Gilles Kuhn: I remember to all present that the seminar will be logged and post on the web by your presence here you accept that
Gilles Kuhn: this will be the 3 seminar I thank the Kira for hosting us
Mickorod Renard: hiya Rodney
Pema Pera: Hi everybody (slooooowly rezzzing)
Paula Dix: Hi Pema
Scathach Rhiadra: Hello Pema:)
Mickorod Renard: hi Pema
Gilles Kuhn: our undergoing discussion is about the mind/body problem and the hard problem we discussed extensively piet hut (Pema pera) paper turning the mind/body problem upside down and sideway in the precedent session
Pema Pera: Note that we will log this chat on our Kira blog, so by staying and participating, you give us permission to include your part of the conversation also on the web
Gilles Kuhn: to enlarge the perspective i proposed as a reading and a contribution of our ongoing debate a paper of chalmers
Rodney Handrick: hi Mick
Gilles Kuhn: paper available here [1]
Rodney Handrick: How recent is this paper?
arabella Ella: 2004
Gilles Kuhn: so we were discussing the "sense "notion introduced by Pema a primitive that could be necessary to explain consciousness as time and space are necessary to explain motion
Rodney Handrick: thanks
Gilles Kuhn: however chalmers claims that a science of consciousness is possible without introducing this notion and I proposed is paper as an alternative view
Gilles Kuhn: first of all as somebody comprehension question about the paper of chalmers?

Fefonz Quan skipped one more homework assignment...
arabella Ella: I think chalmers is generally very clear
Alfred Kelberry: hi :)
Gilles Kuhn: chalmers propose basically that we can without confounding them correlate first person
(qualia level ) perspective with third person one (objective classical science level)
Gilles Kuhn: and he claims that a science of consciousness a true one will be a science of correlation finding correlation principles and basic ""laws"" bridging these
Gilles Kuhn: these perspective*
Gilles Kuhn: the first part of his paper cover I think a now familiar way of putting the mind body problem classically
Lokifluff Clarity: lol ok can I jump in?
Gilles Kuhn: what I think is critical difference between Piet perspective and chalmers is the permanent linking in a necessary but sufficient way between 1 and 3 person claimed by chalmers to be the root of any possibility of genuine science of consciousness
Gilles Kuhn: care to comment about that Piet?
Gilles Kuhn: yes please Loki do so
Pema Pera: I think both views are compatible
Gilles Kuhn: (everybody else too evidently)
Pema Pera: at first, you start observing what you can (phenomenology)
Pema Pera: then you start to correlate (Chalmers)
Lokifluff Clarity: it is the notion of bridging that seems so flawed to me - I perceive it more as points of contact, bridging denotes a permanence
Pema Pera: then you hope to find an underlying more unified theory (what I was pointing at)
Gilles Kuhn: well chalmers mention pheno too but as part of correlation process
Gilles Kuhn: not as a basic one as you is it not a big difference methodologically speaking?
Pema Pera: no, my suggestion of sense was meant more as a catalyst
Pema Pera: to keep in mind the possibility of there being a different background toward which to view the phenomena and indeed also the correlations
Pema Pera: but the actual work starts with the latter two
Gilles Kuhn: ah so not as an ontological claim but more some kind of working hypothesis
Pema Pera: so not a big difference in actual work
arabella Ella: chalmers also seems to throw some doubt on the methodology of phenomenology by saying it needs to be refined and made more intersubjective to make it more reliable
Pema Pera: I agree, it has to be intersubjective
Pema Pera: phenomenology is used by different people to mean very different things :)
Seneca Quandry: I'm also concerned that there may be no interesting correlates between mental states and the underlying neural states... or rather, that finding these correlations may mislead us if our objective is to develop a science of the mind.
Pema Pera: And yes, Loki, points of contact is the first place to start
Lokifluff Clarity: concur Sen
arabella Ella: I agree too seneca
Pema Pera: yes, but still interesting
Seneca Quandry: If mental states can be alternately realized by different underlying functional states, then we might be misled by these correlations.
Gilles Kuhn: actually chalmers mention pheno only as a method about extracting empirical data from a first person perspective that can be useable in the correlation process but not as the only possible method to do so
Pema Pera: good to throw out a wide net at first
arabella Ella: mapping the brain with correlations has already gone a long way but it will never go far enough
Gilles Kuhn: good point seneca
arabella Ella: and correlations will never be sufficient IMO to bring together the first and third person aspects where consciousness is concerned
Pema Pera: scientists are opportunists: try this try that, collect data, stand back, see what kind of sense you can make -- no reason to limit ourselves a priori
arabella Ella: we need more than that
Seneca Quandry: I agree.
Pema Pera: yes
Seneca Quandry: But I think Chalmers suggestion is founded on an underlying view about what the relationship *is* between mental states and the underlying physical states.
Pema Pera: but correlations may be like money -- money alone doesn't make you happy, but it may help :-)
arabella Ella: altho it is interesting to see chalmers also notes that scientists may not be as objective as they claim to be
Gilles Kuhn: indeed the problem is that we can have different phenomena that seems to correlate and don’t and too we can have different way to have the same result (for example different way to experience pain or blueness)
Gilles Kuhn: what i think interesting too is the idea to try to find principle general principle derived from the correlate and to test them from the two different points of view at the same time that can introduce empiricity where we have to now more thought experiment
Seneca Quandry: Money is an interesting example, Pema: If we tried to correlate instances of economic exchange with the physical items involved in such exchanges we would miss the point. Money exchanges might involve shells or gold or rocks, right? The stuff exchanged --its composition-- isn't what's relevant. It might be the same in the case of a science of the mind.
Gilles Kuhn: ok seneca functionalims so?
Pema Pera: great point, Seneca!
Seneca Quandry: Well, I may not understand Chalmers properly. But isn't this a problem for his suggestion, Gilles?
Pema Pera: so money only can be understood in context
Pema Pera: and correlations too
arabella Ella: i recently watched a video of chalmers on youtube and he actually said we need a new language to understand the hard problem of mind and a paradigm shift too ... he said he reckons we need about 50 years for it to happen ... altho I would be more optimistic myself
Gilles Kuhn: well I don’t think so because if indeed he speak only of brain process and first person perspective nothing impeach to introduce AI or others things to have the same kind of correlation
Lokifluff Clarity: my biggest problem with correlating brain data to sense processes is the interdependent nature of senses - how does one phenomenology clarify that?
quen Oh: hello all
Pema Pera: Hi Quen!
Gilles Kuhn: and too in your example seneca chalmers too speak to look for more and more general principle actually he ask for very simple law like in physic like you Pema
Gilles Kuhn: well loki that’s indeed a big problem and we are certainly at the very very beginning but they are some interesting data on sense integration notably about synesthesic people
arabella Ella: I think chalmers is looking more at something like quantum physics rather than a very simple law Gilles

Seneca Quandry: So from specific neural/qualitative correlations we might look for broader functional principles that explain the correlations in more general terms.
Lokifluff Clarity: Gilles can you refer me where to find that?
Pema Pera: Progress in science is made by trial and error and tinkering, over many years, not by speculating what the next new big paradigm may be -- the only reason to do the latter is to make sure that your cultural capital is wide enough not to overlook new interesting options
Pema Pera: new broad ideas are like extra shelf space, room for new interpretations, but unless they are slowly filled by data from experiments they are pretty useless
Pema Pera: but without the shelves you have no good way to put them
Pema Pera: the data I mean
Gilles Kuhn: yes actually I think that and there is perhaps a problem there chalmers want to make a science of the correlation between two sets of empirical data that he recognize to be qualitatively different there is a risk of making "scholastistic" kind of theory but is it not the case for all sciences ?
quen Oh: and perhaps by fascination and curiosity... little things that trigger the mind and can lead to new ways of research?
Pema Pera: and you may then miss their meaning
Gilles Kuhn: (loki yes actually in the paper we speak about there is a ref)
Seneca Quandry: I suppose so, Gilles. As a programmatic suggestion, I think Chalmers' project is fine really. But he makes it sound easier and more systematic than it seems likely to turn out. At least, that's a concern.
Lokifluff Clarity: ty Gilles
Lokifluff Clarity: I think he is naive personally (but in a lovely way!)
Seneca Quandry: I recognize that's not much of an objection though-- maybe this really is the best way to go if we hope for an integrated science of the mind.
Lokifluff Clarity: but possibly only because I lack the vision to disseminate what it is that he would have to disseminate in order to archive it
Gilles Kuhn: well some naivety is perhaps necessary in science? and let the epistemologist torture themselves ;-)
Seneca Quandry: lol
Lokifluff Clarity: oh I agree - I owned it!
Lokifluff Clarity: the other problem that I can see is the impact of intentionality on the senses (interdependent senses) - how can one account for that scientifically?
Gilles Kuhn: in another famous paper by him he try to explain that if (if I remember well) we can change acting directly on the brain qualia perception then we will solve qualia problem
Lokifluff Clarity: directionality is another
Seneca Quandry: Which paper, Gilles?
Lokifluff Clarity: indeed - which paper?
arabella Ella: could you explain that in a bit more detail Gilles please?
Gilles Kuhn: changing qualia
arabella Ella: as the Frank Jackson and Mary story comes to mine
arabella Ella: and how could it be correlated with neuronal activity in the brain?
Gilles Kuhn: one sec i will check the ref to give in group after this seminar [ref is Chalmers D, “Absent
Qualia, Fading Qualia, Dancing Qualia” in Conscious Experience, edited by Thomas Metzinger. Imprint Academic, 1995, available [[1]]
arabella Ella: the qualitative feel of things I mean
arabella Ella: qualia
Gilles Kuhn: actually there are concrete works in this direction made in paris (have to check ref too) they seems to be able in exciting the occipital cortex to make see a simple geometrical form that they preselect to the subject [ref is BRESSLOFF, P., COWAN, J., GOLUBITSKY, M., THOMAS, P., WIENER, M., 2001. Geometric visual hallucinations, Euclidean symmetry and the functional architecture of striate cortex, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 356, 299-330.]
arabella Ella: but Gilles a geometrical form is very different from the redness of a rose
Gilles Kuhn: I will try to make all ref and paper available on the google group
Seneca Quandry: Interesting, Gilles.
Gilles Kuhn: yes but they see it so is a qualic experience
Gilles Kuhn: induced at an internal layer of the brain
Seneca Quandry: There have been much cruder experiments as well, that were done to map out the functional geography of the brain. They actually severed neural pathways to discover what function would be impaired.
Paula Dix gave you The Self as a Center of Narrative Gravity.
arabella Ella: I find that similarity strange ... what is it like to see a triangle? versus what it is like to see a ripe red tomato?
Lokifluff Clarity: I am so sorry to have to leave, because this is honestly fascinating... I am interested in all of this but may have to disseminate some of it later
Fefonz Quan: sounds horrible, Seneca
Gilles Kuhn: yes seneca localisationism own a lot to brain injuries
Seneca Quandry: Agreed, Fefonz.
Pema Pera: bye Loki, thanks for joining us!
Lokifluff Clarity: sorry - how do I get a hold of the transcript?
arabella Ella: bye Loki good to c u
Seneca Quandry: Bye Loki!
Pema Pera: we will put it on the Kira web, Loki
Lokifluff Clarity: kisses to everyone... xxx
Pema Pera:[]
Lokifluff Clarity: thanks Pema - will grab a copy
Gilles Kuhn: and in the philosophical seminar google group loki i will send you data
Lokifluff Clarity: ty Gilles
Lokifluff Clarity: night everyone! x
arabella Ella: nite
Paula Dix: bye Loki
Gilles Kuhn: well ara that don’t solve how qualia are produced but that give us a mean to produce them in the same way we don’t know the real nature of atoms but we can break them .....
arabella Ella: yes Gilles
Gilles Kuhn: how is like to be a bat indeed but then why not how is like to be an atom it seems that we ask more to the science of consciousness a priori that what we accept and ask of the others science
arabella Ella: yes Gilles but that is part of our humanity and our thirst to understand more about ourselves and how we think
Fefonz Quan: well, micro and macro are widely researched and typically in different ways in many sciences
quen Oh tries to become more aware of how it is like to be an incredible lot of atoms
Pema Pera: :)
Gilles Kuhn: oh i don’t contest that and its fascinating but I only hint that its perhaps an inherent limitation of the scientific method or but i don’t go that far as mc ginn said a limitation of our epistemic capacity
arabella Ella: yes I agree there and I too don’t agree with mc ginn concerning our limitations
arabella Ella: putative limitations
Fefonz Quan: here we are a lot of bits, Quen:)
quen Oh: too lot of bits sometimes even Fefonz... and than we go running or dieting
Fefonz Quan: bits or bites ;-)
TR Amat: Some theories have us as a lot of bits in RL. :)
quen Oh: oh no, there are no sl fitness centres right?
Gilles Kuhn: well brain is 90% fat....
Fefonz Quan: lol
Gilles Kuhn: myelin you know
Seneca Quandry: Speak for yourself, Gilles!
Seneca Quandry: :)
Fefonz Quan: and fat is 90% brains?
Gilles Kuhn: no that’s the trick
Seneca Quandry: That sounds much better! LOL
Gilles Kuhn: organization seems indeed critical
quen Oh: so Gilles, you claim we ask too things of neuroscience we would in comparable situation never ask in other sciences?
Gilles Kuhn: for example if you lose myelinisation (white substance nerve electrical isolan to be short)
Gilles Kuhn: your neural nets will cope because they are redundant etc
quen Oh: would the mean we need to stop asking that in neuroscience or we should be more unreasonable in other sciences
quen Oh: too much things of neurosc.*
Gilles Kuhn: but at a certain level of damage cognitive capacities will suddenly dramatically drop : critical point : that’s call Alzheimer syndrome...
TR Amat: Try asking exactly what gravity is. And, ask for strong evidence of that. :)
quen Oh: hehe
Gilles Kuhn: I thinks we need to use the problems that arouse in neurosciences cognitive science etc to ask the other fields as well what are you missing ?
Fefonz Quan addresses TR to the fitness center discussed before for evidence of gravity and mass
quen Oh is glad to be in architecture, which is all about asking the impossible questions of how would it be like to...
TR Amat: I understood there was recent evidence that neurodegenerative diseases were due to the immune system engaging in excessive neural pruning?
quen Oh: lol Fefonz
Gilles Kuhn: actually tr there are multiple cause its very complex phenomenon’s
TR Amat: If anyone wants to loose weight in SL there is a pixie Shape I can give them. :)
Gilles Kuhn: we have a lot of range of complexity problem even if we stay in 3 persons brain studies the brain is the more complex object we know (well know...) in the universe
Gilles Kuhn: btw Pema do you think that the problem arousing from consciousness studies can give insight in physics?
Fefonz Quan refrain from making a genderwise note of brain complexities
Pema Pera: that is hard to predict . . . .
quen Oh: for a guy that is smart thinking Fefonz...
Pema Pera: before relativity theory, who could have predicted that unification of space and time would give insight into the relationship between matter and energy?
Fefonz Quan: :)
Gilles Kuhn: indeed
quen Oh winks at Fefonz
Gilles Kuhn: but in at a methodological level Pema?
Pema Pera: how do you mean, Gilles?
Pema Pera: methodology tells you how to research, not what the outcome can be
arabella Ella: intersubjectivity (or agreement) could be the overlap there Gilles IMHO
Gilles Kuhn: well theories have structure and theories in different fields can have different structure also experimental method or theoretical inquiries methods can be different for example what would be a first person perspective to correlate with a objective one in physics ?
TR Amat: You may need inspiration to think of different ways to interpret results?
quen Oh: to have faith?
quen Oh quoting Jesus, It says, “… if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain,
'Move from here to there', and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.” (Matthew 17:20)
quen Oh: applied physics, not sure the theory works...
Gilles Kuhn: mustard is color of uranium mineral he was speaking of the bomb quen ;-)
Fefonz Quan: that's the faith version to archimedes...
TR Amat: Science is a matter of faith that further reasonable explanations will be found?
Pema Pera: Well, philosophers like to describe structures and methodologies, and yes, that is interesting but that is not how scientists stumble upon new ones -- the stumbling and tinkering is what happens in the "hot" phase of science, to use Bruno Latour's terms, and after things cool down and get set in stone, at least temporarily, you can step back and discern the structures and methodologies, after the fact
Fefonz Quan: (or e=mc?)
arabella Ella: a first person perspective could in physics notice certain variables that were previously disregarded
quen Oh: you need the structures and methods to get more grip on things you already perceive... not the other way around you mean Pema
Gilles Kuhn: well is not mathematics a form of structure Pema ?
quen Oh: ?
Pema Pera: many structures, Gilles
Pema Pera: they're finding new ones every year, moving target
Gilles Kuhn: yes indeed
quen Oh: darwin in mathematics..
Pema Pera: yes, quen, the results and the structures emerge together
Beragon Betts: thanks for the interesting discussion
Pema Pera: by Beragon!
Fefonz Quan: isn't even the "thinking about time-space" einstein wise a kind of first-person perspective?
Pema Pera: I have to leave too, it's 3 pm I see

Gilles Kuhn: well indeed the formal time is coming to a close
quen Oh: bye Pema!
Pema Pera: Thanks again, Gilles, for organizing a fascinating meeting!
Mickorod Renard: bye Pema
Gilles Kuhn: thanks all to attend and for the fascinating insight and participation!
Fefonz Quan: bye Pema! see you soon
Pema Pera: and everybody for contributing!
Scathach Rhiadra: bye Pema
Seneca Quandry: Thanks so much, Gilles!
Seneca Quandry: Bye Pema.
arabella Ella: bye Pema thanks to you too Gilles
TR Amat: How about the chemist who dreamed of a snake biting its tail when trying to figure out the structure of benzene, then checked and found it was a ring?
Gilles Kuhn: remember ask me to be member of the SL group and make you member of the Google group too I will post ref paper etc
Myna Maven: I've enjoyed listening. On my way out now.
Fefonz Quan: I go beyond it TR - when you "imagine a ring structure" – isn’t it a first-person experience?
Gilles Kuhn:[]
Mickorod Renard: thankyou everyone,,,Gilles
Fefonz Quan: Thanks Gilles!
arabella Ella: yes it is Fefonz ... definitely 1st person
arabella Ella: I must go now bye gilles bye all
Scathach Rhiadra: thank you Gilles, everyone, good night all:)
quen Oh: thanks Gilles
Fefonz Quan: bye arabella
Fefonz Quan: night scath:)Gilles Kuhn: bye to all leaving and thanks for coming see you all next week