raw_thought wrote:Are you saying that someone that says he has no feelings (he claims that he cannot feel joy,pain,saddness pleasure or even physical sensations such as warmth, cold) is not mentally ill? Either he truly cannot and that is a pathological condition,or he thinks that he cannot and that is delusional.
I was not being dishonest. I simply do not want to take up at least half an hour to find an obscure quote that has no relevance to our debate.
I don't know if Dennett is suffering from some type of condition. I would rather concentrate on his arguments.
I am not disagreeing with the criticisms leveled at Dennett in terms of his arguments. And I don't necessarily disagree with the criticism you are leveling at Dennett. Other than the psychological criticisms, that is.
Where we have been disagreeing is the type of metnal states that have qualia.
raw_thought wrote:Materialists do not believe in private subjective experiences. Since no one but me can feel my particular pain , it is private. ....
How do you explain how painkillers work?
...
Materialists cannot accept the reality of feelings because they are subjective and for them only objective reality is real.
Not sure about Dennnet, I'll have to read his book, but this materialist thinks the subjective is the result of material interactions, what do you think it is the result of?
I have said over and over, my neurons firing probably facilitates my visualized triangle. Cause is not identity. I can cause something to happen but that is not the thing I create. A simple example, I can cause a vase to break by making it fall. However, pushing it off the table s not the same thing as a broken vase.
raw_thought wrote:Materialists do not believe in private subjective experiences. Since no one but me can feel my particular pain , it is private. ....
How do you explain how painkillers work?
...
Materialists cannot accept the reality of feelings because they are subjective and for them only objective reality is real.
Not sure about Dennnet, I'll have to read his book, but this materialist thinks the subjective is the result of material interactions, what do you think it is the result of?
Materialists do not accept the reality of feelings (scroll back). If you believe that feelings exist then you are not a materialist. A materialist rejects the subjective because for yhem only objective reality is real.
How do pain killers work? Let me repeat myself, I never said that the brain does not facilitate sensations.Pain killers work because they inhibit the communication between brain cells.
CAUSE DOES NOT = IDENTITY!
raw_thought wrote:How do pain killers work? Let me repeat myself, I never said that the brain does not facilitate sensations.Pain killers work because they inhibit the communication between brain cells.
CAUSE DOES NOT = IDENTITY!
No need to shout, so tell me the identity that is not the cause? Where is it? Where does it lie? Tell me what is the more that is over and above the CNS's facilitations?
raw_thought wrote:... If you believe that feelings exist then you are not a materialist. A materialist rejects the subjective because for yhem only objective reality is real.
No, I'm a materialist as I believe everything is material and has a material cause and I think feelings have such a cause. I think objectivity is a whole different but related argument.
raw_thought wrote:Are you saying that someone that says he has no feelings (he claims that he cannot feel joy,pain,saddness pleasure or even physical sensations such as warmth, cold) is not mentally ill? Either he truly cannot and that is a pathological condition,or he thinks that he cannot and that is delusional.
I was not being dishonest. I simply do not want to take up at least half an hour to find an obscure quote that has no relevance to our debate.
I don't know if Dennett is suffering from some type of condition. I would rather concentrate on his arguments.
I am not disagreeing with the criticisms leveled at Dennett in terms of his arguments. And I don't necessarily disagree with the criticism you are leveling at Dennett. Other than the psychological criticisms, that is.
Where we have been disagreeing is the type of metnal states that have qualia.
Are you saying that a visualized triangle is not a quale?
It is a private experience (the definition of a quale), unless you believe that an outsider can look into my brain and see a triangle. Google "cognitive. Phenomonology"!
Sort of, they fire up and the results fire up the net that produces the shape in our 'visual' field.
When I visualize a triangle, I have an image of neurons firing up???
No, I'm saying that the image you have is the result of the neurones firing-up. Are you saying that computational neural-nets are not storing the data that we retrieve from them? That when they produce a pattern it just magically appears with no relation to the net?
raw_thought wrote:How do pain killers work? Let me repeat myself, I never said that the brain does not facilitate sensations.Pain killers work because they inhibit the communication between brain cells.
CAUSE DOES NOT = IDENTITY!
No need to shout, so tell me the identity that is not the cause? Where is it? Where does it lie? Tell me what is the more that is over and above the CNS's facilitations?
I do not know or have to know where or what my visualized triangle is. I know it exists (I know that I can visualize a triangle). I also know that it is not physical.There is no triangle in my brain that others can see (even with advanced scientific instruments ).
Suppose, I see a platypus. Also suppose I do not know what a platypus is. Can I not say that it is not an elephant? Similarly, I do not know what my visualized triangle is. However, I do know that it is not physical. There is no image of a triangle in my brain when I visualize one.
Ginkgo wrote:
Are you saying that a visualized triangle is not a quale?
It is a private experience (the definition of a quale), unless you believe that an outsider can look into my brain and see a triangle. Google "cognitive. Phenomonology"!
How do you know it's a triangle then? That is how are you looking into others brains and knowing that what they see is what you see?
Arising_uk wrote:No, I'm saying that the image you have is the result of the neurones firing-up. Are you saying that computational neural-nets are not storing the data that we retrieve from them? That when they produce a pattern it just magically appears with no relation to the net?
I agree! I never said that my neurons firing do not facilitate my visualized triangle. What I am saying is that regardless of the cause there is nothing in my brain that looks like a triangle. Similarly, an extreme sound amplifier will never record my thoughts in English like a tape recorder.
raw_thought wrote:...
I do not know or have to know where or what my visualized triangle is. I know it exists (I know that I can visualize a triangle). I also know that it is not physical.There is no triangle in my brain that others can see (even with advanced scientific instruments ). ...
So when we get to the stage where our mapping of the neurons and their activation is good enough to say that you are visualising a triangle when you do you'll accept that your visualisation is the result of material causes? How about, and we can do this now, we stimulate your 'brain' to produce a specific feeling or sensation and can do it on demand, are you saying that this still has no physicality?
