Qualia

[SpheresOfBalance]

1. If pain is only c fibers firing (there is nothing pain feels like) then there is nothing wrong with torture, if it doesnt result in physical damage. Why would anyone care if c fibers fire up?

A philosophical zombie cannot have experience, therefore it cannot feel pain. If you poke it with a pin it would say, "Ouch" and then behave in an aggressive manner. It would probably say,"How dare you do that to me". This is all just an act or programmed response. The philosophical zombie doesn't really feel pain and it doesn't really feel angry. The argument is that if the behaviour and reporting of information matches the scenario then this is all that matters in terms of experience.

At face values this seems like a trite argument, but it does have importance when it come s to qualia. How can one tell what a phenomenological experience actually is if of all we have to go on is what the person reports and how they behave in a particular situation. We just assume that there is a quality of experience attached to an unfortunate individual who gets a pin stuck into them.

2. Visualize a triangle. Anti- qualia people ( if they are consistent) must say that it is impossible to visualize a triangle. I know that I can visualize a triangle. I trust my empirical data.
There is no objective visualized triangle. My neurons do not fire in a triangular shape. If I visualize green, no part of my brain turns green.
Since no one can see my visualized triangle, an anti qualia person must say that it doesnt exist. In other words I cannot visualize a triangle.True, I cannot prove that I am visualizing a triangle. However, I am absolutely certain that I can visualize a triangle.
Visualize a triangle. If you can you have just proved to yourself that qualia exist!

Those who reject the qualia argument would quickly say that can be imagined and explained with resorting to a subjective account of such shapes.

Actually you've just proven that someone told you that, "this is a triangle," so you believed it. If from day one I showed a child a square, telling him it was a triangle, and he believed me, would he experience the qualia of a triangle if he visualized a square?

Probably, because qualia is a quality. of expereince. If there is "something it is like" to experience a shape of any kind then this would probably be the case. On the other hand, when it comes to mistaking a triangle for a square then we would say the experience is systematically different and can undergo a correction based on weight of opinion.

The same is true of color. We could both see a green light, and go as we were taught to do, it's the light in the position that it's in, and each of us sees what each of us sees. But in fact we could each see totally different things, and we would never know it. Because our particular visual sensors always picked up what we saw, that others pointed to calling it green. Such that what we saw, even though completely different from what another saw, would be green. No one would ever be the wiser, because no one can see through anothers visual sensory system. Then where does that leave the qualia of green? Nowhere to be found.

It's an illusion as we each believe, usually without question, that we all see the same thing, without possibly knowing whether it's true or not. Qualia?

The thing about qualia is the phenomenological aspect of the experience. So it's not so much the "greenness" of the object, but the quality of experience associated with viewing a coloured object. It doesn't really matter if we are mistaken in terms of identifying the colour, it is the quality of experience associated with the identification. The possibility of qualia being a property of objects is a different sort of argument.

Thanks for that Ginkgo. I always appreciate your commentary.

Sometimes I get the impression that some philosophers are grabbing for straws, trying to split hairs with these, what I believe to be, unnecessary theories. I know this will probably frustrate those that believe in such things. I have a more scientific view of the universe.

Wikipedia gave these examples: "Examples of qualia are the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, or the perceived redness of an evening sky." And Dennett apparently said that qualia are "the ways things seem to us." To me physics and biochemistry explain each and every example stated above, so I see no need for qualia whatsoever. To me, even the word sounds ridiculous. The way things seem to us???? They're simply physical/electrochemical responses. Physics, and biochemistry hold all the answers in this case.

I mean, are these guys really that desperate to secure their tenure, get some sort of prize, money or recognition that they come up with, what I believe are, absurd notions? Qualia seem to be born of mysticism.

Of course I'm all for philosophy always asking questions, but sometimes they go too far, IMHO!

I guess I'm just a science geek, with a sprinkling of philosophy!

[raw_thought]

“You don't even have the most basic understanding of torture, it amazes me how ignorant you are. People who are tortured even with very mild forms of torture like "water boarding" where there are no physical damage, can suffer from mental breakdowns, and their neurological damage can be permanent. Haven't you heard about PTSD? Flash backs? “
HexHammer
You obviously have no clue as to what my argument is. My point is that IF ONE FEELS NO PAIN, and no physical damage occurs, then torture is impossible.

[raw_thought]

“One would still have to explain how that configuration was manifesting visually to itself [ to my consciousness] as a triangle.’
Hammock
Brackets mean that one has added to the quote. That is my point. That for a materialist ( one that doesn’t believe in qualia, that things feel like something, that there is something it feels like to be in pain, that seeing a visualized triangle is more then just neurons firing )there can be no visualized triangle.

[raw_thought]

“This is where you go wrong (I think). You believe that in normal perception, there is something physical, whereas in imagination, there is not. Read the quote from Schrodinger, above. Here is a quote from Hawking referring to the perceptual process:”
Wyman
But according to a materialist there is ONLY NEURONS firing ( see Hawking quote you included) there is no 3 dimensional image of a triangle.
……………..
“The fact that you or I cannot look into someone else's brain or eyes and 'see' the same visual image is not proof that the image that brain is perceiving is not physical.”
Wyman
Show me a physical object shaped like a triangle in my brain. I agree that neurons firing might facilitate your ability to visualize a triangle. However, the form of the information ( the visualized triangle) is not identical to neurons firing. Similarly, to say that holding a CD of Mozart’s music is the same presentation of info as hearing his music is absurd.

[raw_thought]

That's not what I meant by screen, I stated and clarified that many times. By screen I said an array of neurons in the brain displaying visual data in physical space. I'm well aware consciousness is spread across many sectors. What you are doing is backtracking plain and simple.

Then what you wrote has nothing to do with our debate. I agree ( with you) that there is no visualized triangle according to a materialist. However, I know that I can visualize one. I also agree ( with you) that neurons probably facilitate my ability to visualize a triangle.

[raw_thought]

No that's ridiculous. A computer does not render a mountain by "removing a mountain from a memory cell." A computer has a cluster of memory cells and the memory cells transfer energy to the render screen resulting in a picture of mountain in physical space. The render also updates and clears the screen and old images on the screen fade away after the virtual memory is allocated elsewhere.

Then why did you mention it? Of course one does not have a physical triangle in your memory cells. Similarly, one does not have a physical triangle in your brain when you visualize one.

[raw_thought]

“1. If pain is only c fibers firing (there is nothing pain feels like) then there is nothing wrong with torture, if it doesnt result in physical damage. Why would anyone care if c fibers fire up?
ME
I think you should put this to the test on yourself. Torture yourself or have someone torture you and see if you care if those fibers fire. I believe it's just your body letting you know it's being damaged in some way, so as to avoid it
SpheresOfBalance
If pain is not painful * and only c-fibers firing then it is impossible to torture someone.
* That pain feels like something. In other words a quale of pain. If pain is not a quale, then it does not hurt .
PS; I am saying that that is the position a materialist must take ( that pain does not hurt) and that therefore, materialism is an absurd position.

[raw_thought]

I think that some are confused because they think I am saying that pain does not feel like anything. What I am doing is taking the materialist's position and showing that it leads to absurdity. For example, that there is no reason for me to avoid torture. If torture isn't painful ( it feels like nothing and is only c-fibers firing) then it is not painful or even unpleasant. That is the absurd conclusion a materialist must take.

[raw_thought]

“Those who reject the qualia argument would quickly say that can be imagined and explained with resorting to a subjective account of such shapes.”
Ginkgo
If they did they lack critical thinking skills. For a materialist there is no triangle in your mind, there are only neurons firing in your brain.
A materialist does not believe that you can visualize a triangle. You can only cause neurons to fire.

[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.

Premiss 2 is the only point that is contentious. All I am saying is that ( in point 2) is that neurons firing is not the same as visualizing a triangle. Similarly, holding a CD of Mozart's music is not the same as hearing his music. The CD may cause you to hear his music. However, the physical CD that you are holding is not the same information as hearing his music.

[raw_thought]

Continuation of the post just above,
Similarly, neurons firing may cause you to be able to visualize a triangle. However, neurons firing are not identical to a visualized triangle.
This is a more sophisticated version of "Mary's room". There is info (what a visualized triangle looks like) that is not identical to the knowledge of what neurons are firing.

[raw_thought]

For a materialist Einstein's knowledge is identical to his brain's programming. Therefore, a materialist must come to the absurd conclusion that if one understood Einstein's brain one would understand Relativity. Obviously, an absurd conclusion. Therefore, since materialism inevitably leads to an absurd conclusion, materialism must be absurd.

[raw_thought]

1. A person that believes in qualia would say that one can be tortured even if no physical damage occurs.
2. A materialist has to believe that if no physical damage occurs, then no torture occurs. This is because there is no reason to avoid torture, since c-fibers firing (without any feeling, qualia, of pain) is of no consequence.
My point is that a materialist should have nothing against waterboarding. Obviously a materialist would avoid waterboarding.Therefore the materialist contradicts himself and so therefore his position is absurd.

[Arising_uk]

For a materialist Einstein's knowledge is identical to his brain's programming. Therefore, a materialist must come to the absurd conclusion that if one understood Einstein's brain one would understand Relativity. Obviously, an absurd conclusion. Therefore, since materialism inevitably leads to an absurd conclusion, materialism must be absurd.

What do you mean by "understood" in "if one understood Einstein's brain"?

[Ginkgo]

You obviously have no clue as to what my argument is. My point is that IF ONE FEELS NO PAIN, and no physical damage occurs, then torture is impossible.

What you seem to have here is an eliminative theory for materialism. Such a theory is anti-realism. This is different to the reductionist explanation for materialism we have been discussing.