What is the difference between subjectivity and qualia?

Question

I got confused after reading Ramachandran's "Three Laws Of Qualia". First I thought it's the same thing, now I wonder what makes Ramachandran think that connecting two brains with a neuronal wire would give both the same experience. I think that even then the experience will be subjective.

It seems to me that Ramachandran confuses the very ability to see a colour with the subjective experience ("what it's like") related to that particular perception. That means he seems to prove that a blind person X can perceive colour with the help of the neural connection (wire) to another person's (Y) brain, BUT he does not prove to me that X and Y will FEEL the same about the perception.

Mary is not interesting, it's the same thing. Basically, I could say there will TWO differences when she first sees colour: 1) she is perceiving colour for the first time and 2) she will have a new feeling about this perception that is ineffable.
But where is the difference still? Do I get something wrong? Is qualia the same as perception, meaning the very stimulation of a particular sensory receptor in the brain? If so, it is indeed possible to transfer that stimulus with a neuronal wire, but then (I claim) we're still not talking about "what it feels like".

Answer 1

to answer your question, i'll use visual qualia as an example. ramachandran says that visual qualia can be ascribed to the ventral stream, in the temporal lobe. thus, you don't need lower level inputs to be intact (e.g., retina), nor do you need higher level regions (e.g., frontal lobes). in fact, when the lower level inputs are completely severed, then you may begin to hallucinate. so, now imagine severing the connections from your retina and low-level visual cortex to your ventral processing stream (e.g., v4, which processes color). if we then replace those connections to your area v4 with neurons leaving my early visual processing regions, you should experience what i'm experiencing. that, at least, is what ramachandran claims.

so, are the qualia identical, or are there differences between what you and i experience? well, the answer to that depends maybe on the structure of my v4 and your v4. what if they're not identical? as with any human characteristic, what if there's variation from one individual to the next? if that is the case, then it's unlikely that our qualia could be identical. remember that ramachandran argues that qualia are necessarily intertwined with patterns of neural activity in specific brain regions. thus, despite identical inputs, if our regions v4 are not identical, then we *will* experience unique *subjective* qualia differing from each other.

i think ramachandran raises brilliant points in the article, but i do disagree that it's possible to experience identical qualia just by matching the inputs.

great question -- that one made me think a lot!

Answer 2

Subjectivity is subject-dependent, that is, it depends on who is doing the seeing (or hearing, or whatever). So saying "caviar is the nicest food" is subjective, because I might think that but another person may hate the texture or taste of caviar. Objectivity applies no matter who makes the comment. So if you said, "caviar has a salt content of 3%" or "caviar is the most expensive consumable by weight available in France," then these would be objective statements. Every person could agree with them (presuming they're true), no matter what their own position in the world or their own backgrounds or preferences. To tell the difference, ask whether everybody could say the statement and believe it. If not, it's subjective. If so, it's objective. Subjective: I like soccer. Objective: Soccer is the most popular sport in the world. Subjective: Blue is my favorite color. Objective: Blue light has a shorter wavelength than red light. Subjective: Harry Potter books are the best. Objective: Harry Potter books topped the New York Times best-seller list for 123 weeks, collectively.

Answer 3

I don't think there really is a difference, either. Qualia are just one kind of subjectivity, aren't they? You might say "subjectivity" when you're trying to refer to "what it's like to be X" generally, and "qualia" when you're trying to refer to "what it's like to be X during a particular experience." Any distinction is just due to confusion. I agree with you that a mere "neuronal wire" connecting 2 people's brains seems highly unlikely to make their experiences identical. I guess it depends on the hypothetical properties of the "wire" - maybe it is supposed to be based on the connection between a left and right brain hemisphere ... when that is severed, you can reveal signs that the 2 halves have separate points of view.

Answer 4

They are inextricably intertwined, but yet different (IMO). Subjectivity simply refers to the broad context that things are different for each different subject, that is they are not objective. Whereas, qualia, refers specificallly to mental states: perceptual experiences, bodily sensations, felt reactions/emotion, and felt moods. It has been proposed that qualia are also multiply physically realizable, that is they have functionalism. Some believe qualia are representational/experiential contents. Interesting: the color experiment with Mary.

I agree, with your last statement. If you think of the anti-reductionist though experiment with zombies, an exact clone if you will of a human being. duplicate or clone if you will, but with no phenomenal consciousness. It cannot experience anything exactly the same as the human being.

Anyway, food for thought....

Philosophy is interesting but don't stuff like stock trading and a job helps pay the bills (lol)!

Answer 5

i have no idea