The qualia of consciousness

[TransientOcclusion]

I have been thinking about this for a while, and it bothers me. If we are simply intricate mazes of synapsis and electrical communications, what constitutes the variation in consciousness? What seperates logic from emotion? Sound from sight? It seems there is more going on in here than we realize.

[Serkat]

Your question isn't specific enough.

[TransientOcclusion]

Your question isn't specific enough. What causes these distinct seperations?

[Xei]

You mean between the different colours, pitches, tactile sensations, etcetera?

[Brainchild]

What causes these distinct seperations? Sounds like a question that a good anatomy course would answer.

[juroara]

this isn't something anatomy answers it sounds like he is asking sound and sight in terms of consciousness. we know how we see. we know what areas in the brain are responsible for seeing. but do we know what creates the consciousness that is seeing, it's conscious sight? let's put it this way, if no one was ticking at home, it doesn't matter if you have super human vision, you see nothing. in this case my first argument against the poster would be, there is no separation. there is a conscious you that experiences sight, sound, touch - but this experience is dependent solely on the consciousness experiencing it - not necessarily what the body parts are experiencing consciousness then doesn't arise from external stimuli. but rather judges it, measures it, and uses it as a means to understand the world. the raise of consciousness is not yet discovered in science.

[Brainchild]

this isn't something anatomy answers it sounds like he is asking sound and sight in terms of consciousness. we know how we see. we know what areas in the brain are responsible for seeing. but do we know what creates the consciousness that is seeing, it's conscious sight? let's put it this way, if no one was ticking at home, it doesn't matter if you have super human vision, you see nothing. in this case my first argument against the poster would be, there is no separation. there is a conscious you that experiences sight, sound, touch - but this experience is dependent solely on the consciousness experiencing it - not necessarily what the body parts are experiencing consciousness then doesn't arise from external stimuli. but rather judges it, measures it, and uses it as a means to understand the world. the raise of consciousness is not yet discovered in science. Your initial post referred to how the brain is wired and yes, that is explained in anatomy courses.

[TransientOcclusion]

this isn't something anatomy answers it sounds like he is asking sound and sight in terms of consciousness. we know how we see. we know what areas in the brain are responsible for seeing. but do we know what creates the consciousness that is seeing, it's conscious sight? let's put it this way, if no one was ticking at home, it doesn't matter if you have super human vision, you see nothing. in this case my first argument against the poster would be, there is no separation. there is a conscious you that experiences sight, sound, touch - but this experience is dependent solely on the consciousness experiencing it - not necessarily what the body parts are experiencing consciousness then doesn't arise from external stimuli. but rather judges it, measures it, and uses it as a means to understand the world. the raise of consciousness is not yet discovered in science. I agree with you on all four parts, except the last. It seems, to me, that you are asserting that consciousness "consciously" chooses how to intepret various stimuli?

[DNK]

I have been thinking about this for a while, and it bothers me. If we are simply intricate mazes of synapsis and electrical communications, what constitutes the variation in consciousness? What seperates logic from emotion? Sound from sight? It seems there is more going on in here than we realize. You have qualia confused with psychology or neuroscience. The two/three are different. Logic and emotion are both psychological terms, the sensations of the various emotions, colors, tastes, etc, are the qualia. Now, answering the question of what separates the experience of sound from sight, I have no clue - maybe a belief in the distinction (my best guess)? I doubt you'll find anyone on this planet that knows, but that's no reason to stop looking. Good luck with that.

[Forsaken]

The ways sensations are percieved by consciousness are known as "qualia". If you search for that, you'll find much writing about it, but I doubt you'll find a true answer.

[Xaqaria]

The differentiation in our perceptions of different sensations doesn't really stem from within us, but rather in differences among the inputs. Hearing and tactile responses are essentially the same thing because they are simply sensing vibrations in the skin. The feeling of heat and vision are essentially the same because they are sensing the absorbsion of electromagnetic energy. Taste and smell are both chemical reactions. Logic and emotion seem different, but they are really two aspects of the same process. Logic is basically a chain of association in our brains, and emotions are chemical responses to that chain of association. All of our sensory capabilities come from the skin, and all sensory organs start out as part of the dermis in our development. The process of evolution is a mutation of the same basic components that creates specialization for certain tasks, but every part of us starts out as the same fundamental components. This specialization and compartmentalization carries over into our mode of thinking and so we tend to try to draw lines between different parts of the body and thought processes, but really its all the same basic stuff. Most of the specific parts of the body that you might learn in an anatomy class are basically arbitrary labels that have become standard.

[Neruo]

I am quite sure these "there just has to be something else dude" have even the faintest idea about neurology or psychology. So really, why do you think you can just say "man, there just has to be something there"? About the 'how about the differences (in color, pitch, ect)'. It makes as much sense as saying that since a dvd is nothing but ones and zeros, how can there be more than 2 colours? What I do know about neurons for biomedical class is that they often transmit signals by means of 'blinking' on and off (a neuron can either be 'on' or 'off'). The faster the frequency, the more you feel the effect of the neuron. For instance if you slightly press on your arm, your touch-sense-neurons will have a lower frequency than if you press it very hard. How the brain interprets this is another question, but there is no reason why it would be so hard. Evolutionary it does make complete sense how and why there should be such a difference between signals. There are also some interesting philosophy-of-mind views on this, like functionalism, behaviourism stuff like that. Look into it. You will not, because it is actual science, and that scares some people. When you have a proper understanding about the working and evolution of the brain, on neurological, psychological and evolutionary level, come back to make "I just know there has to be something" claims, and publish it in a scientific journal, if it's (so) true. (no really, please do, I would be interested, just get it published first.)

[TransientOcclusion]

The differentiation in our perceptions of different sensations doesn't really stem from within us, but rather in differences among the inputs. Hearing and tactile responses are essentially the same thing because they are simply sensing vibrations in the skin. The feeling of heat and vision are essentially the same because they are sensing the absorbsion of electromagnetic energy. Taste and smell are both chemical reactions. Logic and emotion seem different, but they are really two aspects of the same process. Logic is basically a chain of association in our brains, and emotions are chemical responses to that chain of association. All of our sensory capabilities come from the skin, and all sensory organs start out as part of the dermis in our development. The process of evolution is a mutation of the same basic components that creates specialization for certain tasks, but every part of us starts out as the same fundamental components. This specialization and compartmentalization carries over into our mode of thinking and so we tend to try to draw lines between different parts of the body and thought processes, but really its all the same basic stuff. Most of the specific parts of the body that you might learn in an anatomy class are basically arbitrary labels that have become standard. I was hoping you wouldn't say that, because the distinction between qualia seems more ethereal than ever.

[TransientOcclusion]

I am quite sure these "there just has to be something else dude" have even the faintest idea about neurology or psychology. So really, why do you think you can just say "man, there just has to be something there"? About the 'how about the differences (in color, pitch, ect)'. It makes as much sense as saying that since a dvd is nothing but ones and zeros, how can there be more than 2 colours? What I do know about neurons for biomedical class is that they often transmit signals by means of 'blinking' on and off (a neuron can either be 'on' or 'off'). The faster the frequency, the more you feel the effect of the neuron. For instance if you slightly press on your arm, your touch-sense-neurons will have a lower frequency than if you press it very hard. How the brain interprets this is another question, but there is no reason why it would be so hard. Evolutionary it does make complete sense how and why there should be such a difference between signals. There are also some interesting philosophy-of-mind views on this, like functionalism, behaviourism stuff like that. Look into it. You will not, because it is actual science, and that scares some people. When you have a proper understanding about the working and evolution of the brain, on neurological, psychological and evolutionary level, come back to make "I just know there has to be something" claims, and publish it in a scientific journal, if it's (so) true. (no really, please do, I would be interested, just get it published first.) I'm just trying to retrieve data.

[juroara]

I agree with you on all four parts, except the last. It seems, to me, that you are asserting that consciousness "consciously" chooses how to intepret various stimuli? you bite into an apple. does it taste good or bad? if two tongues are identical, and both bite into the same apple slice - but one says its good and the other says its bad. what could account for this other than consciousness consciously interpreting data? stimuli doesn't create our reality. stimuli only presents to us a reality that we color with our consciousness. but its the reality colored by our consciousness that we live in.

[Xei]

Who said two tounges are identical and not stimulated in different ways by the same stimulus? Who said the neurons in the brains of the eaters are identical? Poor strawman flat fell on his face.

[Neruo]

I'm just trying to retrieve data. Sorry, I wasn't ranting towards you. Your question wasn't stupid at all, and as far as I know you don't have any assumptions with no proof to go with, unlike some people I do like to criticise harshly If anything, it's a great thing you are asking this kind of questions. More people should do that. Keep it up

[Anthroguy]

The questions you ask are at the heart of the philosophy of what is called non-reductive materialism. I think a fundamental mistake those who are saying that a good anatomy course could answer your questions is that the very definition of qualia is how things seem to us that cannot be explained by purely physical explanations. Sure science has explained that when we "see" red, the wave of the color hits the rods in the back of our eye that causes them to vibrate and send a message to the brain. But the actual process that takes place inside the brain is a mystery to us. We do not experience vibrating rods, rather we experience the color red. Something you may want to read up on is the philosophical methodology called Phenemonology. I'm currently taking a course in it right now, and it might help you gain your own understanding of your questions.

[Xei]

Hm. Thinking about it... can qualia be equated with consciousness? Because consciousness has physical manifestations wheras qualia by definition do not.

[Anthroguy]

Hm. Thinking about it... can qualia be equated with consciousness? Because consciousness has physical manifestations wheras qualia by definition do not. I would say that qualia are some qualities and experiences that make up consciousness, and consciousness can be said to be both physical and non-physical just as atoms are both physical and non-physical.

[Xei]

How would you say atoms are non-physical? Personally when I talk about the physical it is atoms to which I am referring.

[Anthroguy]

Because the vast majority of area in an atom is empty space.

[Xei]

Well, space is also what I consider to be strictly physical. I'm not sure if I'd define that space as being part of the atom anyway. I normally just think of the nucleons and electrons. But yeah, either way... I'd still say an atom is definitely physical.

[Anthroguy]

I respectfully disagree. I'm just going on what I was taught in chemistry that space was considered part of the atom. Furthermore, as for whether space is physical or not, what would empty space be but non-physical space? I don't understand your reasoning here.

[Xei]

Well, either way it's just semantics really... And hm, I can't really understand why you would think empty space is anything other than an aspect of the physical. For me, the fabric of spacetime, and all of the energy and matter inside it, is what I call physical reality. Empty space is just... physical space. I don't see the meaning of 'non-physical space'. Non-physical to me means either platonic reality or mental reality, so to speak.