Qualia?

[Furrowed Brow]

This is a subject I return to from time to time in one form or another. Today I’d like to talk about Qualia. A philosophical term with a loose definition. Roughly speaking the word invokes the raw feel of sensations/experiences. This Wiki page goes into more detail.

I tend to shy away from definitions of Qualia that use words like mental states, universals, a feature of sensation, subjective or private experience. Basically I don’t like any single definition supplied on the Wiki page. So I’d like to work with this definition:

Qualia is a word that invokes the raw feel of pain, smelling a rose, seeing a blue belle, the sensation of fur, the taste of salt, the sound of a humming bee, the feeling of ennui or anxiety, and so on......

You might wonder how "seeing" can be a feel. But I am trying to avoid using the phrase "subjective experience" because that is fraught with connotatons I wish to avoid. I do not want to debate how I might see a blue sky that you experience as red. And what you call blue is red, and what I call blue is some other experience.

We could dispense with the word 'qualia' all together and just say raw feel and in a way I prefer this because there is less chance of invoking a metaphysics of raw feels, than there might be for quale; if only because as soon as you invent a philosophical word a metaphysics is sure to follow.

Questions:

• 1/ Why do we experience qualia/raw feel. What is their point? Especially from an evolutionary and functionally perspective.
  2/ How are qualia produced? What causal mechanisms could possible generate a feel?

I ask the second question because I do not believe there is any causal mechanism involved. In fact I’d go so far as to say that is an illogicality? But let’s get your input to the questions first.

5 rouble bet QED posts first.

[Furrowed Brow]

'Qualia' are no more than 'feelings' (as far as I can gather from your usage). Are you asking why 'feelings'?

Qualia are qualitative. They are the feel of what we experience, with the word feel used loosely to incorporate the feel of all the sensations plus pain, anxiety and any other existential qualitative feel.

Let me try and turn this around to the point I want to follow. Why the physics of the experience of a rainbow plus quail of the rainbow, and not just the physics? What does qualia bring to the party?

Ahh, I see a 'false dichotomy'. I cannot 'separate' the 'physics' from the 'physicist' (neither can quantum theory) or the 'perceived' qualia.

Okaaaay. I ask a question which is not an either /or question. The usual prerequisite for the false dichotomy fallacy. Though perhaps you don’t mean to imply the fallacy? I think this is perhaps your point- that the physics cannot be separated from the physics. The mistake is to see two things when there is only one. Thus the dichotomy is false. An interesting criticism.

I take your physics/physicist to mean: the label ‘physicists’ applies the person whose behaviors and actions are the physics that allow the label ‘physicist’ to be applied. Thus the ‘physicist’ cannot be separated from his physics. To attempt a separation is a semantic mistake. A misunderstanding as to the form of language…so to speak.

But the analogy fails. Certainly the activities of say a bunch of neurons firing cannot be separated from the brain activity they instantiate. And certainly the brain activity cannot be separated from the brain of an individual. But the qualitative aspect that goes along with this brain activity is of a different order. Whilst ‘pain’ is a noun, there is quality this word invokes that is not the biological activity that tokens that pain. This is not a semantic dichotomy.

Good luck. I see faulty assumptions,

Perhaps. But you are using a false analogy to take that view.

but if your investigation into your subject is an honest one, you'll find this for yourself.

I always try to be honest, so we’ll see.

Whether critters have 'feelings' ('raw' (still not effectively defined that I have seen here) or otherwise), we 'critters' seem to. Where there is a 'feeling', there is necessarily, a perceiving 'subject'.

If by subject you mean – a person or thing being discussed. I do not have a problem with this point. But previous you have been talking about ‘subjective experience’ and ‘subjective thought’. “subject” is a different word with different connotations. Your arguments that a feel needs a feeler is semantically speaking quite right. But that does not mean the feeler necessarily has a subjective mind, or subjective thoughts, or an "I". Meaning it is not shown that it is necessary for the subject (person, thing) receiving external stimuli and that has feels as a result, has a mind or has thoughts or must be cognizant. And the point that the subject has feels that will be unique to the subject is a different argument for another thread.

You have created an artificial dichotomy and now ask 'why this is'.

Maybe. You’ve yet to support that point successfully that the dichotomy is false. I now see that perhaps you did not mean to imply I was guilty of the fallacy of false dichotomy. The phrase ‘artificial dichotomy’ suits your point better I think. Anyhow you have not yet shown why the dichotomy is artificial. More pertinently your argument has moved from the personal assertion “I see that….” to an objective claim that I have created my own problem through a dichotomy of my own making, but you have nothing in the middle to show how so….save a misconceived analogy and a huge sense of philosophical superiority you seem to be radiating.

The 'event' that lies behind the appearance of anything is 'your' Perspective. You see 'patterns', accept them at face value and ask why. Fair enough, and, again, an honest and sincere study will bring 'understanding'.

Okay this point is an evasion, confusion or missing the rest, or a mixture of the three. You originally dismissed the notion of a causal framework as naïve. A point I have some sympathy with, for attempts to define causality are fraught with problems. You then replace cause and effect with the notion of an “event”, which now appears purely subjective. Hmm. Okay I have the notion of brain activity and the notion of the feel of fur that goes with that brain activity. If these are indeed one event, got any ideas where I need to be looking from my perspective for said event? If they are different events, then how so?

One moment is a universe perceived with a hammer against a thumb and a simultaneous feeling of pain.

Okay I can see why we’re at odds. You are looking at this problem from the perspective of describing the nature of conscious experience, and that existence only has meaning as some facet of that consciousness. You seem to be influenced by Husserl’s phenomenology or something similar to noema.

I am assuming stuff is going on without conscious experience and I want to know why qualia, and why can’t that stuff organize itself without qualia. A least I think that is the divide.

Language implies that 'to conceive' is a verb, implying action, implying that it is an 'event' as 'event' also implies 'action'. But, this is trifling..

Some of the greatest philosophical mistakes are predicated on such trifles.

Any 'meaning' that you find is in your own mind. There are many minds that perceive the pile of words that I offer to be 'meaningful'. Many do not. Meaning is not inherent in these words, but in your perceptions/concepts/thoughts...

Well that is a theory. And it is deeply flawed. And you might need to read up on the later Wittgenstein and why there is no such thing as a private language. It is true to say meaning is not inherent to a word, but it is defined by how a word is used in context. That context depends on situation and language games and exists in the behaviors followed by the language users.

There is nothing 'metaphysical' about the naive notion/concept of the 'planetary' atom. Nothing at all like the present concepts, though..

Good. Excellent. I agree.

How about physics now 'understanding' and 'confirming' the millennial mystical understanding of the inherent unity, the 'Oneness', of the universe (at any one moment).

Hmm. You been reading too much of David Bohm I feel. Confirmed eh? Again Hmmm. I don't think so.

How about quantum's finding of 'Consciousness' being the "ground of all being" (Copenhagen interpretation)?

Whoa there! The Copenhagen interpretation don’t take you that far by any stretch. The (probabilistic) wave function is collapsed by the act of observation, and the thus the observation cannot be separated from the event.

Something that the mystical metaphysicians have experienced/known, again, for millennia.

Science slowly seems to be 'catching up' and validating much that has, hitherto, been rejected, often out-of-hand.

So one extreme interpretation of an interpretation supports the philosophy you prefer.

the 'physical world' IS a (hologramic) model, in your mind.

Why a hologram that is experienced? Why not the very same information processed without the experiential feel to the process?
(also model in the mind, is the mind, produced by the mind?)

[Goat]

'Qualia' are no more than 'feelings' (as far as I can gather from your usage). Are you asking why 'feelings'?

Qualia are qualitative. They are the feel of what we experience, with the word feel used loosely to incorporate the feel of all the sensations plus pain, anxiety and any other existential qualitative feel.

Let me try and turn this around to the point I want to follow. Why the physics of the experience of a rainbow plus quail of the rainbow, and not just the physics? What does qualia bring to the party?

Ahh, I see a 'false dichotomy'. I cannot 'separate' the 'physics' from the 'physicist' (neither can quantum theory) or the 'perceived' qualia.

Okaaaay. I ask a question which is not an either /or question. The usual prerequisite for the false dichotomy fallacy. Though perhaps you don’t mean to imply the fallacy? I think this is perhaps your point- that the physics cannot be separated from the physics. The mistake is to see two things when there is only one. Thus the dichotomy is false. An interesting criticism.

I take your physics/physicist to mean: the label ‘physicists’ applies the person whose behaviors and actions are the physics that allow the label ‘physicist’ to be applied. Thus the ‘physicist’ cannot be separated from his physics. To attempt a separation is a semantic mistake. A misunderstanding as to the form of language…so to speak.

But the analogy fails. Certainly the activities of say a bunch of neurons firing cannot be separated from the brain activity they instantiate. And certainly the brain activity cannot be separated from the brain of an individual. But the qualitative aspect that goes along with this brain activity is of a different order. Whilst ‘pain’ is a noun, there is quality this word invokes that is not the biological activity that tokens that pain. This is not a semantic dichotomy.

Good luck. I see faulty assumptions,

Perhaps. But you are using a false analogy to take that view.

but if your investigation into your subject is an honest one, you'll find this for yourself.

I always try to be honest, so we’ll see.

Whether critters have 'feelings' ('raw' (still not effectively defined that I have seen here) or otherwise), we 'critters' seem to. Where there is a 'feeling', there is necessarily, a perceiving 'subject'.

If by subject you mean – a person or thing being discussed. I do not have a problem with this point. But previous you have been talking about ‘subjective experience’ and ‘subjective thought’. “subject” is a different word with different connotations. Your arguments that a feel needs a feeler is semantically speaking quite right. But that does not mean the feeler necessarily has a subjective mind, or subjective thoughts, or an "I". Meaning it is not shown that it is necessary for the subject (person, thing) receiving external stimuli and that has feels as a result, has a mind or has thoughts or must be cognizant. And the point that the subject has feels that will be unique to the subject is a different argument for another thread.

You have created an artificial dichotomy and now ask 'why this is'.

Maybe. You’ve yet to support that point successfully that the dichotomy is false. I now see that perhaps you did not mean to imply I was guilty of the fallacy of false dichotomy. The phrase ‘artificial dichotomy’ suits your point better I think. Anyhow you have not yet shown why the dichotomy is artificial. More pertinently your argument has moved from the personal assertion “I see that….” to an objective claim that I have created my own problem through a dichotomy of my own making, but you have nothing in the middle to show how so….save a misconceived analogy and a huge sense of philosophical superiority you seem to be radiating.

The 'event' that lies behind the appearance of anything is 'your' Perspective. You see 'patterns', accept them at face value and ask why. Fair enough, and, again, an honest and sincere study will bring 'understanding'.

Okay this point is an evasion, confusion or missing the rest, or a mixture of the three. You originally dismissed the notion of a causal framework as naïve. A point I have some sympathy with, for attempts to define causality are fraught with problems. You then replace cause and effect with the notion of an “event”, which now appears purely subjective. Hmm. Okay I have the notion of brain activity and the notion of the feel of fur that goes with that brain activity. If these are indeed one event, got any ideas where I need to be looking from my perspective for said event? If they are different events, then how so?

One moment is a universe perceived with a hammer against a thumb and a simultaneous feeling of pain.

Okay I can see why we’re at odds. You are looking at this problem from the perspective of describing the nature of conscious experience, and that existence only has meaning as some facet of that consciousness. You seem to be influenced by Husserl’s phenomenology or something similar to noema.

I am assuming stuff is going on without conscious experience and I want to know why qualia, and why can’t that stuff organize itself without qualia. A least I think that is the divide.

Language implies that 'to conceive' is a verb, implying action, implying that it is an 'event' as 'event' also implies 'action'. But, this is trifling..

Some of the greatest philosophical mistakes are predicated on such trifles.

Any 'meaning' that you find is in your own mind. There are many minds that perceive the pile of words that I offer to be 'meaningful'. Many do not. Meaning is not inherent in these words, but in your perceptions/concepts/thoughts...

Well that is a theory. And it is deeply flawed. And you might need to read up on the later Wittgenstein and why there is no such thing as a private language. It is true to say meaning is not inherent to a word, but it is defined by how a word is used in context. That context depends on situation and language games and exists in the behaviors followed by the language users.

There is nothing 'metaphysical' about the naive notion/concept of the 'planetary' atom. Nothing at all like the present concepts, though..

Good. Excellent. I agree.

How about physics now 'understanding' and 'confirming' the millennial mystical understanding of the inherent unity, the 'Oneness', of the universe (at any one moment).

Hmm. You been reading too much of David Bohm I feel. Confirmed eh? Again Hmmm. I don't think so.

How about quantum's finding of 'Consciousness' being the "ground of all being" (Copenhagen interpretation)?

Whoa there! The Copenhagen interpretation don’t take you that far by any stretch. The (probabilistic) wave function is collapsed by the act of observation, and the thus the observation cannot be separated from the event.

Something that the mystical metaphysicians have experienced/known, again, for millennia.

Science slowly seems to be 'catching up' and validating much that has, hitherto, been rejected, often out-of-hand.

So one extreme interpretation of an interpretation supports the philosophy you prefer.

the 'physical world' IS a (hologramic) model, in your mind.

Why a hologram that is experienced? Why not the very same information processed without the experiential feel to the process?
(also model in the mind, is the mind, produced by the mind?)

I personally think you are making a mountain of a mole hill with this concern. We
generally have the same cells in the eye that process the information, and for those people who have the proper receptors, we tend to react in similar ways, and
perceive the same things. Those that have a different group of receptors (such as color blind people , or those that have one type duplicated) react slightly differently.

If the red "looks" differently, there is no way to tell. However, we react the same, we perceive things similarly, we have the same 'hardware' (brain and physical receptors). I would say that is good enough evidence we experience things in the same way

[Nameless]

'Qualia' are no more than 'feelings' (as far as I can gather from your usage). Are you asking why 'feelings'?

Qualia are qualitative.

Yes, I understand the root..

They are the feel of what we experience, with the word feel used loosely to incorporate the feel of all the sensations plus pain, anxiety and any other existential qualitative feel.

So, the sum total of human 'feelings', no?

Okaaaay. I ask a question which is not an either /or question. The usual prerequisite for the false dichotomy fallacy. Though perhaps you don’t mean to imply the fallacy? I think this is perhaps your point- that the physics cannot be separated from the physics. The mistake is to see two things when there is only one. Thus the dichotomy is false. An interesting criticism.

You seem to understand my intent. Thank you for making the effort.

I take your physics/physicist to mean: the label ‘physicists’ applies the person whose behaviors and actions are the physics that allow the label ‘physicist’ to be applied. Thus the ‘physicist’ cannot be separated from his physics. To attempt a separation is a semantic mistake. A misunderstanding as to the form of language…so to speak.

Not quite.
Performing an experiment, a person's (physicist's) 'personal consciousness' is intimately and inextricably part-of/one-with the experiment. Quantum physics has revealed this to the entire scientific community. The famous double slit experiment has illustrated that point; If one person looks at the behavior and nature of a photon, he will find data that is Perspective dependent. If he uses 'this' measuring device, set up to see photons from a particular perspective (such as measuring for momentum...), he will find a 'particulate' nature. Using a slightly different perspective in the observation, photons will display a 'wavelike' nature. Some see this as a paradox, How can ('perspectives') such apparently divergent behaviors of photons both be correct? Robert Anton explains this so much more simply and elegantly in his movie 'Maybe Logic; the Life and Times of Robert Anton Wilson'.

But the analogy fails.

Now you, hopefully, better understand my intended meaning.

1 Certainly the activities of say a bunch of neurons firing cannot be separated from the brain activity they instantiate. 2 And certainly the brain activity cannot be separated from the brain of an individual. 3 But the qualitative aspect that goes along with this brain activity is of a different order. 4 Whilst ‘pain’ is a noun, there is quality this word invokes that is not the biological activity that tokens that pain. 5 This is not a semantic dichotomy.

1) I would call it an 'arbitrary and artificial' distinction until demonstrated otherwise. So, I'll agree...
2) I'll agree here...
3) I'll have to know your intended meaning of 'order' here, to determine wheather or not you are creating "an 'arbitrary and artificial' distinction". But, I'll play, for now...
4) I think that your statement still would hold true without the 'noun'. The 'quality' that I hear you talking about sounds an awful lot like individual Perspective (redundant).
5) Agreed

Whether critters have 'feelings' ('raw' (still not effectively defined that I have seen here) or otherwise), we 'critters' seem to. Where there is a 'feeling', there is necessarily, a perceiving 'subject'.

If by subject you mean – a person or thing being discussed. I do not have a problem with this point.

I am saying that the 'feeling' cannot (but by "an 'arbitrary and artificial' distinction") be seperated from the 'observer' of that feeling. The 'feeling' is a function of the observer/'feeler'. We do not have feelings, we are feelings.

Your arguments that a feel needs a feeler is semantically speaking quite right.

'Correct' on many 'levels', from many different Perspectives.

But that does not mean the feeler necessarily has a subjective mind,

Unless you are positing a 'universal One Mind' hypothesis, I must reiterate that the 'observer' doesnt have a mind, he is a mind. Both 'wave' and 'particle'... One cannot be 'seperated out but by "an 'arbitrary and artificial' distinction"

or subjective thoughts,

See above..

or an "I".

and again..

Meaning it is not shown that it is necessary for the subject (person, thing) receiving external stimuli and that has feels as a result, has a mind

Ahhh.. For the 'feeler', the only place that his 'external stimulus', his 'feelings' related to that stimulus, can or have ever been shown to 'exist' has been in (his) 'mind'. You open your eyes and 'see' me, do you really think that the 'me' that you 'see' is actually 'out there'? Or in 'here'? For you, when you see me, or think of me, my sole residence is in your mind... such as right now. Just as your existence is in my mind. No 'out there' has ever been irrefutably evidenced.

or has thoughts

Agreed

or must be cognizant.

If by 'cognizant' you mean 'aware of', I must, of course, disagree. If you are not 'cognizant' of any feeling of pain in your life (at the moment), then pain does not exist in your world (in that moment). For something to exist (for you) you must have context. To have context, it must be perceived/conceived in context. One must therefore be cognizant for one's world to exist (for him). The definition of 'self' is nondifferent than the 'context' that defines self.

And the point that the subject has feels that will be unique to the subject is a different argument for another thread.

Ok, I'm leaving...

and a huge sense of philosophical superiority you seem to be radiating.

A perfect example of my point. I 'radiate' nothing here. I am offering my perspective, thats all. Simple intellectual (and compassionate) exercise. I have nothing to sell or defend. That you perceive/conceive a 'sub-text' such, as you do, that I am indeed not sending (I have no sense of 'superiority to send, just my view, as 'correct' as all views' (to one extent or another)), illustrates my point exactly.

You then replace cause and effect with the notion of an “event”, which now appears purely subjective.

The only 'event' that I can see is the universe, at the moment of perception/conception. Every moment is a new 'event' in Consciousness of Perspective of Mind. k? And it IS purely 'subjective', of each and every unique Perspective. Same Mind, many Perspectives. Some 'close' others not.. All 'correct'.

Hmm. Okay I have the notion of brain activity and the notion of the feel of fur that goes with that brain activity. If these are indeed one event, got any ideas where I need to be looking from my perspective for said event?

Perspective is 'event'! The only one.
You 'see' what you 'see' because it is manifested by/in/as Perspective (you).

One moment is a universe perceived with a hammer against a thumb and a simultaneous feeling of pain.

Okay I can see why we’re at odds. You are looking at this problem from the perspective of describing the nature of conscious experience, and that existence only has meaning as some facet of that consciousness.

You seem to be influenced by Husserl’s phenomenology or something similar to noema.

I am 'influenced' by experience, memory, critical thought, intuition, logic.. I have many 'tools' that can appear to 'influence' my understandings of the moment (from a 'cause and effect perspective). But (he egoically ranted) I don't imbibe the opinions and thoughts of others as my own. I don't need to. (egoic rant over)
Perhaps, on the other hand, you are just seeking parallels (in your own mind) to aid in understanding what I offer. Again, you are 'projecting'...

I am assuming stuff is going on without conscious experience

Seems like an unfounded assumption, to me.

and I want to know why qualia, and why can’t that stuff organize itself without qualia. A least I think that is the divide.

I'd be interested where this line of inquiry eventually leads you...

Language implies that 'to conceive' is a verb, implying action, implying that it is an 'event' as 'event' also implies 'action'. But, this is trifling..

Some of the greatest philosophical mistakes are predicated on such trifles.

Heh..
Well, I finally defined 'event' from 'this' perspective, earlier in this post.
The above usage of 'event' is from the perspective that there 'is motion', to which many physicists are still fondly attached. But, they are heading in the 'correct' direction..

Any 'meaning' that you find is in your own mind. There are many minds that perceive the pile of words that I offer to be 'meaningful'. Many do not. Meaning is not inherent in these words, but in your perceptions/concepts/thoughts...

Well that is a theory. And it is deeply flawed. And you might need to read up

I needn't 'read up' on anything. If you wish to declare a presented theory as flawed, either support your criticism or don't offer it. I am not going to labor to perhaps make your point for you.

and why there is no such thing as a private language.

If 'meaning' is inherent in language, then yes, at a certain level, after all nuances, all language is 'private'. It is amazing to me that people communicate as well as they do, even neighbors in the same society have the greatest troubles at any deeper levels than "gimme the nachos supreme".!

It is true to say meaning is not inherent to a word, but it is defined by how a word is used in context. That context depends on situation and language games and exists in the behaviors followed by the language users.

"A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

How about physics now 'understanding' and 'confirming' the millennial mystical understanding of the inherent unity, the 'Oneness', of the universe (at any one moment).

Hmm. You been reading too much of David Bohm I feel. Confirmed eh? Again Hmmm. I don't think so.

Ok, thats why the semi-quotes around 'confirm', it a bit hyperbolic..
How about... 'validate' certain millennially held perspectives? That would be more accurate.

How about quantum's finding of 'Consciousness' being the "ground of all being" (Copenhagen interpretation)?

Whoa there! The Copenhagen interpretation don’t take you that far by any stretch. The (probabilistic) wave function is collapsed by the act of observation, and the thus the observation cannot be separated from the event.

The quotes indicate that those words were theirs, not mine. The Copenhagen interpretation isn't part and parcel complete picture of existence, but it is heading in the 'correct' direction.
Act of observation = Perspective
Wave field = Mind

There is a problem with their assumption that only one 'probability' is 'actualized' by observation. All 'possibilities' are actualized by observation, in and as that observation. Nowhere else and as nothing else. Appearance.

So one extreme interpretation of an interpretation supports the philosophy you prefer.

When one 'apparently' extreme perspective (to some) supports many other perspectives with varying degrees of (extremity and) intersection, that 'place' of intersection cannot be ignored. Because an opinion is deemed, at one time, from some perspectives, extreme, is not evidence of fallacy.

the 'physical world' IS a (hologramic) model, in your mind.

Why a hologram that is experienced?

That seems to be seen as the closest analogy of mental 'display'. There is lots of google info on 'holographic mind', such as; Here.

Why not the very same information processed without the experiential feel to the process?

Are you asking why 'feelings' exist to/in/for certain perspectives?
I imagine that there are 'perspectives' (observers) with no experience of 'feelings'. There seem to always be 'opposing' perspectives. If one perspective 'has' feelings, another has none. Balance..

Well, unless you have any particular questions that you'd like me to respond, I 'feel' that I have roughly represented this perspective. Food for thought..
Thanks for making me think a bit!
Peace

[Nameless]

...we perceive things similarly, we have the same (similar) 'hardware' (brain and physical receptors). I would say that is good enough evidence we experience things in the same way

'Similar' =/= 'same' (identical) to me (or a dictionary), as it seems for you.
They have very different definitions.
(Perhaps all 'perceptions/perspectives' aren't the 'same' after all....)

[Goat]

...we perceive things similarly, we have the same (similar) 'hardware' (brain and physical receptors). I would say that is good enough evidence we experience things in the same way

'Similar' =/= 'same' (identical) to me (or a dictionary), as it seems for you.
They have very different definitions.
(Perhaps all 'perceptions/perspectives' aren't the 'same' after all....)

It might not be totally identical from person to person, yet, the stimulius cause us to react in the same manner.

Good enough for me

[Nameless]

It might not be totally identical from person to person, yet, the stimulius cause us to react in the same manner.

"same"? whatever... there is a whole continuum of 'reactions' dependent on perspective. But, you 'see' what you see, and 'that' is all correct from/for your perspective.

Good enough for me

You're a cheap date, my friend. It must be nice, sometimes.

[bernee51]

...we perceive things similarly, we have the same (similar) 'hardware' (brain and physical receptors). I would say that is good enough evidence we experience things in the same way

'Similar' =/= 'same' (identical) to me (or a dictionary), as it seems for you.
They have very different definitions.
(Perhaps all 'perceptions/perspectives' aren't the 'same' after all....)

It might not be totally identical from person to person, yet, the stimulius cause us to react in the same manner.

To her lover a beautiful girl is an attraction, to an aesthete a distraction and to a lion a good meal.

Same same but different.

Good enough for me

One man's meat is another man's poisson

[Furrowed Brow]

I personally think you are making a mountain of a mole hill with this concern.

Probably. But it was one of those niggling concerns that niggles every so often. And as yet – and as seems to be the way when I broach this subject - no one seems to be picking up on the point I am trying to dig into.

We generally have the same cells in the eye that process the information, and for those people who have the proper receptors, we tend to react in similar ways, and perceive the same things. Those that have a different group of receptors (such as color blind people , or those that have one type duplicated) react slightly differently.

If the red "looks" differently, there is no way to tell. However, we react the same, we perceive things similarly, we have the same 'hardware' (brain and physical receptors). I would say that is good enough evidence we experience things in the same way

But this is not the question. Put it this way: take those receptors and hardware. They react to external stimuli – in this case light waves – and a chain of biological processes follow. Lets call this chain of event “information processing”. Why not just the biological processes without qualia? The question is not do we share the same experiences but why we have experiences at all. Why aren’t we just highly sophisticate automata able to process information and negotiate our environment - without qualia?

[Goat]

I personally think you are making a mountain of a mole hill with this concern.

Probably. But it was one of those niggling concerns that niggles every so often. And as yet – and as seems to be the way when I broach this subject - no one seems to be picking up on the point I am trying to dig into.

We generally have the same cells in the eye that process the information, and for those people who have the proper receptors, we tend to react in similar ways, and perceive the same things. Those that have a different group of receptors (such as color blind people , or those that have one type duplicated) react slightly differently.

If the red "looks" differently, there is no way to tell. However, we react the same, we perceive things similarly, we have the same 'hardware' (brain and physical receptors). I would say that is good enough evidence we experience things in the same way

But this is not the question. Put it this way: take those receptors and hardware. They react to external stimuli – in this case light waves – and a chain of biological processes follow. Lets call this chain of event “information processing”. Why not just the biological processes without qualia? The question is not do we share the same experiences but why we have experiences at all. Why aren’t we just highly sophisticate automata able to process information and negotiate our environment - without qualia?

That is a question that is actually different that the 'are out experiences the same'.. it is 'why do we have consciousness'.. What are the properties of the brain that allow for that. That is yet unanswered, and is puzzling lots of people. Throwing in esoteric words to try to explain it does not explain it,it just confuses the issue.

[Furrowed Brow]

They are the feel of what we experience, with the word feel used loosely to incorporate the feel of all the sensations plus pain, anxiety and any other existential qualitative feel.

So, the sum total of human 'feelings', no?

No. At least not how I am seeing them. Human feelings require complex organization. This is a bad analogy but I’m struggling to find a successful way of representing the point. Feelings are like a tune, qualia like the notes. How the notes are organized produce the tune. Likewise how qualia are organized give the complex feeling. So feelings are not just the sum total of qualia. Qualia are not feely atoms . Though I do remember reading somewhere…but I can’t reference it… the idea that quantum spin might be the ‘bit’ of conscious experience. I kind of like that idea. But even if we could pin qualia down to a specific physical process the basic problem ….why? still hangs in the air.

Performing an experiment, a person's (physicist's) 'personal consciousness' is intimately and inextricably part-of/one-with the experiment.

That is just one interpretation that is not the standard. That there must be an awareness state suggested by Hugh Everett III In Quantum Theory and Measurement 1957.

Quantum physics has revealed this to the entire scientific community.

No it hasn’t. The Copenhagen interpretation handed down from Neils Bohr was motivated by a form of positivism. There is no commitment to any ontology or the contribution of subjective awareness. These are non subjects for the standard interpretation.

Every atomic phenomenon is closed in the sense that its observation on registrations obtain by means of suitable amplification devices with irreversible functions such as, for example, permanent marks on a photographic plate caused by the penetration of the electrons into the emulsion.

There are indeed physicist who hold some view like the one you put forward but they are not the standard and do not hold the centre ground.

All I’m concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements.

The measurement problem is fraught with philosophical difficulties. However the kind of subjectivism you are suggesting is but one attempt to address those difficulties. You are completely overstating its case.

4) I think that your statement still would hold true without the 'noun'. The 'quality' that I hear you talking about sounds an awful lot like individual Perspective (redundant).

Well that’s not my intent. And I think that is because you are forming the problem in terms of a question of subjectiveness. So any notion of a physical event is already entwined in some form of subjective solipsism. A position from which I suspect talk of a physical event looks to be illusory. But even if we go your route, this does not tackle the question I’m after. Subjectiveness has qualia….why? I don’t think yout perspective can shed any light on that question at all. Not because the question is malformed, but because you are in danger of falling into solipsism. Anyhow I am content that there is something going on beyond my subjective perspective and that there is a physical ontology from which my subjective perspective is formed.

Whether critters have 'feelings' ('raw' (still not effectively defined that I have seen here) or otherwise), we 'critters' seem to. Where there is a 'feeling', there is necessarily, a perceiving 'subject'.

If by subject you mean – a person or thing being discussed. I do not have a problem with this point.

I am saying that the 'feeling' cannot (but by "an 'arbitrary and artificial' distinction") be separated from the 'observer' of that feeling. The 'feeling' is a function of the observer/'feeler'. We do not have feelings, we are feelings.

Again I do not have a problem with this. If there is an aware subject then there must be feels. But can feels exist without an aware subject? What about an amoeba? Does it have feels? Is it right to talk about the feel of engulfing and then absorbing its food. An amoeba can interact with its environment and therefore be an ‘observer’. No/yes?

Ahhh.. For the 'feeler', the only place that his 'external stimulus', his 'feelings' related to that stimulus, can or have ever been shown to 'exist' has been in (his) 'mind'. You open your eyes and 'see' me, do you really think that the 'me' that you 'see' is actually 'out there'?

No. but I do think it is a presentation of something out there.

For you, when you see me, or think of me, my sole residence is in your mind... such as right now. Just as your existence is in my mind. No 'out there' has ever been irrefutably evidenced.

Okay this is solipsism. And I have to reject that position. I take all that my subjectiveness cannot control, and all the laws and principles which force my “mind hologram” to behave in certain consistent ways as evidence of its limits and that what lies beyond its limits is evidence of “out there”.

For something to exist (for you) you must have context.

No. For something to make sense it must have context. Something can exist happily on its own without ever making sense to anything or anyone. True the feelings I think you are talking about do need a psychological subject. But the feels I’m talking about belong to physical processes. Process external to the limits of subjective control.

A perfect example of my point. I 'radiate' nothing here.

Do you know what metaphysics is?

Perhaps a thorough understanding of both 'meaning' and 'nonsense' will enlighten you…

A sincere and honest study of your question will make this clear to you, eventually.

Nope you’ve definitely been radiating.

I'm presently reading the rest of your post.