Qualia

[Ginkgo]

So calling someone "intellectually pathological" is not an insult? That was what Searle said about Dennett. True, if Dennett is mentally ill does not effect the validity or invalidity of his argument. I mentioned it in passing as an explanation as to why Dennett hold such bizarre beliefs. Such as that he and everyone does not experience pain,joy....

No, he didn't call him "intellectually pathological" he said his POSITION is "intellectually pathological". This is the important distinction when it comes to ad hominems. In other words, attacking the person is not legitimate while attacking their argument/position is legitimate.

[Arising_uk]

... Do you think that someone could see if it were scaline if they looked into my brain?

Right now? No, but I think in the nearish future there's a fair chance that there'll be scanners that will be able to work-out what you are 'seeing'. As what do you think your 'visual' field is when it's used in the imagination, it's another neural-net that triggers the, I presume, cells responsible for vision. So a suitable scanner could read your neural-net configuration and feed it to a net that recreates the 'visual' field and then they can just look at whats being portrayed. Put it this way, and to pinch a thought from Wittgenstein, do you look at your visual field and see your eye? Does this mean you think the eye is not a cause of you seeing?

[Ginkgo]

I keep having to repeat myself because I keep getting the same questions.
The visualized triangle is not physical because it cannot be detected physically.
If neurons firing causes me to visualize a triangle is unrelated to our debate because cause does not =identity.
Materialists do not believe in qualia because qualia are subjective and materialists only believe in objective reality.
My visualized triangle is an example of a quale because it is subjective and private.,the definition of qualia (google " cognitive phenomenology ").
Please refer back to this post so that I will not have to keep answering the same questions.

As I said before, I don't think your example of visualizing a triangle is an example of qualia. You would need to show that the act of visualization is experiential. This is why I said that we need to distinguish between mental states that have qualia and those that don't.

From your long line of comments, I get the impression you think all mental states are qualia states.Is this correct?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Qualia=subjective feeling.

subjective [suh b-jek-tiv]
adjective
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual:
a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
6. pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.
7. Grammar.

pertaining to or constituting the subject of a sentence.
(in English and certain other languages) noting a case specialized for that use, as He in He hit the ball.
similar to such a case in meaning.
Compare nominative.

8. Obsolete. characteristic of a political subject; submissive.
..........................................................................--dictionary.reference.com--


So, lets look at music for example, I dislike Rap and (Deep) Country, I love Prog Rock, Soft & Hard Rock, Jazz, Classical, New Age and Ambient, I also dislike Picaso, almost all Abstract for that matter, while I love Van Meer and other realistic and idealistic art. Yet many people may be the opposite of my likes, that's where subjectivity comes into play. 180 degree opposites, because they really don't matter to the universe, they are personal preference, amounting to nothing of any real consequence, save personal bias, for a plethora of environmental reasons.

With pain there are just ever varying degrees of efficiency, of the communication system, designed to receive and transmit said sensory impulses, sometimes to do with environmental's as well, but it is not foreign to the universe at all, it is by design, whether intended or chance, take your pick! Which is not at all the same as subjective art appreciation, where nothing really matters.

All organisms that are (alive) use electromechanical/chemical sensors so as to survive the environment. While there are different efficiencies associated with, "ouch," "Ouch" and "OUCH!" The only people not able to say, "ouch" at all are those born with a defective sense of feel, one of our five electromechanical/chemical senses. Such that if someone takes a baseball bat to your arm, as well as a hundred other people, in exactly the same spot with exactly the same force, then you all shall register the pain along that system to varying degrees, relative to the efficiency of said system, but trust me everyone of the hundred and one people shall scream in agony as their bone snaps in half, jaggedly ripping through flesh as a compound fracture, while copious amounts of blood, spouts from there blood vessels ripped by the calcium, and it could be the entirety of the world, whose arm is broke, and all would see it, relative to efficiency of the system, exactly the same, no one would 180 degrees opposite say, "Oh I liked that, please crack my other arm in half, I'm not bleeding out fast enough, I can't wait to die.

Except for the damaged ones, whose system is completely broken, and must wear a padded suit to survive, and even they shall visually cue to the damage, as programmed by their guardians/peers throughout their lives. NO SUBJECTIVITY, WHATSOEVER! We'll "all," equally feel the same way about it. No qualia at all, just a difference if the efficiency of the electromechanical/chemical system.

Subjectivity only really matters with the gross differences of opinion of a non universal subject, not the micro differences associated with sensory system efficiency of a universal subject, that yield basically the exact same response across the board. It's not qualia it's relative physical efficiency.

For example, pain feels like something.
You keep saying this yet can't tell me what pain feels like. To query, "feels like," always begs a comparison between two or more things, and is ridiculous in this context. Pain feels like pain. Does it feel like velvet, shark skin, flesh being pierced, rocky road ice-cream on your tongue? Feels like qualia? You've got to be kidding me, really? While people may like different foods, it's always to do with the differences in both our environments, throughout our lives, and the nutritional needs of the organism, (the latter being those that pay attention, again due to environment).

So you are saying that when I claim that I feel pain I am making a mystical claim!!!
Of course not!!! You are feeling nerve fibers firing.

I have an analogy for you, if you live in the US, grab the HOT and NEUTRAL copper wires on the back of a utility electrical outlet, if your heart doesn't actually stop beating, and you live to tell about it, you'll feel some pain relative to the electrical shock, actually the amount of current flow. You can vary the amount of current, and experience varying amount of pain. And while the CNS doesn't produce current anywhere near the amount experienced by 110/220 VAC or DC for that matter, it's the same principle of relative current (efficiency) of the particular system in question. There's some qualia for you.

That is silly.
No you're silly, for not listening, and only ever providing your words, for my meaning.

For a materialist pain does not feel like (qualia) anything. Look up "qualia".
I already have, but here it is, just for you:

"In philosophy, qualia (/ˈkwɑːliə/ or /ˈkweɪliə/; singular form: quale) are individual instances of subjective, conscious experience. The term derives from the Latin adverb quālis (Latin pronunciation: [ˈkwaːlis]) meaning "what sort" or "what kind". Examples of qualia are the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, or the perceived redness of an evening sky."

And here's the knowledge argument for qualia:

"Mary the color scientist knows all the physical facts about color, including every physical fact about the experience of color in other people, from the behavior a particular color is likely to elicit to the specific sequence of neurological firings that register that a color has been seen. However, she has been confined from birth to a room that is black and white, and is only allowed to observe the outside world through a black and white monitor. When she is allowed to leave the room, it must be admitted that she learns something about the color red the first time she sees it — specifically, she learns what it is like to see that color."
.........................................................................both of which are compliments --wikipedia--

This argument is ridiculous, laughable, because its simply that the particular cones for that particular frequency have never fired before, so the corresponding electrochemical signals have never happened before, then they are. No qualia, just a new and thus different electrochemical response experience, pure and simple.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Pain feels like pain, It feels bad, it hurts, it is cause for alarm. It is the bodies way of letting one know that there is damage to the body, so the body can live. And the mechanism has to do with electron flow, along specialized cells called nerve fibers, yes. Are they localized? yes, in your body! Are they private? Sure, if you tell no one! Does qualia have anything to do with it? Sure, if you want to imagine something that is not real, to take the place of what's really happening.

First you say that pain feels like pain. In other words there is a quale of pain. And then you imply that quales do not exist. Like I said, google "qualia" so that you will know what we are talking about.
You are writing nonsense. You are saying that qualia exists and then you say that they are not real.

Not at all, you're simply confused, I'm saying which nerve fibers/combinations/pathways/signals are firing! I'm talking of the physical, the material, the electromechanical/chemical. And you're speaking of your imagination.

"Estimates vary wildly, since of course, no-one has counted them all, but there are some 100 billion separate nerve cells in the human brain - which is, by strange coincidence, around the same number as there are thought to be galaxies in the Universe. But this number, however awesome, doesn't begin to capture the almost miraculous complexity of the human nervous system. Each of those 100 billion cells can make hundreds and hundreds of separate connections with other cells - and unimaginably more alternative pathways - that allow nerve signals to crackle, fizz and buzz along as they make us jump up or sit down, laugh and cry, love and hate, sing, shout, swear, eat, drink and do everything that makes us human."

http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/m ... /overview/

[raw_thought]

... Do you think that someone could see if it were scaline if they looked into my brain?

Right now? No, but I think in the nearish future there's a fair chance that there'll be scanners that will be able to work-out what you are 'seeing'. As what do you think your 'visual' field is when it's used in the imagination, it's another neural-net that triggers the, I presume, cells responsible for vision. So a suitable scanner could read your neural-net configuration and feed it to a net that recreates the 'visual' field and then they can just look at whats being portrayed. Put it this way, and to pinch a thought from Wittgenstein, do you look at your visual field and see your eye? Does this mean you think the eye is not a cause of you seeing?

Yes, right now there is no triangle. If one can translate the pattern of neurons firing into a triangular shape still means that there is no triangular shape.

[raw_thought]

I keep having to repeat myself because I keep getting the same questions.
The visualized triangle is not physical because it cannot be detected physically.
If neurons firing causes me to visualize a triangle is unrelated to our debate because cause does not =identity.
Materialists do not believe in qualia because qualia are subjective and materialists only believe in objective reality.
My visualized triangle is an example of a quale because it is subjective and private.,the definition of qualia (google " cognitive phenomenology ").
Please refer back to this post so that I will not have to keep answering the same questions.

As I said before, I don't think your example of visualizing a triangle is an example of qualia. You would need to show that the act of visualization is experiential. This is why I said that we need to distinguish between mental states that have qualia and those that don't.

From your long line of comments, I get the impression you think all mental states are qualia states.Is this correct?

One is not aware of (experiences) a triangle when one visualizes it?

[raw_thought]

Not at all, you're simply confused, I'm saying which nerve fibers/combinations/pathways/signals are firing! I'm talking of the physical, the material, the electromechanical/chemical. And you're speaking of your imagination.
/

I have said over and over that I do not disagree with that. I am saying that there is no imagined (visualized) triangle for the materialist. Therefore, he must believe that it was impossible to visualize one.

[raw_thought]

My visualized triangle fullfills ALL the points in your definition of subjective. Note I am talking about the triangle I am visualizing, not triangles in general.
Specifically see point 5 in your list of definitions.

[Ginkgo]

I keep having to repeat myself because I keep getting the same questions.
The visualized triangle is not physical because it cannot be detected physically.
If neurons firing causes me to visualize a triangle is unrelated to our debate because cause does not =identity.
Materialists do not believe in qualia because qualia are subjective and materialists only believe in objective reality.
My visualized triangle is an example of a quale because it is subjective and private.,the definition of qualia (google " cognitive phenomenology ").
Please refer back to this post so that I will not have to keep answering the same questions.

As I said before, I don't think your example of visualizing a triangle is an example of qualia. You would need to show that the act of visualization is experiential. This is why I said that we need to distinguish between mental states that have qualia and those that don't.

From your long line of comments, I get the impression you think all mental states are qualia states.Is this correct?

One is not aware of (experiences) a triangle when one visualizes it?

Now we seem to be getting somewhere. Yes, there is a good argument for claiming that visualizing a triangle is not expriential. This being the case, not all mental states are accompanied by qualia. Visualizing a triangle is non-experiential therefore, it is not an example of qualia.

[raw_thought]

How can you say that one is unaware of (experiences ) a triangle? Note, that I am talking about my visualized triangle,not triangles in general (the concept "triangle ").
However, lets say that one cannot experience a triangle unless one knows what a triangle is. That is similar to saying that one cannot experience the wind in one's face unless one knows what wind is (air particles moving). I find that silly. But lets provisionally accept that.
Then (see next post).
I added the second paragraph after posting the next post.

[raw_thought]

In the link I gave ("cognitive phenomenology ") they talk about what does the proposition P feel like. Knowledge is an experience. If I do not experience knowledge,then I am unaware of that knowledge.

[Ginkgo]

How can you say that one is unaware of (experiences ) a triangle?

Because this is what the science tells us.

Note, that I am talking about my visualized triangle,not triangles in general (the concept "triangle ").

Sorry, but I don't follow. Can you expand?

[raw_thought]

Perhaps science says that one cannot visualize a triangle. I don't believe that.
The concept "triangle" is not the same as a particular triangle. Similarly, "human being" is not defined as "Bob Smith". "Bob Smith" is an example of a human being. He is not the definition of human being.

[Ginkgo]

Perhaps science says that one cannot visualize a triangle. I don't believe that.

Science does say we can visualize a triangle. Why do you think science is incapable of such an explanation? Perhaps you thinking in terms of why science has difficulty in providing a subjective explanation when it comes to visualizing a triangle?

The concept "triangle" is not the same as a particular triangle. Similarly, "human being" is not defined as "Bob Smith". "Bob Smith" is an example of a human being. He is not the definition of human being.

Well, I guess that's all of that is more or less true.