X-Message-Number: 25186
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:56:02 -0800
Subject: To Robert on the Qualia Experiencer
From: <>

Dear Robert:

You wrote:

"I think most of what RBR has written is correct, but with some 
shortcomings."

I think we have settled on the same view, or at least, nearly the 
same, with some differences in terminology. I am happy to find 
someone who has thought about these issues and arrived to similar 
conclusions.

You wrote:

"That is like saying that the water is that which experiences waves-
-collections of matter and changes of state of those collections. 
Maybe it's a quibble, but I would say that the 'wave' is the water 
and the (evolving) shape together. The quale is the material and 
the evolving configuration together. Thus, the experiencer and the 
experience are the same."

But since qualia do not exist apart from the required kind of 
changes (e.g. when I am asleep or unconscious), it seems to make 
sense to define 'quale' as the required evolution itself, rather 
than as both the material and the evolution together.

Otherwise, you have only part of a quale existing at times (the 
material), which is at the least, rather odd terminology.

Under my terminology, qualia happen to the qualia experiencer---
i.e. changes of a particular kind (those that are subjectively 
perceived) happen to parts of the brain. 

You wrote:

"No. The atom can exist without the event. The person does not 
exist (except potentially) in the absence of qualia. Maybe just 
another quibble, but I think we need to be clear."

This is another difference of terminology. You would say the person 
does not exist in the absence of change (and because there is no 
subjective inner life without such change, I agree with what you 
mean by these words).

I would say the person does exist, but is not experiencing 
anything. I think this is slightly better terminology because I 
regard myself as existing even when I am not conscious; and for 
matters of personal survival, it simplifies discussion greatly 
(otherwise you have to digress into what 'part' of you survives 
sleep).

You wrote:

"This is a premature conclusion. If a quale has extension in space 
and time, then we overlap our predecessors and continuers. Quantum 
entanglement can cover very large gaps of space and time. It is 
simply too soon to make definitive statements."

I agree there are possibilities. I hope for them, but striving as I 
am to minimize my risks, I cannot count on them.

You wrote:

"Amusing that the philosophers implicitly give more weight to the 
'laws' of physics than to our subjective experience which is PRIOR 
to the laws of physics. Those 'laws' are just (essentially 
subjective) models of a presumed external reality."

I agree completely.

I find it absurd when people come to the conclusion there is no 
such thing as subjective experience, when in fact they use their 
senses (reading books) and their inner mental life to come to this 
conclusion.

You wrote:

"In another post, I believe RBR said something to the effect that 
the number 5 has no reality--only physical collections of objects 
have reality. This is a matter of dispute, going back at least to 
Plato, as he knows. Further, modern theories offer even stranger 
notions. In quantum theory, apparently counterfactuals--things that 
don't happen--can have physical effects on things that do happen. A 
mere potentiality is in some sense a physical reality."

I do not think abstractions exist. I think only the physical 
reality exists. However, I think the physical reality we have a 
mental model of, is quite a different thing than the physical 
reality that actually exists, and some times we get glimpses of 
this through our experiments.

[snip]

Best Regards,

Richard B. R.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25186