Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

raw_thought wrote:

Ginkgo wrote: Are you saying that a visualized triangle is not a quale?
It is a private experience (the definition of a quale), unless you believe that an outsider can look into my brain and see a triangle. Google "cognitive. Phenomonology"!

How do you know it's a triangle then? That is how are you looking into others brains and knowing that what they see is what you see?

Are you saying that when you visualize a triangle,you do not know that it is a triangle. Besides the mere fact that you are seeing something that has no physical form in your brain is the point. If you can or cannot identify it with words (labels) is beside the point,

raw_thought wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

raw_thought wrote:How do pain killers work? Let me repeat myself, I never said that the brain does not facilitate sensations.Pain killers work because they inhibit the communication between brain cells.
CAUSE DOES NOT = IDENTITY!

No need to shout, so tell me the identity that is not the cause? Where is it? Where does it lie? Tell me what is the more that is over and above the CNS's facilitations?

I do not know or have to know where or what my visualized triangle is. I know it exists (I know that I can visualize a triangle). I also know that it is not physical.There is no triangle in my brain that others can see (even with advanced scientific instruments ).
Suppose, I see a platypus. Also suppose I do not know what a platypus is. Can I not say that it is not an elephant? Similarly, I do not know what my visualized triangle is. However, I do know that it is not physical. There is no image of a triangle in my brain when I visualize one.

You keep asking the same question. Yes, I do not know what my visualized triangle is or where it is from.

raw_thought wrote:You keep asking the same question. Yes, I do not know what my visualized triangle is or where it is from.

And yet somehow you know its not physical or material? How do you know this?

There are no images of any kind in my brain. Yes, I know that I can visualize a triangle. However, even if all I kmow is that my image is not an image of neurons firing,I know that my image is not represented in my brain.

raw_thought wrote:Are you saying that when you visualize a triangle,you do not know that it is a triangle. ...

No.

Besides the mere fact that you are seeing something that has no physical form in your brain is the point. ...

But it does have a physical form, it's got colour and shape and its an object against a background and apparently its the result of a neuronal-net storing sensations of triangles that can then be retrieved without the original stimulus.

If you can or cannot identify it with words (labels) is beside the point,

I disagree, you claim no-one can experience your triangle and in a sense this is true but that you can identify it as a triangle means that its not such the private thing you wish it to be.

raw_thought wrote:There are no images of any kind in my brain. Yes, I know that I can visualize a triangle. However, even if all I kmow is that my image is not an image of neurons firing,I know that my image is not represented in my brain.

Then tell me where is it being represented? You appear a realist materialist with your insistence that a representation has to be in the same form as the thing being represented?

OK, I will provisionally agree that I know that I am visualizing a triangle because that form and label were stored in my brain. Is that info that I retrieve in the form of a triangle? Of course not! My memories of lets say childhood do not take the form of what happened in my physical brain. If someone looked into my brain (even with advanced scientific instruments. There are no images of my childhood in my brain,there are only neurons firing). they would not see me at Disneyland etc.

Arising_uk wrote:

raw_thought wrote:There are no images of any kind in my brain. Yes, I know that I can visualize a triangle. However, even if all I kmow is that my image is not an image of neurons firing,I know that my image is not represented in my brain.

Then tell me where is it being represented? You appear a realist materialist with your insistence that a representation has to be in the same form as the thing being represented?

No. A quale can have no relation to physical reality. For example, a hallucination does not represent something that is in my immediate physical environment.

I can not know what I am visualizing and still know that I am visualizing. For example I can visualize an elephant with wings and not know what to call it.

Arising_uk wrote:I disagree, you claim no-one can experience your triangle and in a sense this is true but that you can identify it as a triangle means that its not such the private thing you wish it to be.

I never said that there is not the concept triangle. I am saying that my visualized triangle is private. I am not saying that the concept triangle is private. OK I am visualizing a triangle right now! Tell me if it is scaline,.isosceles or equalateral.
Do you think that someone could see if it were scaline if they looked into my brain?

Ironically, we get our knowledge subjectively. My knowledge of what a triangle is, is given to me privately. You dont know what I know.*
The subjective comes first and then intersubjectivity!
* You dont know if I know what a platypus is....etc.

[quote="Arising_uk"]But it does have a physical form, it's got colour and shape and its an object against a background and apparently its the result of a neuronal-net storing sensations of triangles that can then be retrieved without the original stimulus.
[quote]
That image of a triangle is not physical. True,it may look physical,but it cannot be detected physically. There is no physical image of a triangle in your brain.
If it is caused by a neuronal-net makes no difference to our debate. Cause is not identity. My causing a vase to break by throwing it is not the same identical thing as a broken vase.

I keep having to repeat myself because I keep getting the same questions.
The visualized triangle is not physical because it cannot be detected physically.
If neurons firing causes me to visualize a triangle is unrelated to our debate because cause does not =identity.
Materialists do not believe in qualia because qualia are subjective and materialists only believe in objective reality.
My visualized triangle is an example of a quale because it is subjective and private.,the definition of qualia (google " cognitive phenomenology ").
Please refer back to this post so that I will not have to keep answering the same questions.

raw_thought wrote:Are you saying that someone that says he has no feelings (he claims that he cannot feel joy,pain,saddness pleasure or even physical sensations such as warmth, cold) is not mentally ill? Either he truly cannot and that is a pathological condition,or he thinks that he cannot and that is delusional.

I would think that neither your nor I are in a position to pass judgements on mental health. Unless of course you have qualifications in this area. I certainly don't, but how about how about you? You are using an ad hominem attack on Dennett as a means of criticism. Sorry about being so "anal" in relation to this matter.

raw_thought wrote: I was not being dishonest. I simply do not want to take up at least half an hour to find an obscure quote that has no relevance to our debate.

Well then, why did you bring up the state of Dennett's mental health?

raw_thought wrote:
Trust me! The debate between Searle and Dennett gets very heated!

Yes, but this doesn't mean their discussion degenerates into personal attacks.

So calling someone "intellectually pathological" is not an insult? That was what Searle said about Dennett. True, if Dennett is mentally ill does not effect the validity or invalidity of his argument. I mentioned it in passing as an explanation as to why Dennett hold such bizarre beliefs. Such as that he and everyone does not experience pain,joy....