What are concepts according to materialism?

[Ginkgo]

If my experience of a visualized triangle is private, it is by definition a quale.
A quale is defined as an intrinsically private experience.

With the risk of repeating myself and without going into detail, it is generally accepted that the literature tells us differently.

A materialist believes that there are no private experiences.

Yes, I pointed that out earlier.

For him there is no subjective reality. For him only objective reality exists. Therefore, for him it is impossible to visualize a triangle because my visualized triangle is dramatically subjective, it is private.

Yes, but all theorists of mind including proponents of qualia accept there can be such a thing as a scientific( third person explanation) for consciousness. Your definition of qualia excludes the possibility of there being a cognitive science.

[raw_thought]

No, I am not ruling out second and third person narratives. I am simply saying that there are first person narratives. A materialist rules out first person narratives as meaningless.

[Ginkgo]

No, I am not ruling out second and third person narratives. I am simply saying that there are first person narratives. A materialist rules out first person narratives as meaningless.

Yes, they do.

[raw_thought]

I am glad we agree. My whole argument can be simply said (the 1-9 argument is more precise and irrefutable ); My experience of my visualized triangle is a first person experience. I know it exists. Therefore first person narratives are not meaningless. Therefore, the materialist is wrong.

[Ginkgo]

I am glad we agree. My whole argument can be simply said (the 1-9 argument is more precise and irrefutable ); My experience of my visualized triangle is a first person experience. I know it exists. Therefore first person narratives are not meaningless. Therefore, the materialist is wrong.

Yes, we agree, but for different reasons.

[Wyman]

No, I am not ruling out second and third person narratives. I am simply saying that there are first person narratives. A materialist rules out first person narratives as meaningless.

Yes, they do.

Wait a minute. You agree with that, Gingko? The fact that I can't experience your quale means, perhaps, that I cannot directly perceive your quale. But does that mean that to talk of it is meaningless? I can't directly perceive a black hole or a quark either, can I?

[Hobbes' Choice]

If my experience of a visualized triangle is private, it is by definition a quale.
A quale is defined as an intrinsically private experience.
A materialist believes that there are no private experiences.
For him there is no subjective reality. For him only objective reality exists. Therefore, for him it is impossible to visualize a triangle because my visualized triangle is dramatically subjective, it is private.

You are misunderstanding what a materialist is.
Materialism provides a methodology by which we can understand the "objective" world, but all materialists know that this is a task that has to be performed carefully as they fully realise that senses can be deceiving, and opinion has to be overcome with evidence.

You are committing a deep conceptual error. There really is no such thing as a materialist in the way you want to caricature him. The best materialists are those that know that they have to overcome their subjective world in order to understand the physical world more perfectly. And it is the Empiricists, and Idealists working within a Materialist framework over the last 200 years or more that have utterly transformed our understanding of the world.

I sometimes walk on the pavement. When I do this I can be considered a pedestrian, and I have a set of rules, and rights as a pedestrian over the drivers of vehicle. I also own and use a car. When I am driving my BMW I am no longer a pedestrian but a road user and have a set of rules that guide and govern my behaviour.
Right at this moment I am a blogger. But that does not mean I am not a road user, nor a pedestrian.

There is no phrase which can exhaustively describe something; least of all a person. There is no "materialist" that is not also something else too.

The idea of the qualia is a useful one, but your example is a poor one. Triangles are analytic devices that can be conveyed and understood by others objectively. Colour is not. Colour is a better example.
Qualia do not disprove the worth of materialism. They highlight that human experience is not directly in accord with the objective material world, which, by implication, we can never know precisely though we are comprised of it.

[SpheresOfBalance]

If my experience of a visualized triangle is private, it is by definition a quale.
A quale is defined as an intrinsically private experience.
A materialist believes that there are no private experiences.
For him there is no subjective reality. For him only objective reality exists. Therefore, for him it is impossible to visualize a triangle because my visualized triangle is dramatically subjective, it is private.

You are misunderstanding what a materialist is.
Materialism provides a methodology by which we can understand the "objective" world, but all materialists know that this is a task that has to be performed carefully as they fully realise that senses can be deceiving, and opinion has to be overcome with evidence.

You are committing a deep conceptual error. There really is no such thing as a materialist in the way you want to caricature him. The best materialists are those that know that they have to overcome their subjective world in order to understand the physical world more perfectly. And it is the Empiricists, and Idealists working within a Materialist framework over the last 200 years or more that have utterly transformed our understanding of the world.

I sometimes walk on the pavement. When I do this I can be considered a pedestrian, and I have a set of rules, and rights as a pedestrian over the drivers of vehicle. I also own and use a car. When I am driving my BMW I am no longer a pedestrian but a road user and have a set of rules that guide and govern my behaviour.
Right at this moment I am a blogger. But that does not mean I am not a road user, nor a pedestrian.

There is no phrase which can exhaustively describe something; least of all a person. There is no "materialist" that is not also something else too.

The idea of the qualia is a useful one, but your example is a poor one. Triangles are analytic devices that can be conveyed and understood by others objectively. Colour is not. Colour is a better example.
Qualia do not disprove the worth of materialism. They highlight that human experience is not directly in accord with the objective material world, which, by implication, we can never know precisely though we are comprised of it.

You were doing good until the BMW and "color is not" bits.

The twisted side of materialism, "I have a BMW," neener, neener, neener!
Well I have a Yamaha that shall leave your BMW in the dust. So what? Is either one of us better than the other, really?

And as to, "color is not," tell that to hubble. You know, Hubbles Law, red shift and all!
I would also argue that all those that truly understand color would see it otherwise.

[Hobbes' Choice]

If my experience of a visualized triangle is private, it is by definition a quale.
A quale is defined as an intrinsically private experience.
A materialist believes that there are no private experiences.
For him there is no subjective reality. For him only objective reality exists. Therefore, for him it is impossible to visualize a triangle because my visualized triangle is dramatically subjective, it is private.

You are misunderstanding what a materialist is.
Materialism provides a methodology by which we can understand the "objective" world, but all materialists know that this is a task that has to be performed carefully as they fully realise that senses can be deceiving, and opinion has to be overcome with evidence.

You are committing a deep conceptual error. There really is no such thing as a materialist in the way you want to caricature him. The best materialists are those that know that they have to overcome their subjective world in order to understand the physical world more perfectly. And it is the Empiricists, and Idealists working within a Materialist framework over the last 200 years or more that have utterly transformed our understanding of the world.

I sometimes walk on the pavement. When I do this I can be considered a pedestrian, and I have a set of rules, and rights as a pedestrian over the drivers of vehicle. I also own and use a car. When I am driving my BMW I am no longer a pedestrian but a road user and have a set of rules that guide and govern my behaviour.
Right at this moment I am a blogger. But that does not mean I am not a road user, nor a pedestrian.

There is no phrase which can exhaustively describe something; least of all a person. There is no "materialist" that is not also something else too.

The idea of the qualia is a useful one, but your example is a poor one. Triangles are analytic devices that can be conveyed and understood by others objectively. Colour is not. Colour is a better example.
Qualia do not disprove the worth of materialism. They highlight that human experience is not directly in accord with the objective material world, which, by implication, we can never know precisely though we are comprised of it.

You were doing good until the BMW and "color is not" bits.

The twisted side of materialism, "I have a BMW," neener, neener, neener!
Well I have a Yamaha that shall leave your BMW in the dust. So what? Is either one of us better than the other, really?

And as to, "color is not," tell that to hubble. You know, Hubbles Law, red shift and all!
I would also argue that all those that truly understand color would see it otherwise.

If you've nothing useful to say then bugger off.
I was not addressing you.

[SpheresOfBalance]

If my experience of a visualized triangle is private, it is by definition a quale.
A quale is defined as an intrinsically private experience.
A materialist believes that there are no private experiences.
For him there is no subjective reality. For him only objective reality exists. Therefore, for him it is impossible to visualize a triangle because my visualized triangle is dramatically subjective, it is private.

You are misunderstanding what a materialist is.
Materialism provides a methodology by which we can understand the "objective" world, but all materialists know that this is a task that has to be performed carefully as they fully realise that senses can be deceiving, and opinion has to be overcome with evidence.

You are committing a deep conceptual error. There really is no such thing as a materialist in the way you want to caricature him. The best materialists are those that know that they have to overcome their subjective world in order to understand the physical world more perfectly. And it is the Empiricists, and Idealists working within a Materialist framework over the last 200 years or more that have utterly transformed our understanding of the world.

I sometimes walk on the pavement. When I do this I can be considered a pedestrian, and I have a set of rules, and rights as a pedestrian over the drivers of vehicle. I also own and use a car. When I am driving my BMW I am no longer a pedestrian but a road user and have a set of rules that guide and govern my behaviour.
Right at this moment I am a blogger. But that does not mean I am not a road user, nor a pedestrian.

There is no phrase which can exhaustively describe something; least of all a person. There is no "materialist" that is not also something else too.

The idea of the qualia is a useful one, but your example is a poor one. Triangles are analytic devices that can be conveyed and understood by others objectively. Colour is not. Colour is a better example.
Qualia do not disprove the worth of materialism. They highlight that human experience is not directly in accord with the objective material world, which, by implication, we can never know precisely though we are comprised of it.

You were doing good until the BMW and "color is not" bits.

The twisted side of materialism, "I have a BMW," neener, neener, neener!
Well I have a Yamaha that shall leave your BMW in the dust. So what? Is either one of us better than the other, really?

And as to, "color is not," tell that to hubble. You know, Hubbles Law, red shift and all!
I would also argue that all those that truly understand color would see it otherwise.

If you've nothing useful to say then bugger off.
I was not addressing you.

It's absolutely true, that what I say can only be of any "use" by those that are capable of understanding it, or admitting it applies.
And in fact I was addressing you, good thing you at least caught that much!
If I'm being crass, just say so, stop beating around the bush.

If I know I've hurt your feelings, I'll feel bad and apologize for being so insensitive. Honestly!!

But seriously, Material possessions do not define one. Except when they believe otherwise. Then it makes them shallow, and unintelligent, a bit dense. Why? Because it shows they're incapable of having the slightest clue of the bigger picture; they're philosophically inept.

I like you, but why do you believe you're Hobbes Choice? Really? Don't you believe that it's his call and not yours?

[Hobbes' Choice]

It's absolutely true, that what I say can only be of any "use" by those that are capable of understanding it, or admitting it applies.
And in fact I was addressing you, good thing you at least caught that much!
If I'm being crass, just say so, stop beating around the bush.

If I know I've hurt your feelings, I'll feel bad and apologize for being so insensitive. Honestly!!

But seriously, Material possessions do not define one. Except when they believe otherwise. Then it makes them shallow, and unintelligent, a bit dense. Why? Because it shows they're incapable of having the slightest clue of the bigger picture; they're philosophically inept.

I like you, but why do you believe you're Hobbes Choice? Really? Don't you believe that it's his call and not yours?

If you've nothing useful to say then bugger off.
I was not addressing you.

You are becoming increasingly marginalised.
You rant and rant, and butt in where you are not wanted.
I've been patient, but as you have nothing to say I'm going to out you on ignore.

[surreptitious57]

My visualized triangle is subjective and private

Your visualised triangle may be subjective and private in as much as it is a product of your imagination
but it still has to obey fundamental mathematical principles which are objective by definition. Because
regardless of anything else about it it will be a closed two dimensional shape with three sides and three
angles adding up to one hundred and eighty degrees. So while it is indeed subjective and private it is not
absolutely so. Or else I would not be able to discern those aspects of its character which I have in spite of
not having seen it or had it described to me in any detail. So it is only partially subjective and private then

[SpheresOfBalance]

It's absolutely true, that what I say can only be of any "use" by those that are capable of understanding it, or admitting it applies.
And in fact I was addressing you, good thing you at least caught that much!
If I'm being crass, just say so, stop beating around the bush.

If I know I've hurt your feelings, I'll feel bad and apologize for being so insensitive. Honestly!!

But seriously, Material possessions do not define one. Except when they believe otherwise. Then it makes them shallow, and unintelligent, a bit dense. Why? Because it shows they're incapable of having the slightest clue of the bigger picture; they're philosophically inept.

I like you, but why do you believe you're Hobbes Choice? Really? Don't you believe that it's his call and not yours?

If you've nothing useful to say then bugger off.
I was not addressing you.
So what, I was addressing you. Who died and made you king?

You are becoming increasingly marginalised.
By you?? That's a compliment! Thanks!

You rant and rant, and but in where you are not wanted.
A characterization by those that fear looking in the mirror, they unfortunately can't see past their own nose. And judge others beneath them by default, unless of course the other strokes and kisses you, with flattery, and other such often disingenuous interaction, so as to maintain your illusion of stature. You know, the common state of lies and deceit between people used to maintain the illusory status quo of, "I'm OK and so are you," despite all the BS they're actually guilty of. Not everyone loves my truthful thrust forward, devoid of deceit, only ever honest to a fault. At least one can be sure where I'm coming from, i.e, integrity, shooting straight from the hip, no curve balls. I''ll never stand behind you, knife in hand, your back fully exposed, never! As that's so far beneath me it's not funny.

I've been patient, but as you have nothing to say I'm going to out you on ignore.

No problem Hobbes Choice, That's your prerogative. Look I really have nothing against you, really! But you've tried on more than one occasion to man handle me with a less than optimal attitude, so I follow suit. I'm no one to trifle with. I shall only ever give "everyone" the same respect they give me, pure and simple. Unfortunately once someone swats at me, I become like that very annoying fly that won't go away, much faster than any hand. Hopefully in the future we can exchange on a much higher plain of equilibrium. Or maybe not, it's up to you!

As to the topic at hand, I was being completely honest when I said you were doing "really" good up until that point of mentioning the BMW, and color. I was liking what you were saying, agreeing with your sense of the topic.

You know I wonder if the reason some humans are so materialistic with their property, belongings and status symbols, is because of the material nature of the universe? Seriously! I mean, maybe some find it hard to draw that line between the material of the universe, and their own self image. Maybe they feel it needs bolstering, and material is the stuff of the universe that gives them power, or so they buy into. I mean, everything is made of star stuff, and that's pretty powerful. Just a thought! I mean you could have just said car, but you said BMW. One has to wonder why, in a case where its addition served no apparent purpose related to the topic. No, I'm not picking at you, rather analyzing human nature, as some philosophers are prone to do. I believe Socrates was very good at it, which is why he knew all the right questions to ask.

Seriously, I hope we can be completely civil in the future, it's your call.

Later my friend!

[raw_thought]

My visualized triangle is subjective and private

Your visualised triangle may be subjective and private in as much as it is a product of your imagination
but it still has to obey fundamental mathematical principles which are objective by definition. Because
regardless of anything else about it it will be a closed two dimensional shape with three sides and three
angles adding up to one hundred and eighty degrees. So while it is indeed subjective and private it is not
absolutely so. Or else I would not be able to discern those aspects of its character which I have in spite of
not having seen it or had it described to me in any detail. So it is only partially subjective and private then

I never claimed that my visualized triangle does not obey geometrical rules. If I visualize a right triangle the Pythagorean theorm will work on it. My only claim is that my visualized triangle is a private experience. Actually, if my visualized triangle was not a geometrical form it would not be a triangle.

[raw_thought]

If my experience of a visualized triangle is private, it is by definition a quale.
A quale is defined as an intrinsically private experience.
A materialist believes that there are no private experiences.
For him there is no subjective reality. For him only objective reality exists. Therefore, for him it is impossible to visualize a triangle because my visualized triangle is dramatically subjective, it is private.

You are misunderstanding what a materialist is.
Materialism provides a methodology by which we can understand the "objective" world, but all materialists know that this is a task that has to be performed carefully as they fully realise that senses can be deceiving, and opinion has to be overcome with evidence.

You are committing a deep conceptual error. There really is no such thing as a materialist in the way you want to caricature him. The best materialists are those that know that they have to overcome their subjective world in order to understand the physical world more perfectly. And it is the Empiricists, and Idealists working within a Materialist framework over the last 200 years or more that have utterly transformed our understanding of the world.

I sometimes walk on the pavement. When I do this I can be considered a pedestrian, and I have a set of rules, and rights as a pedestrian over the drivers of vehicle. I also own and use a car. When I am driving my BMW I am no longer a pedestrian but a road user and have a set of rules that guide and govern my behaviour.
Right at this moment I am a blogger. But that does not mean I am not a road user, nor a pedestrian.

There is no phrase which can exhaustively describe something; least of all a person. There is no "materialist" that is not also something else too.

The idea of the qualia is a useful one, but your example is a poor one. Triangles are analytic devices that can be conveyed and understood by others objectively. Colour is not. Colour is a better example.
Qualia do not disprove the worth of materialism. They highlight that human experience is not directly in accord with the objective material world, which, by implication, we can never know precisely though we are comprised of it.