Quining qualia.

Post Reply New Topic

I wish you would provide evidence (or an argument) for your accusations. Instead all I get is,"you are totally ignorant, wrong and a mess etc". Perhaps my understanding of your misunderstanding is wrong, but at least I clearly state my objections to your position so we can debate it. Why do you avoid stating your objections clearly?
Just one example (there are many), you stated," nonsense. If the signified is in the inaccessible mind,then the relation is also inaccessible. " I never said that qualia are inaccessible to the person experiencing it. Why would you make such an absurd accusation? Qualia by definition are accessible to the person experiencing it.
I get cable television. My TV is inaccessible to those outside my house. Following your reasoning, my TV is incapable of making a meaningful pattern on the screen from the energy it receives from the cable because those outside my house cannot see the screen.

My objection is the fact that there are many schools of thought to regard the 'existence' of objects like Batman. You think of Batman as some ontological object inside your mind (intuitionism). I consider Batman as part of the Batman fiction (fictionalism), and does not commit to the ontological existence of Batman. i.e. I just _pretend_ Batman exists when reading the story for the sake of enjoying the story.

Therefore your questions 'does X exist?' are loaded.



Here I think you are conflating private and public language. For example, if someone defines erfffv as his qualia of a red car, then erffv is just incomprehensible to us - because we have no idea about that qualia. My upshot is that qualia, or intentionality, does not make public language more meaningful. That is also the weakness of intuitionism.


A few posts ago you admitted you cannot access the pain qualia when you fell off a bicycle at 12.

Because I do not believe in time travel to the past I cannot believe in qualia?
The pain at 12 was accessible.

How can an eliminative materialist imagine anything and not prove himself wrong? Are you saying that the eliminative materialist creates an actual physical batman? Are you saying a certain pattern of neurons firing = the concept "batman"? That is like saying an unplayed CD of Mozart=his music. There is a difference between holding a Mozart CD and hearing his music.
I'd imagine that you will say that you cannot visualize a triangle because there is no physical triangle (neurons firing in a triangular shape or whatever) in your brain. I know that I can visualize triangles.
Also, how can an eliminative materialist enjoy (qualia) anything without proving himself wrong.

Last edited by wittgenstein on 04 Jun 2013, 6:38 am, edited 2 times in total.

True, I do not know with absolute certainty that your experience of red is the same as mine. That is part of the definition of qualia, inverted spectrum etc. Your argument shares Dennett's circularity. However, as in the case of me watching cable TV, I can operate on the assumption that when you say you are watching a program on your TV, you are because we both receive cable.

Perception is an epi-phenomenon of brain operations which consists mostly of electro-chemical processes. Everything about us comes from our physical and material nature.

ruveyn

01001011 is not an epiphenomenomalist he is a eliminative materialist. However, I am happy to expose the difficulties with epiphenomenomism.

(Unconscious) manipulation of (brain states encoding) the symbols.

Basically yes. More precisely "Batman" is a fiction describing what the physical patten encodes.

The CD does encode his music, just a different form.

Yes. So?

Two things:
1) A triangular shape =/= mathematical triangle. Therefore drawing is not a valid proof in Euclidean geometry!
2) The firing patten of a triangular shape can be replicated.

"Enjoyment" is just some brain states.


How so? No explanation?


So in my example erffv is just interpreted as referring to a red car? Then at the end everything deflates to objects in the external reality and / or formal semantics*. The whole qualia / concepts in the mind are surplus.

*1+1=2 is a non-starter because different people learn mathematics differently.

“Basically yes. More precisely "Batman" is a fiction describing what the physical patten encodes.”
01001011
What does a “fiction” mean to an eliminative materialist? What kind of a physical object is it?
-----------
“Enjoyment is just some brain states.”… The CD does encode his music, just a different form.”
01001011
You are confusing sense and reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_and_ ... istinction
For example, if someone points at me, they can be pointing at the concept “male”. Or “husband” Or “white” etc depending on the sense. However, the reference remains the same. Similarly, even if brain states and enjoyment have the same reference, they do not have the same sense.
You say that enjoyment = (is and only is, I wish my computer had the three line =) brain states. Enjoyment is just another word for brain state. Therefore, all you offer is a tautology. Brain states = brain states. Even worse you cannot say that the concept “enjoyment” is false because for you (as an eliminative materialist) there are no concepts.
Since you do not believe that words refer (have definitions) changing definitions presents no problem for you. So you can say that the definition of pain is C fibers firing. Unfortunately, all you are saying (because for you there is no difference between sense and reference) is C fibers firing is defined as C fibers firing. In other words your position is circular.
-----
“*1+1=2 is a non-starter because different people learn mathematics differently.”
01001011
Exactly! 1+1=2 only makes sense to someone familiar with our mathematical system. Are you trying to prove my point for me?
PS; Ironically if qualia = brain states then it is also true that brain states = qualia! Which makes me want to know what you define (yes I know that you do not believe in referring and so therefore do not believe in definitions) matter. Can something that has no volume be considered part of physical reality? Can something that has no mass? If you can believe (yes, I know that as an eliminative materialist you believe that you have no beliefs) in sub-atomic particles, that you never see, is it actually more difficult to believe that people experience pain when they cut themselves? Is it more difficult to believe that you experience pain when you cut yourself?

What does a cat mean? What does the Pacific Ocean mean? What is the point of your silly definition word game?


What do you mean by 'pointing' at a concept? Why do you think a eliminative materialist cannot point at fictional objects? It seems ALL you have is these posts is just fallacy of arguing by personal incredibility.


Where did I say that? Nothing but your misunderstanding.


You defined 'referring' as some magic done by some meaning demon. I reject such magic. Therefore you assert I don't think words have definitions? Again, are you processed by demons?


Where did I say that?


Are you reading the context of my post? How do you communicate the 'qualia' of 1+1=2 to other people? How do you 'get' the qualia of your math teacher?


No. Brain states =/= qualia. Qualia is nonsense.


Because we have falsifiable theory of sub-atomic particles. If you have a falsifiable theory of qualia, then you are talking about something. Otherwise you are just uttering nonsense gibberish.

"Why do you think a eliminative materialist cannot point at fictional objects? It seems ALL you
have is these posts is just fallacy of arguing by personal incredibility."
01001011
An eliminative materialist can point at a fictional object?! ! Something that has no physical reality??! ! Sure you can point at ink on paper.But printed letters does not =the story.Sorry, I forgot,you do not believe fiction books are capable of telling stories.

"You defined 'referring' as some magic done by some meaning demon. I reject such magic. Therefore you assert I don't think words have definitions? Again, are you processed by demons?"
01001011
Now you are just being silly. I never postulated demons.

"Where did I say that? "
01001011
So you are saying there is more to pain then just C fibers firing? Then you are not an
eliminative materialist.

"How do you 'get' the qualia of your math teacher?"
01001011
I never said that ONLY qualia exist. I am not a follower of Berkeley.

Last edited by wittgenstein on 06 Jun 2013, 11:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What on earth can a "falseafiable theory" mean to an eliminative materialist? What kind of physical object is it?
I agree with Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The following are your extraordinary claims
1. We feel nothing. We see nothing. We hear nothing. We smell nothing. We taste nothing.
2. We are not aware of anything (thoughts etc)
3. Words have no definitions. Dictionaries are only ink patterns.
4. There is no such thing as intentionality. One thing cannot imply another.
5. We cannot have any beliefs because there are no such things as beliefs.
6. We cannot visualize anything. Daydreams are impossible.
7. The only thing that exists is atoms, energy and empty space. Since 1-6 are none of those they are mere myths. But wait "myth" or even "falsehood" are not made of matter so 1-6 are not myths or false or true!
No wonder eliminative materialism is only taken seriously by a tiny minority of philosophers.
Epiphenomenalism is a totaly different position. It recognizes the existence of feelings beliefs etc but says they are dependent on brain states. Epiphenomenalism is way more reasonable then eliminative materialism.

What is the problem? Just your ignorance.


How is it possible to have some real stuff being injected into ink pattens without demons? Really, it is so easy to replicate your debate techniques. You are the one who is silly.


Pain qualia is nonsense.


You are the one who talk about the 'concept' of 1+1=2. If you don't get the 'concept' somewhere, then based on what you talk about 'referring' to the concept?


How about your extraordinary claims:

1. In additional to atoms, energy and empty space, there are demons, qualia, concepts, etc.
2. Demons can inject stuff into patten. After that the pattens carry extra powers known as 'meaning' and 'truth'.
3. Qualia are absolutely inaccessible by other people, yet when one is referring to his/her qualia, other people can magically get the 'concept'.

My claims are grounded on science. Yours are based on magic.

I will respond to only one of your points. The rest are,"You're ignorant, believe in demons etc" in other words name calling. Well, I will respond to only one of your rants. Please explain how it is possible to point at a fictional object when according to you only matter exists.
1+1=2 is our understanding of a particular recurring pattern in nature.Similarly ,a story on television is my understanding of the sound and visual on my TV screen.I can act on the assumption that even tho I prevent you from watching my TV screen and you prevent me from seeing your tv screen, I can act on the assumption that if you are watching the same channel and at the same time as me you are seeing the same news story.Actually, you should read my posts before responding.If you disagreed with my metaphor, you should have told me why you think I am wrong instead of calling me names.
Anyway, you are obviously a true believer (and very emotional ) in a tiny minority position.I will remain with the more academically validated camp.
PS: You really should check out epiphenomenalism . One can be a materialist and still believe in thoughts, feeling, concepts and beliefs.

I never said that meaning is injected into the ink. Scroll back and actually read what I said. Similarly, if I look up at the night sky and impose a meaningful pattern (the constellation the big dipper for example) I am not injecting a water retrieval device into stars.

“So you can say that the definition of pain is C fibers firing. Unfortunately, all you are saying (because for you there is no difference between sense and reference) is C fibers firing is defined as C fibers firing. In other words your position is circular.”
ME
“Where did I say that?”
01001011
“So you are saying there is more to pain then just C fibers firing? Then you are not an
eliminative materialist.”
ME
“Pain qualia is nonsense.”
01001011
“My point is that when you say"pain =a brain state" you are only saying "a brain state=a brain state." In other words, you do not present an argument. I already know your position. I'd appreciate an actual argument. Well OK a tautology is an argument, an argument based on a logical fallacy.”
ME