Quining qualia.

Post Reply New Topic

You keep misrepresenting my points. Now you are complaining my humourous representation of your philosophy?


What do you mean by point at? Is you question how do we refer to fictional objects which in fact do not exist?

To begin with.the purpose of a fiction is not describing the external world. What we are interested is the relation between objects within the fiction. All literal facts about a fiction can (only) be obtained by formal symbolic manupilation (obvious for chess). Therefore whether the objects refer to anything is irrelevant.

There are many problems with insisting fictional objects must point to some concepts. For example under-determination (Roemo and Juliet are just gereric people) and circular defintion.


1) We know how TV sets convert signals to images. There is no basis to compare qualia (you like coffee, I hate coffee, do we have the same qualia when drinking coffee?)

2) You slipped to compare our understanding of the new clip. Even if we both recall the same details there is no reson we have the same understanding.

3) It is given both of us are given the same TV source. There is no 'particular recurring pattern in nature' to serve as the definitive source. Indeed your whole 'understanding of a particular recurring pattern in nature' is circular. If someone does not understand 1+1=2, it is hard to see how pointing at patterns is going to help.


Appeal to popularity?


Why? Because of more emotional support from other people?

But you believe 'meaning' is something real. You believe there is real difference between a meaningful word and meaningless pattern. Where do you think is the difference lie?

To begin with.the purpose of a fiction is not describing the external world. What we are interested is the relation between objects within the fiction.
01001011
And what physical objects are those in the fiction? I can say that we are comparing concepts (representations) but you cannot because you do not believe in intentionality.

"Even if we both recall the same details there is no reson we have the same understanding."
01001011
Then we have no reason to believe that the law of gravity obtains on Pluto. We do not see (experience ) every square inch of Pluto and cannot say for sure if at such and such a location a given object will fall to the surface. Science is not based on absolute certainty. However, just because we "only" have 99.99% certainty does not mean that we have no reason to believe it.
I said "I can act on the assumption" in previous posts for a reason. True, I do not have 100% certainty that your fundamental (that the news show is about floods for example) understanding of the TV
news is the same as mine. However, it is an assumption I can safely act upon.

Last edited by wittgenstein on 09 Jun 2013, 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Show me even one example where I misrepresented your points.
Perhaps, you were offended when I said that what you write is gibberish. If you look at my claim in context I was not insulting your intellectual ability. My point was that if you are correct that there is no intentionality, then words have no definitions. Without definitions words are meaningless patterns of ink, in other words gibberish.

I realize that you will think (or whatever that means to an eliminative materialist) that my next statement is a cop out (does "cop out " make sense in the context of eliminative materialism? ). It would take far more then one post to describe the various theories of epistemology.

Last edited by wittgenstein on 09 Jun 2013, 8:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

It is not the fallacy of appeal to authority to site academically credentialed authorities. For example, I can legitimately say that it is the accepted consensus among scientists that the sun is at the center of the solar system.
Of course I cannot say that that proves that the sun is at the center of the solar system. However, it does add weight to my position. I also gave arguments and did not exclusively rely on the statements of experts.

The problem with eliminative materialism is that one is not allowed to use words like, thoughts,concepts,theories,beliefs, definitions or any word that implies (actually an eliminative materialist cannot use "imply" because that involves intentionality * ) those ideas. That makes everything they say void of content. Of course eliminative materialists try to sneak those words into the debate.
Epiphenomenalism does not have the same insurmountable problem and is a position consistent with materialism.
* One cannot create a syllogism without a "therefore". Therefore, an eliminative materialist cannot use logic to support his position!

Last edited by wittgenstein on 09 Jun 2013, 8:16 am, edited 2 times in total.

I suppose that you will claim that an eliminative materialist can represent objects. Suppose I have a picture of myself. Does it represent "photograph","male" white guy"...
Wittgenstein (not me ) made the point with a necker cube and the duck-rabbit. One can "see" the duck (make a meaningful pattern) . However, objectively ( from a third person perspective) one cannot say if it is a duck or rabbit being experienced. Perhaps you will think that adds to your position. That is the same misunderstanding of Wittgenstein that led many to think that Wittgenstein was a logical positivist. No academically validated philosopher today believes that Wittgenstein was a logical positivist. Wittgenstein himself disavowed any connection. However,during Wittgenstein's era, the predominance of logical positivism blinded many.
Logical positivism is now remembered as an interesting example of a philosophy that refuted itself.
PS: Basically, Wittgenstein (by using necker and rabbit/duck) is showing the difference between sense and reference. He is also showing that sense is subjective (in today's terms qualia). He is not saying that reality lacks sense or that meaning is nonsense. Google "Frege sense and reference."

Why do you keep asking 'what physical objects are those...'? You are the one who is _presupposing_ when we say X, X must be real (as a physical object or a concept). That is silly. I said so many times that I am just pretending the fiction means something. Strictly 'speaking' words don't exist and all that is happening in our 'debate' is just flows of electrons.


Wrong. 'Representation' refers to how the signal is processed. i.e. How the ink pattern interacts with the brain.


I can compare formal symbolic manipulation. A computer can play chess and did win chess games with a human player. Whether the computer has 'concept' of chess is irrelevant.


The problem is not that of certainty. The problem is based on what do you think I have the same understanding as yours, while a computer does not? Because I am made of organic chemicals while a computer is (now) made of silicone?


There is a even more insurmountable problem for other materalist poistions: A physical human is not exaclty a well defined physical object. 'Wittgenstein' today is different from 'Wittgenstein' yesterday, and there is no natural boundary between what is part of 'Wittgenstein' and what is not. How can a guzzy system process some ontological, private, and unitrary object known as qualia?

Formal SYMBOLIC manipulation??! What da heck does that mean to an eliminative materialist that does not believe in intentionality??! !

Last edited by wittgenstein on 09 Jun 2013, 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You have started to use the word silly. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Anyway, I respect you. This reminds me of chess.* Respect your enemy and still try to destroy him! Sorry, I'm old school. I even wear a fedora like Al Capone!
* I love my chess opponents. I show my love by destroying them!

Are you saying there is no formal symbolic manipulation happening in front of you. Then what do you use a computer for?

There are many theories of meaning. Your whole [...] requires intentionality question begging is just getting old.

You summarized yourself.


I did not claim pain equals or is more than brain state (remember for a eliminative materialist pain is not real - brain state is real). I corrected your assertion, I was not making an argument (for a point I don't even agree?). You think you understand eliminative material but you are wrong.

How can you quote me where I clearly say that for you pain does not exist and only brain states exist and then say that I am saying that you believe that pain exists???????

I asked for an example where I misrepresented your position. Obviously, you can not think of an example.
Symbolic implies symbols which obviously involve intentionality. As I said previously eliminative materialists try to sneak in qualia laden terms because without them they cannot make their point.
It must be frustrating trying to construct a syllogism without being allowed to use the word "therefore"!

Last edited by wittgenstein on 10 Jun 2013, 7:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

A belief is a qualia. In other words I can never believe the proposition,"there are no qualia" if there are no qualia.