Do you intend to answer the question? The one you spent 2 pages dodging (in this thread alone)?

Do you think that some physical effects are not caused sufficiently by physical causes? — khaled

Those two pages gave my answers, if you can't understand them, it's not my problem. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Action potentials are a quantum coherence event, molecular chemistry consists in entangled superpositions, and the brain's electromagnetic field as generated by billions of nearly simultaneous action potentials is the agent that binds these particularate phenomena into subjective stream of consciousness. Quantum concepts explain how soul can transcend the body, how consciousness can exist in a huge variety of different substances, it accounts for everything paranormal. I think its the perfect paradigm for uniting materialism with psychology and spirituality. Fight fight fight!

I asked a yes or no question. I got neither a yes or no.

Do you think that some physical effects are not caused sufficiently by physical causes? — khaled

What if the answer to the question is neither yes nor no. What if I asked someone who had never been married if they’d stopped beating their wife? Could they answer that with yes or no?

I would also raise the question, regarding the closure of the physical domain, what is precisely the meaning of ‘physical’ when there are many enormous gaps in the understanding of what constitutes the physical? After all, physicists routinely invoke the notion that there a infinitely many parallel worlds, and that known theory only accounts for 4% of the observable universe. So what is ‘physical’? That is not known. Likewise there are many questions about the nature of mind, how consciousness arises from mind, and so on. So the question you’re asking is meaningless.

Except this formulation mentions nothing about minds, or anything controversial. Anyone can give a yes or no answer to this one:

Do you think that some physical effects are not caused sufficiently by physical causes? — khaled

It's different from the question you've been dodging for 2 pages in that it asks nothing about minds It's purely talking about physical effects and physical causes. Things we can agree exist.

So what is ‘physical’? — Wayfarer

What we study in physics.

See? Answers.

Again, while I like the theory, it has its gimmicks which you haven't addressed. Yes, it fundamentally allows for a non material substance that can cause physical changes without violating any laws, but doesn't really give what we're looking for. The body is too big to be treated as a quantum system. Your mind, formulated as that which decides quantum events (instead of relegating it to randomness) will end up still being useless.

What we study in physics. — khaled

You say I’m dodging your questions, but you’re not understanding the answers. But, as I say, it has been an interesting conversation, and I’ve enjoyed the opportunity of explaining my stance, even if you haven’t understood it. I’ll leave it there for now.

Do you think that some physical effects are not caused sufficiently by physical causes? Because it's that or epiphenomenalism. — khaled

Epiphenomenalism is true and we can prove it:

If there would be a mind effect, this effect could be captured by the physicists, they will eat everything what has an effect and define a force to it.

What remains can only be an epi. Q.e.d. !

Epiphenomenalism is true and we can prove it:

If there would be a mind effect, this effect could be captured by the physicists, they will eat everything what has an effect and define a force to it.

What remains can only be an epi. Q.e.d. ! — SolarWind

This assumes that something will remain. I don't think so.

I doubt it. I'd say you're just refusing to address the questions. Seems like it ends the same way it ends every time.... I still don't see any reason to propose a separate substance. And you still can't explain how that substance is affected by or affects the physical. And we both walk away without learning anything. :roll:

Is this going to be a weekly/biweekly thing? :rofl:

The body is too big to be treated as a quantum system. — khaled

But quantum physics as thus far modeled barely scratches the surface of what material substance consists in. Quantumlike effects may pervade the behaviors of objects and forces at even macroscopic scales on some plane of causality, as they do in many lab settings, with action potentials throughout the body, in photon clouds, etc. The body's molecular complexes may be adapted by the evolutionary process for extreme sensitivity to energy fields that haven't even been discovered yet, but which we must honestly admit probably exist.

A lot of "may" and "perhaps". Once or if those are gone I'd agree with you. Until then.

The body's molecular complexes may be adapted by the evolutionary process for extreme sensitivity to energy fields that haven't even been discovered yet, but which we must honestly admit probably exist. — Enrique

Or it could be adapted to completely crush any semblance of quantum effects and to be as close to deterministic as possible in whichcase you'll have dug yourself into a hole. Until the extent to which quantum events affect the brain, and consequently behavior is determined I'm not putting any money on the theory.

↪SolarWind

"Epiphenomenalism is true and we can prove it:

If there would be a mind effect, this effect could be captured by the physicists, they will eat everything what has an effect and define a force to it.

What remains can only be an epi. Q.e.d. !" — SolarWind

This assumes that something will remain. I don't think so. — khaled

It is the other way to eliminate qualia. However, this would mean that ethically speaking, any genocide would be the same as breaking stones.

I think that is not the whole truth.

Hard-core physicalist/scientist = S
Regular dude = R
Metaphysician = M

R: I think.
S: No you don’t. That’s the brain at work.
R: How does the brain work so it makes me think I think?
S: Damned if I know, but it couldn’t be any other way.
R: Oh, so...when you figure it all out, does that mean I won’t be able to claim I think?
S: Hell, you can claim anything you want, but you’d be wrong. All physical stuff.
R: Hmmmm.....I think I’ll just go ahead and disregard all that and just be me.
S: Fine. Guy can think whatever he likes, far as I’m concerned.
R: Wait. What? You just said I don’t think, it’s all brain work.
S: What I meant was, if push comes to shove, it all boils down to brain work.
R: So what you’re really saying is, before it all boils down, I actually am right in claiming I think.
S: Well...you’re right enough in claiming you think you’re thinking, because you don’t know any better, you don’t know the facts of the matter.
R: So if I go my entire life without knowing the facts of the matter, I can say I spent my whole life thinking.
S: I suppose. Like I said....we really don’t know how the brain works.
R: Then you’re no use to me at all, then, are you? Except for toaster ovens and penicillin. Credit where credit is due, I always say. Let’s get a coffee, bug the barista for a minute.
S: Fine. You’re buyin’.

A lot of "may" and "perhaps". — khaled

Quantum consciousness certainly is a promising line of research, no doubt about that, though as you say still at the speculative stages.

It is the other way to eliminate qualia. However, this would mean that ethically speaking, any genocide would be the same as breaking stones. — SolarWind

I doubt qualia can be treated as a good basis for ethics. Especially given that you can't even tell anyone else has it other than yourself. How do you know the keyboard you're typing on right now isn't in extreme pain? Those are the questions you have to ask when you propose an ineffable, private, qualia.

Especially since you agree that these Qualia would be useless when it comes to enacting a physical change, so you can't use a physical change to infer a change in qualia. One could seriously maintain that the torture victim is in fact not suffering at all, as even if he/she had been suffering, that wouldn't lead to them screaming, it wouldn't lead to anything. For all we know they love the torture! Let's give em more!

R: I think.
S: No you don’t. That’s the brain at work. — Mww

How about: Yes you do, that's the brain at work.

Makes no difference.

Yes it would as this line wouldn't be asked:

R: Oh, so...when you figure it all out, does that mean I won’t be able to claim I think? — Mww

I doubt qualia can be treated as a good basis for ethics. Especially given that you can't even tell anyone else has it other than yourself. How do you know the keyboard you're typing on right now isn't in extreme pain? Those are the questions you have to ask when you propose an ineffable, private qualia. — khaled

Exactly. I cannot know it. But I can accept it as plausible that I am not the exception in the universe.

We are faced with the amazing situation of not being able to prove something intuitively true.

Which is more probable?
1) I am the only human being who has qualia.
2) There is a principle which material configuration has qualia.

Forest/trees.

“...We find, too, that those who are engaged in metaphysical pursuits are far from being able to agree among themselves, but that, on the contrary, this science appears to furnish an arena specially adapted for the display of skill or the exercise of strength in mock-contests—a field in which no combatant ever yet succeeded in gaining an inch of ground, in which, at least, no victory was ever yet crowned with permanent possession....”

...this would mean that ethically speaking, any genocide would be the same as breaking stones. — SolarWind

One could seriously maintain that the torture victim is in fact not suffering at all, as even if he/she had been suffering, that wouldn't lead to them screaming, it wouldn't lead to anything. For all we know they love the torture! Let's give em more! — khaled

But breaking stones eventually breaks you and could in extreme cases break society, even moreso when we are the cause of human suffering, and stones don't break you back. Human engagement has intrinsic moral consequences, and rather than try to weed out all the consequences, obviously impossible, why not try to make everyone as moral as possible, which is simply a byproduct of fostering the sound reasoning that recognizes moral consequences? Whether we suppress or actualize with culture is a multigenerational marathon either way, and actualization is a much more effective and universal behavioral incentive to my knowledge. Do we sell products by explaining how they will oppress someone or benefit us?

Some think many citizens are not reliable no matter how benevolently we attempt to condition them, but is this really true?

We are faced with the amazing situation of not being able to prove something intuitively true. — SolarWind

I wouldn't call it an "amazing situation" so much as "a problem". If your theory can't prove something inuitively true, either it's not intuitively true or your theory isn't very good.

Exactly. I cannot know it. But I can accept it as plausible that I am not the exception in the universe. — SolarWind

Which is more probable?
1) I am the only human being who has qualia.
2) There is a principle which material configuration has qualia. — SolarWind

Neither is more probable than the other or more reasonable to believe given your position. Because when Qualia causes no physical change, you have absolutely 0 inkling what others are experiencing. And you have 0 reason to believe they are experiencing the same qualia as you, if any qualia at all. One has just as much evidence for believing that the torture victim loves it, or hates it, or feels nothing at all, and that is 0 evidence. This is what happens when you divorce experience from matter, and propose that experience is its own substance.

And you have 0 reason to believe they are experiencing the same qualia as you, if any qualia at all. — khaled

There is an infinitesimally narrow gap of realization if someone has EXACTLY the inner configuration of oneself.

Then it is to be assumed that the equality also leads to equal qualia. Now it would be extremely implausible that a small deviation would lead to a completely different qualia (or no qualia). That would be very discontinuous.

Anything is possible, but that doesn't get us anywhere.

There is an infinitesimally narrow gap of realization if someone has EXACTLY the inner configuration of oneself. — SolarWind

What? I'm reading this as "You will have the same qualia as a clone of yourself" or something like that. Well, by your formulation of qualia: No not necessarily. For this you have to assume that the physical is what results in qualia. But as you said, qualia must be completely separate from any physics, or else the physicists will consume it as some force or other. So you have no reason to believe that a clone of you, with the exact same matter configuration, would have the same, or similar, or any qualia.

There is no way for you to test any of the alternatives (same, similar, radically different, none), AND you have no reason to assume a physical similarity leads to a similarity in Qualia. It's a completely untestable hypothesis with no reason for us to believe it.

Now it would be extremely implausible that a small deviation would lead to a completely different qualia (or no qualia). That would be very discontinuous. — SolarWind

Again, you have no reason to believe there is a continuity of any sort. You cannot assume that a physical equality leads to the same qualia with the way you've cut qualia off so completely.

Anything is possible, but that doesn't get us anywhere. — SolarWind

Right, but the problem is that in your system, you have just as much reason to believe any qualia-matter combination is the case. You have 0 evidence anyone else is experiencing the same or similar qualia, or any qualia at all. And you have no argument from plausability or implausibility as I'm trying to show above.

But as you said, qualia must be completely separate from any physics, or else the physicists will consume it as some force or other. So you have no reason to believe that a clone of you, with the exact same matter configuration, would have the same, or similar, or any qualia. — khaled

After all, I am a victim of my own arguments. That qualia can have no effect on the matter is logical, since every effect entails a contribution in a physics book. So it remains only matter->qualia and not vice versa.

That the arrow in matter->qualia, however, should result in different right sides with the same left side, would mean that the qualia would still have to depend on something else. What should be that?

would mean that the qualia would still have to depend on something else. — SolarWind

Or be completely random. That too is an alternative. Or simply not exist for anyone other than yourself.

What should be that? — SolarWind

Heck if I know, a private ineffable substance called "qualia" is not my idea. But even if Qualia only depended on the physical configuration, you have absolutely no way of finding the significant variables. Maybe people born after 3 pm on Wednesdays actually enjoy torture (though they’ll act like the rest of us and scream). That’s just as reasonable a hypothesis than that they hate torture. Because both hypotheses have 0 evidence backing them up.

Again note, that this is assuming same physical configuration = same Qualia. Which you have no reason for believing either. But even IF you believe it the discontinuity argument doesn’t hold up. Even between you and a clone of you there is a vast array of physical and historical differences, so no reason to assume the same or similar Qualia.

Again note, that this is assuming same physical configuration = same Qualia. Which you have no reason for believing either. — khaled

If particular superpositions amongst entangled molecules give rise to particular qualia, then these qualia will be meaningfully and predictably similar or variable between individuals, just like current neuroscience to a more constrained extent. If subjects report seeing a specific color, and the molecules pinpointed as giving rise to that perception are comparable by some rubric, we will have objective proof that they are seeing the same color because the molecular qualia are the color. Within a tolerable margin of error, we will have a table of the perceptual elements. However, mechanisms we know nothing about at this point in a theoretical sense are probably in effect.