Genetics and actual sensations

[lifegazer]

Darwinians/athiests/God-haters/whatever hold-dear that ALL human-traits are the product of information inherent within the genetic-code.
In this thread, I want to discuss genetics and the human-experience of existence. In other words, I want to discuss how information can determine that a human will see red; feel pain; taste bitterness; smell sweetness; hear loudness; etc. etc. etc..

The point is that it's impossible to describe a sensation. I.e., there's NO informational-blueprint for how to see red; feel pain; taste bitterness; smell sweetness; hear loudness; etc. etc. etc..
In fact, it's just impossible to describe what "a sensation" (any sensation) is like. The only way to know what it is like is to actually experience it.

... If you don't believe me, then try explaining, for example, what ~red~ is to a blindman or what ~loudness~ is to a deafman.
You could talk to that person till doomsday, asking advice of the greatest minds that ever lived to support your efforts, and you would never be able to convey what the actual experience of ~red~ is like, or what ~loudness~ is like... likewise any sensation to something that is aware but has never experienced such sensations before.

So, here's the crunch:- If it's impossible to describe, informationally, what a sensation is like, how can we say that ~sensation~ is a product of [genetic] information?

Either you hold-sway to the idea that sensations can be described, or you do not.
If you do, then start describing what ~red~ is.
If you don't, then get ready to abandon your faith in materialistic logic and the idea that all human-traits are the product of genetic information.
... and get your knee-pads ready, of course.

 

[Z]

The key difficulty, of course, lies in the inability to communicate an idea without some mode of common referrent. Now, if we have a person who can see color, and we are describing 'the color of a ripe tomato' then the color that this person sees on ripened tomatos is what we refer to as 'red'.

If, however, we are attempting communication with someone who can see nothing at all, then at best we can describe the physical wavelength properties of this substance to them. Of course, this means that they cannot know the 'experience' of redness, but they can certainly know the information which lays beneath 'redness'. Indeed, this is the same with any and all properties within the universe: either you are equipped with senses allowing you to detect that property, or you aren't. This in no way removes 'redness' to a purely subjective value; rather, it implies that 'redness' is a property which can be experienced by those capable of seeing that wavelength of light.

Consider some examples of properties you cannot detect for yourself: magnetic polarity, ultra-violetness, sub-sonicness, Ant-chemical-trail taste, atomic structure-appearance. These properties exist, and for at least one creature on the planet, there is a sense that allows them to experience these properties. Yet we have information about such properties, and therefore the properties themselves are purely reducible to simple materialism. The question, of course, comes when one considers the qualia of these properties... which, of course, is at the heart of this post.

Yet I think - and mind you, this is only my POV on the subject - that genetic information provides all properties of a being - including what qualia they are capable of experiencing - without providing any actual qualia in and of themselves. In other words, if you use some method of genetic therapy to correct the blind man's vision, he will, in fact, experience 'redness'.

Likewise, the actual neural signals for 'redness' may one day be able to be inputted directly onto the ol' grey matter, allowing one without eyes to, nonetheless, 'see' redness.

This has potential to be a good thread, LG - does that mean you're conceding the QM thread finally? 'Cuz you're in a pretty tight corner on the logical paradox issue, bud.

 

[Z]

Thought I'd take a shot at a proper definition of 'redness', just for fun:

Redness is the quality of the wavelength of electromagnetic energy of approx. 650 nm when perceived by one who possesses the visual senses that include that range, including humans. This wavelength of energy is commonly reflected by elements within the skins of ripened tomatoes, ripe apples of several varieties, human blood, and iron oxides. Due to the proximity of red to heat on the spectrum, it is possible that there exist some organisms that 'feel red' rather than 'see red', as it is likewise possible that some organisms 'see' heat rather than 'feel' heat.

Well, not very good, but I think it's fairly accurate...

 

[lifegazer]

The key difficulty, of course, lies in the inability to communicate an idea without some mode of common referrent. Now, if we have a person who can see color, and we are describing 'the color of a ripe tomato' then the color that this person sees on ripened tomatos is what we refer to as 'red'.

We're discussing the creation/production of a "new" human-being here.
... According to atheists/God-haters/whatever, that "new" being will only know and only be whatever the ~genetic-code~ INFORMS It to be.

It would be like us creating a computer that can actually feel pain or see colours. Somehow, we would have to write the software for that computer to have those actual experiences.
Hence, if all ~experience~ is reduced to information, then according to atheists/God-haters/whatever, it should be possible to describe what ANY particular sensation is actually like.

You're talking about entities that already see colours or that already feel pain... whereas I am not. I am talking about entities
that only come to have sensations due to the information in their genetic codes. This, of course, reduces ~sensation~ to a point that it can be described (infomation can explain the experience of a sensation).
... But we both know that no sensation can be described. Therefore, how can sensations (not to mention feelings and imagination and thoughts) be a product of [genetic] information?

It's an absurd position to hold. If you don't agree, then I challenge you to go and inform a blindman what ~red~ is like. Then you will understand.

If, however, we are attempting communication with someone who can see nothing at all, then at best we can describe the physical wavelength properties of this substance to them. Of course, this means that they cannot know the 'experience' of redness, but they can certainly know the information which lays beneath 'redness'.

That's not the point is it? Although, thinking about it, that's exactly the point! You see, the sort of information you are talking about can in no-way inform anything/anyone of what a sensation actually is. In fact, this actually highlights the distinction between information & experience.

This has potential to be a good thread, LG - does that mean you're conceding the QM thread finally? 'Cuz you're in a pretty tight corner on the logical paradox issue, bud.

The last post I got from you in my previous thread was when you congratulated me for defending the notion that God can have
both dominion of the world in eternity and non-dominion of the world in 'time'. That defense showed why it was not a contradiction of logic for God to exhibit opposite traits and you actually praised me for it. So did Beleth, another of my adversaries.
Hence, I'm surprised why you would say that I'm in a pretty tight corner.

It's obvious I have conceded nothing in that thread, especially after my congratulatory defence of 'omnipotence'.
I am, however, frustrated by the derailment of that thread (remember that it's supposed to be about QM). I'm also cheesed-off with the attitude of a few members who didn't have the integrity (unlike yourself - thankyou btw) to acknowledge good philosophy when it was presented.

Regardless, I may yet still post in that thread. And anyway, I don't want this thread to be derailed by considerations of my last thread, so please take this discussion there if you want to pursue it any further.
Cheers.

 

[Z]

I would say, then, that qualia - the experience of a sensation - is relatively unimportant.

For example, I understand sharks have an 'electrical sense' which we do not possess. Does this detract from our understanding of electricity? Not one whit. Yes, we lack the specific experience of knowing what 'electricness' is like; but that experience is irrelevant to us. We can still manipulate and utilize electricity as we wish, without having any sense of it ourselves.

I also feel like you're confusing the use of 'know' in this case - the genetic code does not, in fact, fill one's brain with knowledge; rather, this must be carefully and painstakingly acquired over time. Communication takes years to learn, as well as associating one set of senses with another, associating various properties, etc. It's a difficult subject, but quite clearly, and I think I'm safe when I say this, the genetic code does not determine what a person knows so much as it helps to determine what a person is capable of knowing.

I also think that one has to consider experience not as pure information but as information in relation to other bits of information. 'Redness' by itself means nothing; it has to be considered and cross-referenced to some other bits of information to have some meaning or purpose - which, of course, means that we need a consciousness to do such cross-referencing.

Of course, 'red' has its own properties, which in turn can affect things that are not actually sensing anything (though not in any significant way I can currently think of).

[aside]You know, as an aside, I think I've just come up with a good reason to deny intelligent design: lack of infra-red vision. Our eyes can see red, which does us little harm at all; but the only way we can experience infra-red is when we feel the 'heat' of it. Wouldn't intelligent design have been better served if we could see 'infra-red' and therefore avoid it before it damages us?[/aside]

As far as the other thread - I take it you didn't read much further than the congratulations. I'll have to retract that congrats, btw - upon deeper analysis, it seems you've failed, once again, to defend omnipotence. I'd suggest going back and reading past the ego-puffed part.

 

[Donks]

My guess: The information required for forming eyes, which include cones that respond to the bandwidth corresponding to red, is in the genetic code. So is the information for forming an eye nerve and a visual cortex. So the information would not be te kind I'd use to describe red to a blnd man, it would be the information of how to build the structures required to experience "red."

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Darwinians/athiests/God-haters/whatever hold-dear that ALL human-traits are the product of information inherent within the genetic-code.

I was going to read this entire post and give a thoughtful reply, but since you put the strawman right in the first sentence, you saved me a lot of trouble. Thanks.

 

[Beleth]

The last post I got from you in my previous thread was when you congratulated me for defending the notion that God can have
both dominion of the world in eternity and non-dominion of the world in 'time'. That defense showed why it was not a contradiction of logic for God to exhibit opposite traits and you actually praised me for it. So did Beleth, another of my adversaries.

Err, no.

They way you modified it took away the contradiction, since they were no longer opposite traits.

Besides, all I agreed to was that it was no longer a contradiction. I said nothing about whether it was actually true or not; just that it wasn't false by definition.


Now, all I have to say about this new argument is that I agree with the Marquis. I don't know anyone, atheist or no, who considers all of humanity's traits to be 100% genetically produced. It's always some combination of nature and nurture.

 

[lifegazer]

Darwinians/athiests/God-haters/whatever hold-dear that ALL human-traits are the product of information inherent within the genetic-code.

I was going to read this entire post and give a thoughtful reply, but since you put the strawman right in the first sentence, you saved me a lot of trouble. Thanks.

What strawman? Tell me, what sort of people usually think that humans are a product of material processes? Wouldn't they be atheists and God-haters, people who trust in science to provide all the answers?

 

[lifegazer]

Err, no.

They way you modified it took away the contradiction, since they were no longer opposite traits.

Taking away the contradiction provided a successful defense of the notion that God has dominion and non-dominion of the world. End of story.

I don't know anyone, atheist or no, who considers all of humanity's traits to be 100% genetically produced. It's always some combination of nature and nurture.

Nurture equates to upbringing - how we react to the sights & sounds of our environment. However, even this reaction would be reducible to genetics since we can only react in ways facilitated by our brains/bodies which, of course, are also a product of the genetic-code.

Regardless, none of your response deals with the theme of this thread, since we're supposed to be discussing the relationship between human sensation and genes.
Surely you don't think that human-sensation is a product of nurture?

 

[Wudang]

Taking away the contradiction provided a successful defense of the notion that God has dominion and non-dominion of the world. End of story.

Apart from Upchurch pointing out how you'd just compounded the problem?

Nurture equates to upbringing - how we react to the sights & sounds of our environment. However, even this reaction would be reducible to genetics since we can only react in ways facilitated by our brains/bodies which, of course, are also a product of the genetic-code.

Regardless, none of your response deals with the theme of this thread, since we're supposed to be discussing the relationship between human sensation and genes.
Surely you don't think that human-sensation is a product of nurture?

Partly - one obvious case is in the hearing of sounds. As an example - the "p" in pin and spin sounds identical to me. Now hold your hand close your mouth and say "pin" then "spin". The "p" in "pin" produces a puff of air against your hand but not "spin". They sound identical to us but not to a Cantonese speaker, to who they sound as different consonants. So the hearer does experience them differently.

 

[Z]

Yeah, you took out the contradiction by introducing duality to your supposedly 'singular' God. You still haven't addressed that problem.

 

[Iacchus]

Regardless, none of your response deals with the theme of this thread, since we're supposed to be discussing the relationship between human sensation and genes.

Surely you don't think that human-sensation is a product of nurture?

We can all grow to appreciate the taste of chilli peppers if we're culturally pre-disposed to do so. Or, take cigarette smoking. When a person first attempts to inhale, he usually starts hacking to death! So yes, I think it would be far to say that human-sensation can be acclimatized to certain sets of conditions.

 

[lifegazer]

We can all grow to appreciate the taste of chilli peppers if we're culturally pre-disposed to do so. Or, take cigarette smoking. When a person first attempts to inhale, he usually starts hacking to death! So yes, I think it would be far to say that human-sensation can be acclimatized to certain sets of conditions.

The "acclimatization" of the senses isn't an issue here. Ones growing likes and dislikes are not an issue.
The issue here is the actual origin of the sensations - the ones we are born with. Can they be merely a product of genetic information or not?
If so, then it should be possible to define (inform of) experiences such as 'red' or 'pain', etc..

 

[Iacchus]

The "acclimatization" of the senses isn't an issue here. Ones growing likes and dislikes are not an issue.
The issue here is the actual origin of the sensations - the ones we are born with. Can they be merely a product of genetic information or not?
If so, then it should be possible to define (inform of) experiences such as 'red' or 'pain', etc..

Except that you're the one who brought up the issue of nurturing. And yes, the body can be reprogrammed to overide the sensations it experiences.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Lifegazer said:
The issue here is the actual origin of the sensations - the ones we are born with. Can they be merely a product of genetic information or not?
If so, then it should be possible to define (inform of) experiences such as 'red' or 'pain', etc..

You are overlooking the information that an infant gains when he learns to see color. Various neural networks are formed, weighted, adjusted, and so forth. We can learn about this aspect of color vision from books, but we cannot form the networks themselves.

This is why the "Mary in a black and white room" thought experiment is flawed.

~~ Paul

 

[Dr Adequate]

Taking away the contradiction provided a successful defense of the notion that God has dominion and non-dominion of the world. End of story.

So, having run away from an argument you lost, you're now claiming that you won. Splendid! It must be nice for you living in a fantasy world. I see this post is about another of your delusions. Please produce me the person who says that "ALL human-traits are the product of information inherent within the genetic-code" or stop lying. Thank you.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I'm also cheesed-off with the attitude of a few members who didn't have the integrity (unlike yourself - thankyou btw) to acknowledge good philosophy when it was presented.

He's priceless. Of course, when he starts explaining how the negation of "Upchurch is sometimes selfish" is "Upchurch is sometimes selfless" and people who aren't completely ignorant of logic correct him, that's because they lack the integrity to admire how clever he is. Or, maybe not integrity, but possibly 'integrity' or "integrity". One of those special lifegazer words which means something other than what it means.

Hey, lifegazer, what's the weather like on your planet? You know, the one on which you're a genius instead of an ignorant egotistical self-inflated bore?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

What strawman? Tell me, what sort of people usually think that humans are a product of material processes?

Materialists believe, as you've stated here, that "humans are a product of material processes." However, that's not what you said in your OP. To remind you, if you can't be buggered to scroll up, you said they "hold-dear that ALL human-traits are the product of information inherent within the genetic-code."

Do you honestly not see the difference?

 

[lifegazer]

Materialists believe, as you've stated here, that "humans are a product of material processes." However, that's not what you said in your OP. To remind you, if you can't be buggered to scroll up, you said they "hold-dear that ALL human-traits are the product of information inherent within the genetic-code."

Do you honestly not see the difference?

There's no difference, no. If human bodies are a product of the genetic-code, then the material processes which occur in the creation of a human body are determined by that code.

The fact that we humans experience sensations must, therefore, be because of information encoded within the genes (that is, if you adhere to the idea that humans are a product of material processes).