[Robert]

This thread of assimilation started by Robert.

*** ASSIMILATED ***

A Definition - Qualia are those subjective experiences what we experience in our mind; qualitative properties of our mental states such as sensations and emotions. These are things that we know to be true because we feel them inside of us, like anger, pain, the color red, yet these mental states are unknowable unless they can be directly experienced. They cannot be accurately described to another person unless that person can directly experience the sensation.

Does qualia exist? If not, how does the brain create the illusion of qualia?

Here's the Wikipedia link on Qualia.
Here's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Qualia.

Ok, that's my kickoff. Add your thoughts, ideas, questions, etc and they will be assimilated!

NEW - The ToeQuest Collective Mind can be viewed using Internet Explorer at the ToeQuest Mind.
latest update - Nov 29th, 2005

[Guille]

*** ASSIMILATED ***

Qualia, up to what I've read in the standford link, are experiences in our mind. They are not the experienced things, I mean by this, they are not objects of reality. But also, they are not the parts of our mind by which we aprehend the objects of reality, these parts are those by which we do our cognitive processes. Then, what is there between the objects and the mind? Qualia. But what is it? It is those experiences that we obtain from the perceptions of the world by our conceptions of the mind. And this definition is exactly the same as that of truth. Truth is the aprehension of the being to the reality, of the mind to the world. Thus, actuallly, truths are a special kind of qualia. Special because it's conceptual meaning is the exact opposite of what it is itself and of what qualia are: it is what is objective, correct and factual for reality itself. But as it is a personal experience, then truth it self is not a truth. This is the first conclusion that I give, I'll post more philosophyzing later.

[Guille]

*** ASSIMILATED ***

What does "assimilated" mean? You've saved it or something?

Anwya, coming back to qualia. If we define Nomena to be all that occurs but is not subjective and phenomena all that is percieved and thus subjective, from Nietzchenian philosophy, then, if we add the concept of Ereignis from the Heideggerian philosophy, we are in trouble, for Ereignis means that which is true. But that which is true I have already proved, is a qaulia, the qualia which is nomena, by definition. But nomena is the objective reality, whiles Ereignis is the objective truth. Here we enter into kierkegaardian philosophy, who distinguished between subjective truths; those that if come to be false, would change the form of being of an entity, and objective truths; those that wouldn't change the form of being of any entity, i.e. those that are simply facts, in contrast to the others which are believes. But here we come into Descartes's philosophy, by which all that really exists is that which is known, i.e. which is proven to be true, and is true by nature, but here we come into phenomenology, by which that which is true is not needed to be proven to be true; it is true in itself, but here we go into Nietzche again, who said there are truths by themselves subjective (Phenomena) and truths by themselves objective (Nomena).

That was stupid. I'm stupid, and if you think I'm not you are wrong, for the actual fact that I think I'm stupid impplies that I'm stupid.

I was trying to build up a proper philosophy about qualia from the philosophical knowledge I've got. How can I be trapped, being out of the circle? Nietzche-Heidegger-Kierkegaard-Descartes-Husserl-Nietzche is exactly what I've made. I'll be strongly and trascendentally philosophyzing about this all time, even in my dreams... I wish I am as lucky as Descartes as to develop one of my most important contributions to humanity, in a dream. Maybe hsi qualia was of good quality, and actually we can differentiate the quality of qualia? Maybe Mike's fracta dialectics of mathematical motion and quality can help solve this?

[mkirkpatrick]

*** ASSIMILATED ***

Robert,once again thanks for the topic,Qualia.that which occurs within is personal experiance,belongs to us,or does it?Over the years I have been involved in much group work,tht involves sharing of experiences,and identification of (personal)problems,these groups have included alcoholics,drug addicts,eating disorders,personality problems,sexual problems,and just about
all other things that happen to folks.What I have discovered is that under the
surface,we are much the same,it is only when you keep your experiences to
yourself,and not share them,that theidea that we might be unique fester!And
can bethe root of many forthcoming problems.When we indentify with another
it informs us thatwe are not alone,and that we are all connected,we each have
our own lessons to learn,and by sharing them we contribute to the Whole.

kind regards michael.

[Qbert]

*** ASSIMILATED ***

Why do we have to go so far past the word experience.When you describe quailia you describe experience.Q.Is the word 'experience' insufficient to define qualia?A.yes it is insufficient in that qualia is more: how you assimilate(pun intended) your experience

[curlinpw@netzero.net]

*** ASSIMILATED ***

if i am a figment of your qualia, do i exist?

[Robert]

Originally Posted by GUILLE What does "assimilated" mean? You've saved it or something?

You have not read the Forum Introduction that I spent so much time creating! I am assimilating all thoughts in this thread into the ToeQuest Collective Mind. I will try to publish this ToeQuest Mind this coming Sunday for your deep insight (or amusement?). I'll have more information at that time on how to access the mind. A lot of this information is in the introduction post so all assimilatees should be sure to read it.

[Guille]

*** ASSIMILATED ***

Originally Posted by curlinpw@netzero.net if i am a figment of your qualia, do i exist?

You exist in my brain/mind. But you don't physically exist. This is the major problem why we can't simplify (as one of the above post said). Qualia are mental parts thus all that exists in them or for them are mental objects thus we cannot percieve physical things in themselves. This is not only the great problem with qualia, and with all philosophy of mind, but the main problem for us, humans, to be able of understanding the universe.

ok, Robert, I've read it now. Good, I'll wait to see what the midnmap loks like.

[david44]

*** ASSIMILATED ***

Originally Posted by Robert This thread of assimilation started by Robert. *** ASSIMILATED *** A Definition - Qualia are those subjective experiences what we experience in our mind; qualitative properties of our mental states such as sensations and emotions. These are things that we know to be true because we feel them inside of us, like anger, pain, the color red, yet these mental states are unknowable unless they can be directly experienced. They cannot be accurately described to another person unless that person can directly experience the sensation. Does qualia exist? If not, how does the brain create the illusion of qualia? Here's the Wikipedia link on Qualia. Here's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Qualia. Ok, that's my kickoff. Add your thoughts, ideas, questions, etc and they will be assimilated!

After reading some of the definitions of Qualia I realise that it is trying to cater for many things and yet come up with only one understanding.

A perfect example of what I am talking about is the word "Transport". The word transport can cover many things from land based to water based to air based and so on.

I think Qualia operates on the same principle.

Emotions are the thoughts we created as a child to manipulate our environment to get what we want. Most people just forgot that by the time they grew up into an adult. And now most people let their emotions control their lives.

The secret to being happy is to be happy. It is just a decision. And each and every one of us has the power of that choice.

Feelings are not emotions. Feelings are incoming (what we experience with our senses) and Emotions are outgoing ( the thoughts we create in our mind to describe to others what we are experiencing.)

Colour on the other hand is a vibrational reference to our inner senses because colour is not real. Colour is put in somewhere between the outer eye and the cortex of the brain. Just like sound waves. And our responses to colour are based entirely on what we learned as a child.

I remember one experiment back in the 1970's on colour that got 100 people to come and stay for a week-end and all they had to do was to eat what they were given and then they would each receive $50 cash. At the end of the experiment, only a few people collected the money. Because most people had a problem with bright blue steak, purple peas, pink cauliflower and so on. Most people who forced the food down brought it right back up again. Even though there was nothing wrong with the food.

And the conclusions that the scientists came up with after the experiment was that the only people who didn't have a problem with coloured food were the ones who had no previous bad experiences with colour.

Pain is something else again. Pain is what our body uses to tell our brain that something is wrong with our body and then the brain sets about doing what it does to fix the problem.

If all of these things make up Qualia, then I think we will need to break it up into more words (sub-headings) to separate for individual definition.


cheers David

http://theuniversalcodeofliving.com

[Qbert]

*** ASSIMILATED ***

In the the detected universe their are an estimated 40 quadrillion class M planets. the chances of you having an original thought are way WAY less than 40 quadrillion to 1.Q Is the universal qualia unexpandable