Quining qualia.

Post Reply New Topic

EMs constantly try to sneak in words they reject. For example,they may say that "eliminative materialism " is a philosophical weltanschauung . What is a philosophy without concepts? Or a world view without beliefs? * If only brain states and the physical environment exist, describe eliminative materialism's physical properties that distinguish it from lets say the philosophical system existentialism.
*Remember concepts and beliefs are non existent for the EM. And yes their position is that extreme! That is why it is no longer taken seriously. And why materialists embrace epiphenomenalism. They can believe that ultimately only the physical exists and still maintain a philosophical position.

Last edited by wittgenstein on 18 Jun 2013, 2:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

See yourself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMA23JJ1M1o



What do you mean by 'belief in concepts'. Do you consider these concepts?
1) 'King' in chess
2) vneaiova
3) vneaiova that stole Harry Potter' magic stone

What do you think concepts are? You seem to think concepts are real and compatible with materialism. So are they made of matter?

So that video is implying (with no sources) that they can now wire a persons brain to a computer and see his/her daydreams? * I think that is from science fiction not science. However, feel free to post a credible source that says otherwise.
* And with that clarity! My daydreams are not that vivid! Wait! You just said that mental imagery is possible! An EM's position is that you have no thoughts or visualization ability. There is no image in your head only neurons firing.

Here is an experiment you (and anyone reading these posts ) can do. Visualize a triangle. If you can then eliminative materialism fails.

It is real science
http://gallantlab.org/
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/ret ... cript=true



All they are doing is analyzing how the neuron fire. Do you really think there is really an image in the brains for the demons to see?



Delusion of visualizing a triangle =/= qualia of visualizing a triangle. Fail.

You claim that you cannot visualize a triangle. Equally obvious is the fact that I cannot convince you that I can visualize a triangle.
Obviously, you do not understand the definition of qualia. One can experience pain and still claim that pain is not part of the objective world (heat etc that causes pain can be objective.)
Delusion makes no sense from an EM perspective. Once again you are sneaking in words that contradict eliminative materialism.
Also tell me what "eliminative materialism" is using only physical terms. What is the pattern of neurons firing. If you do not know then you cannot differentiate it from existentialism.
So you are claiming that they now have machines that can read my mind! Actually, if what you claim is true you proved my point! That we do have images in our minds. Or do those images in the video mean nothing? I forgot for an EM images do not exist. Only neurons firing.*
* in the context of our brain taking in data from the world outside our brains. If you are consistent you will have to claim that you saw no images in that video. Obviously, you did and that is another example of how eliminative materialism contradicts itself. Eliminatice materialism is a theory that says there are no theories or even concepts. It is like the liar paradox. What I am now saying is a lie. Therefore it must be the truth.Which means that it is a lie,which means that it is the truth... and that is why our debate keeps going in circles.

Because your 'visualize a triangle' is magic. I cannot do magic. A zombie / computer can repeatedly print 'I have qualia of visualizing a triangle'. This proves nothing.


What do you mean by 'can experience'? I offered fictions as alternative to things happening in the objective world. You reject and insist to appeal to magic.


Wrong. It is you who misunderstand the meaning of delusion. People suffering from delusion often fully know that they have no unusual experience. Yet they simply cannot help but believing/behaving as such.



The same silly question again. Eliminative materialism is not a thing. Chess is not a thing. It is you who is begging the question asserting we can only be talking about 'something', even if it is magic.

Your proposal is really ridiculous. You never know whether other people have concepts. You just pretend they do anyways.


How about you tell me what "OSX" is using only physical terms? If you do not know then you cannot differentiate it from Windows.



This proves it is you who don't understand the definition of qualia. Anything that can be extracted by a machine in the objective world is by definition NOT qualia.

If you think there is really some images inside one's head and all it takes is to use a camera to capture those images, you are totally ignorant of neuroscience.


No such thing. Just your misunderstanding that 'theories' must be some magical objects you call 'concepts'.


No. It is because of you keep dodging and returning to the debunked assertion again and again.

OK, since eliminative materialism is not a physical thing it does not exist. Therefore, you do not agree with it or disagree (actually an EM cannot agree or disagree) with it. What are we debating for?
Neurons can be delusional? Atoms? That is silly.
Delusional implies intentionality (that one is wrong in how they refer to reality ) No intentionality, no delusions.

I specifically said that your camera did not photograph what is in your mind.

OK, what is a theory for an EM? I'd imagine that you would agree that theories must reside in the brain. * What is the pattern of neurons firing that you would claim is an understanding (use your definition of understanding ) of eliminative materialism.
What question of yours have I dodged?
* Just as you would say that a computers understanding resides inside the computer.

I never made any statements as to what logic,math, concepts etc are composed of. I merely stated that they exist. I wish you would stop the ad hominum non sequiters about how I believe in demons.
I can say that I know the sun exists without knowing what it is composed of. Actually, I do know what the sun is composed of. What I am saying is that even if I did not know that it is composed of hydrogen (mostly ) I can still know that it exists.
If you want to explore what concepts are,thats epiphenomenalism. One battle at a time.
PS: The reason I can differentiate between OSX and windows and you cannot differentiate between eliminative materialism and existentialism is that I have some access and you have none. I can read the package etc. You have no way of knowing what pattern your neurons are firing in.

I will take your word for it that you cannot visualize a triangle. I know that I can visualize a triangle and I am sure almost all wrong planet readers can also. It would be interesting to take a poll. But you would just say that they were all delusional (if an EM can actually use the term "delusional " as it implies intentionality ).

What interests me in this debate is your implied contention that epiphenomenalism is a disingenuous cop out to avoid the rejection of such terms as proposition, theory,concept that are necessary for meaningful conversation. I imagine that you consider eliminative materialists as having the honesty to bite the bullet and accept the impossibility of meaning.
Epiphenomenalists believe that concepts supervene * on the physical. In other words, ultimately the physical is the foundation of everything.
* Google, supervenience stanford. And also, Identity of indiscernibles Stanford.
I tend to agree with you. A true physicalist cannot use meaningful terms (because that implies intentionality ).

Knowledge, its all in your mind!

In my definition 'understanding' is just bad grammar. I would just use the verb 'understand'. 'The computer understands chess' describes what the computer does - playing chess correctly. Similar for other functions like 'believing'.

A fiction a a collection of utterances (pretended to be) consider as axioms*. Chess is a good example - there is simply no point to ask what 'king' or 'queen' etc. mean.

A theory is a fiction whose purpose is to describe reality.

*A fiction is a type. A fiction book is a token. You seem to be conflating the two. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/types-tokens/

I disagree. We just need a theory of meaning that does not rely on _ontological_ intentionality. Given computers are communicating well, such theory is evidently feasible.


I understand the idea. I am a member of another forum where the philosophy of mind is hotly debated from all sides. Supervenience just have too many gaps.