The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
The "qualia" argument is sub 100 IQ
Poast new message in this thread
Date: August 27th, 2025 1:33 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon Or really anyone who believes "the hard problem" is a real problem. No one with an IQ above about 98 believes in some special essence to the internal human experience. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2:#49215685) |
Date: August 27th, 2025 1:34 AM Author: .,.,.;.,..,..,.,:.,:,..,..,::,..,:,.,.:,..:.,:.:, Explain (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2:#49215691) |
 |
Date: August 27th, 2025 1:36 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon its just a human parochial projection. it elevates our inability to introspectively see our own mechanisms into a metaphysical abyss. Phenomenal consciousness as an extra mystery is a mirage. High IQs don't fall for those kinds of metaphysical linguistic fog fake "problems" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2:#49215695) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 1:39 AM Author: .,.,.;.,..,..,.,:.,:,..,..,::,..,:,.,.:,..:.,:.:, Are you denying that subjective, conscious experiences occur or what (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2:#49215697) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 1:45 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon Subjective experience is just what it feels like when a finite, self-modeling physical system (like a brain) processes and integrates information. Its not an illusion in the sense of "doesn't occur". Its an illusion in the sense that people think theres a second ghostly layer-- a “phenomenal essence” floating on top of the process--when all that’s there is the process (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2:#49215705) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 1:50 AM Author: .,.,.;.,..,..,.,:.,:,..,..,::,..,:,.,.:,..:.,:.:, Why does it feel like anything tho (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2:#49215709) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 1:52 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon There can’t be a “perspective of nothing,” because if there is no process that tracks itself, there is no perspective at all (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2:#49215710) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 1:56 AM Author: .,.,.;.,..,..,.,:.,:,..,..,::,..,:,.,.:,..:.,:.:, So why isn't there no perspective at all (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2:#49215712) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 2:02 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon When you ask that question you are smuggling in a background picture where “perspective” is some extra thing over and above the physical process. To say a brain processes light, sound, touch, pain, and integrates those signals into behavior is already to say it produces experience. Just like how to have a working furnace is already to produce heat. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2:#49215716) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 2:04 AM Author: .,.,.;.,..,..,.,:.,:,..,..,::,..,:,.,.:,..:.,:.:, It seems to me you have no idea whatsoever why a bunch of atoms strictly doing physics feels like anything at all (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2:#49215718) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 2:08 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon You’re basically asking why the laws of physics dont secretly produce zombies instead of creatures with experiences. But thats just wordplay. The "feeling" is what the physics looks like from the inside. To demand an extra explanation is like demanding to know why water wets or why fire burns. It is already in the process.
If your point is why do brains produce the experience and not other forms of organized matter--the difference is in the organization. It's like asking why a turbine makes electricity but not a rock. |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 2:15 AM Author: .,.,.;.,..,..,.,:.,:,..,..,::,..,:,.,.:,..:.,:.:, "You’re basically asking why the laws of physics dont secretly produce zombies instead of creatures with experiences."
That is a statement of the hard problem, yes (except maybe without the "secretly"?). Not seeing the wordplay.
You're response boils down to "that's just how it is". Of course all problems of explanation are amenable to that solution. |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 2:23 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon If “feel” can vary while all causal and functional facts are fixed, then by Leibniz's Law it makes no difference to anything. Its epiphenomenal surplus structure.
If “feel” cannot so vary then it just is a high level property of that organization like temperature is to mean kinetic energy. The demand for an extra explanation beyond the identity is a category error. |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 2:29 AM Author: .,.,.;.,..,..,.,:.,:,..,..,::,..,:,.,.:,..:.,:.:, I'm sorry, I just can't take you seriously at this point. Your unfamiliarity with the importance of asking why fire burns sealed it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2:#49215740) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 2:44 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon In one language game why means "what causes this" and you get the physical process explanation. In the other it means "what reason do I have to expect it" (I once touched the flame and now I avoid it). The "hard problem" sneaks in a third pseudo question of "why does combustion feel burny which only arises because we imagine a thing called pain inside us with a mysterious bridge to the fire. I can't take that third type of question seriously (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2:#49215745) |