Qualia

[SpheresOfBalance]

If I am a rebel because I believe that I feel pain,love my wife,hate ISIS....then OK I am a rebel.
You will believe anything, apparently!

It is funny that you believe that I believe in God because I believe that I have feelings. Actually, I am an agnostic.
Yet it seems you're looking for proof of your god.

It is funny that you beliecve that only a mystic can believe that he can feel pain.
Your words, not mine! Your kind of freakish, how you attempt to talk for others, as if you're qualified. But I guess ones ignorance works like that.

[raw_thought]

Your "argument" was that qualia do not exist because they only exist briefly. That is why I mentioned nano seconds and virtual particles. If something does not exist because it only briefly exists ( cant you see that is a contradiction) then quantum particles do not exist.

[raw_thought]

You said that qualia do not exist. That means that feelings do not exist. There is nothing pain feels like etc. You did call me a mystic in response to my saying that I believe in feelings.

[raw_thought]

If I am a rebel because I believe that I feel pain,love my wife,hate ISIS....then OK I am a rebel.
You will believe anything, apparently!

It is funny that you believe that I believe in God because I believe that I have feelings. Actually, I am an agnostic.
Yet it seems you're looking for proof of your god.

It is funny that you beliecve that only a mystic can believe that he can feel pain.
Your words, not mine! Your kind of freakish, how you attempt to talk for others, as if you're qualified. But I guess ones ignorance works like that.

So believing that I love my wife and hate ISIS means that I will believe anything. Whatever.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm done, you're obviously simply a child playing with his toy, be careful some say it shall make you go blind.

So Searle, Chalmers and most of the philosophical community are children because they believe in qualia.
Your take on my meaning, due to your ignorance of my meaning, par for your elementary course. And to this I'm sure you'll assume something else, or so you'll believe/testify.

I dont mind being included in their prestigious community!
That you look to supposedly greater minds, to find your much smaller minds strength, is common place!

Thanks for the compliment!
That you'll take it that way is no surprise, your delusion demands it.

Perhaps your more mature and wise philosophical reasoning will make them stop acting like children!
That you feel the power, of "follow the, so called, leader," speaks volumes of your fear and desires.

Perhaps you are right and ad hominums are the latest breakthrough in philosophical reasoning!
Only when someone does anything to discredit their opponent, the liars or fools that they are, do they see such from me. look to yourself son, to find your confusion!

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm done, you're obviously simply a child playing with his toy, be careful some say it shall make you go blind.

So Searle, Chalmers and most of the philosophical community are children because they believe in qualia.
Your take on my meaning, due to your ignorance of my meaning, par for your elementary course. And to this I'm sure you'll assume something else, or so you'll believe/testify. That's the problem one dimensional thinking.

I dont mind being included in their prestigious community!
That you look to supposedly greater minds, to find your much smaller minds strength, is common place!

Thanks for the compliment!
That you'll take it that way is no surprise, your delusion demands it.

Perhaps your more mature and wise philosophical reasoning will make them stop acting like children!
That you feel the power, of "follow the, so called, leader," speaks volumes of your fear and desires.

Perhaps you are right and ad hominums are the latest breakthrough in philosophical reasoning!
Only when someone does anything to discredit their opponent, the liars or fools that they are, do they see such from me. look to yourself son, to find your confusion!

[raw_thought]

Listen, I would rather debate the issues. I will not waste my time calling you a poooy head after you call me a poopy head and then back and forth ad infinitum.
Go ahead and continue your rant. It only makes you look childish.

[raw_thought]

There was one (and only one) point you made. You called me childish for believing in qualia. That is why it follows (is implied) that you must think that Chalmers and Searle are childish ( because they believe in qualia.)

[Arising_uk]

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.

So you are an idealist then, as you cannot differentiate between your imagined triangle and this objective triangle as you agree that both are produced by the CNS. Which, if they are, are both caused by a physical thing which means you are also a materialist unless of course you can point to an immaterial cause?

If that is dualism, then dualism is obviously correct.

You are not a dualist you are an idealist.

[raw_thought]

Thank God! You brought us back to civilized debate!
No,I am not an idealist. I believe in objective reality. However,I also believe in subjective private experiences.
My neurons firing is an objective physical fact. My visualized triangle is a private subjective experience.

[raw_thought]

I think when spheres sobers up he will edit out those recent obnoxious posts he made.

[Arising_uk]

Thank God! You brought us back to civilized debate!
No,I am not an idealist. I believe in objective reality. However,I also believe in subjective private experiences.
My neurons firing is an objective physical fact. My visualized triangle is a private subjective experience.

If they have the same base then what is it that makes them different, i.e. all you have is subjective experience in both cases? As there is no physical object in your brain when you see a triangle and you claim that this means that it must be a subjective experience.

[SpheresOfBalance]

...Please actual objections and not "you are wrong and stupid" like my last opponent. I respect those that actually confront my argument!!
If you're talking about me, you're mistaken.

1. There is no objective physical image of my visualized triangle.
No, simply the "physical" representation of what you were taught was a triangle, that was "physically" stored in your memory, and was "physically" recalled, so as to revisit it as a "physically" created mental image.
One cannot see a triangle in my brain. I think that is obvious.
For you to think something that absurd is what materialists believe, shows your thinking to be as elementary as you display.

2. Therefore, since the materialist believes that only objective physical reality exists,for him, there is no visualized triangle.
Non-Sequitur! You frame what you believe materialists believe in such an absurd way, so it shall make your case. In truth physicalists (materialists), at least this one, understand that the objective physical reality exists in the physical means in which human brains manifest their mental images. That it's all "physical," i.e., electrochemical/mechanical, in nature. Therefore, there is no ghost in the machine. Your qualia is just another word for the human brains physical capabilities.

3. I know that I can visualize a triangle.
So what, I know that I do too, though I also realize that it's simply a recording, a memory of my programming, that I can summon forth so as to draw one on paper. All of which is due to the "physical" properties of my human mind.

4. Therefore, the materialist is wrong.
No, you just don't understand what, at least this, physicalist (materialist) believes. And so you lash out due to your confusion, as if it's necessarily probable that you should know.

That was a scaled down version for those that want to attack my argument (see next post)...
I'm sorry but your argument, is full of your delusions.

And that is what your last opponent has said from the beginning, if you were referring to me, that is.

[raw_thought]

It is true that when I look at a cat scan (or whatever ) and know what neurons are firing that enters my mind thru qualia. I subjectively experience the data ( if my scientific instrument prints out 58392, there is no 58392 in my brain) However, that does not mean that I believe that 58392 neurons are not firing.

[raw_thought]

Please scroll back I already addressed your objections.
Well, OK not every post you made was obnoxious. That came later,when you got frustrated by having your arguments refuted. You kept attacking strawmen.
I never said that the brain does not cause me to visualize a triangle. I kept having to keep repeating that.