Philosophy Now Forum

raw_thought wrote:"understood " in the common sense definition. I understand something if my comprehension of it makes sense.

Ok, so what would be your comprehension of 'understanding Einstein's brain' in the materialist view that you outline?

raw_thought wrote:Are you saying that if I draw a triangle on a piece of paper there is something that matches that shape in my brain when I visualize a triangle? That the neurons are firing in a triangular shape?
I am sure that that is absurd.
So if I visualize Fred Flintstone there is something in my brain that looks like Fred Flintstone?

Yes that is what I am saying. For like the over9000th time. There is a neuronal pixel array and they fire in the shape of a triangle.

If you don't believe it exists, at least understand that I believe it does. And for a moment let's say you believe it does exist, then materialism would not be so absurd seeming.

As far as myself I don't consider myself a materialist, for Mr. Krauss is a materialist but he calls "nothing" "something" which is absurd.

raw_thought wrote:My argument proves that if you can visualize a triangle, there are qualia.
Do an empirical experiment. Try to visualize a triangle. If you can you have just proven to yourself that qualia exist!
Well OK, empirical in the sense of sense data. Obviously the experiment cannot be verified by other people. However, at least you will know with absolute certainty that qualia exist.

OK, then qualia exist. But you haven't done anything here to show that they(it) are not physical. It's that next step some of us are disagreeing with.

raw_thought wrote:My argument proves that if you can visualize a triangle, there are qualia.
Do an empirical experiment. Try to visualize a triangle. If you can you have just proven to yourself that qualia exist!
Well OK, empirical in the sense of sense data. Obviously the experiment cannot be verified by other people. However, at least you will know with absolute certainty that qualia exist.

As you allude, it is just a personal reassurance. Perhaps another way of saying this would be that anyone who believes experience has a phenomenological character about it believes in qualia. Just about everyone believes experience has phenomenological qualities (the way things seem from a first person point of view). Problems arise when we start to think about the meanings we are going to attach.

raw_thought wrote:“1. If pain is only c fibers firing (there is nothing pain feels like) then there is nothing wrong with torture, if it doesnt result in physical damage. Why would anyone care if c fibers fire up?
ME
I think you should put this to the test on yourself. Torture yourself or have someone torture you and see if you care if those fibers fire. I believe it's just your body letting you know it's being damaged in some way, so as to avoid it
SpheresOfBalance
If pain is not painful * and only c-fibers firing then it is impossible to torture someone.
* That pain feels like something. In other words a quale of pain. If pain is not a quale, then it does not hurt .
PS; I am saying that that is the position a materialist must take ( that pain does not hurt) and that therefore, materialism is an absurd position.

There are people that cannot register pain. As children they have to wear protective gear covering their body. I'm not sure what it's called, or exactly which part of the CNS is affected. There is also phantom pain resulting despite the fact that there is no physical damage.

From what I understand normally any damage to cells beyond a particular threshold causes electrical signals to be sent up the spinal cord via both A-delta and C fibers to the brain, where it's registered as pain. I wouldn't say, "there is something pain feels like." Rather it is a feeling, simply an electro chemical response, that's continuously variable to indicate the degree of damage.

Constant pain, whether real or phantom, can be just as damaging to the psyche. Which can certainly be seen as torture. Ever heard of the Chinese Water Torture, that allegedly drives one insane.

I just don't see qualia as anything real, rather something that just looks good on paper to a few that want it to be so.

Wikipedia: "Qualia (/ˈkwɑːliə/ or /ˈkweɪliə/; singular form: quale) is a term used in philosophy to refer to individual instances of subjective, conscious experience." I don't think pain is very subjective. That any relativity of pain deals with the quantity/efficiency of any particular electrochemical system.

And: "The mind–body problem in philosophy examines the relationship between mind and matter, and in particular the relationship between consciousness and the brain." I don't see a problem, because I see that the electrical portion (electro-magnetic) of the electrochemical response is what gives people the slip.

Wyman wrote:

raw_thought wrote:My argument proves that if you can visualize a triangle, there are qualia.
Do an empirical experiment. Try to visualize a triangle. If you can you have just proven to yourself that qualia exist!
Well OK, empirical in the sense of sense data. Obviously the experiment cannot be verified by other people. However, at least you will know with absolute certainty that qualia exist.

OK, then qualia exist. But you haven't done anything here to show that they(it) are not physical. It's that next step some of us are disagreeing with.

A materialist believes that qualia do not exist because they are by definition not physical. There is nothing that has a physical triangular shape in your brain when you visualize a triangle. Since there is nothing physical about the triangle you are visualizing and for a materialist only the physical exists, for a materialist it is impossible to visualize a triangle..

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

raw_thought wrote:“1. If pain is only c fibers firing (there is nothing pain feels like) then there is nothing wrong with torture, if it doesnt result in physical damage. Why would anyone care if c fibers fire up?
ME
I think you should put this to the test on yourself. Torture yourself or have someone torture you and see if you care if those fibers fire. I believe it's just your body letting you know it's being damaged in some way, so as to avoid it
SpheresOfBalance
If pain is not painful * and only c-fibers firing then it is impossible to torture someone.
* That pain feels like something. In other words a quale of pain. If pain is not a quale, then it does not hurt .
PS; I am saying that that is the position a materialist must take ( that pain does not hurt) and that therefore, materialism is an absurd position.

There are people that cannot register pain. As children they have to wear protective gear covering their body. I'm not sure what it's called, or exactly which part of the CNS is affected. There is also phantom pain resulting despite the fact that there is no physical damage.

From what I understand normally any damage to cells beyond a particular threshold causes electrical signals to be sent up the spinal cord via both A-delta and C fibers to the brain, where it's registered as pain. I wouldn't say, "there is something pain feels like." Rather it is a feeling, simply an electro chemical response, that's continuously variable to indicate the degree of damage.

Constant pain, whether real or phantom, can be just as damaging to the psyche. Which can certainly be seen as torture. Ever heard of the Chinese Water Torture, that allegedly drives one insane.

I just don't see qualia as anything real, rather something that just looks good on paper to a few that want it to be so.

Wikipedia: "Qualia (/ˈkwɑːliə/ or /ˈkweɪliə/; singular form: quale) is a term used in philosophy to refer to individual instances of subjective, conscious experience." I don't think pain is very subjective. That any relativity of pain deals with the quantity/efficiency of any particular electrochemical system.

And: "The mind–body problem in philosophy examines the relationship between mind and matter, and in particular the relationship between consciousness and the brain." I don't see a problem, because I see that the electrical portion (electro-magnetic) of the electrochemical response is what gives people the slip.

So there is nothing pain feels like? If you do not believe in qualia then for you pain= c-fibers firing. Since torture is not painful then one should not have any objections to it. Obviously that is an absurd conclusion. Unfortunately, that is the conclusion a strict materialist must arrive at. Therefore, his position is absurd.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

raw_thought wrote:Are you saying that if I draw a triangle on a piece of paper there is something that matches that shape in my brain when I visualize a triangle? That the neurons are firing in a triangular shape?
I am sure that that is absurd.
So if I visualize Fred Flintstone there is something in my brain that looks like Fred Flintstone?

Yes that is what I am saying. For like the over9000th time. There is a neuronal pixel array and they fire in the shape of a triangle.

If you don't believe it exists, at least understand that I believe it does. And for a moment let's say you believe it does exist, then materialism would not be so absurd seeming.

As far as myself I don't consider myself a materialist, for Mr. Krauss is a materialist but he calls "nothing" "something" which is absurd.

When I think there is an inner voice. For example I might say to myself ( in my mind without moving my lips etc) , " I have to make my lunch for work.' Are you saying that if we had a hyper sensitive listening device, my words could be recorded?

“Rather it is a feeling, simply an electro chemical response”
SpheresOfBalance
A feeling of pain does not equal ( is and only is) an electro chemical response. Perhaps, electro-chemical responses cause us to feel pain. However, that does not mean that they are the same thing. In other words if one says that pain is and only is c-fibers firing, then one is saying that pain is not painful. That is how absurd the materialist position is.
…………..
“"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.’
FROM
http://cogprints.org/254/1/quinqual.htm
I did my seminar paper about “Quining Qualia” . I showed how it is not only an absurd position to take ( that feelings, qualia, do not exist) but also showed that Dennett’s argument contradicts itself.

Ginkgo wrote:

raw_thought wrote: You obviously have no clue as to what my argument is. My point is that IF ONE FEELS NO PAIN, and no physical damage occurs, then torture is impossible.

What you seem to have here is an eliminative theory for materialism. Such a theory is anti-realism. This is different to the reductionist explanation for materialism we have been discussing.

Look at what I was responding to. Hammer's accusation was that somehow I was arguing that waterboarding is OK. That is the exact opposite of what I was arguing. I was saying that a materialist must say that torture is OK and that since he would obviously avoid torture, he contradicts himself and so therefore his position is absurd.
Materialism is not http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/
However, to be clear I will use the term
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mater ... iminative/
I think eliminative materialism is obviously silly.

Since there is nothing physical about the triangle you are visualizing

You're stating your conclusion as your premise over and over again and not addressing the fact that some people do believe there is something physical about it.

You are actually saying that there is a physical triangle in my brain when I visualize a triangle??? When I visualize green, a part of my brain turns green???? When I say something internally (inner voice) if one had a hypersensitive sound amplifier one could hear my thoughts???
That seems to me so obviously absurd that it doesn't need an experiment to prove its absurdity.

Arising_uk wrote:

raw_thought wrote:"understood " in the common sense definition. I understand something if my comprehension of it makes sense.

Ok, so what would be your comprehension of 'understanding Einstein's brain' in the materialist view that you outline?

If the materialist's position is correct,he cannot understand anything. He does not believe in concepts, universals etc. Concepts and universals do not refer to a specific place and time. Since all physical objects occupy a specific place and time and materialists believe that only the physical exists , they cannot believe in concepts. Concepts are essential to knowledge and understanding.

Wyman wrote:

raw_thought wrote:My argument proves that if you can visualize a triangle, there are qualia.
Do an empirical experiment. Try to visualize a triangle. If you can you have just proven to yourself that qualia exist!
Well OK, empirical in the sense of sense data. Obviously the experiment cannot be verified by other people. However, at least you will know with absolute certainty that qualia exist.

OK, then qualia exist. But you haven't done anything here to show that they(it) are not physical. It's that next step some of us are disagreeing with.

The visualized triangle is a quale. I proved that it is not physical by showing that there is no physical triangle in your brain when you visualize a triangle.
Also, materialists STRONGLY object to the idea of qualia because even they recognize that qualia cannot be physical.
I admit that I cannot understand what a quale is if not physical. All I know is that it cannot be physical.

Of course modern physicists will claim that information is fundamental not matter. They even claim to be materialists! But information without substance is more mind like then tangible. To me, their position is word games (semantics) and has nothing to do with reality.