Information icon.svg Survey Closing Today: The RationalWiki Community Survey 2017 is closing at 2300 UTC today. See the results.

Talk:Qualia

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

"The fact that the experience of sound is correlated with a measurable physical phenomenon (the vibration and which part of the cochlea reacts to it) refutes the idea that qualia can be inverted in a neurotypical person. Very high-pitched frequencies, for one, tend to cause people physical pain. If inverted qualia were true, we should expect to see a similar reaction from some people when a very low note is played, which doesn't happen" - it assumes it's the high-pitch-sound quale itself is what causes the pain quale, rather than the physical state caused by the too high-pitched sound that causes both the quale of pain and and whatever sound quale one may have associated with it -- both which could theoretically perhaps be somewhat different in different persons, just like there are synesthetes, who will experience totally unrelated qualia from a given sensory input, and perhaps masochists, who will find pain pleasant (I'm not sure it's actually thought that masochism could be some form of synesthesia, though). — Unsigned, by: 201.13.145.30 / talk / contribs

It has not actually been assumed that the high-pitch-sound quale itself is what causes the pain quale. It has merely been assumed that the high-pitch-sound quale is correlated with the pain quale, however indirectly that may be. Correlated in such a way that inverted qualia as a concept seems weak (imagine a low-pitch-sound quale appearing at the same time as the high-pitch-type pain quale... yeah, that doesn't make sense, now does it). Note that only the concept of inverted qualia is being attacked here, not the concept of varying/differing qualia. They are related concepts, but there's a difference. Nullahnung (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anything minimally problematic with the very-low-pitch sound quale being accompanied as the type of pain-quale normally associated with high-pitch sounds. It's just "unusual"/theoretically not experienced by anyone assuming we don't have inverted/shuffled spectra, but until it's found that the neural correlate for both the sound and the pain is inextricably one and the same, it's even theoretically possible that artificial stimulation could produce such experience, given that we had "definition"/precision of neural stimuli to evoke the same activation patterns. I'm not defending the "likelihood" of inverted spectra and the like, but it only seems to me that they're not ruled out by Hofstadter's reasoning, which seems to "beg the question", to me. But doesn't really matter much, he's an authority, I'm not, and that's an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum for personal ideas/views/gut-feelings. --189.46.121.195 (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, this is totally a discussion forum for personal ideas/views/gut-feelings and is certainly not an encyclopedia. My gut feeling would be that you have a point. Nullahnung (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, if it's all right to say so, the traffic light argument has the same flaw, perhaps more apparently: if people had green and red reversed, they would learn that what they see as a green light and call a "red" light means stop and what they see as a red light and call a "green" light means go. The person would learn to appreciate the "greenness" (perceived as redness) of the springtime and fear the "redness" (perceived as greenness) of fire. Clearly, they would never know that they were abnormal. David815 (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)