• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Artificial Intelligence

MD

qualiaphile
Here, educate yourself on the magic of color:



Color - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lol...God you're an arrogant prick. You don't understand qualia at all. From the same article

"While the mechanisms of color vision at the level of the retina are well-described in terms of tristimulus values (see above), color processing after that point is organized differently. A dominant theory of color vision proposes that color information is transmitted out of the eye by three opponent processes, or opponent channels, each constructed from the raw output of the cones: a red–green channel, a blue–yellow channel, and a black–white "luminance" channel. This theory has been supported by neurobiology, and accounts for the structure of our subjective color experience. Specifically, it explains why we cannot perceive a "reddish green" or "yellowish blue", and it predicts the color wheel: it is the collection of colors for which at least one of the two color channels measures a value at one of its extremes.


The exact nature of color perception beyond the processing already described, and indeed the status of color as a feature of the perceived world or rather as a feature of our perception of the world, is a matter of complex and continuing philosophical dispute (see qualia)."
 

MD

qualiaphile
I've been searching for something but I don't find it. Hopefully you have seen it or at least heard it somewhere. It is an experiment where conecting a guy to a computer, (i mean, they put this cables terminated in a vacuum on the forehead and around the head), scientists would send electric stimuli to the guy's brain and made him see diferent colors.

So how exactly do you explain this can happen?

If neurons are involved in channeling different forms of mental properties and creating qualia then it would be possible to stimulate those neurons into creating different forms of qualia. Qualia are mental phenomenon, color is the mental property of light.
 

MD

qualiaphile
So qualia are just neurons' physiological processes. Thanks.

:facepalm:

Ok first of all this is my philosophical position, but it's shared by a growing number of scientists. I think qualia are mental properties of the universe, which are fundamental to the universe. As such our neurons channel these mental properties into creating qualia.

Qualia are what we create from sensations.

They could be neural physiological processes, but in my view that's impossible because you are literally creating something completely novel in a universe where such things shouldn't exist. If qualia were simply our neural processes creating perceptions it would be like an electrical circuit producing magic dragon fire. It would be completely alien to our universe, yet somehow the circuit produces it. Thus you can believe that the cirucit board has this magical property to create magic dragon fire out of nothing or that some sort of rudimentary magic fire exists in the universe and the electrical circuit channels it into magic dragon fire.


I don't see why it's so hard for you guys to understand this.
 
Last edited:

otokage007

Well-Known Member
:facepalm:

Ok first of all this is my philosophical position, but it's shared by a growing number of scientists. I think qualia are mental properties of the universe, which are fundamental to the universe. As such our neurons channel these mental properties into creating qualia.

Qualia are what we create from sensations.

They could be neural physiological processes, but in my view that's impossible because you are literally creating something completely novel in a universe where such things shouldn't exist. If qualia were simply our neural processes creating perceptions it would be like an electrical circuit producing magic dragon fire. It would be completely alien to our universe, yet somehow the circuit produces it. Thus you can believe that the cirucit board has this magical property to create magic dragon fire out of nothing or that some sort of rudimentary magic fire exists in the universe and the electrical circuit channels it into magic dragon fire.


I don't see why it's so hard for you guys to understand this.

So basicly u believe in magic. I totally get your point now.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
I refuse to argue with a child. Though, I am compelled to say what you reaponded with proved absolutely nothing. Color can be explained by the eye. I also should remind you that not currently having a full understanding of something doesn't imply magic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
If we could get back on subject to AIs that would be cool. Learned about colors in high school, not interesting to me.
 

MD

qualiaphile
I refuse to argue with a child. Though, I am compelled to say what you reaponded with proved absolutely nothing. Color can be explained by the eye. I also should remind you that not currently having a full understanding of something doesn't imply magic.

And I refuse to try and explain a concept to a person a hundred times because they lack the mental capacity to grasp it. It's settled, we'll stop responding to each other.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Here, a philosophical / logical look at the idea of qualia that does quite a bit of damage. A bit of a hard and long read though, but great anyways. I dare you to read it shahz.

...that could only be done if there were a Cartesian Theater, a central location
in the brain where consciousness happens. And there is no such place, as all
the evidence attests. Discriminations in the brain involving colors and
dispositions happen in several places over time in a tangled, inseparable knot,
and most of them occur unconsciously and before a subject has the ability to
report them—before the subject is conscious of them.
This right here is almost enough. It is being claimed that physical processes are not creating the red color we are perceiving that is not actually there, yet such an interpretation would be created in the brain before we were even conscious of it. Again, I suppose that when we ignore science, fact, evidence, and logical inference we can then define "conscious(ness)" in any absurd and magical way that we want to, but consciousness is awareness. On the off chance we can revive this thread, the question is can we ever make an AI truly aware, or would it simply act as it was aware because of its programming? Further, would we be able to tell the difference between the two?

http://pages.uoregon.edu/donovan/writings/Chapter%2012%20summary.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MD

qualiaphile
Here, a philosophical / logical look at the idea of qualia that does quite a bit of damage. A bit of a hard and long read though, but great anyways. I dare you to read it shahz.

This right here is almost enough. It is being claimed that physical processes are not creating the red color we are perceiving that is not actually there, yet such an interpretation would be created in the brain before we were even conscious of it. Again, I suppose that when we ignore science, fact, evidence, and logical inference we can then define "conscious(ness)" in any absurd and magical way that we want to, but consciousness is awareness. On the off chance we can revive this thread, the question is can we ever make an AI truly aware, or would it simply act as it was aware because of its programming? Further, would we be able to tell the difference between the two?

http://pages.uoregon.edu/donovan/writings/Chapter%2012%20summary.pdf

Lol it seems like you can't let go. You also seem to finally understand what qualia mean.

Alright I'll tackle this head on, for me this is fun. First of all let me say that most scientists studying consciousness reject Dennett's views. Dawkins and the new atheists love him, but aside from that I can't really think of any of the best neuroscientists who consider his views even close to being correct. He states qualia are either illusions or to be ignored. If something is an illusion, what is being fooled? I will address his points in italics. Now that you know how deep and convoluted this philosophical issue, I was hoping you would stop calling it magic. I was wrong.

The first paragraph on the first page talks about Dennett talking about abandoning qualia...sorry that's a complete fail. Let me tell you why - qualia are the essence of existence. You are an emotional being by default who sees colors and hears music. To exclude qualia from consciousness is similar to excluding blood from your vasculature.

The second last paragraph on the first page talks about how qualia are not useful. Okay...still doesn't address what they are or why they exist. Next.

Okay page 2, paragraph 4. Dennett talks about how colors 'emerged'. Lol and you are calling my views magic. Emergence results in something greater than the whole, but still has parts of the whole. Color has no parts of any whole, it can't just 'appear'. It is irreducible.

Dennett calls qualia 'richly complex and idiosyncratic complex of dispositions'. I'm sorry what? That still doesn't explain how such richly complex idiosyncratic dispositions result in something completely novel to the system. I can understand seeing a fantastic pattern of light arranged in an array resulting in some gorgeous black and white wave light pattern. Colors are completely novel.

The illusion he talks about where white on black creates pink again says nothing about why pink exists. It just shows that the contrast of those two colors elicits a reaction within us to see pink.

I skipped the inverted qualia part because I am tired and it is late. However for the Mary argument he says that most people intuitively don't try to process the information and that's why Mary learnt a new thing when she saw red? Is he for real? Is this the best materialism can do? ROFL.
People always try to create mental maps when given directions. Yes the system fails many times but some people are damn good at it. There was a study done on London taxi cab drivers who had an enlarged posterior hippocampus. The hippocampus is involved in spatial analysis ie map making.

Then he talks about how in exquisite detail he can explain the feeling of yellow. Umm feelings are qualia...qualia are ineffable! How can you describe the feeling of yellow, when the experience itself is qualia through a physical theory!? Sorry fail again.

All in all I am not impressed. The multiple drafts model is 21 years old, if it was that damaging I'm sure it would be taken into more consideration today. In fact the favorite philosopher is Chalmers for us 'qualiaphiles' and Searle for the 'qualiaphobes'.

Most scientists like either, although the newer generation prefers Chalmers views. Both Searls and Chalmers disagree with Dennett's multiple drafts model, btw.

You see Dennett states that qualia are subjective and unecessary to study because science studies only objective stuff. But that is a very arrogant statement to make. Science is a tool towards understanding reality, not a tool towards understanding only objectivity. In effect subjective states of being are the primary state of consciousness and Dennett has failed miserably in trying to defend his views by completely dismissing them. The only hope materialism has is if the quantum mind theories are correct, and I doubt on that level anything is really 'material' anyways.

I won't paste all the criticisms from wiki, which are many.

Also Dennett is a fan of the Cartesian theater model, that there is a place in the brain where information processing occurs for us to create his epiphenomenons. No such place exists. In fact a recent study showed that self-awareness is more complex and highly diffuse than previously thought.
http://m.medicalxpress.com/news/2012-08-self-awareness-humans-complex-diffuse-previously.html

Finally, if consciousness is made up of meaningful, abstract concepts there's no way one could program a machine to be aware. It would have to start out with a similar architecture of the human brain and slowly over years develop in a culture develop meaning and symbols. It would need to be plastic. It would start out like a 'baby' and it would take a very long time before the machine has learned a real sense of meaning. We wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two until we can somehow connect our brains to the machine. That's my opinion on conscious AI.
 
Last edited:

otokage007

Well-Known Member
Here, a philosophical / logical look at the idea of qualia that does quite a bit of damage. A bit of a hard and long read though, but great anyways. I dare you to read it shahz.

This right here is almost enough. It is being claimed that physical processes are not creating the red color we are perceiving that is not actually there, yet such an interpretation would be created in the brain before we were even conscious of it. Again, I suppose that when we ignore science, fact, evidence, and logical inference we can then define "conscious(ness)" in any absurd and magical way that we want to, but consciousness is awareness. On the off chance we can revive this thread, the question is can we ever make an AI truly aware, or would it simply act as it was aware because of its programming? Further, would we be able to tell the difference between the two?

http://pages.uoregon.edu/donovan/writings/Chapter%2012%20summary.pdf

As awareness is just a neuronal net born in the complexity of a brain, we would only require to know exactly how can this be made artificially, and we would have a real AI. And I don't think this will be done in a very distant future, but before we all think. However I see bionic beings coming before real AIs are developed.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
As awareness is just a neuronal net born in the complexity of a brain, we would only require to know exactly how can this be made artificially, and we would have a real AI. And I don't think this will be done in a very distant future, but before we all think. However I see bionic beings coming before real AIs are developed.

Yeah, I won't be surprised if we figure out the more complex processes of the brain relatively soon. As you said, then it would be easy to reproduce that as an AI.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
The first paragraph on the first page talks about Dennett talking about abandoning qualia...sorry that's a complete fail. Let me tell you why - qualia are the essence of existence. You are an emotional being by default who sees colors and hears music. To exclude qualia from consciousness is similar to excluding blood from your vasculature.

Prove it.

Colors are completely novel.
Not sure what exactly you mean. We know how color is created, the only problem here is stuff like seeing red that actuall isn't red, optical illuions apparently, etc. I still see no reason to invent these qualia, imagine if we took the time to actually understand it instead of saying it is fundamental level magic.


[/i]Then he talks about how in exquisite detail he can explain the feeling of yellow. Umm feelings are qualia...qualia are ineffable! How can you describe the feeling of yellow, when the experience itself is qualia through a physical theory!? Sorry fail again.
Apparently you are unaware that specific colors cause generally the same reaction in all people. For example, the color red is used in a resturant make people hungrier or something like that. If we could map amd recreate the processes of one person seeing a color into another, chances are they'd have the exact same experience. No magic needed.

Also, fantastic job ignoring the most damaging thing in that paper. Qualia are another well formed copout that cannot be beat down since there is absolutely no way to test it. The idea is designed to support itself, which is fallacious in itself. At least there's math supporting the currently untestable string theory, this is just silly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MD

qualiaphile
Prove it.

Prove that qualia exist? Actually I can't. Neither can you. But then you have to be a solipsist since nothing subjective can exist in anyone else can exist except yourself. So as a materialist the most rational position to take would be one of a solipsist. Are you a solipsist? I doubt it.

Not sure what exactly you mean. We know how color is created, the only problem here is stuff like seeing red that actuall isn't red, optical illuions apparently, etc. I still see no reason to invent these qualia, imagine if we took the time to actually understand it instead of saying it is fundamental level magic.

Dude, even Dennett admits there are qualia. Even he has said to ignore it since it's impossible to study. I'm not inventing ****. And it still doesn't explain why color exists, just that it appears when different forms interact with each other. Magic appears according to you and him. And even if they were illusions, an illusion implies someone is being fooled. What exactly is being fooled if consciousness itself is an illusion?

Apparently you are unaware that specific colors cause generally the same reaction in all people. For example, the color red is used in a resturant make people hungrier or something like that. If we could map amd recreate the processes of one person seeing a color into another, chances are they'd have the exact same experience. No magic needed.

Even if the color red causes the same reaction in people, it doesn't really explain how red comes about is explained. Again Dennett has failed miserably and I finally see now why most neuroscientists and philosophers studying consciousness disregard his arguments. He's only good for die hard materialists such as yourself, and of course Dawkins.

Also, fantastic job ignoring the most damaging thing in that paper. Qualia are another well formed copout that cannot be beat down since there is absolutely no way to test it. The idea is designed to support itself, which is fallacious in itself. At least there's math supporting the currently untestable string theory, this is just silly.

If something is impossible to test but it exists, then it's just impossible to test. That doesn't make it a 'copout'. John Searle has argued that making such an assertion is a category error. Qualia are epistemically objective but ontologically subjective. In simple language it means just because you can't test out something through mathematics or logic doesn't mean it doesn't exist or it isn't true.

Color exists. Sound exists. Love exists. They are irreducible. Like I said there are only two options for qualia. Either there is another property to the universe which is mental or all this is happening on a quantum level.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Prove that qualia exist? Actually I can't. Neither can you. But then you have to be a solipsist since nothing subjective can exist in anyone else can exist except yourself. So as a materialist the most rational position to take would be one of a solipsist. Are you a solipsist? I doubt it.

How convenient, it cannot be observed, tested, the knowledge cannot be shared, it's like a great con. Why do these magical qualia not existing in any way imply that there can be no subjective experience? Well, it doesn't. There is absolutely no reason that they need to exist for there to be subjective experience. You even made a contradiction, saying that this line of thought means only I exist but nothing is subjective; well if only I exist then everything is completely subjective, which is ridiculous line of thought. Rethink your reasoning here.

Subjective experience could easily be explained by the fact we are genetically different and our brains do not react in the exact same way. Again, there is no black magic behind depression, it is simply one's brain working in a different way than anothers.

Dude, even Dennett admits there are qualia. Even he has said to ignore it since it's impossible to study. I'm not inventing ****. And it still doesn't explain why color exists, just that it appears when different forms interact with each other. Magic appears according to you and him. And even if they were illusions, an illusion implies someone is being fooled. What exactly is being fooled if consciousness itself is an illusion?
So most disagree with Dennett according to you, and Dennett believes in qualia, therefore most accept qualia? Do you understand contradictions are not logical and are not going to prove true? Be consistent.

Nobody is claiming that consciousness is an illusion. Consciousness obviously exists, just like emotions obviously exist. So, what you say here holds no merit, it is a straw man, yet another violation of reason.

Even if the color red causes the same reaction in people, it doesn't really explain how red comes about is explained. Again Dennett has failed miserably and I finally see now why most neuroscientists and philosophers studying consciousness disregard his arguments. He's only good for die hard materialists such as yourself, and of course Dawkins.
We know why we perceive red, we understand how color works. Here is a pretty straight forward little paper that was the very first result for my search on Google. If you took the time to try and look at this from a less magical perspective, though I understand many need the magical view in their lives, you could have easily learned how color works.

Color Vision - Scientific Explanation

If something is impossible to test but it exists, then it's just impossible to test. That doesn't make it a 'copout'. John Searle has argued that making such an assertion is a category error. Qualia are epistemically objective but ontologically subjective. In simple language it means just because you can't test out something through mathematics or logic doesn't mean it doesn't exist or it isn't true.
No, I am not saying it does not make it so, it is a perfectly crafted con that relies on itself being true to prove itself true. That is not logical. It is obvious that you have no value of logic, so I do not expect that to mean anything to you. However, if there is no way to observe, test, even hint at its existence, if the only reason to believe it exists is because the roundabout reasoning proves itself true, and then we accept that blindly nothing is accomplished. It isn't even worth talking about, and we should be trying to show how the brain works in testable, observable, logical ways.

Color exists. Sound exists. Love exists. They are irreducible. Like I said there are only two options for qualia. Either there is another property to the universe which is mental or all this is happening on a quantum level.
What do you mean here? We know how color works, we know how sound works, and we know how love works. We don't need to delve into either the quantum or magical world to understand any of them. And, when it comes down to quantum or magic, quantum will be true every time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
"Why color exists" is quite an odd question. Why tables exist? Why stupidity exist? Why snow exist? Why u exist? Why cats exist? :/

I didn't think it was meant that way. In that case, the conversation is even more ridiculous. There is no reason why anything exists, it just does.
 

MD

qualiaphile
How convenient, it cannot be observed, tested, the knowledge cannot be shared, it's like a great con. Why do these magical qualia not existing in any way imply that there can be no subjective experience? Well, it doesn't. There is absolutely no reason that they need to exist for there to be subjective experience. You even made a contradiction, saying that this line of thought means only I exist but nothing is subjective; well if only I exist then everything is completely subjective, which is ridiculous line of thought. Rethink your reasoning here.

If it's such a great con why do the best scientists try to address it? How can there NOT be subjective experience. Everything is subjective. All emotions, color, sound etc are subjective.

I stated that if one was to be a PURE rationalist then they would have to accept the fact that there is no theory for qualia and as such the only subjective experience one could trust would be their own. Materialism is INCOMPLETE! And you cannot accept that because it contradicts your view of the world and in that sense you are no different from any creationist or ID.

Subjective experience could easily be explained by the fact we are genetically different and our brains do not react in the exact same way. Again, there is no black magic behind depression, it is simply one's brain working in a different way than anothers.

Subjective experience has nothing to do with how our brains are created differently. You are simply do not understand what qualia are.

So most disagree with Dennett according to you, and Dennett believes in qualia, therefore most accept qualia? Do you understand contradictions are not logical and are not going to prove true? Be consistent.

It's not according to me, it's according to what is true. And Dennett states that qualia do exist, he just states that they are illusions. And that's where scientists disagree with him, because he hasn't explained at all how these illusions just pop into existence. That random novel substances just become created in reality out of thin air.

Nobody is claiming that consciousness is an illusion. Consciousness obviously exists, just like emotions obviously exist. So, what you say here holds no merit, it is a straw man, yet another violation of reason.

Actually that is the CRUX of dennetts argument, that everything we describe as qualia are illusions. And consciousness is an illusion. You clearly haven't read his work and are just cherry picking quotes for your own argument. You can blab all you want about reason and rationality but your arguments have fallen flat.


No, I am not saying it does not make it so, it is a perfectly crafted con that relies on itself being true to prove itself true. That is not logical. It is obvious that you have no value of logic, so I do not expect that to mean anything to you. However, if there is no way to observe, test, even hint at its existence, if the only reason to believe it exists is because the roundabout reasoning proves itself true, and then we accept that blindly nothing is accomplished. It isn't even worth talking about, and we should be trying to show how the brain works in testable, observable, logical ways.

Okay it's a con to you. The rest of the scientific community will continue to try and understand it as they have and continue to do so.

What do you mean here? We know how color works, we know how sound works, and we know how love works. We don't need to delve into either the quantum or magical world to understand any of them. And, when it comes down to quantum or magic, quantum will be true every time.

Look man trying to explain this stuff to you is impossible. I've tried to be nice but you really don't understand the basic argument of qualia. One day when you do, get back to me. I think it's best if we end this because you're not budging on your perspective, which is flawed. You think the brain makes up all this stuff. That's magic. I'm saying that there's something else at play here.

You said plants have no consciousness. I proved you wrong with scientific papers. You said that it's information processing in centers of the brain. I proved you wrong with scientific papers. Now I know how frustrated people get with creationists.
 
Last edited:

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
If it's such a great con why do the best scientists try to address it? How can there NOT be subjective experience. Everything is subjective. All emotions, color, sound etc are subjective.

Well, not everything is subjective. But you are even looking at this the wrong way. How we perceive, like what colors we like, what we want to paint our house, what music we like, etc is subjective. But the light, the sound waves, all that is objective. It is only how we interpret them that changes.

I stated that if one was to be a PURE rationalist then they would have to accept the fact that there is no theory for qualia and as such the only subjective experience one could trust would be their own. Materialism is INCOMPLETE! And you cannot accept that because it contradicts your view of the world and in that sense you are no different from any creationist or ID.
I cannot accept it because it isn't true. There is no reason that these qualia need to exist except people like you want there to be in order to be right. I am not sure what you think my worldview is, but it does not involve holding false beliefs just because I don't want to change. Do not assume we are the same. You could get away with calling me closed minded maybe. Just like I am not open minded enough to consider the Earth may be flat.

Subjective experience has nothing to do with how our brains are created differently. You are simply do not understand what qualia are.
Another issue, assuming that our brains were created. ID theory and creationism hold little merit, I will not waste time debating them. You are correct that I am apparently having trouble understanding qualia, that is because they make absolutely no sense and are completely unnecessary the way I have had them explained to me. Perhaps you should try again?

Actually that is the CRUX of dennetts argument, that everything we describe as qualia are illusions. And consciousness is an illusion. You clearly haven't read his work and are just cherry picking quotes for your own argument. You can blab all you want about reason and rationality but your arguments have fallen flat.
Of course I haven't, I am not going to go buy overpriced books on such a silly subject. Even if the magical qualia do exist, changes nothing since it cannot be proven. I would like you to show where my argument have become unreasonable.

Okay it's a con to you. The rest of the scientific community will continue to try and understand it as they have and continue to do so.
Haha wow really? The scientific community is going to try and understand something we cannot test, observe, run experiments on, use mathematics to support, etc? That is interesting.

Look man trying to explain this stuff to you is impossible. I've tried to be nice but you really don't understand the basic argument of qualia. One day when you do, get back to me. I think it's best if we end this because you're not budging on your perspective, which is flawed. You think the brain makes up all this stuff. That's magic. I'm saying that there's something else at play here.
So to you, years of evolution, brain chemistry, how the brain is proven to work, etc is magic? That is a pretty absurd viewpoint IMO. Tried to be nice by calling me an arrogant prick, incapable of understanding what you are saying... yeah... :facepalm:

You said plants have no consciousness. I proved you wrong with scientific papers. You said that it's information processing in centers of the brain. I proved you wrong with scientific papers. Now I know how frustrated people get with creationists.
Hahahaha when did you prove that plants have consciousness? That is the most ridiculous thing I have seen on this forum, and that is saying a lot. I do not know what you are talking about with information processing centers, but that's alright. You keep believing in magic my friend. And to compare me to a creationist? :biglaugh:last I looked I was not the one arguing for magical phenomenon that cannot be tested, observed, proven or falsified, or even logically inferred.
 
Top