>>12265410>Sure we know some neurons light up when looking at a spoon, and others light up when you see a specific color, It sounds like you know what I'm about to say, so this is really for others reading: neuroscience doesn't just have this method as its causal toolbox. There are lots of clever tricks for disentangling what's merely happenstance correlation and what is causally necessary for something to happen.
Regarding your comment, this seems to be the crux:
>but I dont believe I have seen an actual in depth look at what color qualia might be made off of.In visual neuro, we have very complicated theories about different pieces of the visual system and what the brain is doing in different regions, as well as how they relate to one another. The problem remains though that 'what color qualia might be made of' isn't a well posed problem. How could you ask questions about qualia, and how could you measure it besides verbal reports of presence/absence? If I give you precise biological and computational explanations of how the brain is able to discriminate, learn new categories of visual objects, etc., I still haven't given you an explanation for qualia, no? If you think I have, then this type of research does definitely exist, and it's actually flourishing right now.
I didn't mean to imply that qualia is completely distinct from the brain, but the problem with qualia from the stance of science is that there's no coherent way to attempt to ground qualia in a physical explanation. I think IIT and global workspace have tried to, but I don't find this convincing.
>e. I assume that qualia have a place in a physical explanation of the universe, and yet the closest I've seen to an explanation of qualias is quantum fuckery that might be happening in neural cleftsIIT and global workspace are definitely steps up from this. I'd recommend checking them out if you haven't, just to get a taste of how you could theoretically go about this.
