The Greatest Contradiction of Common Sense - Video

[ppprins]

Hi,

I have a question about the video below "The Greatest Contradiction of Common Sense"

In the very beginning of the video from 19 to 54 sec. is stated that the 2 common senses summarized below would exclude mutually.
-Qualia exist apart from consciousness
-Consciousness ends when we die
Could somebody, maybe, explain why this would be contradictory? I don't graps it
Yes i saw the video lots of times but still..
Thanks!

[lorenzop]

If I were to take a shot at this:
If consciousness ends at death, that is because consciousness is a product of the brain. Brain death = end of consciousness.
The implication of the brain as source of consciousness is that every experience, thought, image, emotion, etc, is a product of your brain - every experience is a calculation occuring inside your skull. In this case there can be no qualia - every experience can be expressed as an equation of quantities (mass, spin, charge, etc) - - there are no qualities 'out there', there are no qualities inside your brain..
However, if you accept your experiences are of a real world, and the qualitites you experience are of the world (ie qualia exist) , then consciousness is not limited to the brain, you are not limited to the brain.
Put another way - qualia are not compatible with thinking the brain is the sufficient/complete source of consciousness. This is why materialists/physicalists have to argue that qualia do not exist.
If you believe your own experience (that qualia exist) - then consciousness does not die with the death of the brain.
Having said the above - either way - I recommend taking care of your brain.

[Jim Cross]

If I were to take a shot at this:
If consciousness ends at death, that is because consciousness is a product of the brain. Brain death = end of consciousness.
The implication of the brain as source of consciousness is that every experience, thought, image, emotion, etc, is a product of your brain - every experience is a calculation occuring inside your skull. In this case there can be no qualia - every experience can be expressed as an equation of quantities (mass, spin, charge, etc) - - there are no qualities 'out there', there are no qualities inside your brain..
However, if you accept your experiences are of a real world, and the qualitites you experience are of the world (ie qualia exist) , then consciousness is not limited to the brain, you are not limited to the brain.
Put another way - qualia are not compatible with thinking the brain is the sufficient/complete source of consciousness. This is why materialists/physicalists have to argue that qualia do not exist.
If you believe your own experience (that qualia exist) - then consciousness does not die with the death of the brain.
Having said the above - either way - I recommend taking care of your brain.

Nice for your to take a shot at this but I'm not following your argument at all.

Qualia can exist in the brain but not be out there in the world. There is nothing in materialism that requires they do not exist.

And there is a lot in physicalism that goes beyond mass, spin, and charge. There are waves and fields which are not discrete but continuous, much like qualia.

[Robert Arvay]

Jim Cross wrote
Nice for your to take a shot at this but I'm not following your argument at all.

I tend to agree with Jim.

In any philosophic venture, one can begin with a basic argument that makes sense.
BK did this. The only thing we "know" is that we perceive. Consciousness defies any convincing physical explanation. Therefore, reality is best explained from its basis in consciousness.

One may disagree with this basis, but it is nevertheless sound, and even compelling.

However, having started on a reasonable basis, each of the next steps becomes increasingly uncertain. Unlike as with a physical hypothesis, philosophy is far less submissive to experimentation, confirmation or refutation. One can proceed from a reasonable beginning to an ever more complex series of steps. An intricate and systematic philosophy can be constructed in this way. Opposing views can arise, but the debate can continue indefinitely without a final resolution.

In the end, the adoption or rejection of a philosophy can be evaluated, but based only on the life experiences of those doing the adoption or rejection. Some philosophies lead to destructive ends, for the individual and / or the society, but the ends may be sufficiently delayed to cloud the issue for many years, even generations.

This is why, in my view, no human is sufficiently wise to devise a sound philosophy, and must rely on divine revelation. Those who disagree follow a different course of life than I (and others like me) do. Seeking wisdom from scripture, fellowship and prayer has worked well for me, but I have no further argument to make in support of it. Each individual must decide for himself.

BK has made a great contribution to freeing people from the physicalist paradigm, and he has greatly clarified my thinking in this regard. Each of us is a work in progress. Life is short. May we all meet happily at journey's end.
-

[lorenzop]

I don't see how materialism (brain produces consciousness) is compatible with qualia.
Specifically, if every experience can be described with an equation, or set of equations, there is no need for the word 'qualia' . . . that is, using phrase 'qualia' adds no additional value.
IOW, once the materialist allows for 'redness' - or 'what it's like . . . ', then, they're 'screwed'.

[Robert Arvay]

Lorenzop wrote:

I don't see how materialism (brain produces consciousness) is compatible with qualia.
Specifically, if every experience can be described with an equation, or set of equations, there is no need for the word 'qualia' . . . that is, using phrase 'qualia' adds no additional value.
IOW, once the materialist allows for 'redness' - or 'what it's like . . . ', then, they're 'screwed'.

Well said.
-

[Jim Cross]

I don't see how materialism (brain produces consciousness) is compatible with qualia.
Specifically, if every experience can be described with an equation, or set of equations, there is no need for the word 'qualia' . . . that is, using phrase 'qualia' adds no additional value.
IOW, once the materialist allows for 'redness' - or 'what it's like . . . ', then, they're 'screwed'.

Who says every experience can be described with an equation? No one that I know of. There are many non-computable problems.

[Robert Arvay]

Jim Cross wrote:
Who says every experience can be described with an equation? No one that I know of. There are many non-computable problems.

I don't know if Lorezop meant that literally, but physicalism does indeed reduce everything to physics, and physics is math-heavy. Yes, there is the three-body problem, which cannot be solved with any equation -- ever. But insofar as qualia are concerned, Lorenzop makes good points, especially

once the materialist allows for 'redness' - or 'what it's like . . . ', then, they're 'screwed'.

The issue can be debated endlessly, but IMO, physicalism can never account for our internal experience of experience.
-

[Jim Cross]

Jim Cross wrote:
Who says every experience can be described with an equation? No one that I know of. There are many non-computable problems.

I don't know if Lorezop meant that literally, but physicalism does indeed reduce everything to physics, and physics is math-heavy. Yes, there is the three-body problem, which cannot be solved with any equation -- ever. But insofar as qualia are concerned, Lorenzop makes good points, especially

once the materialist allows for 'redness' - or 'what it's like . . . ', then, they're 'screwed'.

The issue can be debated endlessly, but IMO, physicalism can never account for our internal experience of experience.
-

In another thread (maybe more than one), I linked to a paper that argues the brain does not compute in a Turing sense but that is actually simulating the world. Simply modeling the world, rather than try to compute it, does not require the computing resources which the biological brain would lack. If the modeling is based on analog and wave principles, the existence of qualia makes complete sense as internal representations.

[SanteriSatama]

Yes, there is the three-body problem, which cannot be solved with any equation -- ever.

From wiki:

There is no general closed-form solution to the three-body problem,[1] meaning there is no general solution that can be expressed in terms of a finite number of standard mathematical operations. Moreover, the motion of three bodies is generally non-repeating, except in special cases.[5]

However, in 1912 the Finnish mathematician Karl Fritiof Sundman proved that there exists an analytic solution to the three-body problem in the form of a power series in terms of powers of t1/3.[6] This series converges for all real t, except for initial conditions corresponding to zero angular momentum. In practice, the latter restriction is insignificant since initial conditions with zero angular momentum are rare, having Lebesgue measure zero.

The word 'ever' is very limited eternalist view of mathematics. In contexts of various foundational theories and their evolution, 3-body problem etc. can appear very different. The standard math of contemporary physicalism can't solve it, but then again, it can't really solve any movement when we look a little deeper at the foundational and philosophical issues of set theoretical point-reductionism.