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