Is Math Capable of Modeling Qualia?

[rogerl]

Everything that has dynamics can be modeled by math... including such strange concept as dynamical space and time.

How about qualia or subjective experience? I subscribed to the excellent The Journal of Consciousness Studies where latest brain research is included in the investigation what produced consciousness and qualia. We know the brain can produce rudimentary consciousness such as the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system that controlled your heart beat and respiration as well as the unconscious processes. But there is still no answer why qualia or subjective experience occurs from the mechanical brain. It is the Hard Problem in David Chalmer's terminology that has no solutions yet.

Supposed qualia or subjective experience was something our modern physics hasn't reached and modeled yet (meaning it is a new phenomenon). Do you think it can be modeled by math? Do you consider qualia as dynamical entities? General Relativity uses the math of differential geometry to model spacetime. What math can qualia possibily use? Or is it possible that qualia can no longer be modeled by math and will be forever in the realm of philosophy?? If so, we will never have the TOE, because qualia is part of the TOE.

Is it possible that only the physical side can be modeled by math, and the subjective side of reality (qualia) is forever beyond math and science and always in the domain of philosophy?

 

[apeiron]

You are throwing out another incoherently framed question that also probably does not meet forum criteria as it makes no specific reference - such as to for example somebody's attempt to talk about the mathematical description of qualia.

For maths to useful, it has to be a framework of formal theory tied to a body of experimental evidence - science in other words. So why doesn't psychophysics meet your requirements, for example?

 

[rogerl]

You are throwing out another incoherently framed question that also probably does not meet forum criteria as it makes no specific reference - such as to for example somebody's attempt to talk about the mathematical description of qualia.

For maths to useful, it has to be a framework of formal theory tied to a body of experimental evidence - science in other words. So why doesn't psychophysics meet your requirements, for example?

I had Roger Penrose in mind. He said qualia is inside the Planck scale in the book "The Emperor New Mind"

 

[rogerl]

In the book Penrose can't access the Planck scale so can't model qualia by math. Now I was wondering what if qualia were is a new field (like the Higgs field). That is. What if qualia field is outside the Planck scale. I guess it is amenable to math modelling? Or let's talk about Sheldrake Morphogenetic field if it is related to qualia. Can we model the Morphogenetic field by math?

 

[apeiron]

In the book Penrose can't access the Planck scale so can't model qualia by math. Now I was wondering what if qualia were is a new field (like the Higgs field). That is. What if qualia field is outside the Planck scale. I guess it is amenable to math modelling? Or let's talk about Sheldrake Morphogenetic field if it is related to qualia. Can we model the Morphogenetic field by math?

Hilarious. The requirement is for peer-reviewed papers. Penrose is crackpot on this score, Sheldrake is off the planet. Though because both are/were establishment figures, they can get away with rather a lot.

Anyway, your question is whether any of this is "even maths"? Do some homework and give us the references to the kind of mathematical constructs that are being employed. If you want to discuss their theories, rename the thread and provide those peer-reviewed papers instead.

Though you would have to take Sheldrake's JCS 2005 stuff to the debunking forum I would expect. I mean, it is not even claimed to be a theory/model of qualia is it?

But nor is Penrose/Hameroff actually. They might want to specify conditions where qualia would occur, but it is not a model of "why" in any useful sense. If there is indeed a hard problem, they can only claim to talk about correlation rather than causation. And they don't even begin to get close to showing correlation.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Anyway, your question is whether any of this is "even maths"? Do some homework and give us the references to the kind of mathematical constructs that are being employed. If you want to discuss their theories, rename the thread and provide those peer-reviewed papers instead.

Agreed.