Philosophy Now Forum

raw_thought wrote: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 wrote:I am using a tablet. So this is an answer to your quote.
I never said that neurons firing does not facilitate my visualized triangle. I said that I can visualize a triangle and that format cannot be found in a physical form. Perhaps a metaphor will help. Suppose one said that only binary is real. I show that 3 (in base 10) is real. You say that base 10 = 11 in binary. I agree. However, I have shown that base 10 is a legitimate format. Similarly, I have shown that my triangle that is not in a physical format is real.

raw_thought wrote:I hate it when an interesting debate is redirected towards mere semantics (definitions of words). However, I’ll indulge those that prefer semantics over substance with two sentences. “See” does not necessarily mean physically seeing something. One can say, “I see your point.”
Suppose a materialist is correct (he is not) when he claims that when I visualize a triangle there is the physical form of a triangle in the person’s brain. Suppose one visualizes a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit%E2% ... k_illusion . Suppose for a moment one can only see the duck. * If someone looked into your brain they could not tell if you were seeing a duck or a rabbit at that moment. In a nutshell, even if we adopt the absurd position that there is the physical form of the duck/rabbit in your brain when you visualize a duck/rabbit, one still cannot know if the person visualizing a duck/rabbit sees a duck or a rabbit. There is information that is private (qualia).
Interestingly one can use the same argument towards concepts. Suppose I think, “1+1=2”. Even if “1+1=2” were a physical form in your brain it would still not reveal what it refers to (the concept you understand). Consciousness is the foundation of meaning!
“The symbol grounding problem is related to the problem of how words (symbols) get their meanings, and hence to the problem of what meaning itself really is. The problem of meaning is in turn related to the problem of consciousness, or how it is that mental states are meaningful. According to a widely held theory of cognition called "computationalism," cognition (i.e., thinking) is just a form of computation. But computation in turn is just formal symbol manipulation: symbols are manipulated according to rules that are based on the symbols' shapes, not their meanings. How are those symbols (e.g., the words in our heads) connected to the things they refer to? It cannot be through the mediation of an external interpreter's head, because that would lead to an infinite regress, just as looking up the meanings of words in a (unilingual) dictionary of a language that one does not understand would lead to an infinite regress”
FROM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem
Also see
http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/dpitt/whatsit.pdf
* Humans cannot see the duck/rabbit simultaneously. We oscillate from duck to rabbit and back again.

raw_thought wrote:

raw_thought wrote:I am using a tablet. So this is an answer to your quote.
I never said that neurons firing does not facilitate my visualized triangle. I said that I can visualize a triangle and that format cannot be found in a physical form. Perhaps a metaphor will help. Suppose one said that only binary is real. I show that 3 (in base 10) is real. You say that base 10 = 11 in binary. I agree. However, I have shown that base 10 is a legitimate format. Similarly, I have shown that my triangle that is not in a physical format is real.

Wyman wrote:

2. There is no physical triangle in my brain ( it has no triangular volume.)

Wonderful example of philosophical nonsense. Triangular volume is meaningless - a pyramid may have volume, a triangle may have area, but triangular volume is something you just made up. When you have to make up senseless words to express your ideas, it is a sign that your argument fails right at that point. I don't know exactly what a 'physical triangle' is - perhaps a drawing on paper? the musical instrument?

As such, the drawing on paper represents a triangle just like my brain represents a triangle when I imagine it. No one would claim the drawing has a special evanescent aura that is inexplicable except by a dualist account of nature. Where in the paper and ink molecules will you find a triangle? Nowhere. Therefore, it must not be physical according to your argument - It lacks volume.