Philosophy Now Forum

raw_thought wrote: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.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

raw_thought wrote: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 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: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 wrote:

raw_thought wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: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 wrote: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: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 wrote:

raw_thought wrote: ...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.