Philosophy Now Forum

If you want to resurrect the qualia debate, sure why not. But lets keep on topic for this thread.
However, I find it funny that some people prioritize abstractions ( words,concepts such as physicalism) above the empirical (qualia). In other words they hide from immediate reality (feelings/qualia) behind words. Symbols replaced reality!
In that sense qualia is related to the thread.

raw_thought wrote:If you want to resurrect the qualia debate, sure why not. But lets keep on topic for this thread.
However, I find it funny that some people prioritize abstractions ( words,concepts such as physicalism) above the empirical (qualia). In other words they hide from immediate reality (feelings/qualia) behind words. Symbols replaced reality!
In that sense qualia is related to the thread.

Yes, this is correct. I am thinking that even good and bad are qualia as well. They would be our good and bad moods. If we are depressed, then just the words and phrases of good meaning won't give us anything. I think science has yet to discover that good and bad are qualia. Currently, we think they are not. But I am thinking otherwise.

raw_thought wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

raw_thought wrote:So you are saying that the words "love" "joy" "pain" are meaningless?

I'll presume that this was directed to me.

no. I am saying people misconceive "meaning."

"joy is not a thing in itself, it is only a descriptor.

Yes.and your point is?
As I said a few posts back, the word "food" provides no nourishment and the word "water" will not quench your thirst.

Jeez.
This Forum is starting to piss me off. It's not just your fault.
But please do run along now and consider the difference between FOOD and WATER that are CONCRETE NOUNS. and joy, happiness and love which are ABSTRACT NOUNS.

now bugger off.

raw_thought wrote:Oh I get it! We are back to the qualia debate.
You are saying that we. do not feel (qualia) anything. The only thing that exists are brain states. Pain does not hurt. It is (and only is) C fibers firing. I disagree! Pain hurts! When I say I am in pain I am not referring to my C fibers! I am referring to the feeling (qualia). I am referring to the fact that it hurts!

NO only your arse is in a debate.

Qualia shmalia. It always ends in tears.

First of all the difference between abstract and concrete nouns is irrelevant in the context of our debate. So you are claiming that "pain" is an abstract noun and so it is meaningless??? That would be the only point relevant to our debate.
Anyway, you are getting emotional again.I will resume our debate when you calm down. Like I said in a previous post, you just like to fight, even when there is no reason to. I guess that is why you have a reputation for being a troll.

When one says that pain is and only is C fibers firing that implies that there is no feeling that is part of the definition. In other words,pain does not hurt.

raw_thought wrote:First of all the difference between abstract and concrete nouns is irrelevant in the context of our debate. So you are claiming that "pain" is an abstract noun and so it is meaningless???

For fuck's sake. "Meaningless" was your word idiot.

That would be the only point relevant to our debate.
Anyway, you are getting emotional again.I will resume our debate when you calm down. Like I said in a previous post, you just like to fight, even when there is no reason to. I guess that is why you have a reputation for being a troll.

I am telling you. Still telling you, that such things as pain, love and joy. are not things to be sought in the world like a sticky bun.
Doing so can lead to a disjunction between your expectations of reality and the world of experience.
Such things, being abstract are constructed within.

If you actually stuck to what I said , and not some idiotic regurgitated chewed up mash up of what you wanted me to say then we might have had a decent discussion.

You cannot "see" * pain in the world? You cannot experience your own pain???
The only relevant point that you could have been making is that words (such as pain, joy etc) do not apply to reality (in other words meaningless ) and therefore cannot be substitutes for experience (feelings,qualia). Yes, I understand the difference between nouns and verbs. I also understand the difference between abstractions and particulars. (although all words except names are abstractions ). However those distinctions have no relevance to our debate.
Anyway, I can see that you are having another emotional out burst. I will resume our "debate" ( actually its me giving arguments and you shouting back that I am a poopy head. Kind of a one sided debate,if its even a debate since debates require at least two debaters) when you stop your tantrum. It is pointless to challenge childish behaviour. The attention only encourages it.
* I know that you are very anal. So I put quotation marks around see. Most people know that when someone says "I see your point" they do not mean that they see the point literally with their eyes. However, I knew that you would say,you think you can see your feelings? You poopy head! One feels (sight is a feeling just as much as how your body feels when you are having a tantrum.) pain, even more directly then rocks,trees or any concrete noun. We have feelings (sight, pain etc) and then organize that into a concrete noun. For example I feel pain and see a rock bounce off my chest. I then know that my chest hurts because a rock hit my chest.
Anyway, you are being unfair to Mozart. As I said I am willing to continue our qualia debate at a thread devoted to qualia.

Of course it is possible that what you said is totally irrelevant. But if it was relevant to our "debate" the only relevance I can see is that you are claiming that words cannot be a replacement for,or even refer to feelings because there is nothing for them to refer to. That means that feeling words (pain,love,joy,touch,taste,sound) are meaningless.

raw_thought wrote:You cannot "see" * pain in the world? You cannot experience your own pain???.

If you actually stuck to what I said , and not some idiotic regurgitated chewed up mash up of what you wanted me to say then we might have had a decent discussion.

raw_thought wrote:Of course it is possible that what you said is totally irrelevant. But if it was relevant to our "debate" the only relevance I can see is that you are claiming that words cannot be a replacement for,or even refer to feelings because there is nothing for them to refer to. That means that feeling words (pain,love,joy,touch,taste,sound) are meaningless.

If you actually stuck to what I said , and not some idiotic regurgitated chewed up mash up of what you wanted me to say then we might have had a decent discussion.

Anyway, only childish rants. No wonder everybody calls you a troll.
Since you cannot answer any of my questions it is obvious that you lost the debate.
Simply, show me how what you said was relevant. Or show me that words that refer to feelings do not refer to a reality.

raw_thought wrote:You cannot "see" * pain in the world? You cannot experience your own pain???
The only relevant point that you could have been making is that words (such as pain, joy etc) do not apply to reality (in other words meaningless ) and therefore cannot be substitutes for experience (feelings,qualia). Yes, I understand the difference between nouns and verbs. I also understand the difference between abstractions and particulars. (although all words except names are abstractions ). However those distinctions have no relevance to our debate.
Anyway, I can see that you are having another emotional out burst. I will resume our "debate" ( actually its me giving arguments and you shouting back that I am a poopy head. Kind of a one sided debate,if its even a debate since debates require at least two debaters) when you stop your tantrum. It is pointless to challenge childish behaviour. The attention only encourages it.
* I know that you are very anal. So I put quotation marks around see. Most people know that when someone says "I see your point" they do not mean that they see the point literally with their eyes. However, I knew that you would say,you think you can see your feelings? You poopy head! One feels (sight is a feeling just as much as how your body feels when you are having a tantrum.) pain, even more directly then rocks,trees or any concrete noun. We have feelings (sight, pain etc) and then organize that into a concrete noun. For example I feel pain and see a rock bounce off my chest. I then know that my chest hurts because a rock hit my chest.
Anyway, you are being unfair to Mozart. As I said I am willing to continue our qualia debate at a thread devoted to qualia.

If you actually understood what I wrote you would see that you implied what I said you implied.
I can imagine you in a debate.
You; Every human has blue eyes.
ME; So you are saying that I have blue eyes?
You; YOU POOPY HEAD!!! I never said that you have blue eyes!!!
UMMM, simple logic... When someone says that all humans have blue eyes that implies that I have blue eyes. True, you are very anal , and it is true that you in this scenario never said that I have blue eyes. But good grief! Why are you at a philosophy site? Do you have asbergers? There are many people that are brilliant but can never escape from their little literal thinking box.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

raw_thought wrote:Of course it is possible that what you said is totally irrelevant. But if it was relevant to our "debate" the only relevance I can see is that you are claiming that words cannot be a replacement for,or even refer to feelings because there is nothing for them to refer to. That means that feeling words (pain,love,joy,touch,taste,sound) are meaningless.

If you actually stuck to what I said , and not some idiotic regurgitated chewed up mash up of what you wanted me to say then we might have had a decent discussion.

Good grief, you cannot even say anything new. You have to cut and paste all your accusations that have no evidence !
Instead of wasting everyone's time ( including your own. You are only making yourself look childish) simply explain why what you said was relevant . Also, show why what you said previously ("joy is not a thing in itself, it is only a descriptor.") is not what you meant.
If you are saying that the word "joy" is not joyful, umm yeah... rather obvious and irrelevant. Everyone knows that the word "water" cannot quench your thirst and the word "food" cannot feed you.