Philosophy Forums
Forums Articles Gallery Links


Register Login Members Calendar New Posts Search Chat Help
Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Dennett's Brainstorm machine thought experiment » Dennett's Brainstorm machine thought experiment

Dennett's Brainstorm machine thought experiment
very confused about one of the thought experiments used in quining qualia

PrintPrint


Dennett's Brainstorm machine thought experiment
bouncingsoul
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 13
Posted 10/31/09 - 08:01 AM:
Subject: Dennett's Brainstorm machine thought experiment 		quote post
#1
Has anyone here read Quining Qualia by Dan Dennett?

Intuition pump 4, the brainstorm machine, doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever!

Here it is from the text:

"The original version of intuition pump #3: the inverted spectrum (Locke, 1690: II, xxxii, 15) is a speculation about two people: how do I know that you and I see the same subjective color when we look at something? Since we both learned color words by being shown public colored objects, our verbal behavior will match even if we experience entirely different subjective colors. The intuition that this hypothesis is systematically unconfirmable (and undisconfirmable, of course) has always been quite robust, but some people have always been tempted to think technology could (in principle) bridge the gap.

Suppose, in intuition pump #4: the Brainstorm machine, there were some neuroscientific apparatus that fits on your head and feeds your visual experience into my brain (as in the movie, Brainstorm, which is not to be confused with the book, Brainstorms). With eyes closed I accurately report everything you are looking at, except that I marvel at how the sky is yellow, the grass red, and so forth. Would this not confirm, empirically, that our qualia were different? But suppose the technician then pulls the plug on the connecting cable, inverts it 180 degrees and reinserts it in the socket. Now I report the sky is blue, the grass green, and so forth. Which is the "right" orientation of the plug? Designing and building such a device would require that its "fidelity" be tuned or calibrated by the normalization of the two subjects' reports--so we would be right back at our eviden tial starting point. The moral of this intuition pump is that no intersubjective comparison of qualia is possible, even with perfect technology. "



I don't understand how this establishes his conclusion at all because I don't understand what is supposed to have happened when the cable is switched round (if that is indeed what the neroscientist does, it's not at all clear!)

Why are my colours back to normal when the cable is inverted? What does this show?


Thanks guys!

Edited by unenlightened on 11/02/09 - 04:44 AM. Reason: punctuation.
stax
The daedal philosopher.
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2009
Location: A transcendental plane of reality, Australia.

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 36
Posted 10/31/09 - 08:54 PM:
quote post
#2
bouncingsoul wrote:
has anyone here read quining qualia by dan dennett.

intuition pump 4, the brainstorm machine doesnt make any sense to me whatsoever!

here it is from the text:

"The original version of intuition pump #3: the inverted spectrum (Locke, 1690: II, xxxii, 15) is a speculation about two people: how do I know that you and I see the same subjective color when we look at something? Since we both learned color words by being shown public colored objects, our verbal behavior will match even if we experience entirely different subjective colors. The intuition that this hypothesis is systematically unconfirmable (and undisconfirmable, of course) has always been quite robust, but some people have always been tempted to think technology could (in principle) bridge the gap.

Suppose, in intuition pump #4: the Brainstorm machine, there were some neuroscientific apparatus that fits on your head and feeds your visual experience into my brain (as in the movie, Brainstorm, which is not to be confused with the book, Brainstorms). With eyes closed I accurately report everything you are looking at, except that I marvel at how the sky is yellow, the grass red, and so forth. Would this not confirm, empirically, that our qualia were different? But suppose the technician then pulls the plug on the connecting cable, inverts it 180 degrees and reinserts it in the socket. Now I report the sky is blue, the grass green, and so forth. Which is the "right" orientation of the plug? Designing and building such a device would require that its "fidelity" be tuned or calibrated by the normalization of the two subjects' reports--so we would be right back at our eviden tial starting point. The moral of this intuition pump is that no intersubjective comparison of qualia is possible, even with perfect technology. "



I dont understand how this establishes his conclusion at all because I dont understand what is supposed to have happened when the cable is switched round (if that is indeed what the neroscientist does, its not at all clear!)

why are my colours back to normal when the cable is inverted? what does this show?


Thanks guys!

The intuition pump 4 shows that qualia is established due to interpretation.
It is either the interpretation of another's mind (the scientist) or yours (the observer of the 'brainstorm' machine) that creates reality and the qualia that arises from concepts garnered from reality.
So no matter which way the plug is turned, you have to accept that your concepts of everything that the brainstorm is showing is corresponding to what the norm or the pre-programmed colours are; this highlights possible discrepancies of concepts (thus qualia) of two people, it raises the question: Who ever programmed this machine could have seen reality and conceptualised it either like the first way or the 180 degree rotation of it.
This supports qualia to show that concepts and the mental states that represent those concepts all vary, and thus no two concepts or mental states that represent a concept can ever truly be 100% the same.
"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." Arthur Schopenhauer

"To convince someone of the truth, it is not enough to state it, but rather one must find the path from error to truth." Ludwig Wittgenstein

"Philosophy is like trying to open a safe with a combination lock: each little adjustment of the dials seems to achieve nothing, only when everything is in place does the door open." Ludwig Wittgenstein
swstephe
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3307
Posted 10/31/09 - 10:28 PM:
quote post
#3
I think it puts into question the connection. The machine is making an argument that it is able to translate one person's experience to the other person's experience with 100% fidelity. If the machine reports that the other person experiences the color of the sky the way you experience "yellow". Then someone turns over the cable and you now get the information that the person's experience of the color of the sky matches the way you experience the color "blue". This puts the challenge to the accuracy of the machine's "translation". Did it translate it the experience the way the original person experienced it the first time or the second. Is the second time more accurate because the experience matches? We don't know what the original person experienced, and the original person has no way of communicating it, so the machine can't have any reference for the translation. Such a machine would be doing a lot of subjective interpretation, the same as we do.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.
bouncingsoul
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 13
Posted 11/01/09 - 08:19 AM:
quote post
#4
Thanks for the replies guys, but I think you have missed my query:

What happens when the cable is flipped? what process is supposed to have gone on? Obviously the result is that the colours go back to normal for the user of the machine...but why?

Presumably, the cable carries information as an electrical signal, which is translated into a visual image. So far so good. But why does switching the cable round do anything to the image? For example, the cable from my electric guitar sends an electrical signal to the amplifier which is translated into sound waves generated by a speaker. If I switch the cable round, nothing interesting happens. The electrical signal is the same one, and the sound is the same.

So what is supposed to have happened, mechanically, by inverting the cable? If there is no explanation - simply, turning the cable round swaps the colours for no apparent reason, then Dennett's thought experiment doesn't work because he has designed imperfect technology, when the point rests on the technology being perfect.

Cheers

Edited by Landlady on 11/01/09 - 09:00 PM. Reason: Capitalization
Shamantrixx
sociopat
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2009
Location: Croatia / Rijeka

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 180
Posted 11/01/09 - 03:40 PM:
quote post
#5
bouncingsoul wrote:

So what is supposed to have happened, mechanically, by inverting the cable? If there is no explanation - simply, turning the cable round swaps the colours for no apparent reason, then Dennett's thought experiment doesn't work because he has designed imperfect technology, when the point rests on the technology being perfect.

Cheers


I may be able to clarify it a bit...

Our technology is reproducing video signal by separating visible spectrum of light to tree separate bands... red, green and blue (RGB), and their interference on the screen is what makes all the colors on the screen.

But you could connect cables in a reverse order... plugging red to green, green to blue etc. That will result with inversion of the color image (btw... you can use Photoshop to see how it works exactly). But which "order" of plugging RGB cables is the correct one? That was clearly defined by the color conceptualization of particular person who invented the RGB method.

Technology would simply increase the complexity of the problem, rather than actually solving it. So Dennett argues that the problem remains impossible to prove (or disprove).

Seams reasonable to me.
Everybody experiences far more than he understands. Yet it is experience, rather than understanding, that influences behavior.
Marshall McLuhan
bouncingsoul
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 13
Posted 11/01/09 - 04:48 PM:
quote post
#6
Thanks shamantrixx, but I still don't understand.

I'm sorry to be a pain guys, but I can't seem to get my head round this at all and its been bugging me for days.

I haven't got photoshop, and don't know how to use it, and while I understand the principle of RGB (I think!) I don't understand this idea of connecting them in reverse order. Surely you connect them in the order that is right "for you". Then if what I see is strange "for me" then it shows that we have different colour experiences....where am I going wrong?

Thanks
bouncingsoul
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 13
Posted 11/01/09 - 05:40 PM:
quote post
#7
If Dennett does mean this RGB inversion that you talk about then surely there would be a simple way of calibrating the cable?

Subject A is to wear the headset and receive the visual image of Subject B.

Now, how do we know which way to orient the cable?

Plug the cable into a display rather than into A's headset, and ask B if the image is correct.

If he says yes, then the cables are the right way round...if he says no then the cables are the wrong way round.

No?
swstephe
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3307
Posted 11/01/09 - 06:24 PM:
quote post
#8
When you flip the cable, you are making an arbitrary adjustment in how the machine translates information that the other person receives for your brain. We assume that the machine is correct, then show that one of the parameters, (degrees of hue, technically), was arbitrary. You must give up the assumption that the machine is presenting you what the person is experiencing. There is no "normal", you are egotistically calling your own experience "normal" and using it as a basis to judge the correctness of the machine. You are being presented with an equivalent simulation which can never become the actual experience the other person is perceiving, but simply a translation. It is like arguing over whether a translation of some ancient text from a foreign language into your own is accurate or not and ignoring the context and the bias of the language/interpreters.

The concept of "color" is a shared common base for us to communicate and doesn't reflect what we actually experience.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.
stax
The daedal philosopher.
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2009
Location: A transcendental plane of reality, Australia.

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 36
Posted 11/01/09 - 07:27 PM:
quote post
#9
bouncingsoul wrote:
If Dennett does mean this RGB inversion that you talk about then surely there would be a simple way of calibrating the cable?

Subject A is to wear the headset and receive the visual image of Subject B.

Now, how do we know which way to orient the cable?

Plug the cable into a display rather than into A's headset, and ask B if the image is correct.

If he says yes, then the cables are the right way round...if he says no then the cables are the wrong way round.

No?

That is true, but only if the concept of red, green and blue for the designer of the machine is the same as the concept of red, green and blue of the person in the machine.
What would happen if the person's concept of the colours does not correlate either way the cable is plugged? This point is what Dennett is trying to make- that concepts made by the mind can be induced either by different mental states or different conceptions of reality. This then produces qualia, which either makes unique mental states or unique behaviours from mental states. The inclusion of technology as the conduit must represent the person's qualia and concept who designed the machine- and Dennett argues that the discrepancy between the two people's concept is proof of qualia, and proof that machines cannot solve the qualia 'problem'.

Even if only one person on Earth went through that machine and didn't agree either way despite flipping the cable, that would prove that qualia exists, which produces unique behaviour (in this case, perception).
"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." Arthur Schopenhauer

"To convince someone of the truth, it is not enough to state it, but rather one must find the path from error to truth." Ludwig Wittgenstein

"Philosophy is like trying to open a safe with a combination lock: each little adjustment of the dials seems to achieve nothing, only when everything is in place does the door open." Ludwig Wittgenstein
Download thread as


Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.

Powered by WSN Forum

The time is now 11/23/09 - 03:14 AM.