Yes the thought experiment is meaningful based on the fact that they are the same. It serves to answer the question “why talk about qualia at all rather than just calling experiences sense data?”. Sense data is generally referred to with respect to a boundary, eg. a camera has sensors that perceive photons. And then there’s processing (eg. sensors’ electric signals are digitized and carried along).
If one can imagine keeping their sense data the same (input to eyes, and input from cones) yet switch the inner experience based on reworking the processing system, then the thing we’re talking about exists at the processing level and is not sense data, thus experience is not sense data.
Yes the thought experiment is meaningful based on the fact that they are the same. It serves to answer the question “why talk about qualia at all rather than just calling experiences sense data?
If something is identical, it doesn’t make much sense, imo, to differentiate them like this. It makes more sense to say “sense data is the total product of information transmitted and interpreted by our nervous system” then to say “sense data is the information recorded by our peripheral nervous system, which is experienced by our central nervous system which poses qualia”. The actual sense data we are talking about is our perceptions not the uninterpreted chemical systems. SO it doesn’t make sense to consider them separate entities when talking about the perceived data.
There should be a word for experiences/qualia, and I think it should not be “sense data”, since in fact a larger part of your experience depends on the processing than the inputs. Whenever you look to a different spot you go blind during the eye movement but your visual field doesn’t blur and come back.
Whenever you look to a different spot you go blind during the eye movement but your visual field doesn’t blur and come back.
I suspect that sort of thing is true not only of visual perception, but of consciousness in general. It is not continuous, but we don’t usually become aware of the discontinuities.
It seems like your complaint is just with the term sense data then, and I don’t see why. You can replace the word sense with “experienced” and the meaning is identical. Sense data refers to the information we obtain through our experienced perceptions. Sense data refers to the experience not the raw information flowing through the nervous system.
since in fact a larger part of your experience depends on the processing than the inputs.
I don’t thjnk this is a fact. Our experience is one thing dependent on the entire process. If you cut off the front end, there is no information, if you cut off the backend the same is true.
Take your example of a camera. Which is more responsible for a photo: the incoming light, the CCD, the wiring (inc. A/D converter, line driver, frame driver), or the software the converts those signals into a display? Intuitively, my feeling would be the software is the least important (you could derive the information from the raw signals, but not the other way) but as far as understanding what captures the image you have to have the entire process for it to work.
Yes the thought experiment is meaningful based on the fact that they are the same. It serves to answer the question “why talk about qualia at all rather than just calling experiences sense data?”. Sense data is generally referred to with respect to a boundary, eg. a camera has sensors that perceive photons. And then there’s processing (eg. sensors’ electric signals are digitized and carried along).
If one can imagine keeping their sense data the same (input to eyes, and input from cones) yet switch the inner experience based on reworking the processing system, then the thing we’re talking about exists at the processing level and is not sense data, thus experience is not sense data.
If something is identical, it doesn’t make much sense, imo, to differentiate them like this. It makes more sense to say “sense data is the total product of information transmitted and interpreted by our nervous system” then to say “sense data is the information recorded by our peripheral nervous system, which is experienced by our central nervous system which poses qualia”. The actual sense data we are talking about is our perceptions not the uninterpreted chemical systems. SO it doesn’t make sense to consider them separate entities when talking about the perceived data.
There should be a word for experiences/qualia, and I think it should not be “sense data”, since in fact a larger part of your experience depends on the processing than the inputs. Whenever you look to a different spot you go blind during the eye movement but your visual field doesn’t blur and come back.
I suspect that sort of thing is true not only of visual perception, but of consciousness in general. It is not continuous, but we don’t usually become aware of the discontinuities.
It seems like your complaint is just with the term sense data then, and I don’t see why. You can replace the word sense with “experienced” and the meaning is identical. Sense data refers to the information we obtain through our experienced perceptions. Sense data refers to the experience not the raw information flowing through the nervous system.
I don’t thjnk this is a fact. Our experience is one thing dependent on the entire process. If you cut off the front end, there is no information, if you cut off the backend the same is true.
Take your example of a camera. Which is more responsible for a photo: the incoming light, the CCD, the wiring (inc. A/D converter, line driver, frame driver), or the software the converts those signals into a display? Intuitively, my feeling would be the software is the least important (you could derive the information from the raw signals, but not the other way) but as far as understanding what captures the image you have to have the entire process for it to work.
My complaint with the term comes from applying the criteria of https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong
There are already definitions and uses of “data” and “sense”, and if you combine them into “sense data” but mean inner perception/experience, you will confuse a lot of people!