X-Message-Number: 22327 Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:55:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott Badger <> Subject: Simulating Qualia I'm pretty new to these concepts so bear with me, but I am having difficulty grokking Ettinger s notion of a standing wave in the brain, the various states of which constitute qualia (please feel free to refer me to a more detailed treatise), or the idea that this is the only way for my current self to connect with previous and future selves for a sense of continuity. I may be wrong, but this sounds like Dualism to me, the mind-body split position I would not have expected Dr. E to advocate. I, personally, hold that the mind is what the brain does ; much like digestion is what the stomach does. Here s my take. Based on what I ve been able to gather, a quale is broadly defined as a consciously accessible subjective experience. It is explained that there is a difference between knowing about and knowing the color red, for example. That difference is purportedly between the physical and phenomenal aspects of a thing. The argument is that knowing all there is to know about red (e.g. wavelength, hues, etc) does not equate with the actual experience of seeing red. That only after actually seeing red can one say, So that is what it s like to see red . Actually, it seems to me there's a subjective aspect to 'knowing about', too. It is possible for one to see the color red and know virtually nothing else about it. So a parallel argument can be made that knowing what it is like to see red does not equate with the actual experience of knowing all about red. Only after learning all about red can one say, So that is what it is like to know about red . In other words, there is something that it is like to know about , and there is something that it is like to know , so it seems to me there is no important phenomenological difference between knowing about and knowing . Put another way, everything we do has a subjective aspect to it. Anyway, in terms of explaining the nature of qualia, I would hypothesize that qualia are nothing more than the brain s reaction to sensory input, bodily feelings, and cognitions. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, it is the brain sensing of its own reaction to raw information. This reaction I speak of is a dynamic process of interpretation influenced by multiple factors. It involves the biasing, tagging, and coloring of raw perceptual data. It is brought about because the brain functions to accommodate, assimilate, classify, and integrate information for the purposes of decision-making and story-building. We are constantly contructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing information and the process always occurs in the presence of contexual filters that are part of the interpretive process. Strip raw perceptual data of all the brain's reactions to it and you the equivalent of a computer capable of using software to create and manipulate a database. The human experience is essentially the personalization of data. I believe subjective experience requires affective as well as cognitive components. Like consciousness itself, qualia strike me as epiphenomenal side-effects of normal brain processes. Consequently, if we can accurately simulate a human brain with cognitive and affective processes that can actually generate consciousness, qualia should happen as a matter of course. Of course, I could be wrong. ===== Scott Badger, Ph.D. Member: ALCOR, Extropy Insitute, Life Extension Foundation Assistant Professor/Researcher-University of Idaho Two Original CD's "Phenom" and "Burdens" available at: www.mp3.com/scottbadger __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22327