Qualia

[Wyman]

I sure it does, but the argument is that this equivalence does not resemble a yellow triangle. Neurons don't fire in a yellow triangular pattern. There is no neural core, or centre of consciousness within the brain for this type of activity to take place.

Suppose I have a camera that captures photons and, rather than giving pixels of light waves as output (as the representation of the original photons), it spits out ultraviolet waves that you and I can't see. Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. In other words, what does it mean to 'resemble a yellow triangle?' If you insist that to resemble a yellow triangle is to be another yellow triangle, then you are asking too much. You are saying there must be mystical 'things' in our heads that take on the exact characteristics of that which they represent.

[Wyman]

[...] There is no triangle in your brain. Are you claiming that the neurons firing are the same thing as a triangle? That is like saying that holding a CD of Mozart’s music is the same as hearing it.

Would it make a difference if there was a brief electrochemical pattern that resembled a triangle? When in a casual thinking mode, most people believe the objects and events of the world to be omniphanic (things universally show themselves just as they do in perception, without the biological apparatus and consciousness associated with the latter's maze). Thus, pebbles or flowers or pixels or whatever else arranged as geometrical patterns can be visual manifestations or tactile sensations of such configurations to themselves and to anything else that acquires a relation to them across space. [The enhanced olfactory abilities of dogs and the echo-radar of bats could suggest manifested odorous and aural equivalents being possible as well.]

Even materialists who are normally hip with what "matter is really like" independent of mind, who therefore think experience is emergent, who judge that nothingness accordingly follows death... May still be infrequently omniphanic, not fully taking into account how one view would conflict with the other (or more likely, not caring). The belief usually isn't expressed directly by anything we say or write, but what certain other observers (the caring minority?) might be forced to infer from some of the reactions and responses (betrayed by such, so to speak). Another way to put it: That there are professed omniphanic skeptics / disbelievers who are nevertheless "in the closet holders of a view which at least roughly resembles panexperientialism" is a hypotheses which the "worried" group may have to fall back on in order to explain the other group's puzzling response / reaction incongruities.

(things universally show themselves just as they do in perception, without the biological apparatus and consciousness associated with the latter's maze)

I have no idea what this means. Can you break it down?

[hammock]

i said it before and ill say it again. the brain has a visual structure that physically maps visual input analogous to the physical space in which it was recieved. this is old news. in plain english, the brain sees an upside down apple, then puts it on a screen in the brain that is in physical space and physically the same representation of apple. like a pixel array except of brain matter.

Seems plausible, but the idea of a "viewer" has problems. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater

It's bloody panexperientialism to contend that a geometrical pattern on a television screen simply manifests to itself as said pattern or as such to a rock resting in a lounge chair absorbing light rays across from it. Likewise an electrochemical pattern in the brain experiencing itself as such. The latter being analyzed or understood as the image of a triangle, duck, airplane, etc, by a variety of brain processes serving as a different type of "observer" is simply shifting this add-on "magic" to another dynamic functional structure. It's add-on magic because nothing like experience falls out of physics as it stands, it lacks sufficient explanation in that context.

I've got nothing against panexperientialism as one of the potential explanations in philosophy of mind (not science). But if the people espousing it also claim to be traditional materialists or only believers in the properties which physics attributes to matter / energy... Then something's got to give conflict-wise. At the very least they can assert to be trying to revise the physical sciences to relieve their shortcomings in this area, as Christof Koch seems to be making some pretense of.

[Ginkgo]

I sure it does, but the argument is that this equivalence does not resemble a yellow triangle. Neurons don't fire in a yellow triangular pattern. There is no neural core, or centre of consciousness within the brain for this type of activity to take place.

Suppose I have a camera that captures photons and, rather than giving pixels of light waves as output (as the representation of the original photons), it spits out ultraviolet waves that you and I can't see. Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. In other words, what does it mean to 'resemble a yellow triangle?' If you insist that to resemble a yellow triangle is to be another yellow triangle, then you are asking too much. You are saying there must be mystical 'things' in our heads that take on the exact characteristics of that which they represent.

I think you are right, it would be expecting too much. However, there still exists and explanatory gap that hasn't been closed as yet. So I guess the mystical aspect is the persistent hard problem.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

i said it before and ill say it again. the brain has a visual structure that physically maps visual input analogous to the physical space in which it was recieved. this is old news. in plain english, the brain sees an upside down apple, then puts it on a screen in the brain that is in physical space and physically the same representation of apple. like a pixel array except of brain matter.

Seems plausible, but the idea of a "viewer" has problems. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater

It's bloody panexperientialism to contend that a geometrical pattern on a television screen simply manifests to itself as said pattern or as such to a rock resting in a lounge chair absorbing light rays across from it. Likewise an electrochemical pattern in the brain experiencing itself as such. The latter being analyzed or understood as the image of a triangle, duck, airplane, etc, by a variety of brain processes serving as a different type of "observer" is simply shifting this add-on "magic" to another dynamic functional structure. It's add-on magic because nothing like experience falls out of physics as it stands, it lacks sufficient explanation in that context.

I've got nothing against panexperientialism as one of the potential explanations in philosophy of mind (not science). But if the people espousing it also claim to be traditional materialists or only believers in the properties which physics attributes to matter / energy... Then something's got to give conflict-wise. At the very least they can assert to be trying to revise the physical sciences to relieve their shortcomings in this area, as Christof Koch seems to be making some pretense of.

Like I said earlier, it would be inefficient if this were the case. The brains mathematical and logical structure would have to compensate for the translated images to make mathematical sense.

Perhaps this is why music theory is so subjective and inconsistent, because sound waves are translated into the brain into light waves and lose their mathematical properties.

[Ginkgo]

i said it before and ill say it again. the brain has a visual structure that physically maps visual input analogous to the physical space in which it was recieved. this is old news. in plain english, the brain sees an upside down apple, then puts it on a screen in the brain that is in physical space and physically the same representation of apple. like a pixel array except of brain matter.

Seems plausible, but the idea of a "viewer" has problems. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater

It's bloody panexperientialism to contend that a geometrical pattern on a television screen simply manifests to itself as said pattern or as such to a rock resting in a lounge chair absorbing light rays across from it. Likewise an electrochemical pattern in the brain experiencing itself as such. The latter being analyzed or understood as the image of a triangle, duck, airplane, etc, by a variety of brain processes serving as a different type of "observer" is simply shifting this add-on "magic" to another dynamic functional structure. It's add-on magic because nothing like experience falls out of physics as it stands, it lacks sufficient explanation in that context.

I've got nothing against panexperientialism as one of the potential explanations in philosophy of mind (not science). But if the people espousing it also claim to be traditional materialists or only believers in the properties which physics attributes to matter / energy... Then something's got to give conflict-wise. At the very least they can assert to be trying to revise the physical sciences to relieve their shortcomings in this area, as Christof Koch seems to be making some pretense of.

I don't see what "panexperientialism" has to do with the Cartesian theatre. It is not an argument for physical matter having mental properties.

[hammock]

[When in a casual thinking mode, most people believe the objects and events of the world to be omniphanic] (things universally show themselves just as they do in perception, without the biological apparatus and consciousness associated with the latter's maze)

I have no idea what this means. Can you break it down?

The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence. Its becoming manifest is conditional on very special goings-on in very special parts of this very world, namely on certain events that happen in a brain. That is an inordinately peculiar kind of implication, which prompts the question: What particular properties distinguish these brain processes and enable them to produce the manifestation? Can we guess which material processes have this power, which not? Or simple: What kind of material process is directly associated with consciousness? [Mind and Matter]

Again, in causal thinking mode (and certainly in pre-scientific cultures) most reflexively consider the objects and events of the world to be manifested even without the above (a maximum level of naive or direct realism one might suggest).

omniphanic = omni (all) + phanic (showing, appearance, phenomenal, etc)

[hammock]

I don't see what "panexperientialism" has to do with the Cartesian theatre.

How many times did you see "Cartesian theatre" mentioned in my comment? Would you also like to ask what panexperientialism has to do with how many times I beat my wife last night? [Sorry for the confusion. I was partially addressing Trixie's "...then puts it on a screen in the brain that is in physical space" and then tacking on comment about "viewer" in a more generic sense, which you opened the door to prior to the specificity of that link.]

It is not an argument for physical matter having mental properties.

Why submit it to a thread dealing with qualia, then? [Or: Tentatively judging from what was posted later by others about "Cartesian theatre", maybe you should straighten them out about it not being applicable to "mental properties" (assuming the latter is of the qualitative sort).]

[raw_thought]

1. It is self evident that one can visualize a triangle.
2. The visualized triangle has no physicality. The neurons are not firing in a triangular shape etc. There is not a physical triangle in a person's brain when he/she visualizes one.
Note that saying that the brain has no physical triangle but facilitates it misses the point. It is similar to saying that holding a CD of Mozart's music is equivalent to hearing his music. While holding the CD there is no music. While visualizing the triangle there is no physical triangle.
3. Materialists believe that only the physical exists.
4. The triangle has no physicality.
5. Therefore, for the materialist there is no visualized triangle.
6. Therefore, for the materialist it was impossible to visualize a triangle.
7. I know that I can visualize a triangle. I am visualizing one right now.
8. Therefore, I know that materialism cannot be true in all cases.
9. Since materialism believes that only the physical exists in all cases,I know that materialism is false.
Show me what numbered point you believe is false or how my argument is invalid
There is a difference between truth and validity.
Here is an argument that is true and valid.
1. Socrates was a man.
2. All men are mortal.
3. Therefore Socrates was mortal.
Here is an argument that is valid but not true.
1. All Martains eat snakes.
2. Bob is a Martain.
3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.
Here is an argument that is true but invalid.
1. Nixon was president of the US.
2. Carter was president of the US.
3. Therefore Reagan was president.
If one cannot show how 1-8 (at the top of this post) are not all true, or cannot show how ythe argument is invalid,then the conclusion (9) must be true.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

1. It is self evident that one can visualize a triangle.
2. The visualized triangle has no physicality. The neurons are not firing in a triangular shape etc. There is not a physical triangle in a person's brain when he/she visualizes one.
Note that saying that the brain has no physical triangle but facilitates it misses the point. It is similar to saying that holding a CD of Mozart's music is equivalent to hearing his music. While holding the CD there is no music. While visualizing the triangle there is no physical triangle.
3. Materialists believe that only the physical exists.
4. The triangle has no physicality.
5. Therefore, for the materialist there is no visualized triangle.
6. Therefore, for the materialist it was impossible to visualize a triangle.
7. I know that I can visualize a triangle. I am visualizing one right now.
8. Therefore, I know that materialism cannot be true in all cases.
9. Since materialism believes that only the physical exists in all cases,I know that materialism is false.
Show me what numbered point you believe is false or how my argument is invalid
There is a difference between truth and validity.
Here is an argument that is true and valid.
1. Socrates was a man.
2. All men are mortal.
3. Therefore Socrates was mortal.
Here is an argument that is valid but not true.
1. All Martains eat snakes.
2. Bob is a Martain.
3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.
Here is an argument that is true but invalid.
1. Nixon was president of the US.
2. Carter was president of the US.
3. Therefore Reagan was president.
If one cannot show how 1-8 (at the top of this post) are not all true, or cannot show how ythe argument is invalid,then the conclusion (9) must be true.

How is #2 true? I read the Cartesian theatre was a real thing. Where does it say that no such thing exists?

[raw_thought]

2 is false? There actually is a physical triangle in one's brain when one visualizes a triangle? Please explain.
Read the entire 2. I agree that there is probably an epiphenomanom. * However, that misses the point and is superfluous to the argument. The only point is that there is no physical triangle.
* In other words our brain probably causes us to be able to visualize a triangle . However, that does not alter the fact that there is no physical triangle.

[raw_thought]

A materialist would reject the idea of the cartesian theatre.
PS: I am not arguing in favor of materialism. I am arguing that when materialism is followed to its inevitable and logical conclusion it ends in absurdity.

[hammock]

Like I said earlier, it would be inefficient if this were the case. The brains mathematical and logical structure would have to compensate for the translated images to make mathematical sense. . . .

It's the case that sensory information is splintered down into different processing channels (an example below of color being separated from its original information object, then re-integrated later). I wasn't knocking that. Just that this activity (treated as some kind of scattered, analytical alternative for an observer) doesn't offer a sufficient explanation for a manifestation arising anymore than treating a classic representation in the brain as if it alone is brutely experiencing itself as a triangle, duck, feel of velvet, etc. When the original assumption is that phenomenal properties and showings of any kind are emergent and caused only by special, functioning structures in brain tissue or equivalent alternative substrate. The rest of the conventional universe consequently then wallowing in not-even-nothingness, devoid of even any random qualitative events that some strains of pan- or protopanexperientialism espouse.

. . . The brain's neural mechanisms keep straight which color belongs to what object, so one doesn't mistakenly see a blue flamingo in a pink lake. But what happens when a color loses the object to which it is linked? Research at the University of Chicago has demonstrated, for the first time, that instead of disappearing along with the lost object, the color latches onto a region of some other object in view - a finding that reveals a new basic property of sight. The research shows that the brain processes the shape of an object and its color in two separate pathways and, though the object's shape and color normally are linked, the neural representation of the color can survive alone. When that happens, the brain establishes a new link that binds the color to another visible shape. "Color is in the brain. It is constructed, just as the meanings of words are constructed. Without the neural processes of the brain, we wouldn't be able to understand colors of objects any more than we could understand words of a language we hear but don't know," said Steven Shevell, a University of Chicago psychologist who specializes on color and vision. . . http://phys.org/news173626469.html

[raw_thought]

In my post two above the post above this one, I meant to say "epiphenomenon."
Blame my big fat fingers and this dang tablet!

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

2 is false? There actually is a physical triangle in one's brain when one visualizes a triangle? Please explain.
Read the entire 2. I agree that there is probably an epiphenomanom. * However, that misses the point and is superfluous to the argument. The only point is that there is no physical triangle.
* In other words our brain probably causes us to be able to visualize a triangle . However, that does not alter the fact that there is no physical triangle.

A materialist would reject the idea of the cartesian theatre.
PS: I am not arguing in favor of materialism. I am arguing that when materialism is followed to its inevitable and logical conclusion it ends in absurdity.

Doesn't even make sense.

If you agree with what I said, there is a physical array of neuro pixels, why do you say there is no physical triangle? That doesn't even make sense. A computer LED screen displays physical pixels, in real space, it's physical.