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.

[Nameless]

Deleted copy of a post.

[Nameless]

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.

'Why' only hangs in the air because it is in the nature of the biocomputer brain to seek patterns and connections. We fabricate our (tentative) why's from there. With no 'cause and effect', 'why' becomes moot.

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 is the 'standard'. The view supercedes previous notions, updates them. (The 'die hards will do just that, die off and the 'new' will grow.) The 'evidence' supports it and has not been successfully (disproven) refuted by any other evidence. It is also supported from many other 'independent' directions, from various disciplines, as I have said. It all comes together if the perspective is broad enough. All this, inclusive of personal experience, that I feel comfortable in (tentatively) accepting the hypothesis. It predicts and works and is validated by experiment. The theory stands (so far) for me.

That there must be an awareness state suggested by Hugh Everett III In Quantum Theory and Measurement 1957.

1957? Cutting edge and up to date? Aristotle and Buddha had opinions also. Many of which he might not have held had they the tools of modern science.
Everyone has an opinion, and one can always find an opinion to validate (or inform) one's own. I am not necessarily interested in every 'spike' on the graph. The preponderance of evidence (not necessarily opinion) forms sufficient 'pattern' to be seriously considered. If this fellow had any evidence to refute/disprove this theory, he would have done so and it (the interpretation/evidence) would be 'toast'. He obviously did not and 'it' is not.

Quantum physics has revealed this to the entire scientific community.

No it hasn’t.

Yes it has.

The Copenhagen interpretation handed down from Neils Bohr was motivated by a form of positivism.

Even if true, meaningless.

There is no commitment to any ontology or the contribution of subjective awareness.

There are no 'commitments' in science.

These are non subjects for the standard interpretation.

The 'standard' Copenhagen interpretation?

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.

You are correct on both counts. Time will tell.. it will be 'worldwide standard'. Observe...

the kind of subjectivism you are suggesting is but one attempt to address those difficulties. You are completely overstating its case.

Perhaps 'just one attempt to address those difficulties' is 'correct'. That wouldn't be overstating anything. I don't overstate (but by your interpretation) the case, I am making the case and it has not yey been refuted, as so many 'cases' are frought with error and paradox, this is not (or it hasn't yet been sufficiently demonstrated).

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.

'Solipsism' is an inappropriate and incorrect term. This is no 'form' of such.

A position from which I suspect talk of a physical event looks to be illusory.

That which you perceive, all 'physical events', appear to you as they do. If you think that the universe that you 'experience', the "physical events", is any sort of reflection of any sort of 'true nature of existence', again, this is refuted 'naive realism'. It is not 'Reality'.

But even if we go your route, this does not tackle the question I’m after.

Then, my friend, having offered this perspective, I shal duck out of the conversation after this post. Thank you for the conversation and at times, making me think.

but because you are in danger of falling into solipsism.

Nope, not in the least. We all exist.

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.

Being 'content' is nothing that a scientist is. Sounds like another of those 'subjective' things. *__-
You would have to be 'content', or 'believe', as there is not now nor can there ever be any evidence of any 'physical objective world out there'.

If there is an aware subject then there must be feels. But can feels exist without an aware subject?

I predict, from my 'theory' that you will never find any evidence that 'feelings' can exist without a 'feeler'. Time (experience) will tell...
Good luck on your quest. What might be seen by some as 'failure' (of your quests intentions) might be seen by others as a 'slight adjustment of understanding and direction'. Onward through the fog...

What about an amoeba? Does it have feels?

You'll have to ask an amoeba, won't you?

Is it right to talk about the feel of engulfing and then absorbing its food.

If you are another amoeba...

An amoeba can interact with its environment and therefore be an ‘observer’. No/yes?

(Apparent) interaction with/as environment does not necessarily indicate an 'awareness' as 'observer.
Your request for a "yes/no" reply has been denied.

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

Understood.

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.

No it is not. Solipsisn is where the 'individual posits that he is the only person that actually exists.
You seem to like to 'label' and thereby summarily dismiss as if that 'label' is sufficient refutation in itself. It is not. Refute honestly, if you can, anything that I offer. I will either demonstrate that your refutation is vacuous, or 'update' my understanding.

And I have to reject that position.

I, too, feel that the 'solipsist' position is paradoxical, vacuous and indefensible. Yet, it is 'correct' from the 'solipsist's perspective' for him.

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”.

Seriously, enjoy the search.

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

No. For something to make sense it must have context.

No. The quote stands. You cannot find anything in existence that is not 'contextual', even if part of that 'context' includes your confusion and inability to find (manufacture) 'meaning'. 'Context' is the complete set, a 'subset' might be 'that which has meaning' (to you, of course).

Something can exist happily on its own without ever making sense to anything or anyone.

"On it's own"?

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.

Are you saying that the 'yellow' 'belongs to' the ('out there') sun? That the 'red' is inherent in some child's ball ('out there'), and is independent of the observer?

Process external to the limits of subjective control.

I understand the perspective...

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.

If you like. Again, I understand your perspective. All you can say logically and clearly is that you 'perceive' that I appear to (you to) be 'radiating'. No one can argue with that!

I'm presently reading the rest of your post.

God bless...

But again, as you seem to be correct in that this (my) perspective is of no assistence on your particular quest, and I feel that I have fairly adequately represented this perspective (at the moment), I'll peacefully duck from the conversation. I'll check back, though, in case you'd like to ask any more questions regarding what I have offered. But i see your point of this stuff not necessarily being useful..
Thanks again for the conversation.
Peace

[Furrowed Brow]

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.

No it is not. Solipsism is where the 'individual posits that he is the only person that actually exists.

Everything we have spoke about you have posited as being in the mind. From the trajectory of our conversation I am reading you as saying everything is in the mind, and you are denying that it is safe to deduce an ‘out there’. Solipsism is defined as: knowledge of both an outside world and other minds is unjustified. So the statement….

No ‘out there’ has ever been irrefutably evidenced

…is pure solipsism. Also solipsism is not the position that the your individual mind is the only one “that actually exists”. It is the position that your mind is the only one that can be justified as existing. Whilst you are talking about your mind and my mind, it is difficult to see how you can from your subjective position justify the existence of my mind from the only evidence you got which is your subjective mind. If no out there can be evidenced then no other mind can be evidenced, thus solipsism. If you don’t want to fall into solipsism you need to show how you are able to tunnel out of your subjective cave.

Are you saying that the 'yellow' 'belongs to' the ('out there') sun? That the 'red' is inherent in some child's ball ('out there'), and is independent of the observer?

No. The qualia “red” as experienced belongs to a physical process going on in the brain.

[Nameless]

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.

No it is not. Solipsism is where the 'individual posits that he is the only person that actually exists.

Everything we have spoke about you have posited as being in the mind. From the trajectory of our conversation I am reading you as saying everything is in the mind, and you are denying that it is safe to deduce an ‘out there’. Solipsism is defined as: knowledge of both an outside world and other minds is unjustified. So the statement….

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) -
sol·ip·sism
Pronunciation [sol-ip-siz-uhm]
–noun
1. Philosophy. the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.

American Heritage Dictionary
solipsism (sŏl'ĭp-sĭz'əm, sō'lĭp-)
n. Philosophy

1) The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
2) The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

Online Etymology Dictionary
solipsism

1874, coined from L. solus "alone" + ipse "self." The view or theory that self is the only object of real knowledge or the only thing that is real.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet
solipsism

noun
(philosophy) the philosophical theory that the self is all that you know to exist


It appears that your 'definition' appears nowhere in these various dictionaries, the first batch on dictionary.com.
It appears that from these definitions, your argument and labelling is both incorrect, and now refuted by fact.
Your goal posts seem to be rather mobile...
Enough already..

No ‘out there’ has ever been irrefutably evidenced

…is pure solipsism.

I guess not, according to the definitions that I have offered.
Are we degrading now into ad hom namecalling (labelling) as a last ditch effort to dismiss what I say sumarilly? That is a sign of a 'belief' infection, and a falacy.
Our discussion has not been on 'solipsism', that is a new twist.
Lets just end this with my 'wish' for your good luck with your investigations. (If I were a solipsist, I couldn't say something like that.)

Pragmatically, the difference between our perspectives is that mine is a 'win/win/win' situation. This means that all perspectives (everyone) are correct within context. And the sum of all 'correct' perspectives is the truest view of the 'true nature of existence'.
You, on the other hand, seem to require a 'right' and 'wrong', a 'winner' and a 'loser' (and ego demands that the 'winner/right one' is you; just more of the same old mindset, arising with conflict, hate, violence and all those other goodies that come with such an egoic 'position'.
Practically speaking..

(bye the bye, whoever came up with the notion of 'qualia' (as you describe) seems to be wasting people's time with meaningless irrational notions. obviously he is a 'big name', all the sadder..)

nameless out
Peace

[Furrowed Brow]

Sorry Nameless are we reading the same definitions.

Dintionary.com 1. Philosophy. the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.
So that be knowledge of both an outside world and other minds is unjustified.

American Heritage 1) The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
So that be knowledge of both an outside world and other minds is unjustified.

Online Etymology The view or theory that self is the only object of real knowledge or the only thing that is real.
So that be knowledge of both an outside world and other minds is unjustified.

Wordnet (philosophy) the philosophical theory that the self is all that you know to exist
So that be knowledge of both an outside world and other minds is unjustified.

To offer a little more by way of explanation you might like to try wiki

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that “My mind is the only thing that I know exists”. Solipsism is an epistemological or a metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist.

But I’ll give the last word to Blackwell’s A companion to Epistemology p487

Solipsism Doctrines and threats of solipsism are much older than the introduction of the term ‘solipsism’ to mark them. The term derives from the Latin ‘solus ipse’. This means literally ‘self alone’, and less literally ‘I alone exist’ or else ‘I alone am conscious’, yielding in the first case a more idealist form of solipsism querying the existence of an independent material world, and in the second case a more materialist form allowing for the (possible) existence of a material world but again not countenancing the existence of other minds or centres of consciousness.

From your insistence on the subjective and the claim that ‘out there’ cannot be verified your theory appears to lead into a solipsism of the first case. It is an idealist form of solipsism. However even in the second case only the possibility of a material world is assumed. Question of its verifiability left open. The problem you have is that whilst you wish to countenance other minds and you want to deny your position is solipsistic, everything you are putting in place is taken you down that road. And that is my point.

It appears that from these definitions, your argument and labeling is both incorrect, and now refuted by fact.

Err….like no.

Are we degrading now into ad hom namecalling (labeling) as a last ditch effort to dismiss what I say summarily? That is a sign of a 'belief' infection, and a fallacy.

No. it is a direct response to.

Refute honestly, if you can, anything that I offer. I will either demonstrate that your refutation is vacuous, or 'update' my understanding.

So please update your meanings…and your understanding of their implication.

Pragmatically, the difference between our perspectives is that mine is a 'win/win/win' situation. This means that all perspectives (everyone) are correct within context. And the sum of all 'correct' perspectives is the truest view of the 'true nature of existence'.

But you are assuming other minds external to your mind, whilst denying the justifiability of an external reality to your mind. Moreover when you say things like…

All that you can ever 'know/perceive' of anything, all of the universe that you can 'perceive/conceive' is in your mind. Your whole universe is a unique perspective, every moment.

And talk about mind holograms, whilst denying we can have knowledge of the stuff external to the mind serves to reaffirm solipsism howling at your gate.

You have been quite clear that you are only trying to offer a coherent position that careful study should bring me to. But my point is that I think you are mistaken and that your position is not resolved at all. To be consistent you must also take the same stance against other minds, and sum of perspectives as you do evidence of an “out there”.

Also: twice now you have been guilty of the same faulty strategy. In the case of Quantum theory, and solipsism you have taken one possible facet of the theory or doctrine and generalized it to be the case or the standard interpretation.

You, on the other hand, seem to require a 'right' and 'wrong', a 'winner' and a 'loser' (and ego demands that the 'winner/right one' is you; just more of the same old mindset, arising with conflict, hate, violence and all those other goodies that come with such an egoic 'position'.
Practically speaking..

You’re radiating again.

[Nameless]

Sorry Nameless are we reading the same definitions.

All 'this' simply goes to illustrate that subjective Perspective is essential. You are arguing due to perspective.
Again, you illustrate my point.
BEsides, it is not necessary to adopt the perspective of another, it might well be an 'aid to understanding' to at least understand other perspectives. That doesn't threaten anything but 'beliefs'.
You have no. as far as I have seen, justified your (meaningless) notion of 'qualia'. If I present a rock for examination, we can all see it (from our perspectives of course), hold it, measure it... Your 'qualia' is your notion (and from wherever you took it) and so far, has no real existence on the 'table'. You don't seem to be able to make it real enough for others to see and 'measure'. What is the food of 'flying spaghetti momsters'? Your 'feelings' without the 'feeler' is an absurdity on the face. From this perspective.
Now, the last words are yours. This isn't an argument.
Again, I'm done with this thread. No need for repetition, and when you descend into mere 'name calling', 'labelling', the conversation is over, for me.
Again, good luck.

[Furrowed Brow]

All 'this' simply goes to illustrate that subjective Perspective is essential. You are arguing due to perspective.

Nope. I am arguing due to the logical implication of the definitions you supplied, implications explained by the additional quotes I supplied.

You have no. as far as I have seen, justified your (meaningless) notion of 'qualia'.

This is true. Problems with language have been a major concern for me. Whilst the qualitative feel of experience is very real, the language we use to convey and explain these feels are loaded with conceptual connotations that I do not trust. To try and negotiate a streamlined definition around these connotations is….difficult.

If I present a rock for examination, we can all see it (from our perspectives of course), hold it, measure it... Your 'qualia' is your notion (and from wherever you took it) and so far, has no real existence on the 'table'. You don't seem to be able to make it real enough for others to see and 'measure'.

The qualitative feel of experience is very real, the problem is the language we use to explain the feel of it. But your point is totally right. I want to avoid concepts that cannot be measured such as 'thoughts', "mental states', and 'subjective experience'. These words have defintions, and people use them in a consistent agreed way. In this sense they have meanings. But these meanings are cultural. The words otherwise fail to signify anything - for the reason they invoke nothing that can be measured. In this sense they are still meaningless. But most times most people fail to stop and pinch themselves to remind themselves of this; mistaking the established usage of the word as sufficient evidence that something is signified. So when I attempt to work around these kinds of words the reaction is as if I'm the one who is a tad befuddled and can't be saying anything meaningful.

What is the food of 'flying spaghetti monsters'? Your 'feelings' without the 'feeler' is an absurdity on the face. From this perspective.

Unlike the FSM the qualitative feel of experience cannot be denied. The problem as I say is language. Whilst a satisfactory definition of qualia is elusive, I see this as a result of words like ‘subjectiveness’, ‘mental state’, ‘thought’ carrying with them their own baggage.

[QED]

Isn't it a marvellous problem . I'm beginning to wonder if I'm as conscious as I've been led to believe! -- There's a lot of I's in that sentence yet how did that I get to be instantiated?

As a new-born baby I can accept that there was no I about me to begin with. I-ness seems to be something that has to be gradually constructed. I can accept that feel for such a baby is the same as feel for any product of biological evolution. It would probably be the same kind of feel as takes place in a withdrawal reflex (the pull away from the flame before the plain is felt). Perhaps it's only the attachment to an I that makes it hurt for someone (if nothing else, it helps to ameliorate the guilt of eating a burger a little bit).

As for qualia, to me they could all be cut from the same whole-cloth: To me the 1st person experience of pain could be qualitatively similar to all other experiences of feeling. In other words I can accept that pain is like sound is like colour etc. The common factor seems to be theinsistence of a particular signal and its manifold ramifications. By this I mean that in the presence of such signals are being weighted along with everything else fed into a kind of "Central Planning Unit". As I type this I'm pinching the skin on my left arm to remind me what pain is and I'm pretty sure I can get behind (?) the sensation and see it in symbolic terms. Does this not remove the requirement for "Feelium" altogether (Hofstatder's term for the missing physical ingredient needed to transform an automaton into a person)?

Slips of concentration and misleading cues from our surroundings often lead to a break in the seductively firm grip we think we have on "reality". Could my I-ness not be just as hallucinatory?

[Furrowed Brow]

Isn't it a marvellous problem . I'm beginning to wonder if I'm as conscious as I've been led to believe! -- There's a lot of I's in that sentence yet how did that I get to be instantiated?

I wonder how much the grammar of language is to blame. The “I” certainly plays a grammatical role. But ontologically?

As a new-born baby I can accept that there was no I about me to begin with. I-ness seems to be something that has to be gradually constructed.

Is there a threshold of I-ness. Or do the baby and the adult fall on a continuum. I favor a continuum.

I can accept that feel for such a baby is the same as feel for any product of biological evolution. It would probably be the same kind of feel as takes place in a withdrawal reflex (the pull away from the flame before the plain is felt). Perhaps it's only the attachment to an I that makes it hurt for someone (if nothing else, it helps to ameliorate the guilt of eating a burger a little bit).

I’d say that higher level functions can affect the experience. Pain control techniques for instance. But if we strip away such control mechanisms I’m thinking that anything might have a feel; though not everything may be aware they’ve got a feel. Do all withdrawal reflexes have an associated pain feel? An amoeba?

As for qualia, to me they could all be cut from the same whole-cloth: To me the 1st person experience of pain could be qualitatively similar to all other experiences of feeling. In other words I can accept that pain is like sound is like color etc. The common factor seems to be the insistence of a particular signal and its manifold ramifications. By this I mean that in the presence of such signals are being weighted along with everything else fed into a kind of "Central Planning Unit". As I type this I'm pinching the skin on my left arm to remind me what pain is and I'm pretty sure I can get behind (?) the sensation and see it in symbolic terms. Does this not remove the requirement for "Feelium" altogether (Hofstatder's term for the missing physical ingredient needed to transform an automaton into a person)?

Feelium. I like that word. Is everything feelium, or is their a threshold. A certain degree of complex processing before some thing is feelium? I’m thinking everything is feelium. (If I’m using the word right.)

Slips of concentration and misleading cues from our surroundings often lead to a break in the seductively firm grip we think we have on "reality". Could my I-ness not be just as hallucinatory?

But is it even a hallucination? The grammar of our symbolic language makes it very difficult to talk about your self without positing I-ness. That your sensory organs feed into a single organism, distinct from other organism, certainly means our world view is individualistic. But being an individual only makes sense within a collection of individuals who recognize what individuality is. Could it be that is all I-ness is. A physical limitation of our biology (we are not amorphous and have one brain), society and social grammar. Thus no mental state that is I-ness. The psychological I-ness not an illusion but a semantic confusion that fails to see our I-ness is strictly behavioral. The “I” being out there in our interactions with the world and our social behaviors, and not literally in the head.

I've just realised I've wriiten a "Could it be...."sentence. And I hate those. So I'll be more assertive. After the limtitations of our biology, and the context of society and grammar, what else do we need to explain I-ness? I'm thinking these are sufficient.

[QED]

Isn't it a marvellous problem . I'm beginning to wonder if I'm as conscious as I've been led to believe! -- There's a lot of I's in that sentence yet how did that I get to be instantiated?

I wonder how much the grammar of language is to blame. The “I” certainly plays a grammatical role. But ontologically?

"I" is a convenient grammatical device for most people. But there are a few for which it can be ambiguous. So ontologically speaking it has far wider applications than are generally supposed.

Is there a threshold of I-ness. Or do the baby and the adult fall on a continuum. I favor a continuum.

Sure, and in rejecting a threshold it would follow that we could assign any value including zero. "Getting off the ground" is therefore a gentle process and in all likelihood involves an ordering process of some kind.

I’d say that higher level functions can affect the experience. Pain control techniques for instance. But if we strip away such control mechanisms I’m thinking that anything might have a feel; though not everything may be aware they’ve got a feel. Do all withdrawal reflexes have an associated pain feel? An amoeba?

I think that consciously mediatedpain control is the biggest hint that we are dealing with a purely abstract phenomenon. It has to run a fine line between being immutable and bearable though. How can we even begin to properly imagine the complexities of an Information Gathering and Utilising System that has evolved millions of conditional responses? Evolution makes sure that pain hurts and colours are distinct etc. How it does this will be obscured by the fact that evolution doesn't think linearly like a human engineer, but I think it's reasonable to expect that it will have started with hard-wired feedback and built on this with extra conditions. The mistake is to relate all this to robotic technology and then do a "Searle" on it by applying prejudices about what metal parts can and can't do in everyday life. We can't locate a thinking neuron any more than we can detect feelium in a given cranium.

Feelium. I like that word. Is everything feelium, or is their a threshold. A certain degree of complex processing before some thing is feelium? I’m thinking everything is feelium. (If I’m using the word right.)

Feelium would be the missing ingredient that you might have to pour into an otherwise physically isomorphic replica of a human to get the darn thing to feel. Of course it might claim to feel without it -- so we're bang up against that old 1st person subjective reporting problem again. Like Dr. Susan Blackmore, Hofstatder also calls it élan mental.

But is it even a hallucination? The grammar of our symbolic language makes it very difficult to talk about your self without positing I-ness. That your sensory organs feed into a single organism, distinct from other organism, certainly means our world view is individualistic. But being an individual only makes sense within a collection of individuals who recognize what individuality is. Could it be that is all I-ness is. A physical limitation of our biology (we are not amorphous and have one brain), society and social grammar. Thus no mental state that is I-ness. The psychological I-ness not an illusion but a semantic confusion that fails to see our I-ness is strictly behavioral. The “I” being out there in our interactions with the world and our social behaviors, and not literally in the head.

I've just realised I've wriiten a "Could it be...."sentence. And I hate those. So I'll be more assertive. After the limtitations of our biology, and the context of society and grammar, what else do we need to explain I-ness? I'm thinking these are sufficient.

There are twins that have become so attached (mentally, not necessarily physically!) that it seems most appropriate to treat them as an individual. Dividing them in an attempt to address an individual is as pointless as me trying to address your right hemisphere and not your left. I-ness can therefore be supported by something other than half or a whole brain. I think the world record for number of people inhabiting a single cranium stands at around eight! Surely what counts is the patterning and manipulation of symbols from which we can obtain a kind of downwards causality that drives all the biologial hardware around? Mapping all the synaptic firings will never reveal the process working from the bottom up, and that's the kind of level that your question is aimed at (which is why it's so darn hard to answer!).