- #36
Q_Goest
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
- 3,012
- 42
Hi Vanesch,
People who accept the standard computational paradigm of consciousness intuitively make the mistake of believing the phenomena of various conscious experiences such as the experience of pain, or the experience of heat or orgasm should naturally correlate to those experiences we have. They reason that this behavior we exhibit, such as flinching and subsequent avoidance of pain, is an evolutionary reaction which aids our survival. This is a type of category error which is almost as difficult to understand as the category error of the color red being a property of something we’re looking at. Obviously, the color red doesn’t exist as a property of an object – it is a phenomenon which is created within our brains.
The category mistake I’m referring to is the belief that the computational model allows for qualia to have some kind of influence over our behavior. It doesn’t - and this has some rather drastic implications.
The movement of a switch has nothing to do with what qualia may be experienced. Nor should the subsequent operation of numerous switches have any correlation to specific qualia. Qualia do not influence the operation of switches. Qualia are subjectively experienced and are not objectively measurable. But the operation of a switch is influenced by the application of electric charges, mechanical forces or other objectively measurable influences.
If qualia don’t influence the operation of switches, they can not influence behavior and they can’t come to our aid when we experience a negative influence such as pain. The experience of pain can not influence what switch or set of switches are going to activate so there is no evolutionary benefit to qualia given the computational model. There is no need to associate the qualia of a bad experience with the behavior of avoidance of pain for example. Given the computational model, qualia have no influence over the physical substrate which creates it. Therefore, qualia are epiphenomena given the assumption that consciousness is computational. And if qualia are epiphenomena, then there is no reason for it to reliably correlate to our behavior.
In the case of your broken rock example, the rock breaks because there are internal stresses in the rock which are higher than what can be resisted. There’s no reason for a rock to experience pain if it does the rock no good. Why shouldn’t the rock experience pleasure at being broken? How about an orgasm?
If our behavior can not be influenced by qualia, I’d rather go through life experiencing constant orgasms than pain, frustration, and sadness.
Edit for clarification: The 'category mistake' made by computationalists is that qualia, which is not an objectively measurable phenomena, can have an influence on objectively measurable interactions.
I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, just thought I'd point this one thing out...An argument I always like to use against materialists is that they are too antropocentric, and cannot imagine different forms of consciousness: "does it hurt a rock when it is broken ?"
People who accept the standard computational paradigm of consciousness intuitively make the mistake of believing the phenomena of various conscious experiences such as the experience of pain, or the experience of heat or orgasm should naturally correlate to those experiences we have. They reason that this behavior we exhibit, such as flinching and subsequent avoidance of pain, is an evolutionary reaction which aids our survival. This is a type of category error which is almost as difficult to understand as the category error of the color red being a property of something we’re looking at. Obviously, the color red doesn’t exist as a property of an object – it is a phenomenon which is created within our brains.
The category mistake I’m referring to is the belief that the computational model allows for qualia to have some kind of influence over our behavior. It doesn’t - and this has some rather drastic implications.
The movement of a switch has nothing to do with what qualia may be experienced. Nor should the subsequent operation of numerous switches have any correlation to specific qualia. Qualia do not influence the operation of switches. Qualia are subjectively experienced and are not objectively measurable. But the operation of a switch is influenced by the application of electric charges, mechanical forces or other objectively measurable influences.
If qualia don’t influence the operation of switches, they can not influence behavior and they can’t come to our aid when we experience a negative influence such as pain. The experience of pain can not influence what switch or set of switches are going to activate so there is no evolutionary benefit to qualia given the computational model. There is no need to associate the qualia of a bad experience with the behavior of avoidance of pain for example. Given the computational model, qualia have no influence over the physical substrate which creates it. Therefore, qualia are epiphenomena given the assumption that consciousness is computational. And if qualia are epiphenomena, then there is no reason for it to reliably correlate to our behavior.
In the case of your broken rock example, the rock breaks because there are internal stresses in the rock which are higher than what can be resisted. There’s no reason for a rock to experience pain if it does the rock no good. Why shouldn’t the rock experience pleasure at being broken? How about an orgasm?
If our behavior can not be influenced by qualia, I’d rather go through life experiencing constant orgasms than pain, frustration, and sadness.
Edit for clarification: The 'category mistake' made by computationalists is that qualia, which is not an objectively measurable phenomena, can have an influence on objectively measurable interactions.
Last edited: