Qualia

[raw_thought]

Spheres,
So you are now saying that there is a visualized triangle,that is not represented physically (there is no physical image of a triangle in my brain).
It follows that,
Therefore, my visualized triangle is a quale. An experience that is private and can only be seen by me.

[raw_thought]

Scroll back,
You will see that I responed to your accusation that I am saying that the brain does not facilitate my visualized triangle (I never said that). by saying that cause does not equal definition. In other words the defintion of broken vase is not "throwing it". Similarly, I am not objecting to someone saying that neurons firing causes me to visualize a triangle. I am saying that the definition of "triangle" is not "neurons firing".

[raw_thought]

Perhaps the physical and objective causes the subjective. However, to say that the subjective (qualia,feelings,etc) do not exist as the materialist does (I gave quotes where Dennett explicitly says that feelings do not exist) is silly. I do not care if you believe that when I say that I love my wife and hate ISIS it means that I will believe anything.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I think when spheres sobers up he will edit out those recent obnoxious posts he made.

I'm just a dispenser of truth as I see it, that's always ever honest to my FAULT! I never think about feelings, or make allowances for ones delusions, as if they are young and inexperienced. When in argument I take on that which I see is required, if it's obviously a falsehood, I don't play games, going straight for the juggler, so to speak. It is always the way in which words are conveyed, I believe, that trips people up.

Arising is trying to take a much different approach that I, listen and dispense with your hardheadedness, and you might learn something.

I know you thought your idea was the cats meow, I know that you really want to stand behind it, I salute you for your stick-to-it-iveness, but the way in which you characterize your understanding is lacking some fundamental truths, IMHO. Or at least I don't see you effectively conveying them, quite the contrary.

I don't see you as a bad person though. Probably just young, and inexperienced. If you're in college, stay there, I wish I could afford more of it, just always think about what you hear, and take it all with a gain of salt. Make damn sure you actually understand it, never simply memorize things without fully understanding the logic behind them. As there can be many perspectives asserted, and one has to be keen to differentiate them, so as to know how to take them.

You picked a good and honest pseudonym though, at least form my perspective.

[raw_thought]

All I have ever said was that feelings are real.
That subjective private experiences (qualia) are real. That you cannot see my triangle regardless of how advanced your scientific instruments are.
You are the one that accused me of being childish for making up such preposterous claims.
I am not young. I actually did a seminar paper that refuted Dennett's "quining qualia" paper. It was well received by the philosophy department.
I guess, that last post of yours was as close to an apology that I will ever get from you. I accept your apology.
Peace.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Spheres,
So you are now saying
I have always said just that which counters "your words." I do not often speak of my thoughts on matters directly, and it can only be understood, in understanding the reasons for my objections. I do things differently than a lot of people. I'm an SOB! Not literally of course.

that there is a visualized triangle,that is not represented physically (there is no physical image of a triangle in my brain).
Sure it's physically there, but it's not the actual "Great Pyramid of Giza," in the stone, it's an electrochemical/mechanical representation, that's just as physical as the Great Pyramid of Giza.

It follows that,
Therefore, my visualized triangle is a quale.
No, not to me. It's an physically created electrochemical memory, to me! Though you seem to need to call it a quale.

An experience that is private and can only be seen by me.
I really don't know what you believe private has to do with anything. Sure it is in your head, so what? It doesn't work any different in your head than anyone else's. In everyones head it's the same "physical" process.

[raw_thought]

Quale= a subjective private experience.
My visualized (imagined ) triangle is either a quale or it is not.
If it is not,then it is not a private experience. If it is not a private experience then others can see it (with cat scans or whatever).
There is not a physical image of a triangle in my brain when I visualize a triangle.. Note that I am not saying that my neurons firing do not cause me to visualize a triangle.Cause does not equal definition.
If there is no physical triangle in my brain that can be seen by others it is private, a quale!
Of course one can claim that one cannot visualize a triangle. I know that I can Can't you?
Note that I do not even have to know that it is a triangle for it to be a quale. I know what wind in my face feels like,even if I do not know that wind is air particles moving.

[raw_thought]

Private means that only I experience the sensation. You will never see the shape of a triangle in my brain that is the triangle that I am visualizing.
Remember, a quale is defined as a private experience. Materialist's deny that private experiences exist. Therefore,if they are consistent and believe that I can visualize a triangle,they must believe that it is not a private experience, others must be able to see it (a triangular shape in my brain)

[raw_thought]

In other words I am making a classic move in logic. Provisionally assuming my opponent's position (that private experiences are impossible) and showing how it inevitably leads to an absurd conclusion,that there is the physical shape of a triangle in my brain.
Since that conclusion is obviously false,the first proposition ( that private experiences are impossible ) must be false.

[Arising_uk]

Private means that only I experience the sensation. You will never see the shape of a triangle in my brain that is the triangle that I am visualising. ...

But this may not be true in future, it may well be the case that we could display upon a screen the output from the part of the CNS that 'displays' a triangle to you and displays the triangle you are imagining to us. Unless of course you can explain how this 'me-ness' aspect cannot be the result of the CNS. So once again I ask you, what or where do you think this 'part' exists? Given that so far you agree that such things have a physical base in the CNS.
p.s.
Have you read 'Consciousness Explained' as this thread led to me downloading it and I'll be interested in discussing it in the book section once I've read it. May take awhile as I've lost much of my power of concentration upon such matters.

[raw_thought]

I do not care if a physical triangle shows up in my brain later. There is no physical triangle in my brain now when I am visualizing it. Therefore, any future triangle in my brain is not the one I am visualizing now.

[raw_thought]

Yes,I read "Consciousness Explained". I and the profs at work agree that a better (more accurate title) would be "Consciousness Denied.".
Dennett believes that (for example) pain is and only is c fibers firing. As I have said before he redefines words. Pain is an experience that hurts, it might be caused by c fibers firing but pain is defined as an experience that hurts,not c fibers firing. Sure, Dennett can say (and he does but hidden deep in his paper that pain does not feel like anything) that pain does not feel like anything,that pain does not hurt. But to say that pain is defined as c fibers firing is disingenuous.
By the way, Searle and Chalmers also believe that Dennett is being disingenuous.

[Arising_uk]

I do not care if a physical triangle shows up in my brain later. There is no physical triangle in my brain now when I am visualizing it. Therefore, any future triangle in my brain is not the one I am visualizing now.

Not talking about it showing-up in your brain at all, I'm saying in the near future there's a fair possibility that a 'scanner' could be rigged-up that displayed the output from your CNS when you imagine this triangle and does it in real-time such that others can see what you are imagining.
p.s.
Great look forward to your contribution when I've finished reading it.

[raw_thought]

Even if they invent a scientific instrument that can translate neurons firing into the image of what you are visualizing, that has no effect on my argument. It is an interesting idea tho! :

[Arising_uk]

Even if they invent a scientific instrument that can translate neurons firing into the image of what you are visualizing, that has no effect on my argument. It is an interesting idea tho! :

Yes it does, as you claim that the reason why your experience is subjective is because there is no material representation that can be objectively shown but if the above is correct then there is and as such the materialists are correct. Of course it boils down to whether the above is feasible and obviousy I think it may be as what you call your imagining is, in my opinion, the activation of a neural-net from the output of another net that stores the representations of the senses, namely vision in this instance. As such I think it might well be possible to create and emulator that then maps onto a screen to display what the subjective 'sense' 'see's'. Could be wrong tho' but given I'm not a dualist as I find it very hard to believe that there is this immaterial external 'thing' involved in what is fairly obviously, to me, a body with senses in an external world that can run a model of itself upon itself and as such all experiences will be accounted for within the processes of the body.