Qualia is something we perceive. (If we didn’t perceive it, we wouldn’t talk about it.) In that sense, it isn’t a priori any more real or innate than any other perception that enters our conscious mind. It is essentially an input to the conscious part of our cognitive process. As such, it is information that surely can be fully represented — in the sense of data representation — in our brains. The subjective experience of qualia is complex and varied, but not that complex and varied that it can’t be conceived to be fully representable by neuron firing patterns (or whatever) in our brains. It seems straightforward to me that what is called “qualia” is just the perception of certain processing that is going on in our brains.
Note also that something feeling visceral is just a perception. By that, I don’t mean that the viscerality is an illusion, but that “feeling” is fundamentally a process of perception, and thus just means that certain inputs from unconscious parts of our mind are entering our conscious mind. As a consequence, I can’t imagine any perception that couldn’t be explained by information flow. Because when you think about it, any feeling or qualia is just a perception that entered your conscious experience. It’s not something your consciousness does, it’s just something it observes.
Note also that something feeling visceral is just a perception. By that, I don’t mean that the viscerality is an illusion, but that “feeling” is fundamentally a process of perception, and thus just means that certain inputs from unconscious parts of our mind are entering our conscious mind. As a consequence, I can’t imagine any perception that couldn’t be explained by information flow. Because when you think about it, any feeling or qualia is just a perception that entered your conscious experience. It’s not something your consciousness does, it’s just something it observes.
reply