Qualia

[SpheresOfBalance]

“Rather it is a feeling, simply an electro chemical response”
SpheresOfBalance
A feeling of pain does not equal ( is and only is) an electro chemical response. Perhaps, electro-chemical responses cause us to feel pain. However, that does not mean that they are the same thing. In other words if one says that pain is and only is c-fibers firing, then one is saying that pain is not painful. That is how absurd the materialist position is.
Not at all, your logic is flawed. Obviously you carry a torch for your position, I mean you wrote a paper and all, so I can understand your fervor. But that in and of itself does not make you correct, as a matter of fact that belief is quite absurd! Above, I highlighted you absurd notion, your false logic, in blue. That one says that as to pain only nerve fibers are firing, does not necessitate that pain is not painful. Your logic is flawed.


…………..
“"Qualia" is an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us. As is so often the case with philosophical jargon, it is easier to give examples than to give a definition of the term. Look at a glass of milk at sunset; the way it looks to you--the particular, personal, subjective visual quality of the glass of milk is the quale of your visual experience at the moment. The way the milk tastes to you then is another, gustatory quale, and how it sounds to you as you swallow is an auditory quale; These various "properties of conscious experience" are prime examples of qualia.’
FROM
http://cogprints.org/254/1/quinqual.htm
I did my seminar paper about “Quining Qualia” . I showed how it is not only an absurd position to take ( that feelings, qualia, do not exist) but also showed that Dennett’s argument contradicts itself.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

First, no one "hears" there inner voice.

hear[ heer]
verb (used with object) [heard, hear·ing.]
1. to perceive by the ear: Didn't you hear the doorbell?

Your absurd argument makes much sense, when one considers that you know not the meaning of at least some of the words you use.

[raw_thought]

Obviously you are very confused. * I am not talking about hearing a physical vibration ( as in sound).
Similarly, I am arguing AGAINST the idea that one sees a physical triangle in one's brain. One however, can see a triangle, since I am quite certain that I can visualize one.
My point is that there is no physical triangle in ones brain. However, there is a triangle in your mind. ( otherwise you wouldn't be able to visualize one. )
Therefore, there is a triangle (the visualized one ) that is not represented physically.
* And very rude.

[raw_thought]

“That one says that as to pain only nerve fibers are firing, does not necessitate that pain is not painful. Your logic is flawed.”
SpheresOfBalance
???? Nerve fibers firing does not = ( is and only is ) the feeling of pain. If it were that would be a tautology and therefore a meaningless statement. * Since nerve fibers firing and pain are different, and (according to the materialist paradigm) only nerve fibers firing are real, it follows that pain is unreal.
A or B
Only A is real.
Therefore B must not be real.
* It would be equivalent to saying, " nerve fibers firing are nerve fibers firing."

[raw_thought]

I noticed that you quoted my quote of Dennett at the top of this page. Perhaps you are confused because I did not make it clear that that is Dennet's definition of Qualia and that he denies that it exists.
In other words that we cannot experience anything. I disagree! I know that I can experience a triangle when I visualize it. Are you saying that one cannot visualize a triangle when one visualizes it? Since there is no physical triangle in your brain and if you take the materialist position, then you must believe that you cannot visualize a triangle!

[raw_thought]

Are you saying that when you visualize a triangle it does not look like a triangle? When you dream the landscape doesn't resemble a landscape? In other words I experience (qualia) seeing a triangle when I visualize one. What does it mean to say," when I visualize a triangle it doesn't look at all like a triangle." To me that is equivalent to saying that one cannot visualize a triangle.

[Hobbes' Choice]

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.

No it does not.

If our subjective experiences (an tautology btw) have a physical reality, then it follows that thoughts, feelings and things we remember as sound, have a physical reality - it does not imply that we "hear" them.

Things heard are inputs from the mechanisms of the ear. But "hearing voices" is not heard in the same way, thought they might sound the same.

A thing heard physically cen be referenced by objective facts; such as direction and verification by others who are also able to hear the sounds.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Are you saying that when you visualize a triangle it does not look like a triangle? When you dream the landscape doesn't resemble a landscape? In other words I experience (qualia) seeing a triangle when I visualize one. What does it mean to say," when I visualize a triangle it doesn't look at all like a triangle." To me that is equivalent to saying that one cannot visualize a triangle.

You are missing the point about qualia.
A triangle can be perfectly understood between one person and another.
Qualia refer to those things which cannot; such as the essence of colour.

[raw_thought]

I hate it when an interesting debate is redirected towards mere semantics (definitions of words). However, I’ll indulge those that prefer semantics over substance with two sentences. “See” does not necessarily mean physically seeing something. One can say, “I see your point.”
Suppose a materialist is correct (he is not) when he claims that when I visualize a triangle there is the physical form of a triangle in the person’s brain. Suppose one visualizes a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit%E2% ... k_illusion . Suppose for a moment one can only see the duck. * If someone looked into your brain they could not tell if you were seeing a duck or a rabbit at that moment. In a nutshell, even if we adopt the absurd position that there is the physical form of the duck/rabbit in your brain when you visualize a duck/rabbit, one still cannot know if the person visualizing a duck/rabbit sees a duck or a rabbit. There is information that is private (qualia).
Interestingly one can use the same argument towards concepts. Suppose I think, “1+1=2”. Even if “1+1=2” were a physical form in your brain it would still not reveal what it refers to (the concept you understand). Consciousness is the foundation of meaning!
“The symbol grounding problem is related to the problem of how words (symbols) get their meanings, and hence to the problem of what meaning itself really is. The problem of meaning is in turn related to the problem of consciousness, or how it is that mental states are meaningful. According to a widely held theory of cognition called "computationalism," cognition (i.e., thinking) is just a form of computation. But computation in turn is just formal symbol manipulation: symbols are manipulated according to rules that are based on the symbols' shapes, not their meanings. How are those symbols (e.g., the words in our heads) connected to the things they refer to? It cannot be through the mediation of an external interpreter's head, because that would lead to an infinite regress, just as looking up the meanings of words in a (unilingual) dictionary of a language that one does not understand would lead to an infinite regress”
FROM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem
Also see
http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/dpitt/whatsit.pdf
* Humans cannot see the duck/rabbit simultaneously. We oscillate from duck to rabbit and back again.

[raw_thought]

“Neurons firing = (is and only is) pain” is only the statement that they are two words for the same thing. In other words a materialist defines neurons firing as pain. Their “argument” is mere semantics and disingenuous semantics!

[raw_thought]

Are you saying that when you visualize a triangle it does not look like a triangle? When you dream the landscape doesn't resemble a landscape? In other words I experience (qualia) seeing a triangle when I visualize one. What does it mean to say," when I visualize a triangle it doesn't look at all like a triangle." To me that is equivalent to saying that one cannot visualize a triangle.

You are missing the point about qualia.
A triangle can be perfectly understood between one person and another.
Qualia refer to those things which cannot; such as the essence of colour.

I am not talking about the universal triangle ( the concept of a triangle).
So you are saying that if I visualize a triangle someone can see that it is Equilateral, Isosceles or Scalene? One must be able to know what type of triangle it is without anyone saying what it is. ( They could be lying etc and the person that does not actually see my visualized triangle will never know for sure).
In other words I am talking about my visualized triangle in particular, not triangles in general.

[Wyman]

Duckrabbit

Aspect A = Duck

Aspect B = Rabbit

Duckrabbit on paper = one physical thing

Two aspects of Duckrabbit in brain = two physical things, A & B


Your position - no matter what equipment is invented to 'look into' the brain, one still would never be able to observe a duck or rabbit in brain

Trixie's position - it is logically possible to observe a physical representation of a duck or rabbit in the brain given the right equipment

Your position requires that it be impossible to make such observations

Trixie's position requires that it is possible - but unlike your position, Trixie's is bolstered by the fact that so far, we have never discovered anything that is not physical in the universe

[raw_thought]

So you are saying that when I visualize a triangle in my mind there is a physical triangle in my brain??? Please take your time and read my argument.

[raw_thought]

So you are saying that when I visualize a triangle in my mind there is a physical triangle in my brain??? Please take your time and read my argument.
Your "argument" is silly. Science looks for material properties. Obviously, they cannot register something that is not physical. That is why a materialist must say that it is impossible to visualize a triangle. I know that I can. Therefore I know that qualia are real. Of course I cannot prove it to you on paper. Simply, try to visualize a triangle. If you can ( after performing that empirical experiment) then you have proven to yourself that qualia are real.
Seriously, jumping into a debate without reading or understanding the context is not helpful.
Hopefully, you will see a visualized triangle and then you will have proven to yourself that there is information that does not take a physical form. You will discover for yourself something not physical.

[Wyman]

So you are saying that when I visualize a triangle in my mind there is a physical triangle in my brain???

Take a look back through this thread and count the number of times you've asked that question. Now, let the answer slowly sink in - YES

Your argument is: there are no physical triangles in my mind when I visualize a triangle (when someone disagrees, you ask the above question) Therefore, visualizations are not physical. Do you see the circularity?

You may be correct that there is nothing physical, but it doesn't follow from a logical argument. It can only be proven or disproven by scientific research.