Philosophy Now Forum

hammock wrote: ]. This is what Chalmers called bait-and-switch, where a philosopher seems to start out proposing either a solution to or a way to discard the problem of experience, and later it is realized they actually rolled-off into some other area of consciousness, hoping that the departure to elsewhere will remain obscured.

I agree. Chalmers (not you but for our readers unfamiliar with Chalmers, Chalmers is a pro-qualia philosopher ) as does Searle, reveals the disingenuous nature of eliminate materialism. Dennett, for example, knows that it is absurd to say that pain does not hurt. (a quale) and so he redefines terms. He says that feelings are and only are brain states. For him the definition of "pain" is a particular brain state. He then says that he is not denying that we have feelings because he does not deny that we have brain states. That is similar to me saying (I am an agnostic) that the definition of "God" is "furry mammal that barks". Then I say that I believe in God because I believe that my dog exists.
Eliminative materialists use qualia laden terms to express their views. They hope that there (the qualia laden terms) far away from the central argument they will remain in obscurity.

raw_thought wrote:I do not have to know what wind is (air particles moving ) to experience the wind on my face. I see something that does not resemble anything in my brain. That means that my experience is subjective.

But it doesn't mean that the experience is immaterial. A materialist or at least this materialist believes that all experiences have a material cause, you claim differently, so I'd like to know where this extra experience comes from in your opinion?

My argument is epistemological not ontological. If I say that I cannot read your mind I am not saying that you have no thoughts.

If it's epistemological then from your position all you can say is that you don't know if I have any thoughts and cannot compare any of the thoughts you have with others.

No! I never said that the visualized triangle does not have a physical cause. I have repeatedly said that most likely my neurons firing cause me to visualize a triangle. I am saying that the visualized triangle is not physical. There is no physical object in your brain that is shaped like a triangle.

raw_thought wrote:That is an argument against materialism!

This is not a reply to my question.

You agree that the triangle you imagine is produced by the CNS but claim that because the way a triangle is represented in such a system this means that the triangle does not exist and as such is not physical in the same way an objective triangle is but an objective triangle is 'seen' in the same way, i.e. via the CNS, so by that light your objective triangle does not exist?

raw_thought wrote:... There is no physical object in your brain that is shaped like a triangle.

Well for this materialist there doesn't have to be, just a material cause and the CNS appears to be such a material cause. Unless of course you can point me towards an immaterial cause?

raw_thought wrote:“But all you are 'seeing' is the pattern produced by your neurons? As such how can you tell that there is an objective physical triangle?”

Arising-UK


“That is an argument against materialism!”
ME

No, it's an argument against duality. It's either all physical or all mental - can't have it both ways.

Wyman

……………………..

How can a materialist know that anything is objective?
Arising-UK’s objection does not work against a person that believes in feelings (qualia). However, it destroys the materialist’s claim that he knows what is objective.

Either everything in the universe is physical or everything is mental? I disagree.

It may well be the case that not everything is physical or mental. But the bottom line is that when it comes to science everything is physical. In other words, we cannot portray qualia as anything that is grounded in science. When it comes to the science of consciousness the neurons firing in a particular way IS the triangle. It is all very well to introduce qualia into the explanation, but science won't ware that. You cannot disprove materialism by introducing qualia as having some sort of claim to physicality

The triangle still remains immaterial in that I am the only one that can see it. It is a quale because it is a private subjective experience. Materialists reject the idea of subjective private experiences because for them only objective physical reality is real. That is why they reject first person narratives. But how can one have a 2nd person narrative without a first person narrative.
My joke * was not just meant to be funny. It points out the absurdity of such a position. Dennett believes in first person narratives because if there are no first person narratives there is no way he can experience what his wife's answer will be. It does not matter if or if not my CNS causes me to visualize a triangle.
* After sex Dennett asked his wife, "It was good for you. Was it good for me"?

I am not claiming that qualia are physical. I am saying that they obviously exist. Simply, try to visualize a triangle. It is obviously not a physical image. There is no physical image of a triangle in your brain.
If that is dualism, then dualism is obviously correct.

raw_thought wrote:The triangle still remains immaterial in that I am the only one that can see it. It is a quale because it is a private subjective experience. Materialists reject the idea of subjective private experiences because for them only objective physical reality is real. That is why they reject first person narratives. But how can one have a 2nd person narrative without a first person narrative.

Because that's the way science works. When you introduce a first person narrative you automatically create a dualist theory. You cannot falsify a scientific theory with a dualist argument.

See my above post.

Then it is impossible for science to understand all of reality. I do not believe that because as many physicists have said, QM is adoping many subjective perspectives. Dennett's version of science is old school.
If QM is seen entirely objectively it contradicts itself.

raw_thought wrote:Then it is impossible for science to understand all of reality. I do not believe that because as many physicists have said, QM is adoping many subjective perspectives. Dennett's version of science is old school.
If QM is seen entirely objectively it contradicts itself.

Yes, I agree science cannot understand all of reality.The challenge for the science is to give us a subjective and objective account of consciousness, while still maintaining a scientific approach.

Can quantum mechanics help in this regard? Probably will given enough time.

I agree, Dennett's old school and materialism is most certainly false in my view. Physicalist explanations for consciousness have moved on since Dennett. For examaple, Jesse Prinz gives makes an attempt to explain how the first person account can manifest itself through the physical processes and it is a pretty good attempt. Naturally, he balks at qualia. Progress has been made but not enough progress to include qualia.

Yes, there is not yet a scientific explanation as to what feelings are. It is amazing that I am considered a radical because I believe that pain hurts and is not just c fibers firing.

raw_thought wrote:Yes, there is not yet a scientific explanation as to what feelings are. It is amazing that I am considered a radical because I believe that pain hurts and is not just c fibers firing.

Well, a scientific explanation that doesn't satisfy everyone. Me included.

raw_thought wrote:"individual unique experiences " is the definition of qualia.
Your ignorance of my meaning is astonishing.
I gave you the definition of recordings contained in memory, not qualia. But you can call it "duck soup" if you want.

Learn more about what words mean and then you will not be so confused.
I'm so far past you it's not funny!

I will ignore all the childish ad hominums.
Ditto! Because I see that they're what "you" call competitive undestanding.

I am used to them from you. No arguments from you,just insults.
That you characterize me that way is of no real consequence, I mean just because you're wrong and can't deal with it, is no reason to lie about it.

However, you said that there are "individual unique experiences". So you do believe in qualia!!!!!!!
Not at all, you're just deluded, and will try any tactic you can think of, to try and discredit your opposition, to be expected from the fearful. I just don't know why you fear it so much as an agnostic, unless of course you really want to believe in god.

It does not matter if they exist for a short duration,you are saying that they have existed and probably will continue to enter existence.
Recordings into your memory? Of course! Surly not your imaginary, "qualia." Unless of course you have them confused with recordings in you memory, which seems to be the case.

I also believe that some particles (erroneously called virtual particles, they are not virtual, they actually do exist but only for a nano second) exist even tho they last a nano second.
That's nice!

Does that also make me a mystic?
I guess that all depends on what the absolute truth of the matter is!

I guess (according to you) all the current physicists are mystics because they believe in virtrual particles.
Your assertion just now, not mine, but again it would depend on what the absolute truth of the matter is, now wouldn't it?

Your error is that you selfishly feel qualified, and that the time is here in which one can actually know those answers for certain.

Good grief, more insults and no arguments or facts.
Can you at least try to engage the argument. What you wrote above is gibberish. We were talking about qualia,I gave the definition of qualia.....never mind, your response I am sure will be that I am an idiot. I dont debate trolls. Well,ok, just this once I will debate like you. You are a poooy head! That actually did not feel good saying that. Anyway contiinue calling me a poopy head or whatever. It only makes you look silly to everyone here.