Qualia

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm done, you're obviously simply a child playing with his toy, be careful some say it shall make you go blind.

[raw_thought]

"individual unique experiences " is the definition of qualia. Learn more about what words mean and then you will not be so confused.
I will ignore all the childish ad hominums. I am used to them from you. No arguments from you,just insults.
However, you said that there are "individual unique experiences". So you do believe in qualia!!!!!!!
It does not matter if they exist for a short duration,you are saying that they have existed and probably will continue to enter existence.
I also believe that some particles (erroneously called virtual particles, they are not virtual, they actually do exist but only for a nano second) exist even tho they last a nano second. Does that also make me a mystic?
I guess (according to you) all the current physicists are mystics because they believe in virtrual particles.

[raw_thought]

If I am a rebel because I believe that I feel pain,love my wife,hate ISIS....then OK I am a rebel.
It is funny that you believe that I believe in God because I believe that I have feelings. Actually, I am an agnostic. It is funny that you beliecve that only a mystic can believe that he can feel pain.

[raw_thought]

I'm done, you're obviously simply a child playing with his toy, be careful some say it shall make you go blind.

So Searle, Chalmers and most of the philosophical community are children because they believe in qualia. I dont mind being included in their prestigious community!
Thanks for the compliment!
Perhaps your more mature and wise philosophical reasoning will make them stop acting like children!
Perhaps you are right and ad hominums are the latest breakthrough in philosophical reasoning!

[raw_thought]

1. There is no objective physical image of my visualized triangle. One cannot see a triangle in my brain. I think that is obvious.
2. Therefore, since the materialist believes that only objective physical reality exists,for him, there is no visualized triangle.
3. I know that I can visualize a triangle.
4. Therefore, the materialist is wrong.

That was a scaled down version for those that want to attack my argument (see next post). Please actual objections and not "you are wrong and stupid" like my last opponent. I respect those that actually confront my argument!!

[raw_thought]

1. It is self evident that one can visualize a triangle.
2. The visualized triangle has no physicality. The neurons are not firing in a triangular shape etc. There is not a physical triangle in a person's brain when he/she visualizes one.
Note that saying that the brain has no physical triangle but facilitates it misses the point. It is similar to saying that holding a CD of Mozart's music is equivalent to hearing his music. While holding the CD there is no music. While visualizing the triangle there is no physical triangle.
3. Materialists believe that only the physical exists.
4. The triangle has no physicality.
5. Therefore, for the materialist there is no visualized triangle.
6. Therefore, for the materialist it was impossible to visualize a triangle.
7. I know that I can visualize a triangle. I am visualizing one right now.
8. Therefore, I know that materialism cannot be true in all cases.
9. Since materialism believes that only the physical exists in all cases,I know that materialism is false.
Show me what numbered point you believe is false or how my argument is invalid
There is a difference between truth and validity.
Here is an argument that is true and valid.
1. Socrates was a man.
2. All men are mortal.
3. Therefore Socrates was mortal.
Here is an argument that is valid but not true.
1. All Martains eat snakes.
2. Bob is a Martain.
3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.
Here is an argument that is true but invalid.
1. Nixon was president of the US.
2. Carter was president of the US.
3. Therefore Reagan was president.
If one cannot show how 1-8 (at the top of this post) are not all true, or cannot show how ythe argument is invalid,then the conclusion (9) must be true.

[Arising_uk]

2. There is no physical image of my visualised triangle ...

Let's try it this way, in your model of things where is this visualised image? How is it being realised?

[raw_thought]

I honestly do not know. However, that does not effect my argument. I know that the triangle is not a physical image. That is all I set out to prove. Similarly, if I do not know what a unicorn is,that does not mean that if I see one I cannot say that I know that it is not an elephant. Similarly (once again ) I do not have to know what wind is (air particles moving) to experience wind.

[Arising_uk]

I know that the triangle is not a physical image. ...

How? And if so how do you know a physical triangle when you see one, given that all you see is an image in your mind no different from your visualised one?

[raw_thought]

Because there is no physical triangle. Unless one believes that there is a physical image in one's brain. And that is silly.

[Wyman]

Because there is no physical triangle. Unless one believes that there is a physical image in one's brain. And that is silly.

And round the circle we go.

[raw_thought]

Yes,it is silly that I have to keep making the same obvious point.
I have already explained why an image of a triangle is not the definition of neurons firing.
In other words when I discover the cause of something that does not mean that that is its definition. Pushing a vase off a table is not the definition of "broken vase".

[raw_thought]

The question is,"how can objective reality (neurons firing etc) create a subjective experience. Materialists simply deny that the subjective exists. That (see Dennett's definition of Qualia that I quoted) subjective experiences dont exist. That I do not feel pain,that I cannot visualize a triangle (because only I can experience the rriangle I am visualizing).Similarly, since you cannot feel my pain,my feeling of pain does not exist. That is silly.

No you are silly. The above is nothing more than: If a light bulb, then grass, steel and heaven make a square noble solid if rain squirts pain. Basically that's what you're saying. It's gobbledygook, absurd, ridiculous. You just want to prove your god/find a ghost in the machine. I think like many you're simply getting caught up in the lingo. It confuses you, so you can believe in ghosts.

Individually unique experiences do happen, and then they are gone. There is only ever this moment, no this one, no this one, such that existence is only ever now. Ones subjective view of anything is always a product of many experiences, such that ones view can change. They don't exist in the classic sense. In this moment, you have a visualized triangle in your mind, and in this instant you're killed, where's the triangle? Your body is still here, as is your brain, but it has stopped PHYSICALLY functioning, and in that instant that that your brain ceases to function so the triangle evaporates into thin air, because it never really existed, not in the classic sense. The triangle in your mind was simply a projection from your memory, your programming, that you accessed, it never really existed. At least not like the one that your teacher showed you all those years ago for the first time, on the blackboard. Crap it may be in a box somewhere in a forgotten attic.

Why you want to equate your memory/programming with the word qualia, is beyond me. Been a rebel much?

[raw_thought]

"individually unique experiences do happen"
Spheresofbalance
That is the definition of qualia. Therefore, you are saying that quales do happen and are real.
Yes, when my brain ceases to exist my visualized triangle will vanish.
ONCE AGAIN, I never said that neurons firing do not cause me to visualize a triangle.
You really have a memory problem.
I am not equating" memory/programming " with "qualia" I am saying that most likely my brain state causes me to feel. If I say that feelings (qualia) are and only are brain states, I am saying that feelings do not exist. For example,if I said that rocks are and only are apples,I have redefined "rocks".If rocks are and only are apples,then there is nothing that corresponds to the original definition of "rock".
Materialists equate qualia with brain states. They say for example that pain is and only is C fibers firing.

[Arising_uk]

Because there is no physical triangle. Unless one believes that there is a physical image in one's brain. And that is silly.

But it's not silly to believe that the image is stored in a physical format that allows it to be retrieved upon demand. What I think is silly is to believe that it is stored in some mystical elsewhere?