Part Two
(continued from above)
Doctordick said:
We only differ with regard to our definition of "real". . . . Les divides our awareness into two divisions which he calls "experience" and "reason" while I use the terms "squirrel" and "logic". He presumes our "experiences" are one with reality . . .
When did I ever say experience is reality or that they are necessarily one with reality? Geez!
“Real,” to me is simply a concept that refers to what exists, and, I’d add, what is possible to exist. So if something doesn’t exist and cannot exist, then it isn’t and can never be real. That’s it, not anything more, and not anything less. Realness has nothing at all to do with my experience except that I am something that exists, and I know it (unlike the vast majority of dumb creation). Experience isn’t what makes something real, experience is what allows me to be intimate with and eventually
know realness.
Doctordick said:
. . . I make much of the fact that our experiences are an interpretation of reality and not reality itself.
I would agree to the extent that our senses carry information, and so we are dependent on their physical “interpretation,” if you will, of our environment. If my eyes see red differently than yours, for instance, then obviously we can apply the interpretation metaphor. In that way reality is an indirect experience.
However, one thing you (and few others) ever mention is the possibility of consciousness experiencing itself. That is a
direct experience, and doesn’t require interpretation to know.
Doctordick said:
It is very clear that some drugs induce experiences (qualia?) which are not experienced in the absence of the drugs and certainly some mentally disturbed people experience things not known to us. I think it is a rather extreme step to presume all experiences are invariably real. By the way, if Les is right, his picture fits into my paradigm anyway: the threads (which are being referred to as qualia) simply become direct contacts with reality.
Similar to Hypnagogue’s response, I’d say it doesn’t matter what stimulates experience. The experience triggered by a drug is a real experience of a drug! There are real experiences of hallucinations, real experiences of phosphenes, real experiences of dreams, real experiences of paranoia . . . those are part of what exist, or reality, and so I say all experience is of some aspect of reality or another. The issue then becomes recognizing what we are experiencing. I have high confidence in my ability to experience a close facsimile of
external reality (via my senses), and my own internal reality when my mind is quiet.
Doctordick said:
His qualia are essentially tags for aspects of reality itself . . .
I suppose qualia (triggered by the senses) might be called “tags” signaling the intrusion of sense data into consciousness. But that isn’t really what we’ve been talking about is it? What’s under discussion is how/why could/would a brain/physical processes create, in my words, appreciation? Do we need it to survive? If not, then we have no natural selection basis for the theory. Can you demonstrate any physical process (such as AI) which can produce appreciation? No? Well, then we have no experimental evidence for the theory. And if you say, “someday we will,” then I say, do it first before making the big claims. Until then I am skeptical physicalness is what is producing qualia.
Doctordick said:
. . . while my paradigm hold qualia as tags for the threads which tie reality to our conscious awareness.
Your “threads” are you linking conscious experiences to your intellect so you can think about them. There’s nothing contrary to what I’ve been saying there.
Doctordick said:
For something which cannot be directly communicated and can be known only through direct experience, Les's position amounts to, if he can't know it, it doesn't exist. Do electrons exist Les?
This is about where you start to get irritating, but I’ll try to keep it nice. Show me where I have ever in my over 1600 posts here said or implied “if he can't know it, it doesn't exist.” I have, in fact, repeatedly stood against that sort of solipsistic nonsense. What I
have said is that experience is how we come to
know if something exists.
When Pluto’s existence was predicted from perturbations in Jupiter’s orbit, or when Einstein predicted light being curved by gravity, was that considered “known” before Pluto or the bending of light was observed? You might say it was likely or logically indicated or even highly probable, but the empirical standard demands observation of what’s been hypothesized before you get to slap the label of “known” on it. Right now the speed of gravity is predicted to be C. As apt as that is to be true, is the scientific community ready to say it is known? No, and in fact, recent experiments indicating it’s true are being treated as inconclusive.
Let’s take your silly electron example. We can observe
something happening on the subatomic level, but it is indirect. We also can observe how the behavior of, say, electricity or plasmas conform to the atomic model, and so there is more supportive information. Whatever is causing those behaviors we’ve labeled an “electron.” But is it a little sphere that revolves around an atomic nucleus, or is it something that the orbit model accounts for adequately? We don’t know for sure because we can’t stop an electron and examine it. On a practical level, however, we do know enough about the aspect of reality we call an electron to predict and work with it, and for those people trying to create things, that’s all they really need isn’t it?
Doctordick said:
Les merely doesn't think about the issue; there is no room in his paradigm for a quale to be invalid.
Les does think, and better than you in his opinion. Is it me who is unclear, or is it possible you just might not know everything there is to know about consciousness. In this thread I have tried to be up front as possible about something which in the past I’ve been more diplomatic about. You can reject my testimony if you want, I’m okay with that. But you can’t say you “know” anything about my testimony if you are inexperienced with what I am going to describe.
You are correct in suggesting that there is no room in my understanding for qualia to not be real. Unlike you, my conviction isn’t based on something theoretical or because I’ve “reasoned” it so. I am not willing to question or doubt something I’ve become so experienced with simply because someone is stuck at the theoretical stage. In fact, the main part of my assertion in this thread has been that whatever the nature of consciousness is, it won’t be revealed through reason; rather, one must learn to experience their own consciousness in its natural state to know it.
Its “natural state” is discovered through the experiential side of consciousness I’ve been talking about. The “experiential side” can be developed in a very specific way by learning to bring the mind to a complete stop. Still. Unmoving. No thoughts, no dreams, no imagination, no intellection. Perfect stillness. Do you think you can do it?
What do you believe would happen to your consciousness and the resulting perception of reality if you could get your mind to be still? Is it remotely possible that you will experience your own consciousness in a way you cannot possibly understand until you can shut your mind up? Will reality appear more clear, brighter, and absent your prejudices always being in the way?
I say, this “pure” conscious experience gives one new information, reveals more about the nature of consciousness, and opens the door to new consciousness abilities. One discovers a new way of reflecting, a new way of understanding, a new way of knowing, and a new way of being. Of course, you just don’t know whether I am describing an aspect of reality do you. You might study the long history of people who’ve become accomplished at this skill, but then that might get in the way of your devotion to theorizing.
In case there is any confusion, I am not trying to put thinking and experiencing at odds. They are a team, already so for all human beings. The issues I am raising are 1) which deserves top priority, 2) is there cognitive value in learning to still the mind, and 3) can the most basic underlying nature of consciousness ever be understood unless one learns to experience it uncluttered by the dominance of mental dynamics which seem to obscure all but mental activity itself?
