Philosophy Now Forum

raw_thought wrote: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.

Show me a concept that does not have a specific place or time when it is expressed?

Scroll back. Show me the physical shape of the visualized triangle and then tell me where it is located.

Wyman wrote:

So you are saying that when I visualize a triangle in my mind there is a physical triangle in my brain???

Take a look back through this thread and count the number of times you've asked that question. Now, let the answer slowly sink in - YES

Your argument is: there are no physical triangles in my mind when I visualize a triangle (when someone disagrees, you ask the above question) Therefore, visualizations are not physical. Do you see the circularity?

You may be correct that there is nothing physical, but it doesn't follow from a logical argument. It can only be proven or disproven by scientific research.

I keep asking that question because it is so obviously silly to say that the physical form (that includes sound) of an object can be physically seen and heard physically in the brain.
It is silly to say that when I visualize neon part of my brain turns neon.
It is silly to say that when I think ( speak sentences in my mind) my thoughts can be heard with a sound amplifier.
It is silly to say that when I visualize a triangle there is an actual physical triangle in my brain.
I can give sites that show that such things have never been detected. However, scroll back. I showed thru my duck/rabbit analogy that even if one adopts such a silly idea ( that the physical form of an object is reproduced in the brain) one cannot tell if the subject is visualizeing a duck or a rabbit. In other words, there is information (what that visualized duck looks like, if the subject is seeing a duck and not the rabbit ) that is private, and not physical.
Scroll back. Click on the cognitive phenomenology link,it is very cool.

raw_thought wrote:

Wyman wrote:

So you are saying that when I visualize a triangle in my mind there is a physical triangle in my brain???

Take a look back through this thread and count the number of times you've asked that question. Now, let the answer slowly sink in - YES

Your argument is: there are no physical triangles in my mind when I visualize a triangle (when someone disagrees, you ask the above question) Therefore, visualizations are not physical. Do you see the circularity?

You may be correct that there is nothing physical, but it doesn't follow from a logical argument. It can only be proven or disproven by scientific research.

I keep asking that question because it is so obviously silly to say that the physical form (that includes sound) of an object can be physically seen and heard physically in the brain.
It is silly to say that when I visualize neon part of my brain turns neon.
It is silly to say that when I think ( speak sentences in my mind) my thoughts can be heard with a sound amplifier.
It is silly to say that when I visualize a triangle there is an actual physical triangle in my brain.
I can give sites that show that such things have never been detected. However, scroll back. I showed thru my duck/rabbit analogy that even if one adopts such a silly idea ( that the physical form of an object is reproduced in the brain) one cannot tell if the subject is visualizeing a duck or a rabbit. In other words, there is information (what that visualized duck looks like, if the subject is seeing a duck and not the rabbit ) that is private, and not physical.
Scroll back. Click on the cognitive phenomenology link,it is very cool.

Yes, but the problem is in terms of phenomenology is that experience always seems to contain multiple parts that can be unified into a particular type of experience.

raw_thought wrote:

Wyman wrote:

So you are saying that when I visualize a triangle in my mind there is a physical triangle in my brain???

Take a look back through this thread and count the number of times you've asked that question. Now, let the answer slowly sink in - YES

Your argument is: there are no physical triangles in my mind when I visualize a triangle (when someone disagrees, you ask the above question) Therefore, visualizations are not physical. Do you see the circularity?

You may be correct that there is nothing physical, but it doesn't follow from a logical argument. It can only be proven or disproven by scientific research.

I keep asking that question because it is so obviously silly to say that the physical form (that includes sound) of an object can be physically seen and heard physically in the brain.
It is silly to say that when I visualize neon part of my brain turns neon.
It is silly to say that when I think ( speak sentences in my mind) my thoughts can be heard with a sound amplifier.
It is silly to say that when I visualize a triangle there is an actual physical triangle in my brain.
I can give sites that show that such things have never been detected. However, scroll back. I showed thru my duck/rabbit analogy that even if one adopts such a silly idea ( that the physical form of an object is reproduced in the brain) one cannot tell if the subject is visualizeing a duck or a rabbit. In other words, there is information (what that visualized duck looks like, if the subject is seeing a duck and not the rabbit ) that is private, and not physical.
Scroll back. Click on the cognitive phenomenology link,it is very cool.

Your whole argument is a one-step reductio ad absurdum:

Things are the way I say they are and anyone who disagrees is silly.

What is silly is trying to be an armchair neuroscientist or, realizing that you cannot pull that off, trying to pass your beliefs off as 'arguments.' There is no argument anywhere in your posts, just assertions.

If I 'see' neon it is because of some process involving photons striking my retina and stimulating my brain. If I 'visualize' neon, it is because of some process involving my brain stimulating those same, or related, areas of the brain. Either way, a representation is created by the brain. That the representation is 'physical' is an assumption based on a scientific outlook (this you correctly, though clumsily, point out). However, that it is an assumption does not imply that the opposite is true - that is your logical mistake:

If P (assumption - everything is physical), then Q (perception is physical).

So: If not Q, then not P.

So far, you are correct. However, you then go on to assert (assume, insist, etc.) that 'notQ' is true - and say - 'well anything else would just be silly.'

So, it all boils down to assuming dualism or physicalism. To you, dualism is patently obvious and any disagreement patently absurd. You are, my friend, a Cartesian. Good luck with that.

But, the argument that goes 'there is a phenomenon (qualia) that science has not adequately explained, therefore it can only be explained non-scientifically (i.e. by armchair philosophers)' has never worked out in the history of humankind. If it works in this case, then I will eat my hat.

raw_thought wrote:Scroll back. Show me the physical shape of the visualized triangle and then tell me where it is located.

I can't show it to you as its located in your neural net and realised as an image in your imagination. If or when we have mapped the neural-net that is our CNS then I think it most likely that if or when we have imaging tools suitable enough we will be able to tell you whether you are visualising a red-triangle or not.

"
Your whole argument is a one-step reductio ad absurdum:

Things are the way I say they are and anyone who disagrees is silly."
Wyman
NO! All I am saying is that it is silly to say that , for example, my brain turns green when I visualize green. You think that that is not a silly idea?????

Arising_uk wrote:

raw_thought wrote:Scroll back. Show me the physical shape of the visualized triangle and then tell me where it is located.

I can't show it to you as its located in your neural net and realised as an image in your imagination. If or when we have mapped the neural-net that is our CNS then I think it most likely that if or when we have imaging tools suitable enough we will be able to tell you whether you are visualising a red-triangle or not.

Exactly! There is information ( the visualized triangle) that is not represented physically. Scroll back. I have not ruled out the idea that neurons firing may facilitate a visualized triangle because that has nothing to do with the argument.
The visualized triangle is an example of a qualia because it does not have the physical shape of a triangle even tho it is perceived as a triangle.

"If I 'see' neon it is because of some process involving photons striking my retina and stimulating my brain. If I 'visualize' neon, it is because of some process involving my brain stimulating those same, or related, areas of the brain."
wyman
I really wish you would read my posts. I do not disagree with that.

Arising_uk wrote:

raw_thought wrote: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.

Show me a concept that does not have a specific place or time when it is expressed?

Any concept will suffice. A concept is not the neurons firing. For example the universal "red" is on a fire engine, a warning label... it does not have a specific place.

“You may be correct that there is nothing physical, but it doesn't follow from a logical argument. It can only be proven or disproven by scientific research.”
Wyman
“Of course I cannot prove it to you on paper. Simply, try to visualize a triangle. If you can ( after performing that empirical experiment) then you have proven to yourself that qualia are real.”
ME
From a few posts back
Seriously, if you never read my posts what is the point of you responding?

"But, the argument that goes 'there is a phenomenon (qualia) that science has not adequately explained, therefore it can only be explained non-scientifically (i.e. by armchair philosophers)' has never worked out in the history of humankind"
wyman
Strawman.
I am simply stating that there is no physical triangle in your brain when you visualize one. Your brain does not turn neon when you visualize neon. From that it is obvious that my experience of a visualized triangle or visualized neon is not represented physically.

One of the properties of qualia is that the experience is subjective (private). This is what materialists object too because they think that only objective reality is real. There is no objective visualized triangle. No one other than myself can see it. Sure someone might be able to speculate that such and such neurons firing may cause me to visualize a triangle, but they will not see my triangle, it is a private experience.

I am simply stating that there is no physical triangle in your brain when you visualize one.

We all know that and we all disagree with you (or most of us). Your method of argument seems to consist of stating it over and over again.

Maybe try this - what do you mean by 'physical?' Maybe our definitions differ. And don't say 'Everything except qualia.'

Wyman wrote:

I am simply stating that there is no physical triangle in your brain when you visualize one.

We all know that and we all disagree with you (or most of us). Your method of argument seems to consist of stating it over and over again.

Maybe try this - what do you mean by 'physical?' Maybe our definitions differ. And don't say 'Everything except qualia.'

Perhaps RT is thinking about identity. If there is a physical triangle I am observing then there must be a corresponding physical triangle in my brain that allows me to recognize the fact that I am viewing a triangle. If the triangle I am looking at cannot be replicated in a physical way in my brain then the two events cannot be one and the same.