Qualia

[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.

Look at what I was responding to. Hammer's accusation was that somehow I was arguing that waterboarding is OK. That is the exact opposite of what I was arguing. I was saying that a materialist must say that torture is OK and that since he would obviously avoid torture, he contradicts himself and so therefore his position is absurd.
Materialism is not http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/
However, to be clear I will use the term
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mater ... iminative/
I think eliminative materialism is obviously silly.

Yes, I realize this. I actually do understand what you are saying and I'm not arguing against your proposition. I also see eliminative materialism as silly, but it is important for arguments against qualia. In other words, the problem of trying to prove that consciousness does in fact present to us different phenomenological characteristics.

Imagine that you find yourself at the bar in a Chinese restaurant with someone you just meet. You make the comment that red decor always makes you feel hungry. The other person concurs and, tells you that red decor always makes him feel hungry. Unbeknownst to you this individual suffers from a red/green reversal. To him red things look green and green things look red. While you are admiring the red decor and thinking how hungry you are, the person next to you is actually admiring green decor and thinking how hungry he is. In other words, the two individuals are playing out the same role with different phenomenological characteristics.

If these two individuals exhibit the same behaviour, does it make any sense to argue that the phenomenological characteristics differ?
In relation to pain a materialist would say that if a person acts like they are in pain and they report the fact they are in pain, then this is as far as we need to go.

I don't support the materialist argument, however, it does highlight important problems in the qualia debate.

That's the only point I am making at this stage.

[raw_thought]

" If these two individuals exhibit the same behaviour, does it make any sense to argue that the phenomenological characteristics differ?"
Ginkgo
Yes!
Ironically, that was Denett's "quining qualia" argument. I have left the conversation before, promised to return and I always did. See "introducing yourself" I love debate! However, my wife thinks I am wasting time on my tablet! Can you believe that? She thinks she is more important than a philosophical debate!
Anyway, I got to go. However, I will leave you with this. I "proved"(at least in my own mind,that doesnt exist according to materialists ) that your objection (and Dennett's ) contradicts itself.
Looking forward to a fierce debate! I'll be back!

[Ginkgo]

" If these two individuals exhibit the same behaviour, does it make any sense to argue that the phenomenological characteristics differ?"
Ginkgo
Yes!
Ironically, that was Denett's "quining qualia" argument. I have left the conversation before, promised to return and I always did. See "introducing yourself" I love debate! However, my wife thinks I am wasting time on my tablet! Can you believe that? She thinks she is more important than a philosophical debate!
Anyway, I got to go. However, I will leave you with this. I "proved"(at least in my own mind,that doesnt exist according to materialists ) that your objection (and Dennett's ) contradicts itself.
Looking forward to a fierce debate! I'll be back!

Yes, I did mention earlier on that I am of the opinion that the materialist explanation for consciousness ultimately fails because it promotes an anti-realist position. Nonetheless, the materialist explanation does provide some serious problems in terms of the existence of qualia.

Prima facie it does seem important to make a distinction when it comes to individuals exhibiting the same behaviour and reporting the same facts even though they are having different phenomenological experiences.

It is very difficult to prove in terms of an inverted spectrum argument that experience does have intrinsic qualities. Knowing it does is not the same as proving it does.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

You are actually saying that there is a physical triangle in my brain when I visualize a triangle??? When I visualize green, a part of my brain turns green???? When I say something internally (inner voice) if one had a hypersensitive sound amplifier one could hear my thoughts???
That seems to me so obviously absurd that it doesn't need an experiment to prove its absurdity.

I am done repeating myself. The statement you made is ridiculous, and completely silly.

Science is not about discarding and not experimenting if something "seems" absurd. To many peoples evolution and relativity seems absurd.

The other sillyness is that nothing about it seems absurd, why would there not be neurons arranged like that in brain? Anything else would be an innefficient and evolutionarily disadvantageous setup.

Like Wyman said "You're stating your conclusion as your premise over and over again and not addressing the fact that some people do believe there is something physical about it."

[raw_thought]

I looked up "pictures in the brain". I think you are confused. True,they say that they are starting to be able to see what you see in your mind's eye. However, there is no physical image in the brain. They take the brain waves etc and then decode them.
Imagine Wittgenstein's duck/rabbit. Even if there were an image in your brain (there is not) the person looking into your brain could not tell if you were experiencing a duck or a rabbit.
I also looked up sounds in the brain. There was no mention of using a sound amplifier to hear your thoughts. * The articles did however mention machine like sounds (blood rushing, neurons firing etc).
* I am sure that if we can hear someone's thoughts simply by amplifying the sounds in the brain (mind reading) that would be front page news! It would be impossible for a captured spy to conceal any secrets.

[Hobbes' Choice]

My argument proves that if you can visualize a triangle, there are qualia.
Do an empirical experiment. Try to visualize a triangle. If you can you have just proven to yourself that qualia exist!
Well OK, empirical in the sense of sense data. Obviously the experiment cannot be verified by other people. However, at least you will know with absolute certainty that qualia exist.

OK, then qualia exist. But you haven't done anything here to show that they(it) are not physical. It's that next step some of us are disagreeing with.

The visualized triangle is a quale. I proved that it is not physical by showing that there is no physical triangle in your brain when you visualize a triangle.
Also, materialists STRONGLY object to the idea of qualia because even they recognize that qualia cannot be physical.
I admit that I cannot understand what a quale is if not physical. All I know is that it cannot be physical.

No a visualised triangle is not a quale. You are missing the point of qualia.

You can exactly communicate everything about a triangle to another person and by independent verification establish the identity and quality is identical to a third person's idea of a triangle.

This is not the case with pain, or colour; which can only be described by as "qualia" for the thought that they can not be accurately conveyed to another.
An alien never having experienced pain, could never fully understand it as an idea, let alone a feeling. Yet a triangle as a area bordered by three straight lines on a plane 2D surface can be conveyed in complete.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

I looked up "pictures in the brain". I think you are confused. True,they say that they are starting to be able to see what you see in your mind's eye. However, there is no physical image in the brain. They take the brain waves etc and then decode them.
Imagine Wittgenstein's duck/rabbit. Even if there were an image in your brain (there is not) the person looking into your brain could not tell if you were experiencing a duck or a rabbit.
I also looked up sounds in the brain. There was no mention of using a sound amplifier to hear your thoughts. * The articles did however mention machine like sounds (blood rushing, neurons firing etc).
* I am sure that if we can hear someone's thoughts simply by amplifying the sounds in the brain (mind reading) that would be front page news! It would be impossible for a captured spy to conceal any secrets.

Because you couldn't find it online doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I couldn't find it either that's why I didnt bother showing it. Naturally such a thing would be too small to show up in a CAT scan.

As far as sound amplifier I never mentioned such a concept, that concept is yours not mine. However Nintendo is working on brain reading technology which of course will be reversed engineered by the US gov to further this hellhole dystopian fake utopian society, so they can get fatter and more disgusting than they already are.

[raw_thought]

If our subjective experiences have a physical reality, then it follows that when we hear our inner voice it must be able to be heard physically.

[raw_thought]

Perhaps eventually Nintendo will have the technology to read minds. However, that would involve decoding (or translating) something that does not resemble in any way the subjective experience.

[raw_thought]

Suppose I visualize a blue circle and a red circle. Is there anything in my brain that resembles a blue circle and a red circle?
I am just trying to clarify to myself what you believe.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

Perhaps eventually Nintendo will have the technology to read minds. However, that would involve decoding (or translating) something that does not resemble in any way the subjective experience.

The issue might not be transforming, decoding, but rather garbage removal.

"Is there anything in my brain that resembles a blue circle and a red circle?
I am just trying to clarify to myself what you believe."

yes for over the millionth time and you know this

[raw_thought]

OK. You are saying that when I visualize a red circle, there is a physical red circle in my brain.

[raw_thought]

Are you saying that after garbage removal, the sound of my inner voice will no longer be muted and one can hear audibly my inner voice?

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

Are you saying that after garbage removal, the sound of my inner voice will no longer be muted and one can hear audibly my inner voice?

Not them but they as in Big Brother Mind Police.

[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?
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.

There are people that cannot register pain. As children they have to wear protective gear covering their body. I'm not sure what it's called, or exactly which part of the CNS is affected. There is also phantom pain resulting despite the fact that there is no physical damage.

From what I understand normally any damage to cells beyond a particular threshold causes electrical signals to be sent up the spinal cord via both A-delta and C fibers to the brain, where it's registered as pain. I wouldn't say, "there is something pain feels like." Rather it is a feeling, simply an electro chemical response, that's continuously variable to indicate the degree of damage.

Constant pain, whether real or phantom, can be just as damaging to the psyche. Which can certainly be seen as torture. Ever heard of the Chinese Water Torture, that allegedly drives one insane.

I just don't see qualia as anything real, rather something that just looks good on paper to a few that want it to be so.

Wikipedia: "Qualia (/ˈkwɑːliə/ or /ˈkweɪliə/; singular form: quale) is a term used in philosophy to refer to individual instances of subjective, conscious experience." I don't think pain is very subjective. That any relativity of pain deals with the quantity/efficiency of any particular electrochemical system.

And: "The mind–body problem in philosophy examines the relationship between mind and matter, and in particular the relationship between consciousness and the brain." I don't see a problem, because I see that the electrical portion (electro-magnetic) of the electrochemical response is what gives people the slip.

So there is nothing pain feels like?
So you believe there is! So what does pain feel like, a fish, or does pain feel like a hammer? Tell me what does pain feel like to you!

If you do not believe in qualia then for you pain= c-fibers firing. Since torture is not painful then one should not have any objections to it. Obviously that is an absurd conclusion. Unfortunately, that is the conclusion a strict materialist must arrive at. Therefore, his position is absurd.
Then you go on to tell me that if I don't choose "A" (your belief) from "your" either "A or B" dichotomy, then I'm definitely saying "B" of "your" "A or B" dichotomy. I would say that your limited view only allows you to see an either "A or B" dichotomy, but that in fact there could be a C, D or even E choice.

What is wrong with those people that say if you don't believe in my way, it's the wrong way, and I'll drag you through mud to ensure that you know it? I'd say that's pretty absurd!