Qualia

This article is about the philosophical concept. For other uses, see Qualia (disambiguation).

The "redness" of red is a commonly used example of a quale.

In philosophy of mind, qualia (/ˈkwɑːliə, ˈkweɪ-/; singular form: quale /-li/) are defined as instances of subjective, conscious experience. The term qualia derives from the Latin neuter plural form (qualia) of the Latin adjective quālis (Latin pronunciation: [ˈkʷaːlɪs]) meaning "of what sort" or "of what kind" in a specific instance, such as "what it is like to taste a specific apple — this particular apple now".

Examples of qualia include the perceived sensation of pain of a headache, the taste of wine, and the redness of an evening sky. As qualitative characteristics of sensation, qualia stand in contrast to propositional attitudes, where the focus is on beliefs about experience rather than what it is directly like to be experiencing.

Philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett suggested that qualia was "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us".

Much of the debate over the importance of qualia hinges on the definition of the term, and various philosophers emphasize or deny the existence of certain features of qualia. Consequently, the nature and existence of qualia under various definitions remain controversial. While some philosophers of mind, like Daniel Dennett, argue that qualia do not exist and are incompatible with neuroscience and naturalism, some neuroscientists and neurologists, including Gerald Edelman, Antonio Damasio, Vilayanur Ramachandran, Giulio Tononi, Christof Koch, and Rodolfo Llinás, state that qualia exist and that the desire by some philosophers to disregard qualia is based on an erroneous interpretation of what constitutes science.

Definitions

Many definitions of qualia have been proposed. One of the simpler, broader definitions is: "The 'what it is like' character of mental states. The way it feels to have mental states such as pain, seeing red, smelling a rose, etc."

C.S. Peirce introduced the term quale in philosophy in 1866, and in 1929 C.I. Lewis was the first to use the term "qualia" in its generally agreed upon modern sense.

There are recognizable qualitative characters of the given, which may be repeated in different experiences, and are thus a sort of universals; I call these "qualia." But although such qualia are universals, in the sense of being recognized from one to another experience, they must be distinguished from the properties of objects. Confusion of these two is characteristic of many historical conceptions, as well as of current essence-theories. The quale is directly intuited, given, and is not the subject of any possible error because it is purely subjective.

Frank Jackson later defined qualia as "...certain features of the bodily sensations especially, but also of certain perceptual experiences, which no amount of purely physical information includes".

Daniel Dennett identifies four properties that are commonly ascribed to qualia. According to these, qualia are:

1. ineffable – they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any means other than direct experience.
2. intrinsic – they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things.
3. private – all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible.
4. directly or immediately apprehensible by consciousness – to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale.

If qualia of this sort exist, then a normally sighted person who sees red would be unable to describe the experience of this perception in such a way that a listener who has never experienced color will be able to know everything there is to know about that experience. Though it is possible to make an analogy, such as "red looks hot", or to provide a description of the conditions under which the experience occurs, such as "it's the color you see when light of 700-nm wavelength is directed at you", supporters of this definition of qualia contend that such descriptions cannot provide a complete description of the experience.

Another way of defining qualia is as "raw feels". A raw feel is a perception in and of itself, considered entirely in isolation from any effect it might have on behavior and behavioral disposition. In contrast, a cooked feel is that perception seen in terms of its effects. For example, the perception of the taste of wine is an ineffable, raw feel, while the behavioral reaction one has to the warmth or bitterness caused by that taste of wine would be a cooked feel. Cooked feels are not qualia.

Saul Kripke argues that one key consequence of the claim that such things as raw feels, or qualia, can be meaningfully discussed is that it leads to the logical possibility of two entities exhibiting identical behavior in all ways despite one of them entirely lacking qualia. While few claim that such an entity, called a philosophical zombie, actually exists, the possibility is raised as a refutation of physicalism.

Arguably, the idea of hedonistic utilitarianism, where the ethical value of things is determined from the amount of subjective pleasure or pain they cause, is dependent on the existence of qualia.

Arguments for the existence of qualia

See also: Hard problem of consciousness

Since, by definition, qualia cannot be fully conveyed verbally, they also cannot be demonstrated directly in an argument – a more nuanced approach is needed. Arguments for qualia generally come in the form of thought experiments designed to lead one to the conclusion that qualia exist.

"What's it like to be?" argument

Main article: Subjective character of experience

Thomas Nagel's paper What Is it Like to Be a Bat? is often cited in debates about qualia, though it does not use the word "qualia". Nagel argues that consciousness has an essentially subjective character, a what-it-is-like aspect. He states that "an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism – something it is like for the organism." Nagel suggests that this subjective aspect may never be sufficiently accounted for by the objective methods of reductionistic science. He claims that "if we acknowledge that a physical theory of mind must account for the subjective character of experience, we must admit that no presently available conception gives us a clue about how this could be done." Furthermore, "it seems unlikely that any physical theory of mind can be contemplated until more thought has been given to the general problem of subjective and objective."

Inverted spectrum argument

Main article: Inverted spectrum

Inverted qualia

The inverted spectrum thought experiment, originally developed by John Locke, invites us to imagine that we wake up one morning and find that for some unknown reason all the colors in the world have been inverted, i.e. swapped to the hue on the opposite side of a color wheel. Furthermore, we discover that no physical changes have occurred in our brains or bodies that would explain this phenomenon. Supporters of the existence of qualia argue that since we can imagine this happening without contradiction, it follows that we are imagining a change in a property that determines the way things look to us, but that has no physical basis. In more detail:

1. Metaphysical identity holds of necessity.
2. If something is possibly false, it is not necessary.
3. It is conceivable that qualia could have a different relationship to physical brain-states.
4. If it is conceivable, then it is possible.
5. Since it is possible for qualia to have a different relationship with physical brain-states, they cannot be identical to brain states (by 1).
6. Therefore, qualia are non-physical.

The argument thus claims that if we find the inverted spectrum plausible, we must admit that qualia exist (and are non-physical). Some philosophers find it absurd that armchair theorizing can prove something to exist, and the detailed argument does involve a lot of assumptions about conceivability and possibility, which are open to criticism. Perhaps it is not possible for a given brain state to produce anything other than a given quale in our universe, and that is all that matters.

The idea that an inverted spectrum would be undetectable in practice is also open to criticism on more scientific grounds (see main article). There is an actual experiment – albeit somewhat obscure – that parallels the inverted spectrum argument. George M. Stratton, professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, performed an experiment in which he wore special prism glasses that caused the external world to appear upside down. After a few days of continually wearing the glasses, he adapted and the external world appeared upright to him. When he removed the glasses, his perception of the external world again returned to the "normal" perceptual state. If this argument provides evidence that qualia exist, it does not necessarily follow that they must be non-physical, because that distinction should be considered a separate epistemological issue.

Zombie argument

Main article: Philosophical zombie

An argument holds that it is conceivable for a set of people to have qualia, while physical duplicates of that set, called "philosophical zombies", do not. These "zombies" would demonstrate outward behavior, including speech, exactly the same as normal humans, without subjective phenomenology (which normal humans are assumed to have). For there to be a valid distinction between "normal humans" and philosophical zombies there must be no specific part or parts of the brain that directly give rise to qualia: The zombie/normal-human distinction can only be valid if subjective consciousness is causally separate from the physical brain.

Are zombies possible? They're not just possible, they're actual. We're all zombies: Nobody is conscious. — D.C. Dennett (1992)

Explanatory gap argument

Main article: Explanatory gap

Joseph Levine's paper Conceivability, Identity, and the Explanatory Gap takes up where the criticisms of conceivability arguments (such as the inverted spectrum argument and the zombie argument) leave off. Levine agrees that conceivability is a flawed means of establishing metaphysical realities, but points out that even if we come to the metaphysical conclusion that qualia are physical, there is still an explanatory problem.

While I think this materialist response is right in the end, it does not suffice to put the mind-body problem to rest. Even if conceivability considerations do not establish that the mind is in fact distinct from the body, or that mental properties are metaphysically irreducible to physical properties, still they do demonstrate that we lack an explanation of the mental in terms of the physical.

However, such an epistemological or explanatory problem might indicate an underlying metaphysical issue, as even if not proven by conceivability arguments, the non-physicality of qualia is far from ruled out.

In the end, we are right back where we started. The explanatory gap argument doesn't demonstrate a gap in nature, but a gap in our understanding of nature. Of course a plausible explanation for there being a gap in our understanding of nature is that there is a genuine gap in nature. But so long as we have countervailing reasons for doubting the latter, we have to look elsewhere for an explanation of the former.

Knowledge argument

Main article: Knowledge argument

F.C. Jackson offers what he calls the "knowledge argument" for qualia. One example runs as follows:

Mary the color scientist knows all the physical facts about color, including every physical fact about the experience of color in other people, from the behavior a particular color is likely to elicit to the specific sequence of neurological firings that register that a color has been seen. However, she has been confined from birth to a room that is black and white, and is only allowed to observe the outside world through a black and white monitor. When she is allowed to leave the room, it must be admitted that she learns something about the color red the first time she sees it – specifically, she learns what it is like to see that color.

This thought experiment has two purposes. First, it is intended to show that qualia exist. If we accept the thought experiment, we believe that upon leaving the room Mary gains something: the knowledge of a particular thing that she did not possess before. That knowledge, Jackson argues, is knowledge of the quale that corresponds to the experience of seeing red, and it must thus be conceded that qualia are real properties, since there is a difference between a person who has access to a particular quale and one who does not.

The second purpose of this argument is to refute the physicalist account of the mind. Specifically, the knowledge argument is an attack on the physicalist claim about the completeness of physical truths. The challenge posed to physicalism by the knowledge argument runs as follows:

1. Before her release, Mary was in possession of all the physical information about color experiences of other people.
2. After her release, Mary learns something about the color experiences of other people.
         Therefore,
3. Before her release, Mary was not in possession of all the information about other people's color experiences, even though she was in possession of all the physical information.
         Therefore,
4. There are truths about other people's color experience that are not physical.
         Therefore,
5. Physicalism is false.

At first Jackson argued that qualia are epiphenomenal, thus not causally efficacious with respect to the physical world. Jackson does not give a positive justification for this claim – rather, he seems to assert it simply because it defends qualia against the classic problems of dualism. The natural assumption would be that qualia must be causally efficacious in the physical world, though opponents of qualia ask how one could argue for their existence if they did not affect our brains. If qualia are non-physical properties (which they must be in order to constitute an argument against physicalism), proponents of the theory question how they could have a causal effect on the physical world. By redefining qualia as epiphenomenal, Jackson attempts to protect them from the demand of playing a causal role.

Later, however, Jackson rejected epiphenomenalism. This, he argues, is because when Mary first sees red, she says "wow", so it must be Mary's qualia that cause her to say "wow", which contradicts epiphenomenalism. Since the Mary's room thought experiment seems to contradict itself, there must be some mistake in the premises of the experiment. This contradiction is often referred to as the "there must be a reply" reply.

Analytical philosophers who are critics of qualia

Daniel Dennett

Daniel Dennett

In Consciousness Explained (1991) and Quining Qualia (1988), Daniel Dennett argues against qualia by claiming that the "knowledge argument" breaks down if one tries to apply it practically. In a series of thought experiments, which he calls "intuition pumps", he brings qualia into the world of neurosurgery, clinical psychology, and psychological experimentation. He argues that, once the concept of qualia is so imported, we can either make no use of it, or the questions introduced by it are unanswerable precisely because of the special properties defining qualia.

In Dennett's updated version of the inverted spectrum thought experiment, which he calls alternative neurosurgery, you again awake to find that your qualia have been inverted – grass appears red, the sky appears orange, etc. According to the original account, you should be immediately aware that something has gone horribly wrong. Dennett argues, however, that it is impossible to know whether the diabolical neurosurgeons have indeed inverted your qualia (e.g. by tampering with your optic nerve), or have simply inverted your connection to memories of past qualia. Since both operations would produce the same result, you would have no means on your own to tell which operation has actually been conducted, and you are thus in the odd position of not knowing whether there has been a change in your "immediately apprehensible" qualia.

Dennett's argues that for qualia to be taken seriously as a component of experience – for them to make sense as a discrete concept – it must be possible to show that:

1. it is possible to know that a change in qualia has occurred, as opposed to a change in something else;
        or that
2. there is a difference between having a change in qualia and not having one.

Dennett attempts to show that we cannot satisfy (a) either through introspection or through observation, and that qualia's very definition undermines its chances of satisfying (b).

Supporters of qualia could point out that in order for you to notice a change in qualia, you must compare your current qualia with your memories of past qualia. Arguably, such a comparison would involve immediate assessment of your current qualia and your memories of past qualia, but not of the past qualia themselves. Furthermore, modern functional brain imaging has increasingly suggested that the memory of an experience is processed in similar ways, and in similar zones of the brain, as the original perception. This may mean that there would be asymmetry in outcomes between altering the mechanism of perception of qualia and altering their memories. If the diabolical neurosurgery altered the immediate perception of qualia, the inversion might not be noticed directly, since the brain zones which re-process the memories would invert the remembered qualia. On the other hand, alteration of the qualia memories themselves would be processed without inversion, and thus you would perceive them as an inversion. Thus, you might know immediately if memory of your qualia had been altered, but might not know if immediate qualia were inverted or whether the diabolical neurosurgeons had done a sham procedure.

Dennett responds to the Mary the color scientist thought experiment by arguing that Mary would not, in fact, learn something new if she stepped out of her black and white room to see the color red. Dennett asserts that if she already truly knew "everything about color", that knowledge would include a deep understanding of why and how human neurology causes us to sense the quale of color. Mary would therefore already know exactly what to expect upon seeing red, before ever leaving the room.

Dennett argues that the misleading aspect of the story is that Mary is supposed to not merely be knowledgeable about color but to actually know all the physical facts about it, which would be a knowledge so deep that it exceeds what can be imagined, and twists our intuitions. If Mary really does know everything physical there is to know about the experience of color, then this effectively grants her almost omniscient powers of knowledge. Using this, she will be able to deduce her own reaction, and figure out exactly what the experience of seeing red will feel like.

Dennett finds that many people find it difficult to see this, so he uses the case of RoboMary to further illustrate what it would be like for Mary to possess such a vast knowledge of the physical workings of the human brain and color vision. RoboMary is an intelligent robot who, instead of the ordinary color camera-eyes, has a software lock such that she is only able to perceive black and white and shades in-between.

RoboMary can examine the computer brain of similar non-color-locked robots when they see red, and see exactly how they react and what kinds of impulses occur. RoboMary can also construct a simulation of her own brain, unlock the simulation's color-lock and, with reference to the other robots, simulate exactly how this simulation of herself reacts to seeing red. RoboMary naturally has control over all of her internal states except for the color-lock. With the knowledge of her simulation's internal states upon seeing red, RoboMary can put her own internal states directly into the states they would be in upon seeing red. In this way, without ever seeing red through her cameras, she will know exactly what it is like to see red.

Dennett uses this example as attempt to show us that Mary's all-encompassing physical knowledge makes her own internal states as transparent as those of a robot or computer, and it is almost straightforward for her to figure out exactly how it feels to see red.

Perhaps Mary's failure to learn exactly what seeing red feels like is simply a failure of language, or a failure of our ability to describe experiences. An alien race with a different method of communication or description might be perfectly able to teach their version of Mary exactly how seeing the color red would feel. Perhaps it is simply a uniquely human failing to communicate first-person experiences from a third-person perspective. Dennett suggests that the description might even be possible using English. He uses a simpler version of the Mary thought experiment to show how this might work. What if Mary was in a room without triangles and was prevented from seeing or making any triangles? An English-language description of just a few words would be sufficient for her to imagine what it is like to see a triangle – she can simply and directly visualize a triangle in her mind. Similarly, Dennett proposes, it is perfectly, logically, possible that the quale of what it is like to see red could eventually be described in an English-language description of millions or billions of words.

In Are we explaining consciousness yet? (2001), Dennett approves of an account of qualia defined as the deep, rich collection of individual neural responses that are too fine-grained for language to capture. For instance, a person might have an alarming reaction to yellow because of a yellow car that hit her previously, and someone else might have a nostalgic reaction to a comfort food. These effects are too individual-specific to be captured by English words. "If one dubs this inevitable residue qualia, then qualia are guaranteed to exist, but they are just more of the same, dispositional properties that have not yet been entered in the catalog [...]."

Paul Churchland

According to Paul Churchland, Mary might be considered akin to a feral child who suffered extreme isolation during childhood. Technically when Mary leaves the room, she would not have the ability to see or know what the color red is, as a brain has to learn and develop how to see colors. Patterns need to form in the V4 section of the visual cortex, which occurs via exposure to wavelengths of light. This exposure needs to occur during the early stages of brain development. In Mary's case, the identifications and categorizations of color will only be in respect to representations of black and white.

Gary Drescher

In his book Good and Real (2006), Gary Drescher compares qualia with "gensyms" (generated symbols) in Common Lisp. These are objects that Lisp treats as having no properties or components, which can only be identified as equal or not equal to other objects. Drescher explains, "we have no introspective access to whatever internal properties make the red gensym recognizably distinct from the green [...] even though we know the sensation when we experience it." Under this interpretation of qualia, Drescher responds to the Mary thought experiment by noting that "knowing about red-related cognitive structures and the dispositions they engender – even if that knowledge were implausibly detailed and exhaustive – would not necessarily give someone who lacks prior color-experience the slightest clue whether the card now being shown is of the color called red." However, this does not imply that our experience of red is non-mechanical, as "gensyms are a routine feature of computer-programming languages".

David Lewis

D.K. Lewis introduced a hypothesis about types of knowledge and their transmission in qualia cases. Lewis agrees that Mary cannot learn what red looks like through her monochrome physicalist studies, but he proposes that this does not matter. Learning transmits information, but experiencing qualia does not transmit information: it communicates abilities. When Mary sees red, she does not acquire any new information; she instead gains new abilities. Now she can remember what red looks like, imagine what other red things might look like and recognize further instances of redness.

Lewis states that Jackson's thought experiment uses the phenomenal information hypothesis – that is, that the new knowledge that Mary gains upon seeing red is phenomenal information. Lewis then proposes a different ability hypothesis that differentiates between two types of knowledge: knowledge "that" (information) and knowledge "how" (abilities). Normally the two are entangled; ordinary learning is also an experience of the subject concerned, and people learn both information (for instance, that Freud was a psychologist) and gain ability (to recognize images of Freud). However, in the thought experiment, Mary can use ordinary learning only to gain "that" knowledge. She is prevented from using experience to gain the "how" knowledge that would allow her to remember, imagine and recognize the color red.

We have the intuition that Mary has been deprived of some vital data to do with the experience of redness. It is also uncontroversial that some things cannot be learned inside the room; for example, Mary cannot learn how to ski within the room. Lewis has articulated that information and ability are potentially different things. In this way, physicalism is still compatible with the conclusion that Mary gains new knowledge. It is also useful for considering other instances of qualia – "being a bat" is an ability, so it is "how" knowledge.

Marvin Minsky

Marvin Minsky

Artificial intelligence researcher Marvin Minsky thinks the problems posed by qualia are essentially issues of complexity, or rather of mistaking complexity for simplicity.

Now, a philosophical dualist might then complain: "You've described how hurting affects your mind – but you still can't express how hurting feels." This, I maintain, is a huge mistake – that attempt to reify "feeling" as an independent entity, with an essence that's indescribable. As I see it, feelings are not strange alien things. It is precisely those cognitive changes themselves that constitute what "hurting" is – and this also includes all those clumsy attempts to represent and summarize those changes. The big mistake comes from looking for some single, simple, "essence" of hurting, rather than recognizing that this is the word we use for complex rearrangement of our disposition of resources.

Michael Tye

Michael Tye

Michael Tye believes there are no qualia, no "veils of perception" between us and the referents of our thought. He describes our experience of an object in the world as "transparent", meaning that no matter what private understandings and/or misunderstandings we may have of something, it is still there before us in reality. The idea that qualia intervene between ourselves and their origins he regards as "a massive error". As he says, "it is just not credible that visual experiences are systematically misleading in this way" as "the only objects of which you are aware are the external ones making up the scene before your eyes" and there are "no such things as the qualities of experiences" for "they are qualities of external surfaces (and volumes and films) if they are qualities of anything." He believes we can take our experiences at face value since there is no fear of losing contact with the realness of physical objects.

In Tye's thought there is no question of qualia without information being contained within them; it is always "an awareness that" and always "representational". He characterizes the perception of children as a misperception of referents that are undoubtedly as present for them as they are for grown-ups. As he puts it, they may not know that "the house is dilapidated", but there is no doubt about their seeing the house. After-images are dismissed as presenting no problem for the transparency theory because, as he puts it, after-images being illusory, there is nothing that one sees.

Tye proposes that phenomenal experience has five basic elements, for which he has coined the acronym PANIC – Poised, Abstract, Nonconceptual, Intentional Content. It is "Poised" in the sense that the phenomenal experience is always present to the understanding, whether or not the agent is able to apply a concept to it. Tye adds that the experience is "maplike" in that, in most cases, it goes beyond the shapes, edges, volumes, etc. in the world – you may not be reading the "map" but, as with an actual map there is a reliable match with what it is mapping. It is "Abstract" because it is still an open question in a particular case whether you are in touch with a concrete object (for example, someone may feel a pain in an amputated limb). It is "Nonconceptual" because a phenomenon can exist although one does not have the concept by which to recognize it. Nevertheless, it is "Intentional (Content)" in the sense that it represents something, whether or not the observer is taking advantage of that fact – this is why Tye calls his theory "representationalism" – this makes it plain that Tye believes that he has retained a direct contact with what produces the phenomena and is therefore not hampered by any trace of a "veil of perception".

Roger Scruton

Roger Scruton, while sceptical that neurobiology can tell us much about consciousness, believes qualia is an incoherent concept, and that Wittgenstein's private language argument effectively disproves it. Scruton writes,

The belief that these essentially private features of mental states exist, and that they form the introspectible essence of whatever possesses them, is grounded in a confusion, one that Wittgenstein tried to sweep away in his arguments against the possibility of a private language. When you judge that I am in pain, it is on the basis of my circumstances and behavior, and you could be wrong. When I ascribe a pain to myself, I don’t use any such evidence. I don’t find out that I am in pain by observation, nor can I be wrong. But that is not because there is some other fact about my pain, accessible only to me, which I consult in order to establish what I am feeling. For if there were this inner private quality, I could misperceive it; I could get it wrong, and I would have to find out whether I am in pain. To describe my inner state, I would also have to invent a language, intelligible only to me – and that, Wittgenstein plausibly argues, is impossible. The conclusion to draw is that I ascribe pain to myself not on the basis of some inner quale but on no basis at all.

In his book On Human Nature, Scruton poses a potential line of criticism to this, which is that while Wittgenstein's private language argument does disprove the concept of reference to qualia, or the idea that we can talk, even to ourselves, of their nature; it does not disprove their existence altogether. Scruton believes that this is a valid criticism, and this is why he stops short of actually saying that qualia do not exist, and instead merely suggests that we should abandon the concept. However, he quotes Wittgenstein in response: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

Analytical philosophers who are proponents of qualia

David Chalmers

David Chalmers

David Chalmers formulated the hard problem of consciousness, which raised the issue of qualia to a new level of importance and acceptance in the field of the philosophy of mind. In 1995 Chalmers argued for what he called "the principle of organizational invariance": if a system such as one of appropriately configured computer hardware reproduces the functional organization of the brain, it will also reproduce the qualia associated with the brain.

E. J. Lowe

E. J. Lowe denies that indirect realism, wherein which we have access only to sensory features internal to the brain, necessarily implies a Cartesian dualism. He agrees with Bertrand Russell that the way images are received by our retinas, our "retinal images", are connected to "patterns of neural activity in the cortex". He defends a version of the causal theory of perception in which a causal path can be traced between the external object and the perception of it. He is careful to deny that we do any inferring from the sensory field; he believes this allows us to build an access to knowledge on that causal connection. In a later work he moves closer to the non-epistemic argument in that he postulates "a wholly non-conceptual component of perceptual experience", but he refrains from analyzing the relation between the perceptual and the "non-conceptual". More recently he drew attention to the problems that hallucination raises for the direct realist and to their disinclination to enter the discussion on the topic.

J. B. Maund

John Barry Maund, an Australian philosopher of perception, argues that qualia can be described on two levels, a fact that he refers to as "dual coding".

Asking what is seen on a television screen may result in two varieties of answer. Using the example of a "Movitype" screen, often used for advertisements and announcements in public places, and consisting of a matrix of light-sources, a computer can excite these lights so as to give the impression of letters passing from right to left, or even to show moving pictures. In describing such a screen, the first type of answer, the common sense answer, uses everyday language and says "I saw some sentences, followed by a picture of a 7-Up can." While accurate, the second type of answer, the scientific answer, bears no relation to this common sense description. This answer would be a computer print-out, staged across the seconds that we were watching, of the point-states of the matrix of lights; this would be a long and complex document, with the state of each tiny light-source given its place in the sequence. Although such a document would give a comprehensive and point-by-point detailed description of the state of the screen, it would contain no mention of "English sentences" or "a 7-Up can".

This illustrates that there are two ways to describe such a screen, (1) the "commonsense" one which refers to recognizable objects, and (2) an accurate point-by-point account of the actual state of the object, which makes no mention of what any passer-by would or would not make of it. This second description would be non-epistemic from the common sense point of view, since no objects are mentioned in the print-out, but perfectly acceptable from the scientific point of view. Carrying this analysis across to human sensing and perceiving, rules out Dennett's claim that all qualiaphiles must regard qualia as ineffable, for at this second level they are, in principle, quite effable – indeed, it is possible that some neurophysiologist of the future might be able to describe the neural detail of qualia at this level.

Maund extended his argument with reference to color. Color he sees as a dispositional property, not an objective one. Colors are "virtual properties", which means they are as if things possessed them. Although the naïve view attributes them to objects, they are intrinsic, non-relational, inner experiences. This allows for the different perceptions between person and person, and also leaves aside the claim that external objects are colored.

Moreland Perkins

In his book Sensing the World, Moreland Perkins argues that qualia need not be identified as their objective sources: a smell, for instance, bears no direct resemblance to the molecular shape that gives rise to it, nor is a toothache actually in the tooth. Like Hobbes he views the process of sensing as complete in itself; as he puts it, it is not like "kicking a football" where an external object is required – it is more like "kicking a kick". This explanation evades the Homunculus Objection, as adhered to by Gilbert Ryle, among others. Ryle was unable to entertain this possibility, protesting that "in effect it explained the having of sensations as the not having of sensations." However, A.J. Ayer called this objection "very weak" as it betrayed an inability to detach the notion of eyes, or indeed any sensory organ, from the neural sensory experience.

Howard Robinson and William Robinson

Howard Robinson specialized in philosophy of mind. He argued against explanations of sensory experience that reduce them to physical origins. He never regarded the theory of sense data as refuted, instead setting out to refute persuasive objections to it. In the version of the theory he defends what is before conscious perception is taken to be qualia, or mental presentations that are causally linked to external entities, but are not physical in themselves. He is therefore a dualist: one who takes both matter and mind to have real and metaphysically distinct natures. One of his articles argues against the physicalist for ignoring the fact that sensory experience can be entirely free of representational character. He cites as an example phosphenes (flashes of light from sudden pressure in the brain, e.g. by coughing, or from direct pressure to the retina), and points out that it is counter-intuitive to argue that these are not visual experiences on a par with open-eye seeing.

William Robinson (no relation) takes a similar view in his book, Understanding Phenomenal Consciousness. He is unusual as a dualist in calling for research programs that investigate the relation of qualia to the brain. The problem is so stubborn, he says, that too many philosophers would prefer "to explain it away", but he would rather have it explained and does not see why the effort should not be made. However, he does not expect a straightforward scientific reduction of phenomenal experience to neural architecture; he regards this as a forlorn hope. The Qualitative Event Realism that Robinson espouses sees phenomenal consciousness as non-material events that are caused by brain events but not identical to them.

He refuses to set aside the vividness – and commonness – of mental images, both visual and aural. In this he opposes Daniel Dennett, who has difficulty crediting such experience in others. He is similar to Moreland Perkins in keeping his investigation wide enough to apply to all the senses.

Edmond Wright

Edmond Wright is a philosopher who considers the inter-subjective aspect of perception. From John Locke onwards it had been typical to frame perception problems in terms of a single subject S looking at a single entity E with a property p. However, considering the differences in sensory registration between people, and the differences in criteria used for distinguishing "the same thing," then a problem arises of how two people align their different senses and criterion. This alignment is necessary to get a practical overlap on parts of "the same thing" – and, in particular, update each other about it.

Wright was struck by the hearing difference between himself and his son when he discovered that his son could hear sounds up to nearly 20 kHz while his range only reached to around 14 kHz; this implies that a difference in qualia could cause differences in human action. For example, the son could warn the father of the high-pitched sound of a dangerous gas kept under pressure escaping, while the sound would produce no quale at all for the father. Thus the relevance of language becomes critical, as an informative statement can best be understood as an updating of a perception, which may involve a radical re-selection of the qualia fields viewed as non-epistemic, or even of the presumed singularity of "the" referent, all the more so if that "referent" is the self. He distinguishes his view from that of Antti Revonsuo, who he says too readily makes his "virtual space" "egocentric".

Wright emphasizes what he asserts is a core feature of communication, that, in order for an updated understanding to be set up and made possible, both speaker and hearer have to behave as if they have identified "the same singular thing". He notes that this potential ambiguity, often used to humorous effect in jokes and stories, is taken by opponents of qualia to be a sign of fallacy in the argument (since ambiguity is a fallacy in pure logic). Whereas, in speech about "what" is perceived, it is sign of something those speaking to each other have to learn to take advantage of. He argues that an important feature of human communication is the degree and character of the trust maintained by the participants in the dialogue, something that has priority over such virtues of language as "sincerity", "truth", and "objectivity". Indeed, he considers that to prioritize them over faith is to move into superstition.

Erwin Schrödinger

Erwin Schrödinger, a theoretical physicist and one of the leading pioneers of quantum mechanics, also published in the areas of colorimetry and color perception. In several of his philosophical writings, he defends the notion that qualia are not physical.

The sensation of colour cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so.

He continues on to remark that subjective experiences do not form a one-to-one correspondence with stimuli. For example, light of wavelengths in the neighborhood of 590 nm produces the sensation of yellow, whereas exactly the same sensation is produced by mixing red light, with wavelength 760 nm, with green light, at 535 nm. From this he concludes that there is no direct connection between the physical, objective characteristics of the lightwaves and the sensations they produce.

Schrödinger concludes with a proposal of how one might arrive at the mistaken belief that a satisfactory theoretical account of qualitative experience has been – or might ever be – achieved:

Scientific theories serve to facilitate the survey of our observations and experimental findings. Every scientist knows how difficult it is to remember a moderately extended group of facts, before at least some primitive theoretical picture about them has been shaped. It is therefore small wonder, and by no means to be blamed on the authors of original papers or of text-books, that after a reasonably coherent theory has been formed, they do not describe the bare facts they have found or wish to convey to the reader, but clothe them in the terminology of that theory or theories. This procedure, while very useful for our remembering the fact in a well-ordered pattern, tends to obliterate the distinction between the actual observations and the theory arisen from them. And since the former always are of some sensual quality, theories are easily thought to account for sensual qualities; which, of course, they never do.

Neuroscientists who state that qualia exist

Gerald Edelman

Neuroscientist and Nobel laureate in Physiology / Medicine Gerald Edelman, in his book Bright Air, Brilliant Fire, argues:

One alternative that definitely does not seem feasible is to ignore completely the reality of qualia, formulating a theory of consciousness that aims by its descriptions alone to convey to a hypothetical "qualia-free" observer what it is to feel warmth, see green, and so on. In other words, this is an attempt to propose a theory based on a kind of God's-eye view of consciousness. But no scientific theory of whatever kind can be presented without already assuming that observers have sensation as well as perception. To assume otherwise is to indulge the errors of theories that attempt syntactical formulations mapped onto objectivist interpretations – theories that ignore embodiment as a source of meaning (see the Postscript). There is no qualia-free scientific observer.

Antonio Damasio

Neurologist Antonio Damasio, in his book The Feeling Of What Happens, states:

Qualia are the simple sensory qualities to be found in the blueness of the sky or the tone of sound produced by a cello, and the fundamental components of the images in the movie metaphor are thus made of qualia.

Damasio also argues that consciousness is subjective and is different from behavior:

The resistance found in some scientific quarters to the use of subjective observations is a revisitation of an old argument between behaviorists, who believed that only behaviors, not mental experiences, could be studied objectively, and cognitivists, who believed that studying only behavior did not do justice to human complexity. The mind and its consciousness are first and foremost private phenomena, much as they offer many public signs of their existence to the interested observer. The conscious mind and its constituent properties are real entities, not illusions, and they must be investigated as the personal, private, subjective experiences that they are. The idea that subjective experiences are not scientifically accessible is nonsense.

Subjective entities require, as do objective ones, that enough observers undertake rigorous observations according to the same experimental design; and they require that those observations be checked for consistency across observers and that they yield some form of measurement. Moreover, knowledge gathered from subjective observations, e.g., introspective insights, can inspire objective experiments, and, no less importantly, subjective experiences can be explained in terms of the available scientific knowledge. The idea that the nature of subjective experiences can be grasped effectively by the study of their behavioral correlates is wrong. Although both mind and behavior are biological phenomena, mind is mind and behavior is behavior.

Mind and behavior can be correlated, and the correlation will become closer as science progresses, but in their respective specifications, mind and behavior are different. This is why, in all likelihood, I will never know your thoughts unless you tell me, and you will never know mine until I tell you.

Rodolfo Llinás

Neurologist Rodolfo Llinás states in his book I of the Vortex that from a strictly neurological perspective, qualia exist and are important to the organism's survival. He argues that qualia were important for the evolution of the nervous system of organisms, including simple organisms such as insects:

There are today two similar beliefs concerning the nature of qualia. The first is that qualia represent an epiphenomenon that is not necessary for the acquisition of consciousness. Second and somewhat related is the belief that while being the basis for consciousness, qualia appeared only in the highest life forms, suggesting that qualia represent a recently evolved central function that is present in only the more advanced brains. This view relegates the more lowly animals, for example ants, to a realm characterized by the absence of subjective experiences of any kind. It implies that these animals are wired with sets of automatic, reflexively organized circuits that provide for survival by maintaining a successful, albeit purely reactive interaction with the ongoing external world. Although primitive creatures such as ants and cockroaches may be wildly successful, for all practical purposes they are biological automatons.

[…] To me, these views lack a proper evolutionary perspective, which is perhaps why qualia are given so little overall emphasis in the study of brain function. We clearly understand that the functional architecture of the brain is a product of the slow tumblings of evolution and that brain function implements what natural selection has found to be the most beneficial in terms of species survivability. What is not often understood is how deeply related qualia truly are to the evolutionary, functional structure of the brain. […]

One cannot operate without qualia; they are properties of mind of monumental importance.

Llinás argues that qualia are ancient and necessary for an organism's survival and a product of neuronal oscillation. He gives the evidence of anesthesia of the brain and subsequent stimulation of limbs to demonstrate that qualia can be "turned off" by changing only the variable of neuronal oscillation (local brain electrical activity), while all other connections remain intact. He argues for an oscillatory-electrical origin of qualia, or important aspects thereof.

Vilayanur Ramachandran

Vilayanur S. Ramachandran

Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and William Hirstein proposed three laws of qualia (with a fourth later added), which are "functional criteria that need to be fulfilled in order for certain neural events to be associated with qualia" by philosophers of the mind:

1. Qualia are irrevocable and indubitable. You don't say 'maybe it is red but I can visualize it as green if I want to'. An explicit neural representation of red is created that invariably and automatically 'reports' this to higher brain centres.
2. Once the representation is created, what can be done with it is open-ended. You have the luxury of choice, e.g., if you have the percept of an apple you can use it to tempt Adam, to keep the doctor away, bake a pie, or just to eat. Even though the representation at the input level is immutable and automatic, the output is potentially infinite. This isn't true for, say, a spinal reflex arc where the output is also inevitable and automatic. Indeed, a paraplegic can even have an erection and ejaculate without an orgasm.
3. Short-term memory. The input invariably creates a representation that persists in short-term memory – long enough to allow time for choice of output. Without this component, again, you get just a reflex arc.
4. Attention. Qualia and attention are closely linked. You need attention to fulfill criterion number two; to choose. A study of circuits involved in attention, therefore, will shed much light on the riddle of qualia.

These authors approach qualia from an empirical perspective and not as a logical or philosophical problem. They wonder how qualia evolved, and in doing so consider a skeptical point of view in which, since the objective scientific description of the world is complete without qualia, it is nonsense to ask why they evolved or what they are for. However they decide against this skeptical view.

Based on the parsimony principle of Occam's razor, one could accept epiphenomenalism and deny qualia since they are not necessary for a description of the functioning of the brain. However, they argue that Occam's razor is not useful for scientific discovery. For example, the discovery of relativity in physics was not the product of accepting Occam's razor but rather of rejecting it and asking the question of whether a deeper generalization, not required by the currently available data, was true and would allow for unexpected predictions. Most scientific discoveries arise, these authors argue, from ontologically promiscuous conjectures that do not come from current data.

The authors then point out that skepticism might be justified in the philosophical field, but that science is the wrong place for skepticism, such as asking if "your red is not my green" or if we can be logically certain that we are not dreaming. Science, these authors assert, deals with what is probably true, beyond reasonable doubt, not with what can be known with complete and absolute certainty. The authors say that most neuroscientists and even most psychologists dispute the very existence of the "problem" of qualia.

Roger Orpwood

Roger Orpwood, an engineer who studies neural mechanisms, proposed a neurobiological model that gives rise to qualia and ultimately, consciousness. Advancements in cognitive and computational neuroscience necessitate study of the mind and qualia from a scientific perspective. Orpwood does not deny the existence of qualia, nor does he debate its physical or non-physical existence. He suggests that qualia are created through the neurobiological mechanism of re-entrant feedback in cortical systems.

Orpwood first addresses the issue of information. One unsolved aspect of qualia is whether fundamental information is involved in creating the experience of qualia. He does not take a position on the metaphysics of the information underlying the experience of qualia, nor does he state what information actually is, but he does say that information is of two types: the information structure and information message. Information structures are defined by the physical, structural, and biological patterns that encode information. That encoded information is the information message, which describes what that information is. The neural mechanism, or network, receives input information structures, completes a designated instructional task (firing of the neuron or network), and outputs a modified information structure to downstream regions. The information message is the purpose and meaning of the information structure, and causally exists as a result of that particular information structure. Modification of the information structure changes the meaning of the information message, but the message itself cannot be directly altered.

Local cortical networks can receive feedback from their own output information structures. This form of local feedback continuously cycles part of the network's output structures as its next input information structure. Since the output structure must represent the information message derived from the input structure, each iteration represents the output structure of the previous iteration. As the network cannot recognize the information message, only the input information structure, the network is unaware that it is representing its own previous outputs: the neural mechanisms are merely completing their instructional tasks and outputting information structures. Orpwood proposes that these local networks come into an attractor state that consistently outputs exactly the same information structure as the input structure. Instead of only representing the information message derived from the input structure, the network will now represent its own output and thereby its own information message. As the input structures are fed back into the network, it identifies the previous information structure as being a previous representation of the information message. As Orpwood writes:

Once an attractor state has been established, the output [of a network] is a representation of its own identity to the network.

Orpwood explains the neurobiological manifestation of qualia as representations of the network's own output structures, by which it represents its own information message. This is particular to networks of pyramidal neurons. Although computational neuroscience still has much to investigate regarding pyramidal neurons, their complex circuitry is unusual. The complexity of pyramidal neuron networks in a species is directly related to the increase in that species's functional capabilities. When human pyramidal networks are compared with those of other primate species, and with those of species with less intricate behavioral and social interactions, their complexity drastically decreases. This suggests that frontal regions containing more complex pyramidal networks are associated with an increased perceptive capacity.

Compared to other regions of the brain pyramidal networks are also more complex in frontal brain regions, which are associated with conscious assessment and modification of one's immediate environment; often referred to as executive functions. One needs sensory input to gain information from the environment, and perception of that input is necessary to navigate and modify interactions with the environment. As perception is necessary for conscious thought to occur, and since qualia derive from the consciousness of some perception, qualia may result from the functional capacity of the pyramidal networks in the frontal lobe. For this reason Orpwood believes that the mechanisms of re-entrant feedback may not only create qualia, but also be the foundation to consciousness.

Other issues

Indeterminacy

A criticism similar to Nietzsche's criticism of Kant's's thing in itself applies also to qualia, as they are unobservable in others and unquantifiable in us. We cannot possibly be sure, when discussing individual qualia, that we are even discussing the same phenomena. Thus, any discussion of them is of indeterminate value, as descriptions of qualia are necessarily of indeterminate accuracy.

Qualia, like things in themselves, have no publicly demonstrable properties. This, along with the impossibility of being sure that we are communicating about the same qualia, makes them of indeterminate value and definition in any philosophy in which proof relies upon precise definition.

On the other hand, qualia could be considered akin to Kantian phenomena since they are held to be similar in appearances. However, Antti Revonsuo, considers that a definition within neurophysiological inquiry, may become possible at the level of the fields.

Causal efficacy

Whether qualia or consciousness can play any causal role in the physical world remains an open question. Epiphenomenalism acknowledges the existence of qualia while denying them any causal power. The position has been criticized by a number of philosophers. Epiphenomenalism has few friends, as it has been deemed:

• "thoughtless and incoherent" – Taylor (1927)
• "unintelligible" – Benecke (1901)
• "truly incredible" – McLaughlin (1994)
• if only because our own consciousness seem to be causally active.

In order to avoid epiphenomenalism, one who believes that qualia are nonphysical would need to embrace something like interactionist dualism; or perhaps emergentism, the claim that there are as yet unknown causal relations between the mental and physical. This in turn would imply that qualia can be detected by an external agent through their causal powers.

Epistemological issues

Examples of qualia might include "the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, or the redness of an evening sky," but such examples prejudge a central debate on qualia. Suppose someone wants to know the nature of the liquid crystal pixels on a television screen—those tiny elements that make up the picture. It would not suffice to say that they are the "redness of an evening sky" as it appears on the screen, for this would ignore their real character. Relying on a list like the one above assumes that we must tie sensations to both the notion of given objects in the world (the "head", "wine", "an evening sky") and to the properties with which we characterize the experiences themselves ("redness", for example).

Nor is it satisfactory to print a little red square as at the top of this article, since each person has a slightly different registration of the light-rays, it confusingly suggests that we all have the same response. Imagine in a television shop seeing "a red square" on twenty screens at once, each slightly different – something of vital importance which would be overlooked if a single example were to be taken as defining them all.

Yet it has been argued whether or not identification of an external object should still be at the core of the correct approach to sensation, as there are many who use this definition because they regard the link with external reality as crucial. If sensations are defined as "raw feels," then this threatens the reliability of knowledge as if they are neurophysiological happenings in the brain, it is difficult to understand how they could have any connection to entities, whether in the body or the external world.

John McDowell, for example, declared that to countenance qualia as a "bare presence" prevents us from ever gaining a grounding of our knowledge. The issue is epistemological: it would appear that access to knowledge is blocked if one allows the existence of qualia as fields in which only virtual constructs are before the mind. His reason is that this puts the entities about which we require knowledge behind a veil of perception, an esoteric field of "appearance" which leaves us ignorant of the reality presumed to be beyond it. He is convinced that such uncertainty propels one into the dangerous regions of relativism and solipsism. These constitute an ethical argument against qualia being something going on in the brain, and these implications are probably largely responsible for the fact that in the 20th century it was regarded as not only freakish, but also dangerously misguided to uphold the notion of sensations as going on inside the head. The argument was usually strengthened with mockery at the very idea of "redness" being in the brain – "How can there be red neurons in the brain?"

Viewing sensations as "raw feels" implies that initially they have not yet – to carry on the metaphor – been "cooked", that is, unified into "things" and "persons". This is something that the mind does after responding to the blank input, and is a response driven by motivation, initially by pain and pleasure, and then, when memories have been formed, by desire and fear. Such a "raw-feel" state has been called "non-epistemic". In support of this view, the theorists cite a range of empirical facts, for example:

• There are brain-damaged persons, known as "agnosics" (literally "not-knowing") who still have vivid visual sensations but are quite unable to identify any item before them, including parts of their own body.
• There is also the similar predicament of persons, formerly blind, who are given sight for the first time.
• And consider what it is a newborn baby experiences.

German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz proposed an experiment to demonstrate the non-epistemic nature of qualia. His instructions were to stand in front of a familiar landscape, turn your back on it, bend down and look at the landscape between your legs – you will find it difficult in the upside-down view to recognize what you found familiar before.

These examples suggest the reality of a "bare presence" – that is, knowledgeless sensation that is no more than evidence. Supporters of the non-epistemic theory regard sensations as only data in the sense that they are "given" (Latin datum, "given"), fundamentally involuntary, and that this a good reason for not regarding them as basically mental. In the 20th century they were called "sense-data" by the proponents of qualia, but this led to the confusion that they carried with them reliable proofs of objective causal origins. For instance, one supporter of qualia was happy to speak of the redness and bulginess of a cricket ball as a typical "sense-datum", though not all of them were happy to define qualia by their relation to external entities. The modern argument centers on how we learn under the regime of motivation to interpret sensory evidence in terms of "things," "persons," and "selves" through a continuing process of feedback.

The definition of qualia inevitably brings with it philosophical and neurophysiological presuppositions. The question of what qualia can be raises profound issues in the philosophy of mind, since some materialists want to deny their existence altogether. On the other hand, if they are accepted, they cannot be easily accounted for as they raise the difficult problem of consciousness. There are committed dualists such as Richard L. Amoroso or John Hagelin who believe that the mental and the material are two distinct aspects of physical reality like the distinction between the classical and quantum regimes. In contrast, there are direct realists for whom qualia are unscientific as there appears to be no way of making them fit within the modern scientific picture, and then there are committed proselytizers for a final truth who reject them as forcing knowledge out of reach.

See also

• Binding problem – Unanswered question in the study of consciousness
• Blockhead (thought experiment) – Hypothetical computer system postulated by Ned Block
• Chinese room – Thought experiment on artificial intelligence by John Searle
• Form constant – Recurringly observed geometric pattern
• Further facts – Philosophy idea
• Ideasthesia – Phenomenon in which concepts evoke sensory experiences
• Open individualism – Philosophical view that a single subject embodies all individuals
• Process philosophy – Philosophical approach
• Self-awareness – Capacity for introspection and individuation as a subject
• Self-reference – Sentence, idea or formula that refers to itself
• Synesthesia – Neurological condition involving the crossing of senses
• Vertiginous question – Philosophical argument by Benj Hellie

References

Other references

• Various authors (2007-03-19). Chalmers, David (ed.). "Online collection of papers on qualia". Archived from the original on 2007-03-19.
• Lormand, Eric. "Qualia! (Now showing at a theatre near you)" (response to D. Dennett). University of Michigan.
• Dennett, Daniel. "Quining qualia". Cognitive Studies. Tufts University.
• Ramachandran, V.S.; Hirstein, W. "Three laws of qualia" (PDF). imprint.co.uk. (biological perspective)
• Gregory, Richard. "Brainy mind (qualia and the sensation of time)".
• Field Guide to the Philosophy of Mind
  • Alter, Torin. "The Knowledge Argument". Field Guide to the Philosophy of Mind (article). University of Rome. Archived from the original on 2012-12-03. Retrieved 2007-01-22.
  • Robinson, William. "Qualia realism". Field Guide to the Philosophy of Mind (article). University of Rome. Archived from the original on 2012-12-03. Retrieved 2007-01-22.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • Byrne, Alex (2020). Inverted qualia (article). Stanford U. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  • Tye, Michael (2021). Qualia (article). Stanford U. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  • Nida-Rümelin, Martine (2021). Qualia: The knowledge argument (article). Stanford U. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

Further reading

• Mroczko-Wąsowicz, A.; Nikolić, D. (2014). "Semantic mechanisms may be responsible for developing synesthesia" (PDF). Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 8: 509. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00509. PMC 4137691. PMID 25191239.

External links

• "Qualia". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (article). University of Tennessee. ISSN 2161-0002.
• Qualia (article). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. 2021. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)