I read with interest Gordon Globus attempt to get rid of the problem of Qualia! I wish it were that easy.
Still, he clarified one thing for me, it is painfully clear how he and others see things when he states, (Mon, 4 Mar 1996)
If we listen to the sound of a clarinet with earphones, the sound is located in the world (between the ears) and there is no duplicate sensation to be found in the mind.
He seems to be saying that because the sound occurs between our ears and is therefore located in the physical space between our ears then it is part of the real world. Well yes, perhaps it is in this sense but does that mean that we are not to ask what that sound is? In the sense that Gordon seems to mean it everything, including our mental activity and conscious states, have a reality in the real world. Unless he is suggesting that the sound between our ears is the same thing as pressure waves in the air impacting on the ear drum, in which case why is it possible to refer to them as two different things and why are the two phenomena in two different spaces not to mention times?
The argument seems to be about which perspective you might want to take about things. We can say that the world is a reality and that consciousness grows out of it. Or, we can say that consciousness is the reality and it creates the world. Both options have to accept that consciousness and mental activity are in the world or, if you want to take the other perspective, that the world and reality are a part of consciousness. So, the argument is really about the true nature of reality and possibly there is no argument at all.
It does seem to me though that if we want to understand the true nature of consciousness we have to ask questions about such things as Qualia whether they exist in the space between the ears or they are creating the space, and much else, between the ears. How unwise it would be to say about the resulting hullabaloo/argument (Globus 4th March 1996.)
If a purely theoretical point makes such a hullabaloo of discussion, I say throw out the theory!"
Which theory should we throw out? Obviously some think the all is consciousness view should go. I would be prepared to accept this if Id heard one good easily understood argument that refuted the basic premises upon which idealism and solipsism rests. ( I am not a total Solipsist just cant get rid of the problem) All I hear is ways of saying, we dont like that. Its too metaphysical, it cant be right and various attacks upon people who take a more metaphysical view like, (Globus 4th March 1996)
Because my primrose path leads to disaster for metaphysics
Of course you could make the observation that if the path of Qualias were correct it leads to disaster for the materialist point of view. Who is afraid of what here? Does it really matter which is right, they are a possible means to debate the true nature of reality, some of us might have to eject some baggage on the way that is all. But let us not throw out a theory until it is totally disproved.
I try to look at both approaches, perhaps because I have met and worked with people with all sorts of disabilities I get troubled by the apparently commonsense approach of statements like, (Globus 4th March 1996)
Scientific description says light waves of a certain frequency are reflected from the object and reach the retina. And as I say, the object is red. (Note that to say "looks red" is to bring back conscious experience. So I say "is red," which is perfectly proper, since the surface of the tomato, after all, is red.)
If you take someone who has been blind from birth give them a tomato and tell them it is red, they have no concept of what you mean at all. For them the tomato is a smooth spherical object with a particular smell. They smile at the word-sound red and politely take your word for it that you are experiencing something you call red. We accept this but from an attitude of superiority assuming we know best because we can see red on the surface of the tomato. If they were to turn to you and ask you if you could experience the gazl that was part of the tomato would you accept that gazl existed in the real world? If the human race suddenly became eye less would there be anyone who was conscious of red? You can easily get some idea by closing your eyes in a safe environment. After a while get someone to give you a colored ball. You can feel it, sniff it, suck it, bounce it, listen to it, but you will have no way of telling what colour it is. You will experience a smooth object that occupies a spherical space, is springy and tastes and smells rubbery.
You can guess a whole series of word-sounds using your past experience to detect the colour that you, a sighted person, assumes is out there on the surface of the ball but, if they turn round and say No, sorry its Zal! it would leave you completely mystified. You could not even try to call up the memory of that colour. But, would you accept that Zal existed in the world? Now you could get yourself an instrument that measured wavelengths and every time it gave twenty beeps a second the other person could tell you that is the colour Zal. So you could then go around and every time your instrument beeped-twenty-times-a-second you could say ha! That is coloured Zal but would you experience Zal? No you would experience the sound twenty-beeps-a-second and correlate that with the knowledge of the presence of an electromagnetic frequency that you have attached the name Zal to. So, do, as Gordon Globus suggests, (4th Mar 1996)
Electromagnetic frequency and object color nicely correlate,
No, I think not, electromagnetic frequency and word-sound Zal correlate nicely.
I think I would agree with Jeff Dalton when he says in a posting on (7th March 1996)
"No one knows how to account for experience entirely in physical terms. That's the problem. That's why there's a mystery. Maybe the mystery will be solved. Maybe a convincing physical account of experience will come along (as it did for life). You're right that we should not regard experiences as objects. But avoiding that ontological error does not let us see how to account for experience in physical (or, for that matter, functional) terms."
Gordon Globus might try to explain away the above argument about a blind man and Zal in his posting of the (6th March 1996.) when he says,
I claim--Heaven and Leibniz help me, I know it sounds crazy!--that our brains are monadic and worlds appear in parallel across brain monads. Though I would update the idea: thrownness in the world is continually "unfolded" in parallel across brain monads. ("Unfolded" to be unpacked shortly.) These monads are "windowless" in the sense that they contain no images of the monad's surround, yet they are symmetry-conserving with respect to the surrounding reality's dynamics."
(I dont know about crazy Gordon but you will be telling me to accept the experience Zal any time now since the material world made me conjure up its existence? ) If I grasp it right, you are saying that individual (monad) brains are experiencing parallel worlds (meaning more than one?) Therefore, a blind mans world although in parallel would not contain *red* the sighted mans world would contain *red*. I take it you mean that the parallel worlds are linked in some way and not totally separate and individual to the monad brains.
Are you not in danger of proving the existence of Qualia here yourself ? If the parallel worlds represent differing parallel versions originating in a single reality then it follows that the lack of *red* in my blind mans world and its presence in the sighted mans world would indicate that it was not present in the single originating world only in some parallel versions. For this to happen would not *red* be in the sighted brain monad and possibly its parallel version of reality and not in the originating single reality where the originating electromagnetic red-frequencies only would exist? It would seem that this would be the only way to explain the lack of *red* in the parallel world attached to the blind mans monad brain.
You also say, (Globus 6th March 1996)
"The body is a world object that anchors our thrownness, and continually unfolds within the brain monad."
Are you, in effect, saying that there is a Qualia body continually unfolding within the monad brain which anchors it in the single reality of the world object body? If so I might find agreement in this. But would like to know why you object so strongly to investigating the nature of the Qualia body within the monad brain. After all you have your answer as to what the world object body is, a whirl of matter and energy operating according to the rules of quantum mechanics and organised in a particular way.
This posting is already too long but I cannot resist asking if when brother Pat thanks God for brother Gordon, have they found God out there as a world object? Im sure a lot of people would be interested if the two of you have discovered he is a material reality?
My final observation is on Gordons comment (Globus 6th March 1996)
"(2) forget Qualia, zombies and zimboes, and (3) "throw off the chains of Maya"?"
In the Buddhist texts I have read Maya refers to the physical material world of objects. The world you are convinced is the reality. Buddha taught that this world Maya was an illusion and would possibly whole heartily recommend that you throw off its chains! (I dont think you meant this) You should also bear in mind that Buddhists teach that whether you follow the path of immersing yourself totally in the world of Maya (illusion) or immerse yourself totally in the nonmaterial world of the spirit (mind) you will surely reach Nirvana (enlightenment). In the light of what I said at the start of this doesnt that sound familiar. I often have the eerie feeling these paths have been walked before?
Sorry But I dont think you have done enough to refute the objections of David Wilson, Jeff Dalton, Stephen Goldberg and others. Qualia will remain a thorn in the materialists side for a while yet.
and who invented zimboes? Now I have another thought-Qualia-concept in the space between my ears which appears to not exist in the external world. It illustrates just how creative consciousness is at bringing things into existence along with Zal and gazl after this posting. Is it really more likely that the material world brought these terms/Qualias/concepts into existence through some tortuous path that involves creating consciousness rather than the other way around?
PS. All asides meant in good humour in case the medium does not transmit..
Roland Cichowski@flinders.edu.au
jcs-online
menu