How do we know that places like Narnia do not exist?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Qualia were invented as a denial of this [consciousness = brain activity], based on no evidence whatsoever.

Really? I did not know that. Are you sure? I've read a lot of definitions and although they often sound dualistic, there doesn't seem to be a requirement that qualia are inherently dualistic.

Here's the dictionary definition, for example:

2 : a property as it is experienced as distinct from any source it might have in a physical object

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

I understand that, Ian. And I'm ignoring it, because otherwise I would not consider you worth speaking to.

No need to ignore my insults. Take note of them and hence stop communicating with me.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Really? I did not know that. Are you sure? I've read a lot of definitions and although they often sound dualistic, there doesn't seem to be a requirement that qualia are inherently dualistic.

Here's the dictionary definition, for example:

2 : a property as it is experienced as distinct from any source it might have in a physical object

~~ Paul

Qualia just refer to our immediate experiences. Like the smell of coffee or the blueness of an object, or the sound of an explosion, or any other experience. So obviously qualia exist.

 

[PixyMisa]

I think Ian is trying to argue that a working brain is a necessary but not sufficent criterea for consciousness.

Maybe, but if so he's not doing a very good job of it.

 

[PixyMisa]

Watch this, Paul:

Qualia just refer to our immediate experiences. Like the smell of coffee or the blueness of an object, or the sound of an explosion, or any other experience. So obviously qualia exist.

In which case there is no problem with them being generated by the brain, right?

 

[PixyMisa]

Really? I did not know that. Are you sure? I've read a lot of definitions and although they often sound dualistic, there doesn't seem to be a requirement that qualia are inherently dualistic.

Here's the dictionary definition, for example:

2 : a property as it is experienced as distinct from any source it might have in a physical object

Well, that's just it. Experience isn't distinct from any source it might have in a physical object. When you see, for example, a red rose, philosophers claim you are experiencing the qualia of redness. But there is a direct physical path between the rose and your experience. So qualia, per that definition, don't exist.

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
Tis tue that this data gives evidence that mind/self/consciousness is a product of the brain. No argument from me there.

PixyMisa
Good.
.

This is a serious point. Wouldn't profound personality change occurring as a result of brain damage constitute much better evidence that consciousness is a product of the brain, then simply a faulty memory??

What about Phineas Gage??

 

[Interesting Ian]

Watch this, Paul:
In which case there is no problem with them being generated by the brain, right?

Yeah there's no problem per se.

First of all let me say I'm delighted you now acknowledge that qualia exist.

Having said that the question here is whether qualia can be encompassed under some overarching theory describing the world, or part of it.

This is getting into philosophy and I'm painfully aware that no-one understands it

 

[PixyMisa]

This is a serious point. Wouldn't profound personality change occurring as a result of brain damage constitute much better evidence that consciousness is a product of the brain, then simply a faulty memory??

Yes, it would.

What about Phineas Gage??

I was working up to that.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yeah there's no problem per se.

First of all let me say I'm delighted you now acknowledge that qualia exist.

I don't. I don't consider the concept - as it is usually defined - meaningful at all.

But if you say "qualia are simply experiences" then fine. We have experiences. Call them qualia or cupcakes, whaever.

But if you say qualia are irreducible then I will point out that there is no evidence whatsoever that this is so, and considerable evidence that it is not true.

Having said that the question here is whether qualia can be encompassed under some overarching theory describing the world, or part of it.

This is getting into philosophy and I'm painfully aware that no-one understands it

You are aware of many things that are not true, Ian.

 

[Z]

He's slipping back into his old mode, isn't he?

Ian, for your own sake, let me remind you that prior to your alleged - and fraudulent - self-exile from these fora, you were warned that one more outburst would result in your banning. Now, I'm not sure if this was something covered under the civility rules, or due to your insistence on attempting to curse, or your continued insults of every poster who disagrees with you... whatever the problem was, just know that you're re-entering the pattern of behavior that has led in the past to multiple and sundry suspensions and a near-ban. Just a friendly warning.

Instead of simply calling anyone who disagrees with you stupid, why don't you actually try to understand the issue as they see it, and attempt to spot where the error in their thinking is? It's really not that hard - we do it with you all the time, and are, as you like to say, incredibly stupid. Surely someone as mind-bogglingly intelligent as you ought to be able to simply tell us where we're going wrong, clearly and accurately, rather than resort to name-calling and profanity?

Then again, given your hypocrisy and vastly offensive willful ignorance, there's no telling.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Jekyll :
I think Ian is trying to argue that a working brain is a necessary but not sufficent criterea for consciousness.

PixyMisa
Maybe, but if so he's not doing a very good job of it.

I think I should respond to this. As a matter of fact this is not true. I do not believe that a working brain is necessary for consciousness. Otherwise I couldn't believe in a life after death*.

The brain has an influence on conscious states, but I don't believe the brain is the genesis of consciousness. The brain acts like a "filter" enabling us to operate proficiently in this empirical reality.

*Apart from reincarnation.

 

[Interesting Ian]

He's slipping back into his old mode, isn't he?

Ian, for your own sake, let me remind you that prior to your alleged - and fraudulent - self-exile from these fora, you were warned that one more outburst would result in your banning. Now, I'm not sure if this was something covered under the civility rules, or due to your insistence on attempting to curse, or your continued insults of every poster who disagrees with you... whatever the problem was, just know that you're re-entering the pattern of behavior that has led in the past to multiple and sundry suspensions and a near-ban. Just a friendly warning.

WOW thanks! I can feel the love emanating from you.

 

[Interesting Ian]

BTW I have been drinking a lot tonight and have been puking up. The first time since xmas eve so the accusation that I was drunk before when contributing to this thread is without merit.

Only about 8 pints

 

[PixyMisa]

The brain acts like a "filter" enabling us to operate proficiently in this empirical reality.

Okay, that's what I thought you thought. Straightforward dualism.

Now, how is anterograde amnesia possible under that model? The subject is fully conscious and self-aware, able to converse and to relate older memories, but is completely incapable of forming new memories.

How can dualism explain that?

 

[Interesting Ian]

BTW I have been drinking a lot tonight and have been puking up. The first time since xmas eve so the accusation that I was drunk before when contributing to this thread is without merit.

Only about 8 pints

But since I've had 8 pints of lager this means my brain has been altered in a given way and my personality therefore has correspondingly altered too. Therefore it is not "me".

Ya can't beat materialist "logic"!

 

[delphi_ote]

BTW I have been drinking a lot tonight and have been puking up. The first time since xmas eve so the accusation that I was drunk before when contributing to this thread is without merit.

Only about 8 pints

 

[PixyMisa]

But since I've had 8 pints of lager this means my brain has been altered in a given way and my personality therefore has correspondingly altered too.

Right.

Therefore it is not "me".

Wrong.

Ya can't beat materialist "logic"!

Right.

 

[Z]

Ian... Ol' pal...

Don't post drunk, ya silly git!



Oh well... Please, O Powers What Be, have mercy on this drunken dualist tonight...

...

OK, Ian, the coast is clear... quick... call us all idiots again...

 

[Tricky]

He's slipping back into his old mode, isn't he?

Ian, for your own sake, let me remind you that prior to your alleged - and fraudulent - self-exile from these fora, you were warned that one more outburst would result in your banning. Now, I'm not sure if this was something covered under the civility rules, or due to your insistence on attempting to curse, or your continued insults of every poster who disagrees with you... whatever the problem was, just know that you're re-entering the pattern of behavior that has led in the past to multiple and sundry suspensions and a near-ban. Just a friendly warning.

Instead of simply calling anyone who disagrees with you stupid, why don't you actually try to understand the issue as they see it, and attempt to spot where the error in their thinking is? It's really not that hard - we do it with you all the time, and are, as you like to say, incredibly stupid. Surely someone as mind-bogglingly intelligent as you ought to be able to simply tell us where we're going wrong, clearly and accurately, rather than resort to name-calling and profanity?

Then again, given your hypocrisy and vastly offensive willful ignorance, there's no telling.

Truth is, I'm actually glad Ian is here. I've learned so much from people like Pixy and Stimpy who have taken the time and effort to show quite clearly that they know exactly what Ian is saying and why it is incoherent.

A few posts ago Ian thought Pixy was agreeing with him about qualia when it was quite clear to anyone paying attention the Pixy knew the meaning of qualia, even the meaning Ian was using, but did not agree that they existed. And now, Ian becomes drunkenly abusive to one who has responded to every point that has been made and pointedly stayed away from calumny.

So if Ian serves a purpose here as a good example of bad logic, then I cannot wish him ill. I hope he does not sink into the abyssal depths of alcoholism and lose all vestiges of what was once obviously a bright mind. If these boards help him stave off mental atrophy by making him think about what he thinks, then I am glad. Like Pixy, I can put up with the abuse.