I am not saying that science says that one cannot visualize a triangle.I am saying that you are implying that science says that one cannot visualize a triangle.
If a visualized triangle is and only is neurons firing then there is no visualized triangle. The neurons do not in any way resemble a triangle.
Qualia
-
raw_thought
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
- Location: trapped inside a hominid skull
Re: Qualia
I am?raw_thought wrote:I am not saying that science says that one cannot visualize a triangle.I am saying that you are implying that science says that one cannot visualize a triangle.
When it comes to scientific realism they don't have to is the short answer. Naturally, one doesn't have to accept the science. One can always say that consciousness is non-reducible, non-physical and not subject to scientific investigation. Unfortunately, at this stage one cannot squeeze qualia into a scientific methoodologyraw_thought wrote: If a visualized triangle is and only is neurons firing then there is no visualized triangle. The neurons do not in any way resemble a triangle.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Qualia
Then what is that shape you are viewing?raw_thought wrote: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.
What it does mean is that your imagined 'triangle' has a material cause and as such lends weight to the materialist position.
-
SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5725
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: Qualia
You're being silly as usual. Look at your computer screen, you see rectangles, circles, no triangles because the forum html code doesn't use them, but they could. Are these geometric shapes in memory right now? Of course they are. They are in the RAM of your Motherboard, and possibly the CPU cache, and surely your GPU's SDRAM/GDRAM, there is you qualia. They can either be simply stored in memory or brought forward in cache and manipulated by the CPU. The human brain has non-volatile RAM, or at least it's kind of non-volatile.raw_thought wrote: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.Arising_uk wrote: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?raw_thought wrote:... Do you think that someone could see if it were scaline if they looked into my brain?
So what, your brain computer can pull the programmed triangle out of non-volatile system RAM, and place it in GDRAM via a the CPU cache, and manipulate it. That's no proof of qualia! Do the shapes on your HD (NON-Volatile RAM), have qualia? Nope!!! Every particular to everything contained within its memory is simply a product of it's total definition.Your problem seems to be, (as usual with most peoples), that you get tripped up on words and new fanciful concepts, that are difficult to prove either way, probably because it's simply ones belief that they exist. There are no qualia (qualities of differentiation) between various tastes, pains or anything else, other than any PARTICULAR individual/set of nerve fibers, pathways, signals, etc, that are ever variably dependent upon any PARTICULAR electromechanical/chemical connection with external or internal substances, that are stored in non-volatile RAM, in their entirety, (all defining conditions, including system resources used) until recalled for whatever purpose, dreaming, day-dreaming, mental visualization, etc. Some people may call it qualia, but it's simply the PHYSICAL/MATERIAL system functioning the way it was designed, as recalled from memory, over millennia of adaptation/evolution, primarily in order for the organism to survive.
I think DUM DUM is having FUN FUN! (I just watched Night at the Museum 3)
-
raw_thought
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
- Location: trapped inside a hominid skull
Re: Qualia
The objections to my triangle argument are,
1. My visualized triangle is not a quale because it is a geometrical form.
My response,
I am not talking about the concept “triangle”. I am not visualizing the concept “triangle’. I am visualizing an example of a triangle. Only I know its particular traits, for example if it is Equilateral, Isosceles and Scalene. I do not even have to know that it is a triangle to experience it. Similarly, I do not have to know what wind is (air particles moving) to experience wind on my face.
However, even if I am only aware of a concept, that is still an example of a quale.
Qualia also includes concepts etc. Concepts are like the concept “sign”. They consist of two properties the meaning (signified) and the physical sign. (signifier). http://changingminds.org/explanations/c ... nified.htm
http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/dpitt/whatsit.pdf
2. There is a physical triangle in my brain because my neurons firing causes me to visualize a triangle.
My response,
When I say that the triangle is physical, I mean that it is a physical triangle. It has the shape of a triangle. If one looked into my brain with even the best scientific instruments, you would not see a triangle. Similarly, if you had a very powerful sound amplifier, you would not hear my thoughts. To say that my neurons firing are a representation of a triangle is false. They do not fire in a triangular shape etc. To say that is like saying that hearing Mozart’s music is the same as holding a CD of his music.
3. Materialist’s do not say that there are no such things as feelings.
“Surely no sane person could deny the existence of feelings. But in his reply he makes it clear that I have understood him exactly. He says, “How could anyone deny that!? Just watch…”
Searle on Dennett ( FROM http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... -exchange/ )
Here is Dennett himself, “"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…..At first blush it would be hard to imagine a more quixotic quest than trying to convince people that there are no such properties as qualia; hence the ironic title of this chapter. But I am not kidding. “
FROM http://cogprints.org/254/1/quinqual.htm
As a materialist he has no choice but reject qualia. A Quale is defined as a private subjective experience. For a materialist only objective reality is real.
He must also reject first person narratives. Here is a joke that shows how absurd his position is.
Dennett woke up one morning and wanted to know if the sex was good with his wife. He asked, “it was good for you, was it good for me?”
1. My visualized triangle is not a quale because it is a geometrical form.
My response,
I am not talking about the concept “triangle”. I am not visualizing the concept “triangle’. I am visualizing an example of a triangle. Only I know its particular traits, for example if it is Equilateral, Isosceles and Scalene. I do not even have to know that it is a triangle to experience it. Similarly, I do not have to know what wind is (air particles moving) to experience wind on my face.
However, even if I am only aware of a concept, that is still an example of a quale.
Qualia also includes concepts etc. Concepts are like the concept “sign”. They consist of two properties the meaning (signified) and the physical sign. (signifier). http://changingminds.org/explanations/c ... nified.htm
http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/dpitt/whatsit.pdf
2. There is a physical triangle in my brain because my neurons firing causes me to visualize a triangle.
My response,
When I say that the triangle is physical, I mean that it is a physical triangle. It has the shape of a triangle. If one looked into my brain with even the best scientific instruments, you would not see a triangle. Similarly, if you had a very powerful sound amplifier, you would not hear my thoughts. To say that my neurons firing are a representation of a triangle is false. They do not fire in a triangular shape etc. To say that is like saying that hearing Mozart’s music is the same as holding a CD of his music.
3. Materialist’s do not say that there are no such things as feelings.
“Surely no sane person could deny the existence of feelings. But in his reply he makes it clear that I have understood him exactly. He says, “How could anyone deny that!? Just watch…”
Searle on Dennett ( FROM http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... -exchange/ )
Here is Dennett himself, “"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…..At first blush it would be hard to imagine a more quixotic quest than trying to convince people that there are no such properties as qualia; hence the ironic title of this chapter. But I am not kidding. “
FROM http://cogprints.org/254/1/quinqual.htm
As a materialist he has no choice but reject qualia. A Quale is defined as a private subjective experience. For a materialist only objective reality is real.
He must also reject first person narratives. Here is a joke that shows how absurd his position is.
Dennett woke up one morning and wanted to know if the sex was good with his wife. He asked, “it was good for you, was it good for me?”
-
raw_thought
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
- Location: trapped inside a hominid skull
Re: Qualia
As for the idea that Dennett is only advocating a methodology, that is false. He is literally saying that qualia do not exist in any context.
See the article http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... -exchange/ for Searle's proof that Dennett has a misunderstanding of what scientific methodology means.
See the article http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... -exchange/ for Searle's proof that Dennett has a misunderstanding of what scientific methodology means.
-
raw_thought
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
- Location: trapped inside a hominid skull
Re: Qualia
………..
“You're being silly as usual. Look at your computer screen, you see rectangles, circles, no triangles because the forum html code doesn't use them, but they could.”
Spheresof balance.
PLEASE READ MY POSTS!!!!
I am not denying that my neurons firing might help facilitate my visualizing a triangle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! * It does not matter if they could or not! The fact remains that there is nothing in my brain that is physical and looks like a triangle when I visualized the triangle. Therefore, according to the materialist there was no visualized triangle . Therefore, I did not visualize one. Of course I visualized one and so therefore the materialist is wrong.
* Scroll back I have said that over and over and over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“You're being silly as usual. Look at your computer screen, you see rectangles, circles, no triangles because the forum html code doesn't use them, but they could.”
Spheresof balance.
PLEASE READ MY POSTS!!!!
I am not denying that my neurons firing might help facilitate my visualizing a triangle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! * It does not matter if they could or not! The fact remains that there is nothing in my brain that is physical and looks like a triangle when I visualized the triangle. Therefore, according to the materialist there was no visualized triangle . Therefore, I did not visualize one. Of course I visualized one and so therefore the materialist is wrong.
* Scroll back I have said that over and over and over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5725
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: Qualia
raw_thought wrote:………..
“You're being silly as usual. Look at your computer screen, you see rectangles, circles, no triangles because the forum html code doesn't use them, but they could.”
Spheresof balance.
PLEASE READ MY POSTS!!!!
I have and they're BS.
I am not denying that my neurons firing might help facilitate my visualizing a triangle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! * It does not matter if they could or not!
Of course it does, As that's the reason you can visualize, in your minds eye, in the first place.
The fact remains that there is nothing in my brain that is physical and looks like a triangle when I visualized the triangle.
What you're saying is stupid. There does not have to be a physical triangle in your mind to serve the materialist argument, rather the physical workings of your mind is that which creates the imagery, and that's the material. It's the electro-mechanical/chemical (material) that creates that image in your mind, and in fact is only a recording of what you were programmed to believe about a triangle. So largely your thoughts on triangles aren't even your own.
Therefore, according to the materialist there was no visualized triangle. Therefore, I did not visualize one.
These conclusions of yours, you pull out of thin air, non-sequitur!
Of course I visualized one and so therefore the materialist is wrong.
You mean to say, "and therefore the materialist is correct," as it's the PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF YOUR BRAIN that it functions as it does. Sorry son, but you have no real solid grounds to believe in a "GHOST in the MACHINE," other than your mysticism and stubbornness. Your crap is like saying that the reason there is a particular image on my CRT, or particular music coming for my speakers, is due to qualia. No it's due to physical properties, you know, PHYSICS.
* Scroll back I have said that over and over and over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes and it's still just as imaginative as ever, you should instead write a book of fiction, you'd be good at it.
-
raw_thought
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
- Location: trapped inside a hominid skull
Re: Qualia
Yes, there does have to be a physical triangle in ones brain for the materialist to agree that one can visualize a triangle.
1. The materialist believes that only the physical exists.
2. There is no physical image of my visualized triangle,
3. Therefore, for the materialist there is no image of a triangle.
4.I know that I see the image of a triangle when I visualize one.
5. Therefore, the materialist is wrong.
1. The materialist believes that only the physical exists.
2. There is no physical image of my visualized triangle,
3. Therefore, for the materialist there is no image of a triangle.
4.I know that I see the image of a triangle when I visualize one.
5. Therefore, the materialist is wrong.
-
raw_thought
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
- Location: trapped inside a hominid skull
Re: Qualia
You still dont get it. NEVER said that my neurons do not facilitate my ability to visualize a triangle.
If neurons firing facilitates my triangle means NOTHING in the context of the argument.
So for you, holding a CD of Mozart's music is the same as hearing his music., That is silly. The CD causes us to hear the music but it is different then hearinh it. Similarly, neurons firing may cause me to see a triangle but neurons firing is not the same thing as a triangle.
Anyway, good luck with calling Chalmers, Searles and almost every philosopher (except Dennett and the Churchlands). stupid.
If neurons firing facilitates my triangle means NOTHING in the context of the argument.
So for you, holding a CD of Mozart's music is the same as hearing his music., That is silly. The CD causes us to hear the music but it is different then hearinh it. Similarly, neurons firing may cause me to see a triangle but neurons firing is not the same thing as a triangle.
Anyway, good luck with calling Chalmers, Searles and almost every philosopher (except Dennett and the Churchlands). stupid.
-
SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5725
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: Qualia
raw_thought wrote:Yes, there does have to be a physical triangle in ones brain for the materialist to agree that one can visualize a triangle.
1. The materialist believes that only the physical exists.
Exactly!
2. There is no physical image of my visualized triangle,
There are the physics that manifest your visions. I would say that it's probably a tumor.
3. Therefore, for the materialist there is no image of a triangle.
Non-sequitur!
4.I know that I see the image of a triangle when I visualize one.
No, you see a recording of a previous triangle that anyone could have seen.
5. Therefore, the materialist is wrong.
Therefore, you are insane! Or just being hard headed. Take your pick.
-
raw_thought
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
- Location: trapped inside a hominid skull
Re: Qualia
Take a basic philosophy class. You will learn that cause does not equal definition. Shooting a person may cause him to die. However shooting a person is not the definition of death. Similarly, neurons firing may cause me to ivisualize a triangle. But the definition of neurons firing is not "a triangle."
Yes,I know that you do not believe in qualia (that we feel pain etc). But please give an argument or refute mine. Simply saying that I am wrong and a mystic is not an argument. It is only name calling.
Yes,I know that you do not believe in qualia (that we feel pain etc). But please give an argument or refute mine. Simply saying that I am wrong and a mystic is not an argument. It is only name calling.
-
raw_thought
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
- Location: trapped inside a hominid skull
Re: Qualia
Non- sequiter? Look up non- sequiter.
Actually, you are the one that keeps committing a non sequiter. The argument that you keep repeating is that my neurons cause me to visualize a triangle.I DONT DISAGREE WITH THAT!!!!
Actually, you are the one that keeps committing a non sequiter. The argument that you keep repeating is that my neurons cause me to visualize a triangle.I DONT DISAGREE WITH THAT!!!!
Last edited by raw_thought on Tue May 05, 2015 11:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
raw_thought
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
- Location: trapped inside a hominid skull
Re: Qualia
Your # 2
Saying that neurons firing causes me to see a triangle is not the same as saying that the definition of "neurons firing" is triangle.
Why dont you understand that?
Saying that neurons firing causes me to see a triangle is not the same as saying that the definition of "neurons firing" is triangle.
Why dont you understand that?
-
raw_thought
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
- Location: trapped inside a hominid skull
Re: Qualia
#4
Now you are being silly.
So I can visualize a triangle because I have a physical image of a triangle in my brain that I got from experience. I remember what a triangle looks like because there was an axctual physical triangle (that can be seen by others) in my brain???
Now you are being silly.
So I can visualize a triangle because I have a physical image of a triangle in my brain that I got from experience. I remember what a triangle looks like because there was an axctual physical triangle (that can be seen by others) in my brain???