Do qualia (feelings) exist?

[raw_thought]

Kilgore has pointed out the strawman hear. Your mischaracterizing his argument by stating his conclusion is absurd, based on something he isn't arguing. He says qualia doesn't exist but what he means is that qualia has no "real physical" representation and is rather illusory. If it is private, as is argued, then it is only real privately but there is no physical triangle in the brain, that is absurd and nobody says that, which makes it a strawman.

I am not saying that Dennet is saying that a physical triangle exists!!! I am saying that if
1. Only the physical exists.
2. Visualized triangles exist
3. Therefore, visualized triangles are physical!
The above argument is valid. But is it true? Dennet must agree with 1 because that is his position. Does he agree with 2? If he does not he is saying that it is impossible to visualize a triangle. and that is absurd. Since the argument is valid if 1 and 2 are true 3 has to be true.
But it isnt! Even Dennet would agree that 3 is false. Therefore, 1 cannot be true.

 

[raw_thought]

That's right, Dennet doesn't believe that there is a triangle in the person's brain. It's good that you see reason now.

You are missing the entire point!!!
see 341
I really do not understand the confusion. I am showing that Dennet's position ( that only the physical exists) leads to conclusions ( that the triangle is physical) that even he rejects. Therefore, he contradicts himself and therefore cannot be right.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

My suggestion is to address what dennet says not what you think he says.

:yes:

Not going to happen though. Critiquing Dennett's arguments would require work, and thinking, and reading, critiquing some flimsy strawman is easy.

 

[idav]

I am not saying that Dennet is saying that a physical triangle exists!!! I am saying that if
1. Only the physical exists.
2. Visualized triangles exist
3. Therefore, visualized triangles are physical!
The above argument is valid. But is it true? Dennet must agree with 1 because that is his position. Does he agree with 2? If he does not he is saying that it is impossible to visualize a triangle. and that is absurd. Since the argument is valid if 1 and 2 are true 3 has to be true.
But it isnt! Even Dennet would agree that 3 is false. Therefore, 1 cannot be true.

I think 3 fails. What is the proof that visualizations are physical? What if thoughts are immaterial?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I am not saying that Dennet is saying that a physical triangle exists!!! I am saying that if
1. Only the physical exists.
2. Visualized triangles exist
3. Therefore, visualized triangles are physical!
The above argument is valid. But is it true? Dennet must agree with 1 because that is his position. Does he agree with 2? If he does not he is saying that it is impossible to visualize a triangle. and that is absurd. Since the argument is valid if 1 and 2 are true 3 has to be true.
But it isnt! Even Dennet would agree that 3 is false. Therefore, 1 cannot be true.

It must take some serious practice to be this good at ignoring EVERYTHING that EVERYONE says to you.

 

[raw_thought]

Just answer at least one of my questions!

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I think 3 fails. What is the proof that visualizations are physical? What if thoughts are immaterial?

Well, if they are immaterial, they cannot exist, according to the physicalist. But we needn't grant that visualized triangles exist, since that cognitive processes generate a real object is not a given; in other words, when I am visualizing a triangle, I have not somehow created a peculiar sort of object- a "mental" triangle. Does conscious experience exist, for Dennett or other physicalists? Sure. But is it a process which produces objects of conscious experience, which can then be said to exist? Well, obviously not. The only extent to which conscious experience exists, according to physicalism, is to the extent that we are having physical activity of the brain.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Just answer at least one of my questions!

I answered your questions, to no avail, for many pages of this thread. Until you start producing what others are asking you for- namely, a response to Dennett's arguments against the publicy, ineffability, and immediacy of qualia rather than attacks on caricatures of physicalism- I'm not going to continue going around in the same circle with you over and over again. You need to start actually reading and considering what others say to you first.

 

[idav]

But we needn't grant that visualized triangles exist

Good point. Does it fail at 2 then and is it still valid?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well, if they are immaterial, they cannot exist, according to the physicalist. But we needn't grant that visualized triangles exist, since that cognitive processes generate a real object is not a given; in other words, when I am visualizing a triangle, I have not somehow created a peculiar sort of object- a "mental" triangle. Does conscious experience exist, for Dennett or other physicalists? Sure. But is it a process which produces objects of conscious experience, which can then be said to exist? Well, obviously not. The only extent to which conscious experience exists, according to physicalism, is to the extent that we are having physical activity of the brain.

The point is that eliminativism is rejecting the entire framework of thinking about consciousness and mental activity, to which qualia belong, as fundamentally flawed- we need an entirely new way of thinking about cognition and consciousness, and part of that is abandoning the notion of distinct mental items which are private, ineffable, and immediate present to a subject. That is Dennett's argument in a nutshell. Clearly, to address this one either needs to defend the framework Dennett attacks (raw thought has not even ATTEMPTED a defense of folk psychology), show how Dennett's argument doesn't succeed (again, not something raw thought has been willing to do) or show how the notion of qualia, or something similar, would be necessary for any adequate explanatory framework (yeah, ditto once more).

 

[idav]

Good point. Does it fail at 2 then and is it still valid?

I guess the way I would put it is visualization exist only as representations of something physical. Visualization exist but not as any particular object, so to say visualized triangles do not exist. Dennet makes a good point with the way the brain works, it definitely isn't a triangle regardless if visualizations are there.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I really do not understand the confusion. I am showing that Dennet's position ( that only the physical exists) leads to conclusions ( that the triangle is physical) that even he rejects. Therefore, he contradicts himself and therefore cannot be right.

So, Dennet contradicts himself because his arguments don't agree with your faulty logic and conclusions?

Interesting tactic.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Good point. Does it fail at 2 then and is it still valid?

Right; it's valid, but trivially so, just like the following argument is valid-

If God exists, then God exists.
God exists.
Therefore God exists.

This is a valid argument, but it clearly won't help us in any discussion of the existence of God. Similarly with (all of) raw thought's arguments- in each case he has smuggled in a point that is in contention, and so while valid, his arguments are all question-begging and impertinent.

 

[raw_thought]

I understand that internet posts are merely skimmed over. That explains why some thought that I had committed a strawman when I said that Dennet has to say that the visualized triangle is physical. I never said that he actually said that.
The whole point behind a reductio ad absurdum - definition of reductio ad absurdum by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. is that your opponent rejects the conclusion even tho it follows from his original proposition.
It is a legitimate argument technique http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum to show how a proposition leads to an absurd conclusion and so therefore cannot possibly be true.
For example,
Suppose Joe said,
1. The USA is on Mars.
I reply
2. You are from the USA.
3. Therefore, you are from Mars.
4. Since you cannot agree with 3, your proposition 1 must be false because 2 is true. *
Similarly, Dennet said,
1. Only the physical exists.
I reply
2. Visualized triangles exist.
3. Therefore, visualized triangles are physical.
4. Since you cannot agree with 3 your proposition 1 must be false because 2 is true.
* If Joe shouts “Strawman! Strawman! I never said that I am from Mars.” Joe is being silly.

Here, I’ll try to make it even simpler,
Suppose Joe and I are observing birds.
Joe: I just realized that all 2 legged creatures have wings.
Me: If that is true, you must say that you have wings because you are a 2 legged creature.
If Joe is normal he will say, “Yes, you are correct. You just proved that my proposition (that all 2 legged creatures have wings) is false.
If Joe is crazy he will yell,” Strawman! Strawman! I never said that I have wings!”
Can’t you see that continuously shouting “strawman” is irrational?

So Joe yelling “strawman” is a legitimate objection because Joe never said that he has wings?
OK, perhaps Joe is insane and does not realize that the propositions,
1. All 2 legged creatures have wings
2. I am a 2 legged creature and I do not have wings,
Contradict each other.
Similarly, perhaps Dennet does not understand that
1. Only the physical exists ( Dennet’s position)
2. Visualized triangles exist ( Dennet agrees)
Leads inevitably to
3. Therefore visualized triangles are physical,
Creates a contradiction because Dennet denies that 3 is true.
If Joe is insane or if Dennet does not understand syllogisms is irrelevant. The fact remains that their arguments are self-contradictory.
Another argument that reveals Dennet’s confusion,
1. Private experiences do not exist. ( Dennet’s position)
2. It is possible to visualize a triangle. ( Dennet agrees)
3. Therefore the visualized triangle is not a private experience.
4. Anything that is not private can be seen by others.
5. Therefore, the visualized triangle can be seen by others!
5 inevitably follows from 1 (show me how it does not!*) However, Dennet disagrees with 5! A contradiction!
* Or show me how one of the propositions is false. It is legitimate to add new facts (that Joe is 2 legged) that Joe did not consider. Similarly, I added the proposition that visualized triangles exist. Yes Dennet never considered that, but since he agrees with it, it does not matter. It is not a strawman to add propositions.
For example,
1. Newton’s theory of gravity predicts a particular path for Mercury.
2. That path does not exist.
3. Relativity predicted the actual path Mercury takes.
4. Therefore, Newton’s theory is less accurate than Einsteins.
To call that syllogism a strawman because Newton never mentioned Relativity is absurd!

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I see you're still avoiding offering anything pertinent, like this-

a response to Dennett's arguments against the publicy, ineffability, and immediacy of qualia rather than attacks on caricatures of physicalism

... to defend the framework Dennett attacks (raw thought has not even ATTEMPTED a defense of folk psychology), show how Dennett's argument doesn't succeed (again, not something raw thought has been willing to do) or show how the notion of qualia, or something similar, would be necessary for any adequate explanatory framework (yeah, ditto once more).

Seriously, trying to offer a genuine rebuttal to Dennett isn't going to hurt you- you won't catch an STD from actually reading and addressing his arguments and views. And, believe it or not, doing so may actually get you somewhere- something your current strategy clearly isn't doing. Just a thought.

 

[idav]

Similarly, perhaps Dennet does not understand that
1. Only the physical exists ( Dennet’s position)
2. Visualized triangles exist ( Dennet agrees)
Leads inevitably to
3. Therefore visualized triangles are physical,
Creates a contradiction because Dennet denies that 3 is true.

You like your straw mans. 3 is a misrepresentation. You know what he is saying and you know he isn't saying 3.

If Joe is insane or if Dennet does not understand syllogisms is irrelevant. The fact remains that their arguments are self-contradictory.
Another argument that reveals Dennet’s confusion,
1. Private experiences do not exist. ( Dennet’s position)
2. It is possible to visualize a triangle. ( Dennet agrees)
3. Therefore the visualized triangle is not a private experience.
4. Anything that is not private can be seen by others.
5. Therefore, the visualized triangle can be seen by others!
5 inevitably follows from 1 (show me how it does not!*) However, Dennet disagrees with 5! A contradiction!

Look at all these little straw mens. 3 4 and 5 misrepresent his argument. Straw mens is when you make your opponents claim absurd by misrepresenting his arguments.

You are clearly not understanding what it means when it says, visualized triangles exist or that it possible to visualize a triangle. DENNET DOES NOT BELIEVE THE TRIANGLE EXISTS! Dennet believes that any mental representation of an object is not the real object, by no means is he saying its impossible to visualize anything. And he definitely is not arguing your absurd conclusions, like everyone being able to see personal experiences .

 

[raw_thought]

I understand. Religion Forum readers do not have the time to read the entire thread. If anyone voices objections to my argument that I already responded to pages ago, I will refer them to this post, post 354 or post 305. For example, if someone once again accuses me of creating a strawman (that I said that Dennet said that visualized triangles are physical. I did not!) , I will simply refer them to post 354.
Below, I will repeat my responses to various constantly raised objections. The objections are underlined.
1. You do not address Dennet’s argument Quining Qualia
I did not address Dennet’s argument because this thread is about the reality or unreality of qualia. Dennet claims that he addresses that issue but he does not, as shown in post 305 (smashing fingers). Besides, as shown in post 305, one does not have to pontificate about every aspect of a person’s position to show a contradiction.
2. Dennet does not say that qualia do not exist, only that qualia-like properties do not exist.
That is as silly as saying, “I never said that bachelors do not exist. I said that unmarried men do not exist.” Note, that if Dennet claims that qualia exist but not in a physical sense, there is no way to differentiate Dennet’s position from the pro-qualia side! * Remember that we are talking about eliminative materialism not epiphenomenalism. Eliminates say that there is nothing anything feels like (the definition of qualia). Epiphenomenalists say that what something feels like supervenes on the physical.
Also note that in post 354 I showed that the qualia-like property ( privateness) if non-existent leads inevitably to the absurd conclusion that the visualized triangle can be seen by others.
* Suppose someone claims that qualia are hallucinations. How something feels (seems) is the definition of qualia. Therefore, to say that qualia are hallucinations (hallucinations feel like something) is to proclaim qualia’s existence!
To say that pain=C-fibers firing or that the visualized triangle= neurons firing (even tho not in a triangular pattern) is logically equivalent to saying that a CD of Mozart’s music = how Mozart’s music sounds. Obviously absurd.
In post 305 is the video of “Good Will Hunting”. According to eliminative’s Mary’s room reveals no new information. In other words Robin Williams (in that speech) is speaking gibberish! I find that asinine as any rational person would.
When making a new challenge to my position remember that simply saying “you’re wrong” is not an argument. I will respond to arguments. Unfortunately, it is impossible for anyone to respond to something so general and undefined as “you’re wrong.”

 

[raw_thought]

This post, the post just above this one, post 354, post 305…. Shows that enaidealukal‘s accusation (that my entire argument is “ Dennet is absurd&#8221 reveals that he is not paying attention.
Enaidealukal simply ignored and did not respond to Symbol grounding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ( an argument I made many times) An on light is not the meaning of an “on” light switch. In other words meaning requires qualia! If qualia do not exist, words are meaningless and therefore anything Dennet says must be meaningless!
Anyway, this post is futile! Enaidealukal will not respond with an interesting rebuttal. He will only call me ignorant without understanding my point.

 

[raw_thought]

So, Dennet contradicts himself because his arguments don't agree with your faulty logic and conclusions?

Interesting tactic.

????
Read posts 305, 354 and the ones above. Simply saying "you're wrong" or "you're illogical" is not an argument. Please actually address my argument.
Are you saying that a reducto ad absurdum is not a legitimate argument form?
Or are you saying that my argument is invalid? Show me how it is invalid!
If one believes that there are no private experiences and one believes that one can visualize a triangle, it follows that one must believe that visualizing a triangle is not a private experience. How is that invalid?

 

[raw_thought]

[/size][/font]
You like your straw mans. 3 is a misrepresentation. You know what he is saying and you know he isn't saying 3.

Look at all these little straw mens. 3 4 and 5 misrepresent his argument. Straw mens is when you make your opponents claim absurd by misrepresenting his arguments.

You are clearly not understanding what it means when it says, visualized triangles exist or that it possible to visualize a triangle. DENNET DOES NOT BELIEVE THE TRIANGLE EXISTS! Dennet believes that any mental representation of an object is not the real object, by no means is he saying its impossible to visualize anything. And he definitely is not arguing your absurd conclusions, like everyone being able to see personal experiences .

How can you say that 3 does not follow from 1 and 2?
If Dennet claims that qualia exist but not in a physical sense, there is no way to differentiate Dennet’s position from the pro-qualia side! Suppose someone claims that qualia are hallucinations. How something feels (seems) is the definition of qualia. Therefore, to say that qualia are hallucinations (hallucinations feel like something) is to proclaim qualia’s existence!
I really wish you guys would read my posts before commenting. I NEVER said that Dennet will say that the visualized triangle exists physically or that it can be seen by others. I am saying that the absurd conclusion ( that visualized triangles are physical and/or can be seen by others) follows logically from Dennet's position that only the physical exists. Since he cannot accept that conclusion it follows that his original proposition is false.
So Joe yelling "strawman" was a legitimate objection to the syllogism that proved that the USA cannot be on Mars?