What does "not directly physical" mean?

If it’s not clear what I mean by "abstract/virtual" imagine Pacman arcade machine. You can see Pacman exists on the screen, and that’s sort of directly physical since it maps Pacman form (information about Pacman) into the matter as Pacman form. Now turn off the monitor, you can still hear the sounds and Pacman still exists somewhere in there, but not as Pacman in its physical or actual form, but as spatio-temporal dynamics and interaction between electrons and electronic components of the machine.

In what sense can Qualia be physical?

Like magnetic field, liquidity, or acidity is physical. I explained all this the first time around.

Like magnetic field, liquidity, or acidity is physical. I explained all this the first time around. — Zelebg

You seem to be confusing subjective concepts with physical objects. In the typical bar magnet illustration of a magnetic fleld, you never sense the field itself, only its effect on iron filings. Your cause-seeking brain fills-in the gaps between lines with an imputed force. This is also how optical illusions work : fill-in the blanks. The field is not an actual thing, but a metaphorical creation to represent something invisible, similar to gravity imagined as the "fabric" of empty space.

Einstein didn't intend for people to take his analogies literally, but that makes metaphysical existence easier to understand than abstract mathematics. Likewise, space-time is a metaphor-in-the-mind for us to make sense of certain invisible, intangible aspects of the natural world. Physical properties (qualia) like "magnetic field, liquidity, or acidity" exist only in minds, but are attributed to our mental models of the outside world. As Kant noted long ago, we never know the ding an sich. only our ideas about them. "Reality" is the name we give to our beliefs about ding an sich based on our mental images of them. Reality is mathematical relationships, not physical objects. :nerd:

You seem to be confusing subjective concepts with physical objects. In the typical bar magnet illustration of a magnetic fleld, you never sense the field itself, only its effect on iron filings.

Yes, its effect, its PHYSICAL effect. I already explained to you once before that just because magnetic field is transparent does not mean it is immaterial. Why can you not understand this?

You do not understand English, you’re not speaking English, you’re talking nonsense.This is ridiculous, the whole discussion revolves around semantics, people talking past each other by inventing their own personal dictionaries or not understanding the basic words like information vs meaning, computation vs communication, physical vs. virtual, transparent vs immaterial... What the hell is going on here, what is wrong with you?!

As Kant noted long ago, we never know the ding an sich. only our ideas about them. "Reality" is the name we give to our beliefs about ding an sich based on our mental images of them. Reality is mathematical relationships, not physical objects. — Gnomon

Well said Gnomon. We are barred from such knowledge about the true nature of our existence; things-in-themselves. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't speculate... !

Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the fact that we can't help but wonder about it. Here, the irony is that we know that we will never know, yet we keep seeking answers.

The metaphysical property of our sense of wonderment is wonderful. Or, it is a love-hate relationship LOL.

You seem to be confusing subjective concepts with physical objects. In the typical bar magnet illustration of a magnetic fleld, you never sense the field itself, only its effect on iron filings. — Gnomon

On the one hand, fields are real and modeled mathematically:

"The fact that the electromagnetic field can possess momentum and energy makes it very real ... a particle makes a field, and a field acts on another particle, and the field has such familiar properties as energy content and momentum, just as particles can have....”
.....A “field” is any physical quantity which takes on different values at different points in space....
.....There have been various inventions to help the mind visualize the behavior of fields. The most correct is also the most abstract: we simply consider the fields as mathematical functions of position and time....”
(Feynman lectures, (CalTech, 1956), in Vol. II, Ch 1.5, 1963)

And on the other, fields are completely abstract and quantitatively incommensurable directly:

“....We now take it for granted that electric and magnetic fields are abstractions not reducible to mechanical models. To see that this is true, we need only look at the units in which the electric and magnetic fields are supposed to be measured. The conventional unit of electric field-strength is the square-root of a joule per cubic meter. A joule is a unit of energy and a meter is a unit of length, but a square-root of a joule is not a unit of anything tangible. There is no way we can imagine measuring directly the square-root of a joule. The unit of electric field-strength is a mathematical abstraction, chosen so that the square of a field-strength is equal to an energy-density that can be measured with real instruments. The unit of energy-density is a joule per cubic meter, and therefore we say that the unit of field-strength is the square-root of a joule per cubic meter. This does not mean that an electric field-strength can be measured with the square-root of a calorimeter. It means that an electric field-strength is an abstract quantity, incommensurable with any quantities that we can measure directly....”
(Dyson, EuCAP, 2007)

All that to say this: While it is true we never sense the field itself, I’m not sure that qualifies fields to be purely subjective concepts. I think perhaps we abstract the reality of fields from demonstrated characteristics of real physical objects. It follows necessarily that abstractions are immaterial, for the simply reason they are themselves irreducible to mechanical models, but nevertheless, that which is immaterial is not thereby merely a subjective concept.

Still, I suppose all concepts originate in a subject, but calling them subjective concepts implies they have no use outside the subject that originates them, which is far from the case. The only purely subjective concepts are space and time, insofar as nothing causes time or space in the same way as physical objects cause fields. QFT refutes this, of course, but......one thing at a time, right?
—————-

As an aside.....Kant didn’t know about fields, his natural science having to do with forces alone, without the conception of field associated to them.** So I wonder if he would have considered a field as a thing-in-itself, given what he actually did consider that way of things in general. I suspect not, for things-in-themselves are real objects of sensation to which our representations relate, but fields in and of themselves have no such reality of that phenomenal nature, in as much as their representations are actually representations of something else that is phenomenal, such that the conception of them becomes empirical. And, as we understand, representations of representations, are more commonly known as abstractions.

** See M. P. N. S., 1783, Pt II, Prop. 5, 6

As an aside.....Kant didn’t know about fields, his natural science having to do with forces alone, without the conception of field associated to them.** So I wonder if he would have considered a field as a thing-in-itself, given what he actually did consider that way of things in general. I suspect not, for things-in-themselves are real objects of sensation to which our representations relate, but fields in and of themselves have no such reality of that phenomenal nature, in as much as their representations are actually representations of something else that is phenomenal, such that the conception of them becomes empirical. And, as we understand, representations of representations, are more commonly known as abstractions. — Mww

Excellent point Mww. Could one argue that abstract things have their own independent existence?

If matter makes the clay that makes the bricks, what consiousness made the matter?

(Or maybe the easier question is how did matter make consciousness?) — 3017amen

All life is conscious (to various degrees). The better question would be: How did matter make life?

Answer that and you will be closer to understanding consciousness.

Hahaha ! Good one Ov! But I've got one even better:

Learn to build a human with a human consciousness and you will become... ?

Build a living self-replicating cell in a test tube and you will be God.

NICE!!!

Okay, our work is done here, next issue... !!!!

:rofl:

Could one argue that abstract things have their own independent existence? — 3017amen

Depends on how far one wants to obfuscate the relationship between word and meaning. If one considers basketballs as an exemplar of existence, then of course abstracts do not. If one considers that which reason constructs of its own accord as existing, then abstracts exist. But it absolutely cannot be both, equally and without contradiction.

Pretty dumb, actually, to require reason to not contradict itself in its constructions, then turn right around and contradict ourselves in the use of them. It is not contradictory to say abstracts are real and empirical objects in spacetime are real, as long as it is understood spacetime objects to us are phenomena given by intuition and abstracts are not phenomena, being given to us by conception alone. Then we are allowed to claim the former are conditioned by existence while the latter are not, but are none the less real.

The ultimate rendition of......stay in your own lane.

Could one argue that abstract things have their own independent existence? — 3017amen

adjective/ˈabstrakt/ existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
"abstract concepts such as love or beauty"

In relation to 'love or beauty' the abstract thought has to relate to the observed but can apply to many observations. You can say they are loosely affiliated but not independent.

...well, of course the old debate over whether mathematics' has an independent existence or a human invention, rears it head again here:

We know mathematics is an abstract feature from consciousness
We know mathematics describes concrete things-in-themselves (does not explain the nature thereof)
We know mathematics describes things that are unseen (laws of gravity)
We know mathematics confers no survival/biological advantages

Just like other abstract phenomena in consciousness (metaphysical/sentience), can one infer an independent will of sorts, that is causing this unique sense of (self)awareness(?).

Pardon me If I’m being nosey, but.....what do you use for reference material?

On the one hand, fields are real and modeled mathematically: — Mww

And on the other, fields are completely abstract and quantitatively incommensurable directly: — Mww

Yes. The intrinsic Either/Or aspect of our apparently dual "Reality" is what Einstein was talking about in his Theory of Relativity. What's real depends on who's looking. That's also why my personal worldview is based on a complementary Both/And perspective. For all practical purposes (science), what we perceive as concrete objects and physical effects is what is Real. But for theoretical purposes (philosophy), our perceptions of those objects are mental constructs. So discussions about Consciousness must make that distinction clear, or else, by reifying Consciousness, we run into the paradoxical "hard problem".

Like all mammals, the human species has evolved to trust their perceptions as reliable guides to survival in the "real" world. But, unlike other mammals, humans have also evolved a rational extension of perception (conception), which allows us to see aspects of the world that do not exist in space-time. For example, we can make survival decisions for now, based on past or future. We can build instruments to extend our natural perception into aspects of space-time that are otherwise invisible and intangible, hence unreal. We can create abstract concepts, such as Unicorns and Hobbits, and act as-if they are real.

Unfortunately, our cleverness leads us into seeing counter-intuitive and paradoxical "realities", such as quantum "wavicles". Thence, the question arises, "are they tangibly real, or merely useful ideas like mathematics?" For example, can we see or touch a magnetic field, or do we reify the field in order to explain otherwise inexplicable effects? Ancient people saw the effects of invisible Energy, and imagined invisible Spirits or Gods as the cause. Modern people see the effects of Magnetism on matter, and imagine a Force Field as the cause. Yet that field can be described, not in terms of material properties (redness, solidity, liquidity), but only of mathematical relationships (positive or negative).

The world that rational humans live in is both concrete (real) and abstract (ideal). Moreover, abstract ideas can have real effects, as in Memetics. So we have difficulty drawing a hard line between real & ideal. Which is why my worldview is BothAnd, until it's necessary to draw a distinction, as in theories of Consciousness.


Memetics : Memetics describes how an idea can propagate successfully, but doesn't necessarily imply a concept is factual. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=memetics

BothAnd Principle : Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose. http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Why can you not understand this? — Zelebg

See my reply to Mww. :smile:

↪ovdtogt ↪Mww

...well, of course the old debate over whether mathematics' has an independent existence or a human invention, rears it head again here: — 3017amen

I didn't consider mathematics as abstract thought. I just googled the definition and used their interpretation as the basis for my argument.

I do consider mathematics as a kind of fundamental law of nature independent from human experience.

That is irrelevant if you understand the distinction between the things I labeled “physical/actual” vs things I labeled “abstract/virtual”.

Those are two distinct categories of existence as I described, and you may label them as you wish or think about them whatever you want, but as long as we agree the distinction exists, then the question still stands whether qualia belongs in one or the other category. — Zelebg

Going by this created dichotomy, all instantiations of immediate experience would be "physical/actual". Abstract concepts that emerge from these instantiations of experience would then be "abstract/virtual".

More specifically, qualia as an abstract conceptualization is abstract/virtual, but any instantiation of qualia as immediate experience (say, a sensed aesthetic) would be physical/actual.

But so dichotomizing doesn't so far make sense to me. This because I do not deem actual, concrete experience to be the same as physicality. It almost seems that you believe in experience's equivalence to physicality. Can you better explain this, or how this is a mistaken interpretation of your view? My bad if I've missed this explanation somewhere in the thread.

Everything is subjective. That stupidly purposeless observation has already been stated several times on every page of this discussion, and no one disagrees.

But nevertheless, we can still differentiate two distinct categories of existence as I have nicely described in accordance with English dictionary and textbook physics.

So what I see is a baby robot with malfunctioning logic and semantic unit, unable to understand the difference between physical existence of actual electron in the outside world, virtual existence of simulated electron in a computer, and mental existence of imagined electron in the brain.

P.S.
My question then, again, is whether mental existence of imagined electron is like physical existence of real electron or like virtual existence of simulated electron.

It’s funny how people are espousing or even inventing theories of consciousness without knowing, and even less understanding, the essential kind of statement their theory is suggesting about the most basic nature of qualia.

For all practical purposes (science), what we perceive as concrete objects and physical effects is what is Real. But for theoretical purposes (philosophy), our perceptions of those objects are mental constructs. So discussions about Consciousness must make that distinction clear, or else, by reifying Consciousness, we run into the paradoxical "hard problem". — Gnomon

Yep. Paradoxical indeed: we think consciousness as that which that belongs to us because of our nature, then attribute to it qualities we can’t figure out how it has.
——————-

what Einstein was talking about in his Theory of Relativity. What's real depends on who's looking. — Gnomon

Exactly right. In Einstein (1905), the simultaneity of relativity depends for its direct explanation on a third observer for the two participants in the events relative to each other. The relativity can only be immediately witnessed by an observer outside both, even if each participant can afterwards compare information.

Good stuff. Fun to think about. ‘Preciate the references; mine would be different, but close enough to see each other.

But so dichotomizing doesn't so far make sense to me. This because I do not deem actual, concrete experience to be the same as physicality. It almost seems that you believe in experience's equivalence to physicality. Can you better explain this, or how this is a mistaken interpretation of your view? My bad if I've missed this explanation somewhere in the thread.

I have no opinion yet on the matter, I'm asking to hear what other people think.

Theories which assert consciousness arises from computation, for example, they in fact make the claim qualia is abstract or virtual phenomena like angle or Pacman. On the other hand, theories like panpsychism make the claim qualia is physical or actual phenomena like magnetism or acidity.

The point of the question is also the defining difference, which is that for an artificial sentience in the first case qualia could be simulated, while in the second case it would have to be physically emulated.

Got it. Thanks.

As for me, consciousness - as in "that which is aware of" - is itself other than information - as in "that which informs". The former is informed by the latter. But this seems to be neither here nor there in this debate.

At any rate, thanks again for the forthright reply.

I do consider mathematics as a kind of fundamental law of nature independent from human experience. — ovdtogt

Lots of folks would follow suit.

I rather think that Nature has its intrinsic relations, which we observe and explain to ourselves by means of mathematics, specifically developed for that purpose alone. We also create the laws, but the laws represent the principles under which Nature seems to operate, at least as far as humans are concerned, and also at least as far as we can tell.

Events in Nature occur in succession, which is independent of human experience, but only humans call that succession “time” and only humans recognize “cause and effect” from it, which are hardly independent of human experience.

If you think math is independent of human experience, how would you explain how we came to be in possession of it?

As for me, consciousness - as in "that which is aware of" - is itself other than information - as in "that which informs". The former is informed by the latter. — javra

Seems pretty simple to me. If “redness” is the state of being red, “fitness” is the state of being fit, why shouldn’t consciousness be the state of being conscious? And if the state of being conscious is the condition of our attention (that which is aware of) with respect to the information presented to it, why wouldn’t that be “consciousness”?

So....all we need is a meaning, or an understanding, of what that “information” actually is.

Oh. And of course, what is meant by “attention”. And what does that “attention” belong to.....

AAARRRGGGGG!!!! Too many notions, too few facts.

f you think math is independent of human experience, how would you explain how we came to be in possession of it? — Mww

I didn't mean we don't experience math we do. Experiments with monkeys has demonstrated even they understand math. If you give 4 peanuts to one monkey and only 1 to another, that one will get pretty pissed off.

I think what I am saying is, that it is not only us that uses math. Everything in nature seems to use it.

As for me, consciousness - as in "that which is aware of" — javra

Very simple. A photo-receptor cell is 'conscious' of light. A cochlear hair cells is 'conscious' of sound...etc

If you give 4 peanuts to one monkey and only 1 to another, that one will get pretty pissed off. — ovdtogt

Hmmmm....yeah. If it can’t be proven the one was pissed because he understood “3 more than me” as opposed to just recognizing “that sorry sack of elephant droppings has got my damn peanuts”.....then it cannot be said he was doing math. Even if we grant monkeys the capacity to recognize relative quantities, which isn’t that far-fetched, we haven’t explained that his anger is because of it. Maybe he’s just selfish. Or worried what his ol’ lady will say if he don’t bring home the......er.....peanuts.

And if everything in Nature uses math, and if the math everything in Nature uses isn’t the same as the math we use, where does that leave us? Maths are different depending on who is using it? And if we can’t prove it is the same math, how do we know it is math at all?

Something to think about.....

A photo-receptor cell is 'conscious' of light. A cochlear hair cells is 'conscious' of sound...etc — ovdtogt

This is the mereological fallacy- ascribing to parts activities that can only be undertaken by the whole. So, isolated parts of an organism are not conscious, as the signals that they process are not being interpreted by a conscious agent.

Qualia, (as Dennett described it) is basically non-physical/Metaphysical abstract phenomenon. — 3017amen

Also known as 'being'. 'Being' is what Dennett denies the existence of - he says that what we understand as 'being' is in reality the net sum of unconscious cellular processes which create the illusion of being. (Which is why it's laughable that philosophies like Dennett's are categorised as 'humanism'.)