A philosophy/psychology "test"

[pau17]

Fifty already told me once wiki is NOT your friend on philosophical terms and thank you for the link , i mean it but that's a bit too much for a foreigner like me, isn't there any easier to comprehend definitions on it?

Well if you look at the sources (something you should always do in any wiki article), you will see which parts of it are written by professors/academics/experts, and which parts are not backed up (for example there is a direct quotation to an academic paper in the first sentence). If you want something that is more exclusive and expert-based, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is good:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

Both articles start general and get more specific, so you can read as little or as much as you like.

 

[philippe]

Its basically like the "qualitative feel" of a sensory perception i.e. why red looks like this (picture something red) rather than like that (picture something green).

Well if you look at the sources (something you should always do in any wiki article), you will see which parts of it are written by professors/academics/experts, and which parts are not backed up (for example there is a direct quotation to an academic paper in the first sentence). If you want something that is more exclusive and expert-based, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is good:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

Both articles start general and get more specific, so you can read as little or as much as you like.

Thank you both for your inputs. I understand what a qualia basically is thanks to Fifty and the more outlined and in-depth explanation of the stanford link given by pau17 was a great addition, once again, thank you both.

 

[Dubai Vol]

Spoiler :

Color is a function of the wavelength of light reflected by an object. Color is defined by a specific wavelength, not by the perception of any observer. Even when the doppler effect changes the color by shortening or lengthening wavelength, it is still mathematically definable and not dependent on perception. So no, no red fish

 

[Mise]

Now contrast the case of Timmy and Soup Version T:

blue fish -> red sensation -> "red fish"

turkey soup -> taste of turkey -> "chicken soup"

The qualia seem to play a kind of middleman between objective, outside-world reality and a person's reports. It's much less likely, but possible, to be mistaken about qualia than about the external world. Because it IS possible to be mistaken about qualia, there must be a difference between words/judgments/statements on the one hand, and qualia on the other.

This is important because when people use the word "perception", they often (always?) refer to what a person says or judges about a situation.

Okay, so, if we're mistaken about qualia (I assume that the first dinner guest was initially wrong to say that it tasted like chicken, i.e. he is mistaken about the qualia) our perception of the objective, outside world would also be mistaken?

And we can be correct about the qualia (saying it tastes like turkey, and it really does taste like turkey), but still be mistaken about the objective world (the soup is vegetarian, but turkey flavoured).

So when Timmy says that the fish is red, we can't automatically assume that he's seeing (experiencing the sensation of) red fish -- he really could be seeing red fish, when in fact they're blue, or he could be seeing blue fish, but interpreting that blue-sensation incorrectly and telling us they're red?

 

[Ayatollah So]

So when Timmy says that the fish is red, we can't automatically assume that he's seeing (experiencing the sensation of) red fish -- he really could be seeing red fish, when in fact they're blue, or he could be seeing blue fish, but interpreting that blue-sensation incorrectly and telling us they're red?

Well yeah, but people who've taken largish doses of LSD consistently report certain changes of color experiences, so I would believe the "red sensation" hypothesis. I was hoping that this fact about LSD is well-enough-known, that people would figure likewise. There were a few other flaws in the way I set up the stories and question, too. Like, I didn't specify the entire contents of the room - maybe there was someone else and they were wearing a red T-shirt, yada yada - and then I asked "was anything red"? Oh well, I don't think that skewed the results much.

This article inspired me to ask y'all. This is a discussion of that paper online.

 

[scy12]

Spoiler :

Color is a function of the wavelength of light reflected by an object. Color is defined by a specific wavelength, not by the perception of any observer. Even when the doppler effect changes the color by shortening or lengthening wavelength, it is still mathematically definable and not dependent on perception. So no, no red fish

But is there a blue fish ?

 

[Fifty]

This article inspired me to ask y'all. This is a discussion of that paper online.

Down with experimental philosophy!!!

"the method of conducting opinion polls amongst non-philosophers is not very much more likely to be the best way of answering philosophical questions than the method of conducting opinion polls amongst non-physicists is to be the best way of answering physical questions." -Timothy Willimason (warning big PDF)

 

[Riffraff]

Down with experimental philosophy!!!

"the method of conducting opinion polls amongst non-philosophers is not very much more likely to be the best way of answering philosophical questions than the method of conducting opinion polls amongst non-physicists is to be the best way of answering physical questions." -Timothy Willimason (warning big PDF)

Not that I read the article or anything, but when discussing perception or something similar, wouldn't the analogy to polling non-philosophers be more akin to a standard experiment than a poll among non-physicists?

 

[Fifty]

Not that I read the article or anything, but when discussing perception or something similar, wouldn't the analogy to polling non-philosophers be more akin to a standard experiment than a poll among non-physicists?

Well, I think that the stuff Ayatollah was discussing is interesting in that it characterizes how ordinary people ordinarily think about perception when they aren't thinking too hard about it.

I don't really think experimental philosophy is that bad, and I too haven't read the article in question in this thread. My main point is that we need to be careful when we are saying what these sorts of studies actually imply. After all, if you took a poll amon non-probability-theorists, you'd find that the folk conception of probability is far different than what the probability theorists say. Does that mean the probability theorists are wrong? Heck no! It means the folk just haven't thought hard enough about the relevant questions. I'm not sure why I sould treat questions about consciousness and qualia any different.

 

[brennan]

The fish are blue, for reasons that Mise in particular outlined well.

I see a couple of possibilities for the reasons why Timmy reports red:

Physically the cones (or is it rods, I can never remember which does what) in his eyes are responding to blue light and reporting this to Timmy's brain, where it is either being erroneously reported as red (IOW the problem occurs in the interpretation of the signals from the eye by the brain), or correctly reported as blue, but Timmy has erroneously labelled it as red (language issue).

In Jimmy's case I would have to say that his sensors are probably not operating properly. Were the 'low voltage' an issue that prevented his processors from working properly he likely wouldn't be able to answer at all. Of course this is making assumptions about the unstated properties of Jimmy.

 

[Eukaryote]

Spoiler :

Yeah, something was red. The things it the person's brain / robot's circruitry.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Spoiler :

The image formed in the mind/central processing unit is red, nothing else.

 

[Sidhe]

In Jimmy's case I would have to say that his sensors are probably not operating properly. Were the 'low voltage' an issue that prevented his processors from working properly he likely wouldn't be able to answer at all. Of course this is making assumptions about the unstated properties of Jimmy.

Actually I would imagine the imaging technology would use RGB system, if for some reason the hardware was malfunctioning so that red light was removed or did not register then it's possible that things would appear blue or blue would dominate. It's unlikely but I suppose its possible?

 

[Mise]

Actually I would imagine the imaging technology would use RGB system, if for some reason the hardware was malfunctioning so that red light was removed or did not register then it's possible that things would appear blue or blue would dominate. It's unlikely but I suppose its possible?

It would appear black.

 

[Angst]

Spoiler :

I'm unsure, although I think nothing was red. It was LSD and low voltage.

 

[Sidhe]

It would appear black.

I don't see why? Blue and green with no red does not necessarily make black? If only blue light was registering then that would appear blue, the situation is possible surely?

 

[Mise]

I don't see why? Blue and green with no red does not necessarily make black? If only blue light was registering then that would appear blue, the situation is possible surely?

The fish were actually blue, which means that only blue light was being reflected from the fish. If the sensors in the robot were unable to detect blue light, then the fish would appear black, because the sensors would be able to detect any light coming from the fish.

If the fish were actually cyan (a mixture of blue and green), and again the sensors were unable to detect blue, the fish would appear green (but slightly darker).

 

[Sidhe]

The fish were actually blue, which means that only blue light was being reflected from the fish. If the sensors in the robot were unable to detect blue light, then the fish would appear black, because the sensors would be able to detect any light coming from the fish.

If the fish were actually cyan (a mixture of blue and green), and again the sensors were unable to detect blue, the fish would appear green (but slightly darker).

Er hold on it can't detect blue light therefore there is no red light pigment in blue? That's false blue is rarely a singular wavelength and is most likely made up of red, yellow, green, purple, indigo etc etc colour combinations with available remaining wavelengths of light? Not red then? And you are assuming that it's software might not interpret a malfunction in hardware as green=blue, red= blue or anything else. I don't think you are a qualified enough programmer to make the assertion that hardware malfunction and therefore software malfunciton could not cause this error. Anyone who's seen what low power does to a monitor/computer knows how funked up its visual processing software and hardware can get. I don't see why you are even making this assertion it's pedantry and it's irrelevant but then I suppose this thread died on page two anyway so what's left?

I think the point is that it is possible to cause such a malfunction, if you want to continue the discussion I suggest you contact NASA or a Japanese company and ask if they could simulate such an error, if they say no then you are correct. It could not happen, full marks to you, chufty badge in the post. Sound the death nell of the thread.

Analogy, hardware eyes, software visual cortex. I think it's perfectly valid to assume that both can go wrong in ways that mimic each other, after all that's kind of the point of modern programming in this advanced area nay? We want to get the 100 trillion calculations per second of the brain, without the uselessly overinvolved arsing around with superfluous stuff and the rather lame 25 billion instructions per second of your average lap top.

 

[Mise]

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Sidhe]

What the hell are you talking about?

You appear to be seriously suggesting that the thing can't malfunction in that way, therefore I said your talking crap, and so far you have just rattled off complete nonsense as a justification? If anything I should be asking what you are talking about, since you appear to have judged yourself as the leading expert on what can go wrong with robots? There is that clear? Or do you want me to say it again?

Ok in four words: stop talking total crap.

In more stop pretending to be an expert on something you know nothing about.

You are neither a hardware nor software expert AFAIK, and I don't see the point in taking you seriously unless you can get the opinion of someone who is. Until then what the hell sort of things are you suggesting?

Actually I would imagine the imaging technology would use RGB system, if for some reason the hardware was malfunctioning so that red light was removed or did not register then it's possible that things would appear blue or blue would dominate. It's unlikely but I suppose its possible?

Did not register? Do you have any idea what I meant by that, because I think that is your problem?

Power problems can cause both software and hardware conflicts, depending on how the program is set up, in something as sophisticated as a robot I see no reason whatsoever that the OP is in any way, in conflict with reality, were as you do. That's your problem I think.