Ramachandra is one of my favourit person on earth. I've learn more things from him than almost anyone else and he's such a brillant speaker. Somebody give than man the Nobel Price, quick!
I first saw VS Ramachandran speak on the subject of synesthesia, and was astounded at how he could explain complex topics in such clear language, and felt like I had really learned something. I hope he continues to make these kind of contributions for a long, long time.
What produces this "experiencer"? What makes me the experiencer? If it was the brain, then cloning me should mean that I would be able to experience from the point of view of the new brain, a bit like being reborn. But I don't think that would occur, instead a new experiencer would emerge. Even if my memory was wiped clean, I would still be the experiencer of my life, even though I wouldn't remember who I was, but an exact copy of my brain wouldn't be me. So what makes me the experiencer?
How could you be anyone else? If you were living two lives simultaneously, you would never be aware of it because your memory is local (private to you) and there is no telepathy that allows you to knowingly live multiple lives at once. This means you do not know how many lives you are currently living. (You meaning "existence/universe".) The familiar "you" is your local representation of the observer interacting with your local sensory input, and memory. Internally you are a continuous being from day to day, and to your friends you are continuous, so there's no way (outside of death or brain transfer) to make you NOT the experiencer of your life.
@@ChrisJohnsonHome Wow, it's been 9 years since I wrote that comment! I still feel the mystery of consciousness is one we may never fully understand. I feel we are not merely powerful computers, I think there is another piece of the puzzle we have yet to discover, something profound about the universe, reality and our role in it all.
Qualia is at that bridge between physics and metaphysics. It's not 'crack-pot' enough for science to ignore, but it's not 'measurable' enough for scientists to fully accept.
Very well-explained. The feeling of being alive (seeing, hearing, feeling and smelling things consciously) happens is the soul/energy. Without the soul, we would just be dead matter. We would be like robots. Our brains would process information, but we wouln't sense them consciously because there is no consciousness sensing them. The consciousness is the true "I".
No way are qualia and the self unique to humans. You only have to watch animals for a while to see their sense of self manifested. Yesterday I saw a video of a tortoise turning over a companion that had got stuck upside down. That requires knowledge of both self and others, and the realization that the other tortoise needed assistance (and qualia with which to see the event). That's just one tiny example. I do agree, however, that qualia and self are the yin and yang of consciousness, but am also confident that all creatures have a sense of this, although probably in differing amounts. So, while Dr Ramachandran talks a great deal of sense, I think he's barking up the wrong tree if he's searching only in the parts of the brain that are unique to humans.
we don't even have the same structures as each other... yet are capable of empathizing with their positions. This is particularly true with brain damaged people. CHECKMATE, biotch.
We invent ideas such as anthropomorphism, because we need an excuse to kill and eat them and use them for experiments. Only if we see them as different can our consciences allow us to treat them the way we do. It just doesn't wash.
haha I pretty much said the same thing to my friend when I typed my response comment. That to downplay those emotions and abilities is probably just cognitive dissonance.... so we can live with the fact we're cruel as a species to other species. However, then I remembered that people do this with inanimate objects.. But, those people are mentally off.. or.. just having a bit of fun.. I don't think the grandma that gets the doll at goodwill really believes the doll will be lonely.. she's just.. senile and her sense of humor is stale, or something.. But sometimes, in the case of hoarders, I think they really do assign human emotion to STUFF. Nonetheless, I think emotionally healthy people that engage in anthropomorphism aren't assigning human traits to animals. I think the real mental thing is calling behaviors like jealousy, shame, love, empathy, and whatever (for example) as "human traits" is missing the mark. The major problem is assuming that humans are the best at or even the authority on these emotions. Either or, I think almost all sentient animals (mammals particularly) have the ability to gauge other species emotions, pains, and joys to a very high degree. Common ancestry would... our single lineage.. would prove to me that we're closely related.. made of the same stuffs enough, to be able to do that.. Just my thoughts.
Still doesn’t get around the “hard” problem of consciousness, of explaining the relationship between physical phenomena, such as brain processes, and the experience of qualia - the philosophical zombies argument (Chalmers).
I absolutely despise this consideration. There is no "philosophical zombie". There cannot be a body absent of mind(though modern society very much seems to disagree😂). Consciousness and matter are one. There is no division, and it is not a determinable possibility to suggest.
love it. you make a representation OF the representation which you precede to manipulate in all kinds of ways and derive all kinds of meaningS (capital S for emphasis). Fascinating talk.
Colors have always existed, I just think humans are only capable of taking in a certain amount of information about the world around us so there's more to the story than what we see.
precisely what i think. Hmm.. interesting listening to Dr. Rama elaborating. I think so hard on this subject that i at times find it hard to fall asleep. I'll even get headaches. But hey!!! i enjoy it so much i just can't seem to get enough
What you experience, think, cognise is the Truth, is actuality 'What should be' enters as an illusion as if there is a separate entity apart from operation. The format of operation is challenge and response from moment to moment. The one who discusses is himself bound by this format. When one oneself sees one's limit, one's operation-the whole dimension changes. Y V Chawla Fundamental Expressions
The clouds of uncertainty , renders all we hold dear , for transcendent reasons , lost in the smear ! Akin to Monet , Paradoxically -The closer one looks , the less that one sees - of that which is human, and renders us free ,to ponder the questions of endless decree ! -From the eagles perspective- Resolution’s more clear - The focal point nears - Appearance of forest -Diminution of trees - Resulting “Emergence” - Chaotic and Free ! - In Un-certainty -For E-ternity !
I have a question. As most of us don't remember anything of when we were 2 years old or younger, does that mean that we are born without any qualia, consciousness or sensation of self at all, and that we gradually developed it as we grew up?
Well, you can feel pain when you're little, so I guess that counts as "qualia". But I'm not sure how much you're aware of the pain in a subjective, coherent manner, so that would nullify the qualia and simply make it a "reaction to a stimuli".
"But their is one big major problem with that and that is properties are physical." Property has more than one meaning in this case and context property means an attribute of an object (brain). I even provided an example (wetness).
I'm not sure what you're responding to here, but I don' remember saying consciousness was a "thing". I said that physical processes seem sufficient to account for consciousness.
Consciousness is in truth a theme engaging human curiosity since immemorial times, in the philosophical (more pointedly, spiritual) sphere, and since recently in science branches like physics, neurology. A large section of scientists frowns upon any inclusion of spiritual insights when trying to explain the insuperable operation of consciousness (incdg.its universal counterpart)as a scientific endeavour. More activity here leading to more confusion and heat than clarity and enlightenment!
If I can meaningfully distinguish "seeing" from "things that are seen"--and I just did--then I can meaningfully distinguish consciousness from qualia. Q.E.D.
I like that peculiar solipcistic quality of qualia.... :D Actually, I agree with Ramachandran, the very ESSENCE of consciousness is the experience of qualia by a mind, a mind with no qualia is equally meaningless.
Maybe we're getting somewhere. I don't expect that. What I DO expect is, when someone says "this can't be explained, or communicated or talked about" they then stop talking, because once they've said it can't be spoken of, they've rendered any further opinions of their own nonsensical. Language may be a "low level" of communication, but it's still the highest we know of.
@Megaritz We can summarize "qualia" as: There is something like it to be an experiencer (of qualia). "Is there something like it to be a Bat?" (Search Thomas Nagel). I suspect there is.
Of course they can be examined, not directly maybe, but virtually nothing can, that's not a flaw in a reductionist argument, it's the entire strength of them. That doesn't mean you can only think in reductionist terms, but it's not a problem at all.
He meant potentially infinite in the sense that If I think of an apple which then makes me think of gravity which then makes me think of the tree the apple was on and how it defies gravity to grow which makes me think of . . . to the end of my life. Only the end of my life stops it from being potentially infinite. An eternal mind could link relationships infinitely. Much like a fractal, the scale of perception is potentially infinite. This is not restricted by experience, I can imagine more.
No. It is the interplay of matter and energy that creates conciousness. Clearly your conciousness is tied to your body. Just have a few stiff drinks and you will experience this first hand.
But it can be examined, because it IS affected by physical processess, we can observe that cutting off certain parts of the brain also cuts off certain relevant conscious function. Repeated stimulation of parts of the brain forms new neural passageways, habits, and alters our manner of thinking. That's enough for valid physical reduction, how it feels doesn't matter in that case, nor does it affect the outcomes. How many aspects does consciousness have? How can you count them?
@Rockstafeller actually that's not what he said, he said that experience comes from the interaction of physical different parts of the brain made to understand language, and communication on the level results in the mind and ultimately qualia
I have my doubts.Isn't nature as we observe it the fundamental something that formed our logic and applications of it?Even a strict materialist would consider anything else as idealism.In this I would agree with him in science being accumulated knowledge of research.But let's leave this out.Ok a simple question since you find my definition of science weird.Can there be a science that by definition cannot be undestood by humans in biological sense due to current spiecies limits?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me as if we are attempting to explain an experience and hope that that explanation constitutes the experience itself. Seems crazy to me.
I think Mark Solms ("The Hidden Spring", 2021) would disagree with his assertion that qualia and self must co-occur. Solms' model of consciousness is built around feeling (affect, cold/hot, hungry, tired etc.) as the core. There only needs to be an implicit self, the receiver of experience, in order for consciousness to help the body make decisions about what needs to attend to most urgently and in what way, to feel its way through need prioritization.
@Sahuagin I think we have different ideas of what "100% correct" means. It doesn't matter if it's immediately falsified or not, no scientific claim can ever be 100% correct, it's the nature of science. It can only be said to get us closer to truth.
I would argue that we arrange qualia relative to other qualia. IE: when we feel something first, we reference other instances of that feeling to the first time, and/or the most intense time (which could be the same instance) So, unless the intensity of a new feeling's qualia overwhelms anything experienced before (essentially becoming itself a new experience), no, we can't feel the same indefinitely. We reference being the most loved/hurt/angry/whatever to our most intense experience of it.
I agree with what BRob914 has said, I'll just add that it doesn't really matter if physical processes can't communicate an experience, that's not what they do, but if they can show us how to build a real AI, then they have accounted for consciousness. And we can see the physical processes that cause consciousness, we can't entirely cope with their complexity, but there's nothing to suggest that matter isn't capable of producing consciousness, and many definite causal links between the two.
@hisdaveness101 If anything, This supports Dennett's assessments about consciousness, But of-course Ramachandran speaks in greater detail and depth being a great neuroscientist that he is..
That's exacly what he meant. Apes, don't have neocortex (or at least, they don't have it as evolved as ours), and neocortex from frontal lobes is where planning and introspection takes place. See frontal patients for more information. (Sorry my english...)
Awareness also comes and goes, depending upon brain activity (such as in sleep). You're right, this is not proof, but it is strong evidence to support my point.
Just wondering: When reading or listening to one talk about an emotional experience, many times humans are able to feel the same. Would this be considered as qualia?
Do you like how he says that all things are illusion? Do you think that includes consciousness? I think it does, because, afaik, Lao-Tzu was not a Platonist, pretty sure on that tbh.
@hisdaveness101 Hey really curious why you say that ("hope Daniel Dennett is listening"). I thought the two men's view of consciousness was very similar in that there's no "hard problem" of consciousness? What do you mean?
I'm pointing out why the analogy fails, not getting caught up in it. And you don't "know", because you can't check against anything except your own personal feeling, which is what's making the assertions in the first place.
Even video games, worlds designed to not reveal their inner workings, have many ways to access the source code in-game. Look up "SQL injection". The difference between reality and a video game is that the source code is encoded in the environment itself, not a wall of text or numbers hidden in the background. The universe itself is an incredibly complex system that computes itself. All that's necessary is tools to measure the environment and being able to ask the right questions.
Yes, but the fruit fly would have to be motivated to carry out it's pre-programmed task of feeding on the apple. Feeding on the apple provides reward (qualia) otherwise why would it bother wasting energy in doing anything in the first place. It's ability to feed is pure computation driven by qualia.
Who goes into denial? Who are they? We have a very good understanding of the limits of reason and science, if "they" go into denial when you claim to have proof or knowledge "they're" right, because you don't. If "they" go into denial when you claim to understand that which cannot be understood, who can blame "them"? When the functioning of your language betrays it's irrelevance to what you're objecting to you, what do you expect?
@hymnofashes Both their views on consciousness are compatible, or mirror each other, if you will. In which case, the answer to your question if I'm understanding you correctly would be the latter.
@extremophile On what grounds do you assert "People who are born deaf, don't ever experience language exactly as hearing people do"? It's as false to say people experience no qualia before learning language, as that there's qualia without language. Language is a system of distinction. "No qualia without language" means there's no distinction between different aspects of experience without language; language renders the holistic experience of life into distinct objects and relationships.
first of all define if we talk about human consciousness or consciousness in general.And even if we limit the thing to our consciousness,how do we know that the answer is self contained?That's why I regard the (science will answer consciousness)as wishfull thinking.
It would be interesting to have VSM discuss qualia with likes of Rupert Spira, Bernardo Kastrup, swami sarvapriyananda, Deepak Chopra. Brain cannot create consciousness as an emergent property.
i should argue that there is free floating qualia, there is sound and organisms react to it, this is in my oppinion qualia. Qualia is an internal "first reaction" to the stimulus, the reflection cannot be comunnicated through words, but screems it..
Organisms react to physical vibrations in the air ...that is not free floating qualia, that's movement. Qualia is SOUND. That is the thing in your mind, the thing you HEAR. [I'm not saying qualia can't be free floating. I have no idea and nobody knows for sure.]
Actually our senses are effected by differences, and "objects" of our senses (including the self experiencing objects) are constructed representations.
You can measure a yard stick with a ruler, can't you? You can observe eyes with a second pair of eyes, can't you? Why do you think consciousness is so vastly different? It's just a problem we haven't solved yet.
Yes, anyone who claims should be trying to communicate something, that's how claims work. It's different to taste because I understand those claims, and they're just a claim of personal opinion, not ontology. An actual visit where? If you can't tell me that, how will I know I'm there? How did you know? You didn't, because you can't, that's an entailment of your claim.
Consciousness, awareness of self - may come about suddenly or over a long period of time - either way - numerous intense, and sometimes confused emotions may be a part of the discovery. Not least because it throws into question the validity, possibly safety, or lack of it , of an accustomed trust in others. 'Interdependence', may be seen, suddenly and with clarity, as a very 'unsafe state' - as choices available to the discovering 'self' become apparent, and are realised as universal.
In other words, "I think it so it's true", but again, I'm not a materialist, I'm not asking for any kind of direct proof, I'm looking for a coherent argument that this stuff isn't just rampant theology. There is no coherent argument that I'm aware of, and as far as I can tell it IS just theology, and non-materialists seem to spend more time saying that they don't need to play by the rules than actually trying to convince anyone. (the rules of convincing people, not science or materialism)
"Qualia" don't cause that, an evolved biological predisposition to sugary foods causes that. Again, all this can be accounted for by mind as part of a physical process. But even if we didn't have a biological explanation, that wouldn't prove anything and the material definition of a strawberry would still be solid.
@Sahuagin that is what you were supposed to "think" to keep your ego intact. Infact you were played into thinking that you were self aware and that "his words had no power" and the inflictions that he made had no effect upon you!!!!!!!!!!!
Dr. VSR cannot be right in saying that a creature such as fruit fly does not have qualia (and hence the self). The fruit fly's brain has a "meaning" to the smell of the apple that causes it to respond to it by flicking out the probosis. This may be a "trivial" meaning of fulfilling hunger but there is a meaning attached to the experience. This can be proved by showing that the fruitfly responds to apple differently when it first sees that and after learning that apple fulfills hunger.
Perhaps, consciousness is a field like magnetic field induced in brainstem and gives arousal. So if you want to catch this field artificially you have to imitate typical neural circuit in brainstem; But the question is whether the Owner of this CONSCIOUSNESS FIELD willing to enter to the circuit u made!
@xlovenuggetx look up Dan Dennett if you haven't already. You probably have already, but he really is the best at explaining qualia and all of our many other illusions...
But that doesn't matter, so long as they arise from the physical substrate. Take your strawberry example, that the taste of strawberrys isn't a part of physical descriptions doesn't affect materialism, nor does any other experience, unless you can show that those experiences are impossible in a materialist world. Materialism does not object to the cessation of thinking, so the fact that one can stop thinking is no argument, you need to show that consciousness can exist without a brain.
Rama is trying to find the NCCs of qualia. He's a neutral monist, don't worry. Most of the neuroscientists studying consciousness cannot be materialists or strict physicalists (like Dennett).
@yehcnimoigres : No, you are not stupid :-) In the beginning, I was happy to see that he recognized qualia as a distinct concept and explained well why all the 'material activity' in the brain can not explain the 'subjective sensation'. But at the end, again he resorts to some part of the brain being responsible for qualia and 'sense of self'. Maybe 'sense of self' (as identification of ourselves with our body-mind) be due to some neural activity, but not 'Qualia' - the 'subjective sensation'
There is a growing group of people building consensus around what they are calling Representational Qualia Theory over at Canonizer.com. canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6 It is predicting, in a verifiable way, that we do have qualia. Qualia are physical qualities of our conscious knowledge we are directly aware of. We currently don’t know about them, objectively, because we are, like Marry, qualia blind. For example, the abstract word red, is not red. In order to know what it means, you need to map it back to a physical quality. All of our knowledge about the brain is similarly abstract, as is all Mary’s knowledge about red. For example, the name of the neurotransmitter glutamate, along with all descriptions of how it behaves in a synapse, are abstract. It is a theoretical possibility that these abstract descriptions of how glutamate behaves in a synapse, are descriptions of, and should be interpreted as a physical redness quality or quale. When Mary experiences the physical quality of redness for the first time, she then knows the additional fact that she should interpret all her abstract knowledge describing redness, as descriptions of that physical quality. If experimentalists are able to verify this, as predicted, this will enable us to bridge the explanatory gap. For example, we’ll be able to make objectively justifiably effing of the ineffable statements like: “My redness is like your greenness.”
I will go even further since I just googled the brain in jar.How about multiple brains connected in a network playing an online sort of game being able to pick characters in the game,to play by the rules,but are still unable ta acess the game program?You see for someone to know about such a possible mess,he would have to be at least a bit out of the jar,taking a glimple of brains and programs alike.I don't think the traditional science method can do much.This cat has many tails for sceptics.
"Is this possible? " possible? not quite yet. But even if or when we could safely connect (say) every neuron of your to every neuron of mine, there would be a cognative dissonance in both of us which would either be permanent if your neural plasticity was diminished. It would likely only be that connection from birth would exhibit any coherent communication between the brains. Telepathy may best be done over trained interfaces anyway for privacy reasons.
I wouldn't be doing my neuroscience degree without this guy. Cheers Ramachandran.
Ramachandra is one of my favourit person on earth. I've learn more things from him than almost anyone else and he's such a brillant speaker. Somebody give than man the Nobel Price, quick!
He's rrrrrolling it all out for us - thank you Rrrrama! ;)
All them hard Rs
I like how this guy puts things. Ill have to watch more of him.
This video is one on my top favorites, on the web.
I first saw VS Ramachandran speak on the subject of synesthesia, and was astounded at how he could explain complex topics in such clear language, and felt like I had really learned something. I hope he continues to make these kind of contributions for a long, long time.
'This is uniquely human' - totally unsubstantiated statement. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.
Hitchens Dawkins like statement
What produces this "experiencer"? What makes me the experiencer? If it was the brain, then cloning me should mean that I would be able to experience from the point of view of the new brain, a bit like being reborn. But I don't think that would occur, instead a new experiencer would emerge. Even if my memory was wiped clean, I would still be the experiencer of my life, even though I wouldn't remember who I was, but an exact copy of my brain wouldn't be me. So what makes me the experiencer?
That's one of the most difficult questions that I can think of.
New tissues new you.
How could you be anyone else?
If you were living two lives simultaneously, you would never be aware of it because your memory is local (private to you) and there is no telepathy that allows you to knowingly live multiple lives at once.
This means you do not know how many lives you are currently living. (You meaning "existence/universe".)
The familiar "you" is your local representation of the observer interacting with your local sensory input, and memory.
Internally you are a continuous being from day to day, and to your friends you are continuous, so there's no way (outside of death or brain transfer) to make you NOT the experiencer of your life.
@@ChrisJohnsonHome Wow, it's been 9 years since I wrote that comment! I still feel the mystery of consciousness is one we may never fully understand. I feel we are not merely powerful computers, I think there is another piece of the puzzle we have yet to discover, something profound about the universe, reality and our role in it all.
Qualia is at that bridge between physics and metaphysics. It's not 'crack-pot' enough for science to ignore, but it's not 'measurable' enough for scientists to fully accept.
Very well-explained. The feeling of being alive (seeing, hearing, feeling and smelling things consciously) happens is the soul/energy. Without the soul, we would just be dead matter. We would be like robots. Our brains would process information, but we wouln't sense them consciously because there is no consciousness sensing them. The consciousness is the true "I".
No way are qualia and the self unique to humans. You only have to watch animals for a while to see their sense of self manifested. Yesterday I saw a video of a tortoise turning over a companion that had got stuck upside down. That requires knowledge of both self and others, and the realization that the other tortoise needed assistance (and qualia with which to see the event). That's just one tiny example. I do agree, however, that qualia and self are the yin and yang of consciousness, but am also confident that all creatures have a sense of this, although probably in differing amounts. So, while Dr Ramachandran talks a great deal of sense, I think he's barking up the wrong tree if he's searching only in the parts of the brain that are unique to humans.
But Mr Nixon u don't have the same structures exactly that of a tortoise, seems your statement is somewhat anthropomorphic
Stalkerhunter Araya And I think anthropomorphism is a fallacy and will soon be discovered to be such.
we don't even have the same structures as each other... yet are capable of empathizing with their positions. This is particularly true with brain damaged people. CHECKMATE, biotch.
We invent ideas such as anthropomorphism, because we need an excuse to kill and eat them and use them for experiments. Only if we see them as different can our consciences allow us to treat them the way we do. It just doesn't wash.
haha I pretty much said the same thing to my friend when I typed my response comment. That to downplay those emotions and abilities is probably just cognitive dissonance.... so we can live with the fact we're cruel as a species to other species. However, then I remembered that people do this with inanimate objects.. But, those people are mentally off.. or.. just having a bit of fun.. I don't think the grandma that gets the doll at goodwill really believes the doll will be lonely.. she's just.. senile and her sense of humor is stale, or something.. But sometimes, in the case of hoarders, I think they really do assign human emotion to STUFF. Nonetheless, I think emotionally healthy people that engage in anthropomorphism aren't assigning human traits to animals. I think the real mental thing is calling behaviors like jealousy, shame, love, empathy, and whatever (for example) as "human traits" is missing the mark. The major problem is assuming that humans are the best at or even the authority on these emotions. Either or, I think almost all sentient animals (mammals particularly) have the ability to gauge other species emotions, pains, and joys to a very high degree. Common ancestry would... our single lineage.. would prove to me that we're closely related.. made of the same stuffs enough, to be able to do that.. Just my thoughts.
Still doesn’t get around the “hard” problem of consciousness, of explaining the relationship between physical phenomena, such as brain processes, and the experience of qualia - the philosophical zombies argument (Chalmers).
I absolutely despise this consideration. There is no "philosophical zombie". There cannot be a body absent of mind(though modern society very much seems to disagree😂). Consciousness and matter are one. There is no division, and it is not a determinable possibility to suggest.
Ramachandran is thirty years ahead of us.
@SomewhatStaid What Dennet says about qualia (which is that they are an illusion) is self-refuting.
love it. you make a representation OF the representation which you precede to manipulate in all kinds of ways and derive all kinds of meaningS (capital S for emphasis).
Fascinating talk.
So before brains no colors existed? Nothing but a brain can experience colors?
Colors have always existed, I just think humans are only capable of taking in a certain amount of information about the world around us so there's more to the story than what we see.
Colours do not exist without brains (and eyes)
The colors you see are not even what the objects are. They are light waves bouncing off of an object. That's it.
precisely what i think. Hmm.. interesting listening to Dr. Rama elaborating. I think so hard on this subject that i at times find it hard to fall asleep. I'll even get headaches. But hey!!! i enjoy it so much i just can't seem to get enough
@mermadeinheaven Also how could consciousness not be primary? It is the only way we experience the world. It is our starting point.
What you experience, think, cognise is the Truth, is actuality 'What should be' enters as an illusion as if there is a separate entity apart from operation. The format of operation is challenge and response from moment to moment. The one who discusses is himself bound by this format. When one oneself sees one's limit, one's operation-the whole dimension changes.
Y V Chawla
Fundamental Expressions
I think I just developed a man-crush on Ramachandran! That was awsome!
The clouds of uncertainty , renders all we hold dear , for transcendent reasons , lost in the smear !
Akin to Monet , Paradoxically -The closer one looks , the less that one sees - of that which is human, and renders us free ,to ponder the questions of endless decree ! -From the eagles perspective- Resolution’s more clear - The focal point nears - Appearance of forest -Diminution of trees - Resulting “Emergence” - Chaotic and Free ! - In Un-certainty -For E-ternity !
This is pure conjecture. Confidently delivered guesswork.
this guy has the best pronunciation of the letter 'R' ever.
RRrrrrreally imprrrrresive
I have a question. As most of us don't remember anything of when we were 2 years old or younger, does that mean that we are born without any qualia, consciousness or sensation of self at all, and that we gradually developed it as we grew up?
Well, you can feel pain when you're little, so I guess that counts as "qualia". But I'm not sure how much you're aware of the pain in a subjective, coherent manner, so that would nullify the qualia and simply make it a "reaction to a stimuli".
"But their is one big major problem with that and that is properties are physical."
Property has more than one meaning in this case and context property means an attribute of an object (brain). I even provided an example (wetness).
Ramachandran is such a baws. And the way he rolls those r's is the best haha.
this guy is a freaking genius!!!
I'm not sure what you're responding to here, but I don' remember saying consciousness was a "thing".
I said that physical processes seem sufficient to account for consciousness.
Consciousness is in truth a theme engaging human curiosity since immemorial times, in the philosophical (more pointedly, spiritual) sphere, and since recently in science branches like physics, neurology. A large section of scientists frowns upon any inclusion of spiritual insights when trying to explain the insuperable operation of consciousness (incdg.its universal counterpart)as a scientific endeavour. More activity here leading to more confusion and heat than clarity and enlightenment!
If I can meaningfully distinguish "seeing" from "things that are seen"--and I just did--then I can meaningfully distinguish consciousness from qualia. Q.E.D.
That distinction can be made objectively or conceptually, but not subjectively and that is his whole point.
I like that peculiar solipcistic quality of qualia.... :D Actually, I agree with Ramachandran, the very ESSENCE of consciousness is the experience of qualia by a mind, a mind with no qualia is equally meaningless.
Maybe we're getting somewhere.
I don't expect that.
What I DO expect is, when someone says "this can't be explained, or communicated or talked about" they then stop talking, because once they've said it can't be spoken of, they've rendered any further opinions of their own nonsensical.
Language may be a "low level" of communication, but it's still the highest we know of.
@Megaritz We can summarize "qualia" as: There is something like it to be an experiencer (of qualia).
"Is there something like it to be a Bat?" (Search Thomas Nagel). I suspect there is.
Of course they can be examined, not directly maybe, but virtually nothing can, that's not a flaw in a reductionist argument, it's the entire strength of them.
That doesn't mean you can only think in reductionist terms, but it's not a problem at all.
He meant potentially infinite in the sense that If I think of an apple which then makes me think of gravity which then makes me think of the tree the apple was on and how it defies gravity to grow which makes me think of . . . to the end of my life. Only the end of my life stops it from being potentially infinite. An eternal mind could link relationships infinitely. Much like a fractal, the scale of perception is potentially infinite. This is not restricted by experience, I can imagine more.
No. It is the interplay of matter and energy that creates conciousness. Clearly your conciousness is tied to your body. Just have a few stiff drinks and you will experience this first hand.
But it can be examined, because it IS affected by physical processess, we can observe that cutting off certain parts of the brain also cuts off certain relevant conscious function.
Repeated stimulation of parts of the brain forms new neural passageways, habits, and alters our manner of thinking.
That's enough for valid physical reduction, how it feels doesn't matter in that case, nor does it affect the outcomes.
How many aspects does consciousness have? How can you count them?
So, is Ramachandran saying that qualia and self are a tangled heirarchy, like a chicken-or-the-egg type thing?
@Rockstafeller actually that's not what he said, he said that experience comes from the interaction of physical different parts of the brain made to understand language, and communication on the level results in the mind and ultimately qualia
I have my doubts.Isn't nature as we observe it the fundamental something that formed our logic and applications of it?Even a strict materialist would consider anything else as idealism.In this I would agree with him in science being accumulated knowledge of research.But let's leave this out.Ok a simple question since you find my definition of science weird.Can there be a science that by definition cannot be undestood by humans in biological sense due to current spiecies limits?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me as if we are attempting to explain an experience and hope that that explanation constitutes the experience itself. Seems crazy to me.
I think Mark Solms ("The Hidden Spring", 2021) would disagree with his assertion that qualia and self must co-occur. Solms' model of consciousness is built around feeling (affect, cold/hot, hungry, tired etc.) as the core. There only needs to be an implicit self, the receiver of experience, in order for consciousness to help the body make decisions about what needs to attend to most urgently and in what way, to feel its way through need prioritization.
@Sahuagin I think we have different ideas of what "100% correct" means. It doesn't matter if it's immediately falsified or not, no scientific claim can ever be 100% correct, it's the nature of science. It can only be said to get us closer to truth.
I would argue that we arrange qualia relative to other qualia. IE: when we feel something first, we reference other instances of that feeling to the first time, and/or the most intense time (which could be the same instance)
So, unless the intensity of a new feeling's qualia overwhelms anything experienced before (essentially becoming itself a new experience), no, we can't feel the same indefinitely.
We reference being the most loved/hurt/angry/whatever to our most intense experience of it.
@hisdaveness101 does Dennett say there is no hard problem, or simply that it can be decomposed into a series of soft problems?
I agree with what BRob914 has said, I'll just add that it doesn't really matter if physical processes can't communicate an experience, that's not what they do, but if they can show us how to build a real AI, then they have accounted for consciousness.
And we can see the physical processes that cause consciousness, we can't entirely cope with their complexity, but there's nothing to suggest that matter isn't capable of producing consciousness, and many definite causal links between the two.
@hisdaveness101 If anything, This supports Dennett's assessments about consciousness, But of-course Ramachandran speaks in greater detail and depth being a great neuroscientist that he is..
That's exacly what he meant.
Apes, don't have neocortex (or at least, they don't have it as evolved as ours), and neocortex from frontal lobes is where planning and introspection takes place.
See frontal patients for more information.
(Sorry my english...)
Awareness also comes and goes, depending upon brain activity (such as in sleep). You're right, this is not proof, but it is strong evidence to support my point.
Just wondering: When reading or listening to one talk about an emotional experience, many times humans are able to feel the same. Would this be considered as qualia?
Do you like how he says that all things are illusion?
Do you think that includes consciousness?
I think it does, because, afaik, Lao-Tzu was not a Platonist, pretty sure on that tbh.
@hisdaveness101 Hey really curious why you say that ("hope Daniel Dennett is listening"). I thought the two men's view of consciousness was very similar in that there's no "hard problem" of consciousness? What do you mean?
I'm pointing out why the analogy fails, not getting caught up in it.
And you don't "know", because you can't check against anything except your own personal feeling, which is what's making the assertions in the first place.
Well I'm also pretty sure Lao-Tzu wasn't a materialist, and didn't specify (or imo intend) that "things" only includes physical things.
In this day and age, most people don't seem capable of distinguishing between "consciousness" and "qualia." Drives me crazy.
Even video games, worlds designed to not reveal their inner workings, have many ways to access the source code in-game. Look up "SQL injection".
The difference between reality and a video game is that the source code is encoded in the environment itself, not a wall of text or numbers hidden in the background. The universe itself is an incredibly complex system that computes itself. All that's necessary is tools to measure the environment and being able to ask the right questions.
Yes, but the fruit fly would have to be motivated to carry out it's pre-programmed task of feeding on the apple. Feeding on the apple provides reward (qualia) otherwise why would it bother wasting energy in doing anything in the first place. It's ability to feed is pure computation driven by qualia.
Who goes into denial?
Who are they?
We have a very good understanding of the limits of reason and science, if "they" go into denial when you claim to have proof or knowledge "they're" right, because you don't.
If "they" go into denial when you claim to understand that which cannot be understood, who can blame "them"?
When the functioning of your language betrays it's irrelevance to what you're objecting to you, what do you expect?
@Sahuagin Is not the "Perception of the Event that which gives it its POWER"
FINALLY, a youtube video about consciousness free from that quantum consciousness BS.
@Sahuagin and is not conjecture not the basis of "modern psychology" ?
this guy should act in a movie. seriously...
Why would I need to meet it's creator? NLP works by forming and strengthening neural pathways, an entirely physical process.
@hymnofashes Both their views on consciousness are compatible, or mirror each other, if you will. In which case, the answer to your question if I'm understanding you correctly would be the latter.
Sad that after that this fascinating talk, youtube suggests I check out Deepak Chopra next.
😂😂😁
To make it clear I think He is right,when his social bias does not play upon his scientific personae/longevity.
@20jazzfunkgreats why is it arrogant? What's the reason to think otherwise?
@extremophile On what grounds do you assert "People who are born deaf, don't ever experience language exactly as hearing people do"?
It's as false to say people experience no qualia before learning language, as that there's qualia without language. Language is a system of distinction. "No qualia without language" means there's no distinction between different aspects of experience without language; language renders the holistic experience of life into distinct objects and relationships.
Qualia is one of the strongest arguments against physicalism/materialism.
first of all define if we talk about human consciousness or consciousness in general.And even if we limit the thing to our consciousness,how do we know that the answer is self contained?That's why I regard the (science will answer consciousness)as wishfull thinking.
It would be interesting to have VSM discuss qualia with likes of Rupert Spira, Bernardo Kastrup, swami sarvapriyananda, Deepak Chopra. Brain cannot create consciousness as an emergent property.
i should argue that there is free floating qualia, there is sound and organisms react to it, this is in my oppinion qualia. Qualia is an internal "first reaction" to the stimulus, the reflection cannot be comunnicated through words, but screems it..
Organisms react to physical vibrations in the air ...that is not free floating qualia, that's movement.
Qualia is SOUND. That is the thing in your mind, the thing you HEAR.
[I'm not saying qualia can't be free floating. I have no idea and nobody knows for sure.]
Actually our senses are effected by differences, and "objects" of our senses (including the self experiencing objects) are constructed representations.
You can measure a yard stick with a ruler, can't you? You can observe eyes with a second pair of eyes, can't you? Why do you think consciousness is so vastly different?
It's just a problem we haven't solved yet.
Yes, anyone who claims should be trying to communicate something, that's how claims work.
It's different to taste because I understand those claims, and they're just a claim of personal opinion, not ontology.
An actual visit where? If you can't tell me that, how will I know I'm there? How did you know?
You didn't, because you can't, that's an entailment of your claim.
Consciousness, awareness of self - may come about suddenly or over a long period of time - either way - numerous intense, and sometimes confused emotions may be a part of the discovery. Not least because it throws into question the validity, possibly safety, or lack of it , of an accustomed trust in others. 'Interdependence', may be seen, suddenly and with clarity, as a very 'unsafe state' - as choices available to the discovering 'self' become apparent, and are realised as universal.
In other words, "I think it so it's true", but again, I'm not a materialist, I'm not asking for any kind of direct proof, I'm looking for a coherent argument that this stuff isn't just rampant theology.
There is no coherent argument that I'm aware of, and as far as I can tell it IS just theology, and non-materialists seem to spend more time saying that they don't need to play by the rules than actually trying to convince anyone. (the rules of convincing people, not science or materialism)
if consciousness were able to exert some effect apart from the brain/body, would that be considered evidence that it existed independent of the brain?
@pingala10 first, who's quote is that?
"Qualia" don't cause that, an evolved biological predisposition to sugary foods causes that.
Again, all this can be accounted for by mind as part of a physical process.
But even if we didn't have a biological explanation, that wouldn't prove anything and the material definition of a strawberry would still be solid.
@fishybishbash Is conjecture bad?
amazing man...great talk...
@Sahuagin that is what you were supposed to "think" to keep your ego intact. Infact you were played into thinking that you were self aware and that "his words had no power" and the inflictions that he made had no effect upon you!!!!!!!!!!!
Dr. VSR cannot be right in saying that a creature such as fruit fly does not have qualia (and hence the self). The fruit fly's brain has a "meaning" to the smell of the apple that causes it to respond to it by flicking out the probosis. This may be a "trivial" meaning of fulfilling hunger but there is a meaning attached to the experience. This can be proved by showing that the fruitfly responds to apple differently when it first sees that and after learning that apple fulfills hunger.
@Sahuagin is not the "conjecture" the basis upon which your teaching/social status based upon
Perhaps, consciousness is a field like magnetic field induced in brainstem and gives arousal. So if you want to catch this field artificially you have to imitate typical neural circuit in brainstem; But the question is whether the Owner of this CONSCIOUSNESS FIELD willing to enter to the circuit u made!
@xlovenuggetx look up Dan Dennett if you haven't already. You probably have already, but he really is the best at explaining qualia and all of our many other illusions...
But that doesn't matter, so long as they arise from the physical substrate.
Take your strawberry example, that the taste of strawberrys isn't a part of physical descriptions doesn't affect materialism, nor does any other experience, unless you can show that those experiences are impossible in a materialist world.
Materialism does not object to the cessation of thinking, so the fact that one can stop thinking is no argument, you need to show that consciousness can exist without a brain.
@TsarNick77 Tell me why it is that Human species infers that they don't EGO, or SUPER-EGO
Consensus is what defines 'modern' physics.
Rama is trying to find the NCCs of qualia. He's a neutral monist, don't worry. Most of the neuroscientists studying consciousness cannot be materialists or strict physicalists (like Dennett).
@yehcnimoigres : No, you are not stupid :-) In the beginning, I was happy to see that he recognized qualia as a distinct concept and explained well why all the 'material activity' in the brain can not explain the 'subjective sensation'. But at the end, again he resorts to some part of the brain being responsible for qualia and 'sense of self'. Maybe 'sense of self' (as identification of ourselves with our body-mind) be due to some neural activity, but not 'Qualia' - the 'subjective sensation'
@CMSudaho I absolutely love this poem. Is it your creation? (and may I reproduce it with attribution in a blog if it is yours?)
please explain i just got into fist fight with some guy and i'm trying to find reason of i should not kill this guy if ever see him again
@Rockstafeller how do you know that? and what evidance do you have for that? you just can't assert things w/o providing any evidence for them
@qrqrqrqr1 No, he's saying non-human animals can't make plans for the future nor reflect upon their experiences, they can simply feel them.
There is a growing group of people building
consensus around what they are calling Representational Qualia Theory over at
Canonizer.com. canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6 It is predicting, in a verifiable way, that
we do have qualia. Qualia are physical qualities of our conscious knowledge we
are directly aware of. We currently don’t know about them, objectively, because
we are, like Marry, qualia blind. For example, the abstract word red, is not
red. In order to know what it means, you need to map it back to a physical
quality. All of our knowledge about the brain is similarly abstract, as is all
Mary’s knowledge about red. For example, the name of the neurotransmitter
glutamate, along with all descriptions of how it behaves in a synapse, are
abstract. It is a theoretical possibility that these abstract descriptions of
how glutamate behaves in a synapse, are descriptions of, and should be
interpreted as a physical redness quality or quale. When Mary experiences the
physical quality of redness for the first time, she then knows the additional
fact that she should interpret all her abstract knowledge describing redness,
as descriptions of that physical quality. If
experimentalists are able to verify this, as predicted, this will enable us to
bridge the explanatory gap. For example,
we’ll be able to make objectively justifiably effing of the ineffable
statements like: “My redness is like your greenness.”
I will go even further since I just googled the brain in jar.How about multiple brains connected in a network playing an online sort of game being able to pick characters in the game,to play by the rules,but are still unable ta acess the game program?You see for someone to know about such a possible mess,he would have to be at least a bit out of the jar,taking a glimple of brains and programs alike.I don't think the traditional science method can do much.This cat has many tails for sceptics.
@pingala10 then why did you put in quotes? Is that your definition, or what are you trying to say? Anyway, I don't agree with it.
"Is this possible? "
possible? not quite yet. But even if or when we could safely connect (say) every neuron of your to every neuron of mine, there would be a cognative dissonance in both of us which would either be permanent if your neural plasticity was diminished. It would likely only be that connection from birth would exhibit any coherent communication between the brains. Telepathy may best be done over trained interfaces anyway for privacy reasons.
this man is a genius !!!