Qualia

[raw_thought]

I agree. But that has nothing to do with my argument.
I never said that my neurons firing do not cause me to visualize a triangle. I never said that memory is not encoded in the brain. What I am saying is that there is no physical trriangle in my brain when I visualize one.

[Wyman]

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".

That's fine, just stop characterizing your position as based on an argument. It is a statement, as I've been saying all along (and so have others). You are stating that whatever we 'see' in our heads when we visualize something is a qualia, which is nonphysical. You don't base this on any science, just on the fact that it is obvious to you. You pretend that this is just a premise in your argument leading to the conclusion that materialism is false, yet no one accepts it as a premise (except Gingko). Instead of arguing the point, trying to persuade us of the truth of the premise, you just keep stating it over and over again and accuse everyone who doesn't agree with you of being 'silly.' If dualism were 'obvious,' then I guess there wouldn't have been what we call modern philosophy and all philosophy would have ended with Descartes.

[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.

I am saying that experiences (qualia) do not equal brain states.

[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.

[raw_thought]

That is an argument. #2 what we have been debating is a part of that argument. #2 has been resolved. Only a fool would say that the definition of "triangle" is "neurons firing".

[raw_thought]

So you are saying that the following are just statements and not obvious?
1. When I visualize green my brain does not turn green.
2. If you had a very powerful sound amplifier you
could not hear my thoughts.
3. When I visualize a triangle my neurons do not fire in a triangular shape etc.
And yes I say that anyone that disagrees with those points is silly.

[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".

That's fine, just stop characterizing your position as based on an argument. It is a statement, as I've been saying all along (and so have others). You are stating that whatever we 'see' in our heads when we visualize something is a qualia, which is nonphysical. You don't base this on any science, just on the fact that it is obvious to you. You pretend that this is just a premise in your argument leading to the conclusion that materialism is false, yet no one accepts it as a premise (except Gingko). Instead of arguing the point, trying to persuade us of the truth of the premise, you just keep stating it over and over again and accuse everyone who doesn't agree with you of being 'silly.' If dualism were 'obvious,' then I guess there wouldn't have been what we call modern philosophy and all philosophy would have ended with Descartes.

So you are saying that the proposition "the definition of triangle is neurons firing" is not a silly proposition????

[raw_thought]

You are confusing "proposition " with "argument". #2 (in my 1-9 argument above) is a proposition that is part of my argument. Since #2 is obviously true, as are all the others then the conclusion (9) must be true because the argument is valid.

[raw_thought]

So you are saying that the following are just statements and not obvious?
1. When I visualize green my brain does not turn green.
2. If you had a very powerful sound amplifier you
could not hear my thoughts.
3. When I visualize a triangle my neurons do not fire in a triangular shape etc.
And yes I say that anyone that disagrees with those points is silly.

#2 is obvious because 1-3 are obvious.
1. A person's brain turning the color he is visualizing (green, blue, neon...) has never happened.
2. No sound amplifier has ever read a person's mind.
3. The brain changing its shape to resemble an object (triangle,house,pyramid....) has never happened.

[raw_thought]

You pretend that this is just a premise in your argument leading to the conclusion that materialism is false, yet no one accepts it as a premise (except Gingko). rtes.

Everyone (except Ginko) believes that when I visualize green my brain turns green, a sound amplifier can hear my thoughts and my brain reconfigures itself into the shape of the object I am visualizing??????

[Wyman]

#2 (in my 1-9 argument above) is a proposition that is part of my argument. Since #2 is obviously true

Yes, we call that a premise in logic. I reject your premise. Now, you will say 'but it must be true,' 'but it has to be true,' 'but it is silly to think it is not true,' 'it's true unless your brain turns into a triangle when you think about triangles.' The last statement is the closest you come to arguing your point.

as Arising recently alluded to - you cannot say that any perception is not also a qualia like your triangle. In which case you are a solipsist. For when you look at a 'real' green triangle in front of you, does your brain at that point turn green? Presumably not; and the thing itself is not green, as it is only light waves reflecting off of it which cause the eyes and brain to interpret it as green - but since light waves are not green, there must be something green in your brain - but as you claim, there is not. Therefore anything you perceive is 'qualia' and therefore not physical.

[Wyman]

You pretend that this is just a premise in your argument leading to the conclusion that materialism is false, yet no one accepts it as a premise (except Gingko). rtes.

Everyone (except Ginko) believes that when I visualize green my brain turns green, a sound amplifier can hear my thoughts and my brain reconfigures itself into the shape of the object I am visualizing??????

No, no one believes that in order to be 'physical,' the process of perceiving green needs to involve your brain turning green, etc..

[Arising_uk]

I agree. But that has nothing to do with my argument.
I never said that my neurons firing do not cause me to visualize a triangle. I never said that memory is not encoded in the brain. What I am saying is that there is no physical trriangle in my brain when I visualize one.

But there is no physical triangle in your brain when you see one, so are you saying physical triangles don't exist?

[raw_thought]

No. I am saying that there is no physical triangle in my brain when I visualize one.

[raw_thought]

No, no one believes that in order to be 'physical,' the process of perceiving green needs to involve your brain turning green, etc..

Then #2 is true.
Or are you saying that cause =definition? That if I find the cause,I have defined the object. For example the definition of broken vase is defined in the dictionary as throwing a vase.