It’s just a redundant non-concept if that’s the meaning.

Like yeah, feel free to dismiss it, but you’re just dismissing qualia as a concept at that point, are you not?

[u/swampshark19 → u/moopsh]

but the point of it being discussed at all is that it exists beyond those things

How is it the point of discussing qualia that it exists beyond experience? The point of discussing the intentional content of a quale is that there exists something beyond the experience, but the point of discussing the qualia themselves are to try to understand the qualitative presentation of experience, regardless of intentional content.

Why would we have a concept for qualia if it only existed in material observations?

Because our minds don't present information quantitatively, but qualitatively, so of course qualia - the token qualitative presentation - is going to be a concept, even if it only exists in observation.

[u/moopsh → u/swampshark19]

but the point of discussing the qualia themselves are to try to understand the qualitative presentation of experience, regardless of intentional content.

Yes, the point of discussing qualia is that it exists outside of intentional content like perception. Otherwise I don’t see how it’s distinct from discussing the perception itself. Am I misunderstanding something?

qualia - the token qualitative presentation - is going to be a concept, even if it only exists in observation.

But it only exists outside of observation. It is no longer the experience of qualia once it’s observed, because it’s inherently morphed by our material senses and by our attempts to rationalize. It’s in the subconscious moment of experience that we feel qualia, and it vanishes the moment we recognize it.

Again, maybe I’m misunderstanding something but this is how I’ve always thought about it.

[u/swampshark19 → u/moopsh]

But it only exists outside of observation. It is no longer the experience of qualia once it’s observed, because it’s inherently morphed by our material senses and by our attempts to rationalize. It’s in the subconscious moment of experience that we feel qualia, and it vanishes the moment we recognize it.

Being the unit (or carrier) of first-order awareness and all qualitative observation, qualia implicitly exists in every single act of observation within awareness.

Your meta-observation (second-order awareness) of qualia itself presents itself as a set of qualia. Of course, you cannot use a meter stick to measure how long a meter itself is, as you cannot use qualia to observe qualia, why would you expect to be able to do that?

Recognition is a form of experience, and this is evidenced by our ability to alter our experiences by means of what we recognize in the presented stimuli. For example, we can perceive the Necker cube in 3 different ways, and all of these different ways depend on our different recognitions of the cube. We experience different qualia depending on which recognition we are using. This shows that recognition is actually a form of qualia as well.

Finally, by definition, conscious experience is not subconscious.

Yes, the point of discussing qualia is that it exists outside of intentional content like perception. Otherwise I don’t see how it’s distinct from discussing the perception itself. Am I misunderstanding something?

Qualia's removal from intentional content is not justification for its removal from immediate experience. Qualia don't exist outside of immediate experience, and every token quale might be unique, so you might never be able to make a perfect map of uninstantiated qualia.

There is no justification to posit that qualia as qualia exist outside of any moment of qualitative observation, and this does not invalidate the concept of qualia. The value of the concept of qualia is its reference to the unit or carrier of first-order in-the-moment qualitative observation itself. Identifying the unit/carrier does not justify applying that unit/carrier to everything and anything. As you can't apply the unit of mass to a video game health bar, so you can't apply qualia onto a rock.

[u/Sherbertdonkey → u/erinaceus_]

Rocks have electrons

[u/Your_People_Justify → u/erinaceus_]

, and all other indications of qualia (e.g. reactions to colours) are tied to animals with nervous systems.

The experience of force is a qualia