X-Message-Number: 22365
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 06:45:17 -0700
Subject: Qualia puzzle from Doug Skrecky
References:  <>
From:  (Tim Freeman)

In cryomsg 22356, Scott Badger quoted Doug Skrecky as saying:

>Agreed, qualia are a rather slippery subject. If one
>defines brain processes as autonomous from qualia, so
>that qualia are a mere epiphenomena, then Occam's
>razor eliminates all qualia. Stated otherwise, if all
>brain processes occur truely independantly of the 
>existence of qualia, then qualia are entirely
>epiphenomena. If a brain process is truely independant
>of the existence of qualia, then it can not
>veridically report on qualia. If all qualia are
 ^^^^^^^^^^^ "veridically" means "truthfully"; I had to look it up
>entirely epiphenomena, then no brain process can
>attest to the existence of qualia. Since some brain
>processes do truefully attest to qualia, then qualia
>can not be entirely epiphenomena, and some brain
>processes can not be entirely described by purely
>material (qualia free) references.

Interesting puzzle here.

tcpdump is a utility that reports network packets received by a Unix
machine.  I think a valid analogy is when I run tcpdump to get my
computer to report on its network activity.  The analogy is:

My computer, with tcpdump running <-> a brain
a reported network packet <-> a quale reported by the brain

I don't see anything about the above argument that fails to be
translated by the analogy, leading to the conclusion that the
operation of my computer when running tcpdump can't be described on a
gate level without reference to tcpdump, and tcpdump can't generate
truthful output saying what network packets were transferred.  Both of
these conclusions are obviously false.

I think the false inference is

   If a brain process is truely independant of the existence of qualia,
   then it can not veridically report on qualia.

When tcpdump is running, the operating system and hardware on my
computer make an extra copy of each packet.  One is used normally, and
the other is given to tcpdump.  tcpdump reports packets accurately
only because the operating system truthfully tells it what packets
were sent.  If the operating system lies, then tcpdump will lie too.
If I'm running tcpdump under User Mode Linux (a virtual machine) and
the network doesn't really exist, then tcpdump merrily generates
reports about a nonexistent network.  (If tcpdump reported being
merry, we'd have an entirely different puzzle. :-)

Similarly, one could imagine situations where a person is deceived
about their own qualia.  This can really happen in split brain cases,
where a person has had their corpus callosum removed.  There are
situations where they can pick up the object they saw, but verbally
they report that they did not see anything.  For details, visit

   http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/split.html

and skip to "Split-Brain Experiments".

The analogy with tcpdump still seems solid.  Translating the User Mode
Linux case back to brains, a simulated brain would report qualia too.
If you interpret statements about qualia like "I see a spoon" as
abstract statements about neurons and there aren't any real neurons
around, then the reports would be false, just as the report from the
split brain patient that they didn't see anything is false.  However,
if you interpret "I see a spoon" as meaning "I am able to respond to
the presence of the spoon", then that statement is still true if it is
being made by a simulated brain.

A correct inference to replace the false one above would be

   If a brain process is truely independant of the existence of qualia,
   then it can only truthfully report on qualia if it is given
   accurate information about them from some other brain process.

I think the error that lead to the bad inference earlier was the
assumption that introspection, if it happens at all, must be accurate.
Just as my operating system could lie to tcpdump about what packets
are being transmitted on my network, there is no law of nature that
forces introspection to be accurate.  When I report "I see a spoon",
that statement is true only because part of my brain is accurately
summarizing what's going on in another part of my brain, and that
summary is accurately being transmitted to the section of my brain
that specializes in making tedious philosophical arguments.  :-).  If
the summary is wrong or it isn't communicated accurately, I could
report "I see a spoon" when that is not true.

-- 
Tim Freeman                                                  
    May I have the imagination to see what I want to change, the
      hubris to make the attempt, and the strength to succeed. 
GPG public key fingerprint ECDF 46F8 3B80 BB9E 575D  7180 76DF FE00 34B1 5C78 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22365