Qualia Totally Explained

Everything about Qualia totally explained

"Qualia" is "an unfamiliar term for something that couldn't be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us". They can be defined as qualities or sensations, like redness or pain, as considered independently of their effects on behavior and from whatever physical circumstances give rise to them. In more philosophical terms, qualia are properties of sensory experiences.
   The importance of qualia in philosophy of mind comes largely from the fact that they're often seen as posing a fundamental problem for physicalism. Much of the debate over their existence, however, hinges on the debate over the precise definition of the term, as various philosophers emphasize or deny the existence of certain properties.
   The word "qualia" comes from Latin, meaning "what sort" or "what kind." The Latin and English singular is "quale" (roughly KWAH-leh))
   Believers in qualia are known as qualophiles; skeptics as qualophobes.

Definitions of qualia

Broad definitions

There are many definitions of qualia, which have changed over time. One of the simpler, broader definitions is "The 'what it's like' character of mental states. The way it feels to have mental states such as pain, seeing red, smelling a rose, etc.'" (External Link

). Chris Mitchell, in his book Mind and the World Order (1929), was the first to use the term "qualia" in its generally agreed modern sense. Frank Jackson (1982) 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" (p. 273).
Under definitions like these, which are quite broad, there can be little doubt that qualia exist (External Link

). However, definitions this broad make it difficult to discuss the precise nature of qualia, and their interaction with the mind and the environment. Some philosophers have made attempts at more precise, possibly narrower, definitions of qualia, describing things whose existence are more controversial.

Narrower definitions

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

ineffable; that is, they can't be communicated, or apprehended by any other means than direct experience.
intrinsic; that is, they're non-relational properties, which don't change depending on the experience's relation to other things.
private; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible.
directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness; that is, to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there's 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's to know about that experience. Though it's 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 kind of qualia contend that such a description is incapable of providing 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 as existing in terms of its effects.
   According to an argument put forth by Saul Kripke in "Identity and Necessity" (1971), one key consequence of the claim that such things as raw feels can be meaningfully discussed — that qualia exist — 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 very few ever claim that such an entity, called a philosophical zombie, actually exists, the mere possibility is claimed to be sufficient to refute physicalism. Those who dispute the existence of qualia would therefore necessarily dispute the existence of philosophical zombies.
   There is an ancient Sufi parable about coffee that nicely expresses the concept: "He who tastes, knows; he who tastes not, knows not." John Searle has rejected the notion that the problem of qualia is different from the problem of consciousness itself, arguing that consciousness and qualia are one and the same phenomenon.

Arguments for the existence of qualia

Since it's by definition difficult or impossible to convey qualia verbally, it's difficult to demonstrate them directly in an argument; a more tangential approach is needed. Arguments for qualia generally come in the form of thought experiments designed to lead one to the conclusion that qualia exist.

The Bat argument

Although it doesn't actually mention the word "qualia", Thomas Nagel's paper What Is it Like to Be a Bat? is often cited in debates over 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's something that it's to be that organism — something it's like for the organism." Nagel also suggests that the subjective aspect of the mind may not ever be sufficiently accounted for by the objective methods of reductionistic science. He claims that "[i]f 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 how this could be done." Furthermore, he states that "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."

The Inverted Spectrum Argument

The inverted spectrum thought experiment 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. 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're imagining a change in a property that determines the way things look to us, but that has no physical basis. In more detail:

Metaphysical identity holds of necessity

If something is possibly false, it isn't necessary

It is conceivable that qualia could have a different relationship to physical brain-states

If it's conceivable, then it's possible

Since it's possible for qualia to have a different relationship with physical brain-states, they can't be identical to brain states (by 1).

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 an armchair argument 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 isn't possible for a given brain state to produce anything other than a given quale in our universe, and that's all that matters.
The idea that an inverted spectrum would be undetectable in practice is also open to criticism on more scientific grounds.

The Zombie Argument

A similar argument holds that it's conceivable that there could be physical duplicates of people, called "zombies", without any qualia at all. Similar criticisms about conceivability versus possibility can be made.

The Explanatory Gap Argument

Joseph Levine's paper Conceivability, Identity, and the Explanatory Gap takes up where the criticisms of conceivabilty arguments, such as the Inverted Spectrum argument and the Zombie argument, leave off. Levine agrees that conceivability is flawed as a means of establishing metaphysical realities, but points out that even if we come to the metaphysical conclusion that qualia are non-physical, they still present an explanatory problem.

"While I think this materialist response is right in the end, it doesn't suffice to put the mind-body problem to rest. Even if conceivability considerations don't 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 — the non-physicality of qualia, even if not proven by conceivability arguments is far from ruled out.

"In the end, we're 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's a genuine gap in nature. But so long as we've countervailing reasons for doubting the latter, we've to look elsewhere for an explanation of the former".

The Knowledge Argument

In "Epiphenomenal Qualia" (1982), Frank Jackson offers what he calls the "Knowledge Argument" for qualia. One example runs as follows:
thought experiment has two purposes. First, it's intended to show that qualia exist. If we agree with the thought experiment, we believe that Mary gains something after she leaves the room — that she acquires knowledge of a particular thing that she didn't 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's 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:

Before her release, Mary was in possession of all the physical information about colour experiences of other people.

After her release, Mary learns something about the colour experiences of other people.
Therefore,

Before her release, Mary wasn't in possession of all the information about other people’s colour experiences, even though she was in possession of all the physical information.
Therefore,

There are truths about other people’s colour experience that are not physical.
Therefore,

Physicalism is false. Finally, Jackson argues that qualia are epiphenomenal: not causally efficacious with respect to the physical world. Jackson doesn't give a positive justification for this claim — rather, he seems to assert it simply because it defends qualia against the classic problem of dualism. Our natural assumption would be that qualia must be causally efficacious in the physical world, but some would ask how we could argue for their existence if they didn't affect our brains. If qualia are to be non-physical properties (which they must be in order to constitute an argument against physicalism), some argue that it's almost impossible to imagine 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.

Critics of qualia

Daniel Dennett

In Consciousness Explained (1991) and "Quining Qualia" (1988), Daniel Dennett offers an argument against qualia that attempts to show that the above definition breaks down when one tries to make a practical application of it. In a series of thought experiments, which he calls "intuition pumps", he brings qualia into the world of neurosurgery, clinical psychology, and psychological experimentation. His argument attempts to show that, once the concept of qualia is so imported, it turns out that we can either make no use of it in the situation in question, or that the questions posed by the introduction of qualia are unanswerable precisely because of the special properties defined for qualia.
   In Dennett's updated version of the inverted spectrum thought experiment, "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's impossible to know whether the diabolical neurosurgeons have indeed inverted your qualia (by tampering with your optic nerve, say), or have simply inverted your connection to memories of past qualia. Since both operations would produce the same result, you'd have no means on your own to tell which operation has actually been conducted, and you're thus in the odd position of not knowing whether there has been a change in your "immediately apprehensible" qualia.
   Dennett's argument revolves around the central objection that, for qualia to be taken seriously as a component of experience — for them to even make sense as a discrete concept — it must be possible to show that � a) it's possible to know that a change in qualia has occurred, as opposed to a change in something else;

or that � b) there's a difference between having a change in qualia and not having one.

Dennett attempts to show that we can't satisfy (a) either through introspection or through observation, and that qualia's very definition undermines its chances of satisfying (b).
   Dennett also has a response to the "Mary the color scientist" thought experiment. He argues 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 of 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's to know about the experience of colour, then this effectively grants her almost omniscient powers of knowledge. Using this, she'll 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 colour vision. RoboMary is an intelligent robot who, instead of the ordinary colour camera-eyes, has a software lock such that she's only able to perceive black and white and shades in-between.
   RoboMary can examine the computer brain of similar non-colour-locked robots when they look at a red tomato, and see exactly how they react and what kinds of impulses occur. RoboMary can also construct a simulation of her own brain, unlock the simulations colour-lock and, with reference to the other robots, simulate exactly how this simulation of herself reacts to seeing a red tomato. RoboMary naturally has control over all of her internal states except for the colour-lock. With the knowledge of her simulation's internal states upon seeing a red tomato, RoboMary can put her own internal states directly into the states they'd be in upon seeing a red tomato. In this way, without ever seeing a red tomato through her cameras, she'll know exactly what it's like to see a red tomato.
   Dennett uses this example 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's 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 colour red would feel. Perhaps it's 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's like to see a triangle — she can simply and directly visualise a triangle in her mind. Similarly, Dennett proposes, it's perfectly, logically possible that the quale of what it's like to see red could eventually be described in an English-language description of millions or billions of words.

Paul Churchland

According to Paul Churchland, Mary might be considered to be like a feral child. Feral children have suffered extreme isolation during childhood. Technically when Mary leaves the room, she wouldn't have the ability to see or know what the color red is. A brain has to learn and develop how to see colors. Patterns need to form in the V4 section of the visual cortex. These patterns are formed from exposure to wave lengths of light. This exposure is needed 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.

David Lewis

David Lewis has an argument that introduces a new hypothesis about types of knowledge and their transmission in qualia cases. Lewis agrees that Mary can't learn what red looks like through her monochrome physicalist studies. But he proposes that this doesn't matter. Learning transmits information, but experiencing qualia doesn't transmit information; instead it communicates abilities. When Mary sees red, she doesn't get any new information. She gains new abilities — now she can remember what red looks like, imagine what other red things might look like and recognise further instances of redness. Lewis states that Jackson's thought experiment uses the 'Phenomenal Information Hypothesis' — that is, 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 ability (can recognise images of Freud). However in the thought experiment, Mary can only use ordinary learning to gain know-that knowledge. She is prevented from using experience to gain the know-how knowledge that would allow her to remember, imagine and recognise the colour 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 can't be learned inside the room; for example, we don't expect Mary to 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's know-how knowledge.

Marvin Minsky

The veteran 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".

Scientific perspectives

V.S. Ramachandran and William Hirstein have proposed three laws of qualia, or "functional criteria that need to be fulfilled in order for certain neural events to be associated with qualia" by philosophers of the mind:

"Qualia are irrevocable and indubitable. You don’t say ‘maybe it's 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.
"Once the representation is created, what can be done with it's open-ended. You have the luxury of choice, for example, if you've the percept of an apple you can use it to tempt Adam, to keep the doctor away, bake a pie, or even 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.
"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.
"Attention. Qualia and attention are closely linked. You need attention to fulfil criterion number two; to choose. A study of circuits involved in attention, therefore, will shed much light on the riddle of qualia."

Other Issues

Indeterminacy

It is possible to apply a criticism similar to Nietzsche's criticism of Kant's "thing in itself" to qualia:
Qualia are unobservable in others and unquantifiable in us. We can't possibly be sure, when discussing individual qualia, that we're even discussing the same phenomena. Thus, any discussion of them is of indeterminate value, as descriptions of qualia are necessarily of indeterminate accuracy. Qualia can be compared to "things in themselves" in that they've no publicly demonstrable properties; this, along with the impossibility of being sure that we're 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're held to be seemings of appearances.

Causal efficacy

The position known as epiphenomenalism, which states that consciousness lies outside the physical world, and doesn't have any causal power over it, is often regarded as unlikely, 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 agency through their causal powers.

Further Information

Get more info on 'Qualia'.

External Link Exchanges

Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:

<a href="http://qualia.totallyexplained.com">Qualia Totally Explained</a>

Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned.