Do qualia (feelings) exist?

[idav]

There are physical monists and then tehre are neutral monists. Neutral monists don't ascribe to physicalism. You are a phsyicalist.

Qualia are a product of the mind, which is a separate property of the universe.

Again I'm not sure I would describe myself as physicalist but yeah there are also idealistic monists which say all substance is mental. Neutrall monism seems to not even take a stance, being it is neither physical or mental. What is all substance made of then? Physics should cover everything(You can call all of it physical) but really all of matter and energy are vibrations, might be neutral, makes little difference. The point, where is qualia coming from in monism, it would be from the only substance that exists, whatever you wanna call said substance. It is emergent unless you want to argue that the brain is receiving qualia via some other realm.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Perception has been around for ages--why did we need a new word for it?

Not to mention that, like love, perception is at least partly a physical process (even granting, for the sake of argument, the existence of qualia); so saying perception is qualia is clearly mistaken. Perception involves the physical processes of our sensory organs, and the processing of that information by our brain- and of course, the eliminativist would point out that qualia adds nothing to our scientific understanding of perception over and above our understanding of the physical processes which compose it.

 

[MD]

Oh, the irony... Someone who believes in inexplicable, unverifiable, immaterial, and, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from fictional, entities is pointing the finger at other people for believing in magic or living in a fantasy world.

You are either completely shameless and without ANY sense of irony or self-awareness, or this is just a fairly elaborate joke.

Yea I admit that qualia are outside what science or logic can describe. It's better than believing that there's nothing else going on, people like you want to deny all things that go against your own belief aka physicalism. To believe that it all just magically EMERGES is MAGIC! By denying this you are no different from a religious zealot who denies the logical fallacies of his own faith.

 

[MD]

You just can't make up your mind, can you? Which is it?

Physicalists? Yeah, that's generally who disputes the existence of non-physical entities. Very insightful.

Ok, we've now established that some people dispute that qualia exist, and others accept that they do. Glad we got that covered.

Given your obvious lack of ANY objectivity (or any desire for it) on this topic, your assessment of the state of the debate is rather worthless. Also, considering your posting habits, I'm genuinely curious whether you aren't actually raw_thought. I also notice that you didn't answer the question- are we to take your silence as confirmation? Why create the sock puppet account?

It is both, the physical and the mental combine to create qualia. I'm not raw thought, but you are one arrogant person who probably will die thinking that qualia don't exist and it's an illusion, while the rest of the philosophical and scientific community will come to accept that there is another property at play here.

 

[MD]

Not to mention that, like love, perception is at least partly a physical process (even granting, for the sake of argument, the existence of qualia); so saying perception is qualia is clearly mistaken. Perception involves the physical processes of our sensory organs, and the processing of that information by our brain- and of course, the eliminativist would point out that qualia adds nothing to our scientific understanding of perception over and above our understanding of the physical processes which compose it.

Perception is what we experience after a sensation occurs. It is more than just the physical processes of the brain, it is separate and completely novel, different from the physical. Nothing perceived exists in physical reality, red is a wavelength of energy, soudn is compressed air and smells are particles stimulating olfactory receptors. None of this explains how we experience redness, hear things or smell food. Maybe if you got your head out of your behind you would come to accept this.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yea I admit that qualia are outside what science or logic can describe.

So it's explanatory value is... What, exactly?

It's better than believing that there's nothing else going on

In what way?

people like you want to deny all things that go against your own belief aka physicalism.

(holds up a mirror)

To believe that it all just magically EMERGES is MAGIC!

Yeah, nobody believes that.

By denying this you are no different from a religious zealot who denies the logical fallacies of his own faith.

Show the fallacy then. Even if it were false (which remains to be shown), that would not make it fallacious. Also, this is a plain ad hominem.

Seriously now.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It is both, the physical and the mental combine to create qualia. I'm not raw thought, but you are one arrogant person who probably will die thinking that qualia don't exist and it's an illusion, while the rest of the philosophical and scientific community will come to accept that there is another property at play here.

So you're a psychic too? And appealing to a consensus which does not yet exist? LOL! Awesome.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Perception is what we experience after a sensation occurs.

Nah. Perception is the operation of our sensory organs and the processing of that information by the brain.

It is more than just the physical processes of the brain

Well, at least you admit that perception isn't qualia; perception is at least partly physical processes. Whether there isn't a subjective inner experience of this process is a separate question. You really need to keep your stories straight here.

Maybe if you got your head out of your behind you would come to accept this.

Knockdown argument. If you aren't raw_thought, you two will nevertheless get on famously.

 

[MD]

So it's explanatory value is... What, exactly?

Some things don't need to be explained through logic, mathematics and physics. There might be other more abstract explanations

In what way?

Because you are denying that there is another property at play and assuming it all just arises.

Yeah, nobody believes that.

Actually most die hard physicalists such as yourself do.

Show the fallacy then. Even if it were false (which remains to be shown), that would not make it fallacious. Also, this is a plain ad hominem.

It's called the Hard problem of consciousness. I suggest you do a quick search, it might help you. The fallacy that electrical impulses only giving rise to novel properties beyond their physical substrates is even something that you would understand.

 

[MD]

Nah. Perception is the operation of our sensory organs and the processing of that information by the brain.


Well, at least you admit that perception isn't qualia; perception is at least partly physical processes. Whether there isn't a subjective inner experience of this process is a separate question. You really need to keep your stories straight here.


Knockdown argument. If you aren't raw_thought, you two will nevertheless get on famously.

No! Perception is the totality of the brain processing sensory information and the experience of that information. Perception is the combination of the physical and mental processes of the brain. I think you need to understand that just because i'm not a die hard dennett fan boy doesn't make me an old fashioned substance dualist. There's property dualism, panpsychism and neutral monism. All are valid philosophical positions when it comes to qualia. You on the other hand think it's only physical magical emergence through brain 'processes'. Sound like a tape recorder from a 1986 Marvin Minsky interview.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Some things don't need to be explained through logic, mathematics and physics. There might be other more abstract explanations

You didn't answer the question. So it isn't amenable to science or logic- so in what sense does it explain anything? I'm having a hard time imagining what an illogical, unscientific explanation would look like, and in what wise it is a real explanation at all. Any ideas?

Because you are denying that there is another property at play and assuming it all just arises.

Ok, but why is that worse than the alternative? (simply assuming that there are these inexplicable entities which, so far as evidence goes, are indistinguishable from fiction, which are irreducible and fundamental)

Actually most die hard physicalists such as yourself do.

So you know what I believe? You are a psychic, eh? Cool beans! How much do I owe you?

Seriously though, that is clearly not what physicalism holds; either you are intentionally fashioning a strawman, or you're here criticizing and rejecting a view you are entirely unfamiliar with. Neither option is a good one.

It's called the Hard problem of consciousness. I suggest you do a quick search, it might help you.

Right back 'atcha.

The fallacy that electrical impulses only giving rise to novel properties beyond their physical substrates is even something that you would understand.

Do you know what "fallacy" means? Doesn't look like it. False=/= fallacious.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No! Perception is the totality of the brain processing sensory information and the experience of that information.

The crucial point here is that you now admit that, even on your view, perception includes physical processes, and is not exhausted by any subjective experiential quality it may posses. In other words, perception=/= qualia, by your own admission.

I think you need to understand that just because i'm not a die hard dennett fan boy doesn't make me an old fashioned substance dualist. There's property dualism, panpsychism and neutral monism. All are valid philosophical positions when it comes to qualia. You on the other hand think it's only physical magical emergence through brain 'processes'. Sound like a tape recorder from a 1986 Marvin Minsky interview.

More ad hominem. You don't have much else, do you?

 

[raw_thought]

This is basically raw_thought's dispute with eliminativism in a nutshell-

"Nuh uh! Because... Well... Nuh uh!"

See post 398
Why do you constantly lie? Sure, disagree with my arguments but at least try to refute them. But , of course you never do because you cannot. All you can do is say, "you're wrong" .
Also see posts 394, 357, and 354

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Lol.. you don't have any pertinent arguments. You've spent this whole thread basically doing nothing more than telling us that you find the premise of eliminativism counter-intuitive or absurd. That's a rather large non-starter, needless to say.

 

[raw_thought]

To be honest Enaidealukul did offer 2 “arguments.” Unfortunately, I temporarily forgot them because they are so silly.
His “arguments” are underlined. My response follows the underline.
1. The syllogism
A. Only the physical exists.
B. Visualized triangles exist.
C. Therefore visualized triangles are physical.
is a tautology.
This shows unfamiliarity with what a tautology is. For it to be a tautology B and/or C must be a repeat of A. Obviously that is not the case!
2. Raw thought’s argument is based on a strawman because reductio ad absurdum - definition of reductio ad absurdum by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. is based on the strawman fallacy. This shows unfamiliarity with what a reducto is. See http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/159678-reducto-legitimate.html

 

[raw_thought]

Lol.. you don't have any pertinent arguments. You've spent this whole thread basically doing nothing more than telling us that you find the premise of eliminativism counter-intuitive or absurd. That's a rather large non-starter, needless to say.

Yep, He just proved my point again. Enaidealukal NEVER offers any evidence or legitimate argument. Only, you're wrong. you're argument is stupid.
Anyway, it is obvious that he has no counter arguments or he would have offered one.

 

[MD]

Yep, He just proved my point again. Enaidealukal NEVER offers any evidence or legitimate argument. Only, you're wrong. you're argument is stupid.
Anyway, it is obvious that he has no counter arguments or he would have offered one.

He's mostly ad homs and hot air

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yep, He just proved my point again. Enaidealukal NEVER offers any evidence or legitimate argument. Only, you're wrong. you're argument is stupid.
Anyway, it is obvious that he has no counter arguments or he would have offered one.

Lol, 43 pages of this thread tend to belie this claim. Oops!

Also, shahz, there's that utter lack of irony and self-awareness again. Seriously, pot meet kettle; read your last several posts!

 

[MD]

Also, shahz, there's that utter lack of irony and self-awareness again. Seriously, pot meet kettle; read your last several posts!

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Lol, ok. I've been here, still waiting on you... So "come at me bro"... Or do you have nothing more than what you've offered already- ad hominems and fallacious appeals to consensus, incredulity... Basically everything short of, you know, an argument.