A Conversation for Explanatory gap
- 1
- 2
A926949 - Explanatory gap
turvy (Fetch me my trousers Geoffrey...) Posted Jan 18, 2003
I personally don't think it is dense and heavy, and to be honest I would like to see further expansion of the three positions.
I noted some typos in Paragraph 3 - mostly related to the bracketted text.
As for the questions of Qualia (if I understand what they are?) surely there has to be a semantic explanation to the naming of perceptions. Red is red to me because I was taught that it was. The perception of 'red' is reducable to purely physical terms. The particular frequency of light falling on the retina of the eye stimulates certain cones that send signals to the visual cortex where they produce a reaction - the firing of certain neurones. This part is electro-chemical and scientifically demonstrable. My conscious 'self' interprets this as red because that was what I learned from others (parents, mostly).[Is this the 'gap', here?]
Red, Rouge, Rot, Coch, erythro (physiological prefix) all hold the same meaning for me and my memory will bring up the same ting for each.
(Oddly, thinking this has done a lot more than just bring up an image of the colour in my head. Which must have a significance, but it is midnight.)
I'm sure there is more to be said on this, but not now!
turvy
A926949 - Explanatory gap
anhaga Posted Jan 18, 2003
I don't think it's too dense and heavy although I do agree a few definitions are in order.
The analogy I've long used (as a devout materialist) is a version of the brain as computer: The brain is a computer without a monitor; consciousness (mind, whatever) is the monitor. If the mouse gets moved around in the right way, the printer will start printing, whether the monitor is on or off. The guts of the computer (brain) have a direct effect on what the monitor (mind) displays (feels), but the computer (brain) goes about its business without any influence from the monitor (mind). In fact, apart from static spikes, the monitor is unable to influence the computer.
This has always convinced me. At least, it feels like it does.
anhaga
A926949 - Explanatory gap
Noggin the Nog Posted Jan 18, 2003
That's consciousness as an epiphenomenon, anhaga, and I'd agree with that as far as it goes.
The perception of 'red' is not reducible to purely physical terms. We can tell why the visual perceptual system divides the colour spectrum the way it does, but not why the experience has the 'feel' that it does. The activity in the relevant brain cells is not red, or green or B flat, or hot or cold. Experience is. And that's the gap.
Noggin
A926949 - Explanatory gap
anhaga Posted Jan 18, 2003
I would argue that the activity in the brain is, in fact, identical with the qualia, although my argument isn't really an arguement. It just seems that if we acknowledge the qualia to be something else, then we've given the dualists the whole cake.
Here's a little synesthetic annecdote: a few months ago I was hammering a large number of six inch staples into frozen ground (don't ask why). After a few days of this, with an aching right elbow, I struck a blow and the sound of hammer on staple smelled of cardamom. I think it was just an interesting little neural twitch, not some bit of magic. And I'm sure that in theory, with enough resolution, we could find exactly what the neurons were doing in relation to all the others and the question of a gap would disappear in a puff of logic. We'd still have feelings.
But maybe finally people should realize that "we" "the self" , etc. are qualia. I get the feeling that the clinging to qualia as something "real" and separate is a function of asking "what are qualia" while meaning "why are qualia". "Why?" in this case is an ultimate question whose only answer is something like,
"God", "initial conditions" or "why not?"
anhaga
A926949 - Explanatory gap
Noggin the Nog Posted Jan 18, 2003
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Granted, consciousness is entirely caused by brain processes (IMO). Granted, in theory we could find out what all the neurons were doing at the time. But there is no way of deriving the qualia, the EXPERIENCE, or what-it's-likeness, from these brain activities. And I don't think this gives the game to the dualists, who are no better off, (indeed worse off) than the materialist in trying to explain the connection between mind (seen as entity) and experience. We at least have brains to observe, and some successes in mapping brain structure to consciousness structure; they don't have anything even that useful.
Noggin
And welcome to h2g2 BTW; nice to meet you.
A926949 - Explanatory gap
anhaga Posted Jan 18, 2003
I agree that it's hard to concieve of the dualists ever having a place to stand. I also have no problem with disagreement on my point. My stance will be necessarily frustrating as I'm pretty much saying there's no gap, there's nothing much to discuss except brains and that sounds like I'm ignoring qualia. I guess I just simply have to say that qualia are not something brains make, they are brains. What makes this pattern of neurons "feel" red? That feeling is that pattern of neurons, that's it, end of story. Not liking to appeal to authority, I will: remember Ford Prefect's response to Dent Arthur Dent when asked "what do you mean?"? Ford replied," Mean? I don't mean anything." Maybe this is another boring and tired hard thing for some people to swallow: no matter how much we want it, or feel it, we're pretty much without meaning and accidental.
But enough of this, I don't have any point to make I haven't already made. The entry is great and should stay. The explanatory gap is a big part of the philosophical landscape and it deserves to be well represented in the guide, even if many others and I don't think it really exists.
anhaga
A926949 - Explanatory gap
Gone again Posted Jan 18, 2003
Mildly off-topic:
Recent research has shown that processing begins almost immediately after the 'signal' leaves the rods/cones. Certainly what enters the optic nerve is 'enhanced' by the time it reaches the brain....
Add to this the 'filling-in' of the overall image (based on experience, and what we 'expect' to see) that the brain does while processing images, and the link between the outside world and what is perceived becomes less direct, and much less predictable.
Pattern-chaser
"Who cares, wins"
A926949 - Explanatory gap
Mikey the Humming Mouse - A3938628 Learn More About the Edited Guide! Posted Mar 7, 2003
Hmmm... I think this will be a really great EG entry some day, but I still think it needs a little work to be more accessible to people who don't have a background in this area. Some of it may be as simple as adding in links, some of it is just a matter of defining a few of the terms that are used frequently (like qualia -- I can only vaguely guess what that means, and I don't feel motivated enough to hunt around for a dictionary). I also have absolutely no idea of the significance of the people who are named -- are these people philosophers? Are they still alive? If you're going to mention them by name, I think it's worth either providing some links or descriptions of who they are and why they're related. If it's not worth doing that, than I think it just muddies things further by having the specific names.
Just my
Mikey
A926949 - Explanatory gap
anhaga Posted Mar 14, 2003
Here's a news story which is of huge importance to this entry:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993488
If this experiment is sucessful, it will certainly have some implications for Searle's Chinese Room example -- heck, it will have implications for everything having to do with consciousness.
A926949 - Explanatory gap
Simulacron3 Posted Apr 7, 2003
Very interesting article, to be sure, but the implications aren't that profound, really. Not at this level, at least. If the prosthesis as even limited success, it will surely stir up a storm of ethical questions, but consciousness and even sensation are not really involved in that 'artificial hippocamus', which is really just a kind of shunt.
A926949 - Explanatory gap
There is only one thing worse than being Gosho, and that is not being Gosho Posted Apr 30, 2003
Have we reached a concensus on this entry yet, or is there still work to be done?
A926949 - Explanatory gap
anhaga Posted Apr 30, 2003
I "feel" like we've reached a consensus, but I can't demonstrate it with any physical principals.
I don't know if we've reached a consensus or what kind of consensus we might have reached. I've reread the entry and it seems a fairly okay description of what the Explanatory Gap is. I haven't reread the entire PR thread so I don't know if the issues raised by other researchers have been addressed. As I remember it, a portion of the thread was more of a debate about various philosophical stances rather than about the actual entry.
What does everybody else think?
A926949 - Explanatory gap
Mikey the Humming Mouse - A3938628 Learn More About the Edited Guide! Posted May 1, 2003
If you look at my post just a couple of notches up, I had a few concerns that I don't think have been addressed yet. At least not that I can see.
A926949 - Explanatory gap
There is only one thing worse than being Gosho, and that is not being Gosho Posted Jul 9, 2003
It's more than two months since Simulacron3 posted to h2g2, although it seems from the Researcher's PS that s/he might be an occasional visitor. Should we move this one or give Simulacron a while more?
Scout
A926949 - Explanatory gap
Mikey the Humming Mouse - A3938628 Learn More About the Edited Guide! Posted Jul 9, 2003
Given the occasional visitor thing, my preference would be to move the entry, but move it back to the entry rather than to the FM. But, if you really want to move it to the FM, I'd be willing to second that.
A926949 - Explanatory gap
There is only one thing worse than being Gosho, and that is not being Gosho Posted Jul 9, 2003
To the entry it is then
Scout
A926949 - Explanatory gap
Pilgrim4Truth Posted Sep 25, 2006
It seems this Entry has not been looked at for a while. A crying shame says I .
I think it covers the "controversy" enough to satisfy those who champion alternatives. And maybe another para for more on qualia. And an udate on more recent work over the past 3 years, and will that then not be enough?
This is something that needs to be on the EG surely? - maybe I am missing something though as I am new here myself!
A926949 - Explanatory gap
turvy (Fetch me my trousers Geoffrey...) Posted Sep 25, 2006
I agree that it should be in the EG at some stage. Has it been 'done' in PR do you think?
Simulacron3 would appear to have Elvised. The last post on the PS is 24 June 2003!
turvy
A926949 - Explanatory gap
Pilgrim4Truth Posted Sep 27, 2006
I'll try and get it escalated - I think as you say whoever owned this has just dropped it and it may need reinitiation
Key: Complain about this post
- 1
- 2
A926949 - Explanatory gap
- 21: turvy (Fetch me my trousers Geoffrey...) (Jan 18, 2003)
- 22: anhaga (Jan 18, 2003)
- 23: Noggin the Nog (Jan 18, 2003)
- 24: anhaga (Jan 18, 2003)
- 25: Noggin the Nog (Jan 18, 2003)
- 26: anhaga (Jan 18, 2003)
- 27: Gone again (Jan 18, 2003)
- 28: Mikey the Humming Mouse - A3938628 Learn More About the Edited Guide! (Mar 7, 2003)
- 29: anhaga (Mar 14, 2003)
- 30: Simulacron3 (Apr 7, 2003)
- 31: There is only one thing worse than being Gosho, and that is not being Gosho (Apr 30, 2003)
- 32: anhaga (Apr 30, 2003)
- 33: Mikey the Humming Mouse - A3938628 Learn More About the Edited Guide! (May 1, 2003)
- 34: There is only one thing worse than being Gosho, and that is not being Gosho (Jul 9, 2003)
- 35: Mikey the Humming Mouse - A3938628 Learn More About the Edited Guide! (Jul 9, 2003)
- 36: There is only one thing worse than being Gosho, and that is not being Gosho (Jul 9, 2003)
- 37: Pilgrim4Truth (Sep 25, 2006)
- 38: turvy (Fetch me my trousers Geoffrey...) (Sep 25, 2006)
- 39: Pilgrim4Truth (Sep 27, 2006)
More Conversations for Explanatory gap
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."