Hossenfelder is a familiar type one comes across in most sciences; the one who “drops out” ie doesn’t cut it by the criteria each discipline uses to select the ones marked for advancement. This is not to say that she is some kind of rebellious genius. She and others like her (I’m thinking of the garrulous malcontent at Columbia University, Peter Voit, who has languished in a lectureship position for decades) are too vain to become mere popularizers, so they appoint themselves to the role of truth-speakers.
Yet to speak to the truth you have to understand the subject. Neither Hossenfelder nor Voit understand any of the competing theories of quantum gravity and they end up peddling vacuous criticisms on “aspirational” podcasts and YouTube channels. But by now they have fallen so far behind advances in theoretical physics that they have turned their attention to other areas (economics and philosophy for instance) where they end up making even bigger fools of themselves.
You're right, although a) quale never sounds right to me and b) everyone who uses it actually uses qualia interchangeably to refer to both, I very rarely hear or read quale actually being used.
Using qualia as a singular noun is very grating to some readers, and it is not done by academic philosophers. It seems common on Reddit, especially among people who have not read a lot of philosophy. I don't think that's the vibe you want to give.
"Hey, speaking of measuring stuff, have you heard about my new AI science app?” Falls over in pond “30% discount, you won’t regret it. Thanks for watching, see you tomorrow.” 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
"maybe it’s a question as difficult as asking why anything exists at all ever" Yes, I think that is exactly right.
Thanks for this piece. I had started watching the video a while ago but couldn't finish because it was so obviously missing the point. I think Hossenfelder has some interesting things to say about modern science, but she apparently is not a philosopher in the slightest.
Brilliant breakdown. Sabine mistaking fMRI pattern correlations for measuring qualia is like claiming you've understood a symphony because you’ve plotted the soundwave of a single trumpet note.
The tragedy isn't that science can't help us explore consciousness. It absolutely can. The tragedy is when a physicist thinks she's discovered the soul of the music because she finally bought a decent microphone.
Qualia aren't objects. They’re the taste of being. The ache of memory. The feel of red, not the frequency.
To measure qualia is like trying to bottle a dream. You might collect its residue, but the essence vanishes the moment you grab at it.
And the irony is, philosophy isn’t dead. It’s just not monetized as well.
1) From your previous note, I was expecting you to show that she didn't understand multiple sclerosis. Did I hallucinate that?
2) Your first footnoted comment ("no philosopher claims they [qualia] specifically exist separate from consciousness itself") implies that there is something wrong with treating qualia and consciousness as separate. Some philosophers do carefully distinguish these. I wish more philosophers would treat these separately, as there is no good reason for thinking they are the same thing and some good reasons for treating them differently. They will have different resolutions.
3) None of these discussions mean much if you don't at least try to define qualia.
No idea where multiple sclerosis came from, I did say "multiple scientists" in the note, maybe you read it as that, obviously proving Anil Seth's predictive inference there.
lol, nice lampoon article Matt. I’m inclined to watch the video but the comments here are convincing me otherwise.
On your point about Nagel and phenomenology, I.e. what it’s like to be a bat, I have a hard time believing anyone in both philosophy and neuroscience alike would ever sit on the claim that what we experience absolutely maps onto reality. Drawing on Nagel’s analogy, what also about species of raptors who can see thermals? What of, chemotaxis in bacteria? Surely, theirs are entirely different experiences of reality that all point to something (perhaps), but can never be said to BE the thing they approximate. To assume that humans—barely evolved apes—have some kind of “pure” lens on reality is the simply falling prey to another kind of anthropic principle. Surely, there must be a sufficiently more advanced being in the universe that can experience aspects of reality (if it even exists in some kind of isolated form) that we cannot even fathom. Whether it’s aliens or God, I think it’s a deeply spurious claim—and one any self-respecting scientist would never make—to say what we see is what you get.
Good on you for calling this out. Chalmers et al would be proud!
lol. I feel bad for the scientists who spend their time working in a field they are interested in and writing nuanced, detailed papers—only to have their work bastardized and transformed into some pop-science reddit-slop...
Hossenfelder is a familiar type one comes across in most sciences; the one who “drops out” ie doesn’t cut it by the criteria each discipline uses to select the ones marked for advancement. This is not to say that she is some kind of rebellious genius. She and others like her (I’m thinking of the garrulous malcontent at Columbia University, Peter Voit, who has languished in a lectureship position for decades) are too vain to become mere popularizers, so they appoint themselves to the role of truth-speakers.
Yet to speak to the truth you have to understand the subject. Neither Hossenfelder nor Voit understand any of the competing theories of quantum gravity and they end up peddling vacuous criticisms on “aspirational” podcasts and YouTube channels. But by now they have fallen so far behind advances in theoretical physics that they have turned their attention to other areas (economics and philosophy for instance) where they end up making even bigger fools of themselves.
I hope “segways” was an intentional malapropism because it’s absolutely hilarious.
lol I'd never heard malapropism before I had to google it, sounds like some kind of medical condition of the rectum...
‘Qualia’ is a plural noun. The singular of ‘qualia’ is ‘quale’.
You're right, although a) quale never sounds right to me and b) everyone who uses it actually uses qualia interchangeably to refer to both, I very rarely hear or read quale actually being used.
Using qualia as a singular noun is very grating to some readers, and it is not done by academic philosophers. It seems common on Reddit, especially among people who have not read a lot of philosophy. I don't think that's the vibe you want to give.
"Hey, speaking of measuring stuff, have you heard about my new AI science app?” Falls over in pond “30% discount, you won’t regret it. Thanks for watching, see you tomorrow.” 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
"maybe it’s a question as difficult as asking why anything exists at all ever" Yes, I think that is exactly right.
Thanks for this piece. I had started watching the video a while ago but couldn't finish because it was so obviously missing the point. I think Hossenfelder has some interesting things to say about modern science, but she apparently is not a philosopher in the slightest.
Brilliant breakdown. Sabine mistaking fMRI pattern correlations for measuring qualia is like claiming you've understood a symphony because you’ve plotted the soundwave of a single trumpet note.
The tragedy isn't that science can't help us explore consciousness. It absolutely can. The tragedy is when a physicist thinks she's discovered the soul of the music because she finally bought a decent microphone.
Qualia aren't objects. They’re the taste of being. The ache of memory. The feel of red, not the frequency.
To measure qualia is like trying to bottle a dream. You might collect its residue, but the essence vanishes the moment you grab at it.
And the irony is, philosophy isn’t dead. It’s just not monetized as well.
Couple of points (well, three):
1) From your previous note, I was expecting you to show that she didn't understand multiple sclerosis. Did I hallucinate that?
2) Your first footnoted comment ("no philosopher claims they [qualia] specifically exist separate from consciousness itself") implies that there is something wrong with treating qualia and consciousness as separate. Some philosophers do carefully distinguish these. I wish more philosophers would treat these separately, as there is no good reason for thinking they are the same thing and some good reasons for treating them differently. They will have different resolutions.
3) None of these discussions mean much if you don't at least try to define qualia.
No idea where multiple sclerosis came from, I did say "multiple scientists" in the note, maybe you read it as that, obviously proving Anil Seth's predictive inference there.
That's pretty funny. I read the phrase "multiple sclerosis" several times a day, so I am primed to see it.
Sure you don't want to write a multiple sclerosis post?
Bit of a weird request but sure, I can write an article on multiple syphilis
Multiple syphilis is only apparent in someone with Dissociative Identity Disorder
lol, nice lampoon article Matt. I’m inclined to watch the video but the comments here are convincing me otherwise.
On your point about Nagel and phenomenology, I.e. what it’s like to be a bat, I have a hard time believing anyone in both philosophy and neuroscience alike would ever sit on the claim that what we experience absolutely maps onto reality. Drawing on Nagel’s analogy, what also about species of raptors who can see thermals? What of, chemotaxis in bacteria? Surely, theirs are entirely different experiences of reality that all point to something (perhaps), but can never be said to BE the thing they approximate. To assume that humans—barely evolved apes—have some kind of “pure” lens on reality is the simply falling prey to another kind of anthropic principle. Surely, there must be a sufficiently more advanced being in the universe that can experience aspects of reality (if it even exists in some kind of isolated form) that we cannot even fathom. Whether it’s aliens or God, I think it’s a deeply spurious claim—and one any self-respecting scientist would never make—to say what we see is what you get.
Good on you for calling this out. Chalmers et al would be proud!
Philosophy 101 needs to be a requirement for... well, everyone. Scientists especially.
Seriously. It's almost embarrasing hearing an otherwise intelligent person spout such unintelligible drivel.
There's nothing like the qualia of sensing your bank account! It smells like . . . victory.
lol. I feel bad for the scientists who spend their time working in a field they are interested in and writing nuanced, detailed papers—only to have their work bastardized and transformed into some pop-science reddit-slop...