Materialists......

[UndercoverElephant]

I have today been told by a materialist that he doesn't know what I could possibly mean "inherently subjective" and he sees no reason why subjective experiences like "seeing red" should be "anything more than physical processes".

(1) The physicalist worldview:

Materialism (or physicalism, doesn't make much difference which) is a worldview which treats the external physical world as the only reality. Nearly all of modern science implicitly works within this framework, and modern science has painted us a picture of a big bang, stellar evolution, the formation of the solar system and the long, slow evolution of life on this small blue planet. Eventually, after hundreds of millions of years, complex creature have evolved which have brains and behave intelligently. There are a quite few unanswered questions, but in nearly all of those cases it is quite reasonable to believe that scientific materialism will eventually be able to provide those answers.

(2) The blatantly undeniable facts about consciousness:

This thread was provoked by a person telling me that he had no idea what I meant by "inherently subjective". When I replied that he had no way of knowing how I experience redness, his response was the one in the opening paragraph of this post. This cannot and will not be allowed to stand unchallenged, because it is completely absurd and the sort of people posting on this site really should know better. Everybody here knows exactly what is meant by "the experience of seeing red". They also know exactly what is meant by "physical brain". All I wanted this materialist to accept, for the purposes of the original thread, was that there are certain things that are inherently subjective, like my experience of red. This claim was rejected. Just like in I was asked in Sunday School to believe that Jesus turned a basket of fishes into food for five thousand people, I was asked at the JREF to believe that there is no discernable difference between the experience of seeing red and processes in a physical brain. It is blatantly ridiculous to claim that one basket of fishes can feed five thousand. It is no less blatantly ridiculous to claim that one cannot tell the difference between a physical process in a brain and the inherently subjective experience of seeing red.

(3) The mistake which has occured:

The materialist in question cannot possibly mean that he does not know the difference between the experiences of seeing red and a physical brain process. What, in fact, he actually meant was this: If the physicalist worldview is correct then it follows that everything we call "mind", and all of the contents of "mind", including the experience of seeing red, must be something happening in a brain. Such experiences are, after all, always associated with brains (as far as we know, but it's reasonable to believe it is always true). So what has happened is that the assumption/belief that physicalism is true has been added to the observation that minds seem to occur when there are living brains around. Of course we only know of minds because we are intimately familiar with our own. We never experience anybody-else's - that would be silly (no-one here believe is telepathy, I assume). So the materialist, in order to make sense of these two beliefs (that physicalism is true, that minds only occur when there are living brains around) are both correct, has to end up claiming that somehow, minds "are nothing more than brain processes". The alternative appears to be that one of the above pair of beliefs must be wrong.

4) What the materialist is actually entitled to claim if he doesn't want to descend to a "fishes-and-the-five-thousand" standard of critical thought:

It is not credible to say that brain processes and subjective experiences are indistinguishable. Anyone reading this who is feeling the urge to think down those lines go and take a cold shower. When you have finished your cold shower have another think about whether you can tell the difference between the experience of seeing red and a physical brain process.

(M1) What the materialist is actually entitled to say is the following:

"Somehow, in some way that we really do not understand, subjective experiences and brain processes are one and the same thing. They must be, otherwise we cannot understand where the additional "thing" has come from. It would be incompatible with physicalism."

(M2) What the materialist is not entitled to say:

"I cannot tell the difference between subjective experiences and brain processes. They are identical, and indiscernable. I do not know what you mean by "inherently subjective". No such things exist."

In M1, there is no rank absurdity. There is an admission that we really do know the difference between subjective experiences and brain processes, an admission that we don't know exactly how one "arises" from the other, and an admission that the position being defended is being based upon a desire to defend physicalism.

In M2, we have descended to sunday-school thinking in defence of physicalism. It is plainly absurd and nobody who was thinking honestly, critically and fearlessly could ever say it.

Conclusion:

The real situation, whether you are a materialist or not a materialist, is that we can indeed tell the difference between a physical process and a subjective experience. We may wish to claim that "in some way" they are one and the same thing. So they appear to be both the same and different, depending on how you look at it. This I can tolerate. But I cannot tolerate any more supposedly intelligent people trying to tell me that they are indistinguishable, identical and that they have no idea what I mean by "inherently subjective". I'll tell you what I mean by "inherently subjective". I mean the experience of seeing red. Even if you think that "in some unknown way" experiences and brain processes "are the same thing" you also know d*mned well that in another very obvious way, they are also different. The brain process is objective and the subjective experience is, well, subjective. So at the very least we have "two different perspectives on the same thing".

You can claim the two perspectives are somehow two perspectives on "the same thing". But do not insult my intelligence by expecting me to believe there are not even two perspectives. And once you accept that there are two perspectives then there is no need to go on claiming you don't know what "subjective" means, or what minds are, or how experiencing red is "anything over and above a physical processes". It is "over and above" a physical process simply on the grounds that all other physical processes have only one perspective and only in this case is there a second one. So the thing which is "over and above a physical process" is the subjective experiences associated with the relevant brain activity. Now, what the consequences of this are going to be for the wider worldview of the materialist is no immediate concern of mine - and whether or not you think this disproves materialism is another matter entirely. Maybe the problem can be solved. Just do not try to tell me you do not even know what the problem is, because you might just as well tell me that Jesus fed five thousand people with a single basket of fishes. And that would be stupid, wouldn't it?

 

[hammegk]

I have today been told by a materialist ...

Where did you find one who would admit it?

 

[Z]

Part of the problem is, if we accept that an experience is a process within the brain - and we have no valid reason, at this point, to believe otherwise - then we have to accept that a subjective experience is nothing more than a privately experienced process within the brain. That the experience is purely subjective is actually questionable, in such cases as 'seeing red'... we have learned that other organisms - assuming we believe they function as we do - can detect the same wavelength of light and assign it the same verbal identity that we do; ergo, our 'subjective' experience has appreciable objective elements as well. However, other cases - such as imagination or unexpressed thought - are more purely subjective, of course.

I think the best your friend would be entitled to is to claim that he believes that subjective experiences are indistinguishable from one category of brain processes - it's far shakier ground than most materialists want to walk on, but such is the nature of the beast.

All -isms rely on some beliefs and assumptions, materialism included.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Where did you find one who would admit it?

In a thread about social darwinism, oddly enough.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Part of the problem is, if we accept that an experience is a process within the brain - and we have no valid reason, at this point, to believe otherwise.....

Cold shower for you then. Just look at (2) without thinking about (1) and you have your reason. You don't want any valid reasons for thinking otherwise. It does not follow that there aren't any.

Please deal with what I wrote. Are you telling me that you cannot distinguish between a subjective experience and a physical process or are you telling me something else. Just for once in your life, try not to put the cart before the horse. Do you, or do you not, understand that there are two different perspectives on the same thing.

- then we have to accept that a subjective experience is nothing more than a privately experienced process within the brain.

I am not interested in your backwards reasoning. I already explained in the opening post that materialists arrive at their conclusion by assuming it is true and then trying to re-arrange the facts to suit it, I do not need you to explain the details of that backwards reasoning. Yes, if you assume that materialism is true (*regardless of the fact that there are very good reasons for not doing so) then it is inevitable that you will be forced to claim that subjective experiences are brain processess. Try again. This time, read the opening post properly before answering, and actually address what I wrote instead of trotting out the same tired old BS.

I think the best your friend would be entitled to is to claim that he believes that subjective experiences are indistinguishable from one category of brain processes - it's far shakier ground than most materialists want to walk on, but such is the nature of the beast.

Nope, ZD, he's not even entitled to claim that. Doesn't matter what kind of brain process you are talking about, it is still distinguishable from the experience of seeing red. It does not matter how long you go rummaging around in a brain, you will not find any experiences of seeing red. Even if you find the very same bit of brain process that corresponds to seeing red, you'll still see no red (edit: apart from some blood, perhaps, but that would not be the experience of red associated with the brain in which you were rummaging, it would be yours instead). Understand?

Stop asking me to believe sunday-school-level ridiculous nonsense. The experience of seeing red is perfectly distinguishable from ANY and ALL physical processes in a brain, even if you think that, ultimately, they "must somehow" be the same.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

(M2) What the materialist is not entitled to say:

"I cannot tell the difference between subjective experiences and brain processes. They are identical, and indiscernable. I do not know what you mean by "inherently subjective". No such things exist."

Hang on now. This is actually somewhat tricky. If you think you can tell the difference between subjective experience and brain processes, then tell me what brain processes are like. Maybe this will jog my memory and I'll be able to remember the difference between subjective experience and brain processes. Until then, I'm pretty certain I've never experienced a difference between subjective experience and brain processes, and so I'd be tempted to say they are identical.

In M2, we have descended to sunday-school thinking in defence of physicalism. It is plainly absurd and nobody who was thinking honestly, critically and fearlessly could ever say it.

If you can make me see why it is plainly absurd, then I will probably agree with you.

Even if you find the very same bit of brain process that corresponds to seeing red, you'll still see no red (edit: apart from some blood, perhaps, but that would not be the experience of red associated with the brain in which you were rummaging, it would be yours instead). Understand?

No, because I do not understand what it means to "find a process."

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It is "over and above" a physical process simply on the grounds that all other physical processes have only one perspective and only in this case is there a second one.

From the perspective of a human, this is so. From the perspective of something else, the special case of two perspectives is different.

If you want to say "From the perspective of a human, subjective experience and the description of objective brain processes are two difference perspectives on the same thing, at least given our current technology," then I probably have no argument with that.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hang on now. This is actually somewhat tricky. If you think you can tell the difference between subjective experience and brain processes, then tell me what brain processes are like.

Easy. Brains are physical objects, there's one in your head and one in mine. They are composed of neurons. There is complicated electro-chemical activity in those neurons. I'm not sure what you mean by "brain processes are like". They are like quite a few other physical processes, kind of similar to processes in computers, kind of similar to processes in other parts of the body. What they are nothing remotely like, is the experience of seeing red. When I experience red, I assume there is some sort of process going on the grey goo in my head. But I don't have any difficulty telling the difference between grey goo in my head and my subjective experience of seeing red. Anyone who tells me they have trouble knowing how to distinguish between these two is uttering an absurdity on the exactly same level as a person who claims they see no reason why Jesus could not feed five thousand people with one basket of fishes.

Maybe this will jog my memory and I'll be able to remember the difference between subjective experience and brain processes.

Mmmm. Can you jog my memory and explain to me why one basket of fish doesn't feed five thousand people? I really can't work it out. Honestly. I'm not being obtrusive or lying or anything. I really really don't understand why there is a problem here. It's got nothing to do with me being a brainwashed Christian who has lost all capacity for rational thought. It's simply that I just can't see why it couldn't have happened. Honest.

Until then, I'm pretty certain I've never experienced a difference between subjective experience and brain processes, and so I'd be tempted to say they are identical.

If you can make me see why it is plainly absurd, then I will probably agree with you.

Did you actually read the opening post? Here it is again, with the important bits in [size=+1] big letters.[/size]

[size=+1]
The real situation, whether you are a materialist or not a materialist, is that we can indeed tell the difference between a physical process and a subjective experience. We may wish to claim that "in some way" they are one and the same thing. So they appear to be both the same and different, depending on how you look at it. This I can tolerate. But I cannot tolerate any more supposedly intelligent people trying to tell me that they are indistinguishable, identical and that they have no idea what I mean by "inherently subjective". I'll tell you what I mean by "inherently subjective". I mean the experience of seeing red. Even if you think that "in some unknown way" experiences and brain processes "are the same thing" you also know d*mned well that in another very obvious way, they are also different. The brain process is objective and the subjective experience is, well, subjective. So at the very least we have "two different perspectives on the same thing".

You can claim the two perspectives are somehow two perspectives on "the same thing". But do not insult my intelligence by expecting me to believe there are not even two perspectives. And once you accept that there are two perspectives then there is no need to go on claiming you don't know what "subjective" means, or what minds are, or how experiencing red is "anything over and above a physical processes". It is "over and above" a physical process simply on the grounds that all other physical processes have only one perspective and only in this case is there a second one. So the thing which is "over and above a physical process" is the subjective experiences associated with the relevant brain activity. Now, what the consequences of this are going to be for the wider worldview of the materialist is no immediate concern of mine - and whether or not you think this disproves materialism is another matter entirely. Maybe the problem can be solved. Just do not try to tell me you do not even know what the problem is, because you might just as well tell me that Jesus fed five thousand people with a single basket of fishes. And that would be stupid, wouldn't it?

[/size]

Must I post it in even bigger letters before people will actually read it?

I do not understand why people who so easily see rank stupidity when it comes from Christians cannot recognise it when it comes from themselves instead.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If you believe that somehow brain processes and subjective experiences must be one and the same thing then that is reasonable, even if it is somewhat counter-intuitive. The same cannot be said of the claim that these things are indistinguishable - that you really, honestly, do not understand how they differ (even though they are somehow the same). I am sorry, but if that is what is being claimed then something has gone very wrong in the cognitive processing of the person making the claim. That person has ceased to monitor what is coming out of his own thought processes - he has lost his capacity to recognise when he is saying something utterly ridiculous and should go back to the drawing board and have a little weeny bit of a rethink.

The really sad thing about this is that the persons in question usually pride themselves on being critical thinkers and spend their free time taking the p*ss out of Christians for believing stupid things. Indeed, the ones who are most proud and most dismissive of the Christians (and I do not mean Paul) are nearly always the same ones who are least capable of recognising total idiocy when it is their own.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So, you're saying your beliefs on "brain processes" and "experiences" are the correct one because the materialists' beliefs on the same topics are stupid? Instead of insulting people's intelligence and reasoning, why don't you try putting together an argument that is a little less confrontational?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So, you're saying your beliefs on "brain processes" and "experiences" are the correct one because the materialists' beliefs on the same topics are stupid?

No. I am not saying this. There are different sorts of materialist. I already said that I can respect a position where a materialist recognises what subjective experiences are and recognises what brain processes are and makes a claim that somehow these things are the same, or that one can be reduced to the other. What I WILL NOT allow to stand is a materialist who claims that he doesn't even know that there is a difference to be resolved or that he doesn't understand why a reduction/elimination is neccesary. This really is plain stupid. There are different sorts of Christian also. Some of them literally believe that one basket of fishes fed five thousand people. Those Christians are stupid, and should be told they are stupid. They should be whacked over the head with it, over and over and over again until they realise that they are being stupid. There are other Christians who will try to tell you that the miracles in the Bible are metaphors for something else, and that they didn't literally happen. These people are not neccesarily stupid, even if you might think they are wrong. So just like the Christians, if I am faced with a materialist who recognises what subjective experiences are and wonders how he is going to reduce/eliminate them, I will have a sensible debate with them. But if I am faced with a materialist who seriously tries to claim that he doesn't understand why any reduction/elimination is neccesary I will whack him over the head with his own idiocy over and over and over again until or unless he realises that what he is saying is stupid.

Instead of insulting people's intelligence and reasoning, why don't you try putting together an argument that is a little less confrontational?

I am not insulting people's intelligence. I am reacting to having my own intelligence insulted.

But I am not in a particularly good frame of mind today, it must be said. Hopefully tommorrow when I read what has been happening in this thread, sanity will have broken out and everything will be happybunny.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I have today been told by a materialist that he doesn't know what I could possibly mean "inherently subjective" and he sees no reason why subjective experiences like "seeing red" should be "anything more than physical processes".

Smart person.

(1) The physicalist worldview:

Materialism (or physicalism, doesn't make much difference which) is a worldview which treats the external physical world as the only reality. Nearly all of modern science implicitly works within this framework, and modern science has painted us a picture of a big bang, stellar evolution, the formation of the solar system and the long, slow evolution of life on this small blue planet. Eventually, after hundreds of millions of years, complex creature have evolved which have brains and behave intelligently. There are a quite few unanswered questions, but in nearly all of those cases it is quite reasonable to believe that scientific materialism will eventually be able to provide those answers.

Sounds right.

(2) The blatantly undeniable facts about consciousness:

This thread was provoked by a person telling me that he had no idea what I meant by "inherently subjective". When I replied that he had no way of knowing how I experience redness, his response was the one in the opening paragraph of this post. This cannot and will not be allowed to stand unchallenged, because it is completely absurd and the sort of people posting on this site really should know better. Everybody here knows exactly what is meant by "the experience of seeing red".

Sure, but it's not inherently subjective.

They also know exactly what is meant by "physical brain". All I wanted this materialist to accept, for the purposes of the original thread, was that there are certain things that are inherently subjective, like my experience of red. This claim was rejected. Just like in I was asked in Sunday School to believe that Jesus turned a basket of fishes into food for five thousand people, I was asked at the JREF to believe that there is no discernable difference between the experience of seeing red and processes in a physical brain. It is blatantly ridiculous to claim that one basket of fishes can feed five thousand. It is no less blatantly ridiculous to claim that one cannot tell the difference between a physical process in a brain and the inherently subjective experience of seeing red.

This is an assertion, not an argument.

(3) The mistake which has occured:

The materialist in question cannot possibly mean that he does not know the difference between the experiences of seeing red and a physical brain process. What, in fact, he actually meant was this: If the physicalist worldview is correct then it follows that everything we call "mind", and all of the contents of "mind", including the experience of seeing red, must be something happening in a brain. Such experiences are, after all, always associated with brains (as far as we know, but it's reasonable to believe it is always true). So what has happened is that the assumption/belief that physicalism is true has been added to the observation that minds seem to occur when there are living brains around. Of course we only know of minds because we are intimately familiar with our own. We never experience anybody-else's - that would be silly (no-one here believe is telepathy, I assume). So the materialist, in order to make sense of these two beliefs (that physicalism is true, that minds only occur when there are living brains around) are both correct, has to end up claiming that somehow, minds "are nothing more than brain processes". The alternative appears to be that one of the above pair of beliefs must be wrong.

Sounds right.

4) What the materialist is actually entitled to claim if he doesn't want to descend to a "fishes-and-the-five-thousand" standard of critical thought:

It is not credible to say that brain processes and subjective experiences are indistinguishable. Anyone reading this who is feeling the urge to think down those lines go and take a cold shower. When you have finished your cold shower have another think about whether you can tell the difference between the experience of seeing red and a physical brain process.

"Have a cold shower" is not an argument. So far you still have no argument beyond "that's silly" and "have a cold shower".

(M1) What the materialist is actually entitled to say is the following:

"Somehow, in some way that we really do not understand, subjective experiences and brain processes are one and the same thing. They must be, otherwise we cannot understand where the additional "thing" has come from. It would be incompatible with physicalism."

(M2) What the materialist is not entitled to say:

"I cannot tell the difference between subjective experiences and brain processes. They are identical, and indiscernable. I do not know what you mean by "inherently subjective". No such things exist."

Actually we can say M2. You have shown no reason why not.

In M1, there is no rank absurdity. There is an admission that we really do know the difference between subjective experiences and brain processes, an admission that we don't know exactly how one "arises" from the other, and an admission that the position being defended is being based upon a desire to defend physicalism.

In M2, we have descended to sunday-school thinking in defence of physicalism. It is plainly absurd and nobody who was thinking honestly, critically and fearlessly could ever say it.

More mere assertion.

Conclusion:

The real situation, whether you are a materialist or not a materialist, is that we can indeed tell the difference between a physical process and a subjective experience.

No.

We may wish to claim that "in some way" they are one and the same thing. So they appear to be both the same and different, depending on how you look at it. This I can tolerate. But I cannot tolerate any more supposedly intelligent people trying to tell me that they are indistinguishable, identical and that they have no idea what I mean by "inherently subjective". I'll tell you what I mean by "inherently subjective". I mean the experience of seeing red. Even if you think that "in some unknown way" experiences and brain processes "are the same thing" you also know d*mned well that in another very obvious way, they are also different. The brain process is objective and the subjective experience is, well, subjective. So at the very least we have "two different perspectives on the same thing".

You can state that any thing A has quality B "inherently". Merely stating it achieves nothing, however. You need to show it to be the case.

You have not shown that seeing red is inherently subjective. In fact, I seem to recall spanking you on this very topic in a recent thread. There is no such thing as seeing red without also seeing some shape, size, shade, opacity and so on of red.

You can claim the two perspectives are somehow two perspectives on "the same thing". But do not insult my intelligence by expecting me to believe there are not even two perspectives.

"That's an insult to my intelligence" is the equivalent of "have a cold shower".

It's not an argument. It's intellectually empty bluster.

And once you accept that there are two perspectives then there is no need to go on claiming you don't know what "subjective" means, or what minds are, or how experiencing red is "anything over and above a physical processes". It is "over and above" a physical process simply on the grounds that all other physical processes have only one perspective and only in this case is there a second one. So the thing which is "over and above a physical process" is the subjective experiences associated with the relevant brain activity. Now, what the consequences of this are going to be for the wider worldview of the materialist is no immediate concern of mine - and whether or not you think this disproves materialism is another matter entirely. Maybe the problem can be solved. Just do not try to tell me you do not even know what the problem is, because you might just as well tell me that Jesus fed five thousand people with a single basket of fishes. And that would be stupid, wouldn't it?

I know what the problem is.

You want to believe there is such a thing as an "inherently subjective" phenomenon, because you think you can use such a thing as a philosophical stepping stone to immaterialism, God and an array of similarly kooky ideas.

The problem is that you can't get to these kooky ideas without first getting everyone to agree that some things are inherently subjective, which is a silly idea and hard to sell.

So you've drifted from a soft sell approach, into your new approach which is "If you don't believe me you're an idiot! You're insulting my intelligence! You're a christian! Have a shower! Aargh!".

Frankly, I think this is a sign that you have given up actually trying to convince anybody, and are just trolling for responses that will feed your inane martyrdom complex.

 

[I less than three logic]

First I’ll have to agree with Paul, what exactly do brain processes feel like? I’m pretty sure I’ve never directly experienced my brain processes. I doubt I could think about a certain part of my brain to get it to light up a MRI or PET scan. If you’ve never directly experienced your brain processes, what makes you certain you can distinguish them from your subjective experiences?

Second, subjective experience is redundant. All experiences are subjective experiences. This will be true until there is a way to experience exactly what someone else experiencing. (Hmm, this reminded me of psi. I guess if psi existed like some claim, then an objective experience could exist. )

 

[Z]

Subjective experiences and brain processes - one is a perspective awareness of the other.

Geoff doesn't like that, so he has to attack anyone who makes this claim.

Simple, really.

Geoff: Grow up. Come back and argue when you graduate from Suckex, get a real job (cuz philosophy don't pay), and finally learn something new.



Just pulling your chain, Geoff.

Seriously, though: Kevin's got you pretty well pegged, and Paul's managed to spot some critical areas in your thinking. What, exactly, does a brain process feel like? Subjective experiences are indistinguishable from brain processes because they are brain processes. Sadly, you're fighting for the idea that the subjective experience OF other brain processes somehow equals that brain process instead...

I seem to recall a similar argument with lifegazer some time ago. Something about the perception of the perception of a thing isn't the thing itself, etc... Was that about brains, again? Can anyone else remember clearly?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Kevin,

You're on my ignore list, and in your case I have overcome the temptation to sneak a look at your posts. There will not be anything in it worth a response.

I less than three logic,

thanks for this reply, because you have demonstrated EXACTLY why Paul's position is no better than that of a totally illogical Christian.

First I’ll have to agree with Paul, what exactly do brain processes feel like?

I don't remember saying they "felt like" anything at all. It is perfectly easy to explain what they are. Why should they "feel like" anything?

I’m pretty sure I’ve never directly experienced my brain processes.

Excellent!

FACT 1 : You have never directly experienced a brain process.
FACT 2 : You HAVE directly experienced the sensation of red.

Can you see where this is going? You do not need to be Einstein......

If you’ve never directly experienced your brain processes, what makes you certain you can distinguish them from your subjective experiences?

The answer is in your question. All we needed was a means to (conceptually) distinguish between what we mean by "brain process" and what we mean by "subjective experience". You have provided it, not that it was very difficult. You have correctly pointed out that you are pretty sure that you have never directly experienced a brain process, and it is implicitly obvious that you have indeed directly experienced things like the sensation of red. BINGO! We have our means of distinguishing them: brain processes cannot be directly experienced, sensations of red can only be directly experienced.

Thankyou, ILT3L, you have passed the "I'm not completely stupid" test, regardless of your name.

Any more idiots lining up to fail it?

Second, subjective experience is redundant. All experiences are subjective experiences. This will be true until there is a way to experience exactly what someone else experiencing. (Hmm, this reminded me of psi. I guess if psi existed like some claim, then an objective experience could exist. )

Correct.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Subjective experiences and brain processes - one is a perspective awareness of the other.

Geoff doesn't like that....

No, ZD, THAT IS FINE!!!!

"One is a perspective awareness of the other" is not particularly clear (ILT3L came up with a better distinction), but it will suffice. Even here, you have drawn a means of distinguishing them. That is all I am asking for. You have provided it. Well done. You have managed to pass the test even though you are trying your best to fail it. That's how hard it is to get it wrong.

, so he has to attack anyone who makes this claim.

Looks like you got that one wrong.

Seriously, though: Kevin's got you pretty well pegged....

I wouldn't know, I don't read his posts.

What, exactly, does a brain process feel like?

Nothing, ZD. Brain processes don't feel/look/smell like anything.

Subjective experiences are indistinguishable from brain processes because they are brain processes.

Really? But you just said that they don't feel like anything. Does your subjective experience pain feel like anything, ZD?

Oh dear......

 

[UndercoverElephant]

1) Subjective experiences feel/look/smell/sound like something (anyone dumb enough to deny this one?).
2) Nobody has ever felt/seen/smelled/heard a brain process (and don't try to deny this one either, two people in this thread just suggested it themselves - it did not come from me).
3) Therefore there is a fundamental way to distinguish between these two "things", even if in some way or other they can also be considered to ultimately be "the same thing".
4) Anybody who denies 1,2 or 3 has got something seriously wrong with them.
5) Lots of people at this site try to deny (3)
6) There is something seriously wrong with those people.

As for calling people stupid.....when you are confronted with the worst sorts of creationist idiocy it does not pay to engage them in normal debate. They have been told (or convinced themselves) that their position is one of many that are reasonable, and that even though there are lots of people who disagree, it is still perfectly acceptable for them to believe whatever idiocy they happen to believe. By engaging them in normal debate, you are simply re-inforcing their delusion that they have a reasonable position, and even if you show them just how wrong they are it will make not one jot of difference. You have engaged them in debate. That is all they needed to go on believing they had a defendable position. So instead of engaging them in normal debate what you have to do is tell them they are completely wrong, and that no educated person who had not lost their mind could possibly believe whatever it is they think is true. I am sad to say that exactly the same is true of any person who claims he cannot distinguish between a subjective experience and a brain process. I realise there are a number of people here who have convinced themselves that this is a reasonable, defensible position. It isn't. Nobody who has got any idea what they are talking about, and nobody who is capable of basic logical thought could possibly believe such a thing. Certainly nobody of the stature of a Dennett or a Dawkins would say it. So, I am afraid, I will continue to dismiss such people as total idiots.

 

[davidsmith73]

1) Subjective experiences feel/look/smell/sound like something (anyone dumb enough to deny this one?).

Unfortunately, there will be. But I do not believe it is out of dumbness but out of necessity. The only way to defend the materialist position is to deny that qualitative experience exists or deny that such words have any meaning. And the saddest thing of all is that such a denial works! It works because the materialist only accepts coherent definitions for aspects of reality. No definition of a qualitative experience can be supplied because their nature can only be realised by experience. Its a pure deadlock. They only way forward is honesty.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Kevin,

You're on my ignore list, and in your case I have overcome the temptation to sneak a look at your posts. There will not be anything in it worth a response.

Eventually you'll have everyone with an interesting opinion on your ignore list. You could save us all some trouble by doing it now.

Excellent!

FACT 1 : You have never directly experienced a brain process.
FACT 2 : You HAVE directly experienced the sensation of red.

Can you see where this is going? You do not need to be Einstein...

Yes, we can see where it might go: That brain processes and experiences are the same thing.

The answer is in your question. All we needed was a means to (conceptually) distinguish between what we mean by "brain process" and what we mean by "subjective experience". You have provided it, not that it was very difficult. You have correctly pointed out that you are pretty sure that you have never directly experienced a brain process, and it is implicitly obvious that you have indeed directly experienced things like the sensation of red. BINGO!

Yes, bingo!, they are one and the same.

Geoff, are you sure you don't mean to say that subjective experience and the description of brain processes are not the same thing?

2) Nobody has ever felt/seen/smelled/heard a brain process (and don't try to deny this one either, two people in this thread just suggested it themselves - it did not come from me).

What we have never felt is something in our minds that feels like a mechanical process: neurons firing, chemical gradients changing, serotonin being uptaken, and so forth. This might mean that feelings are something else entirely, or it might mean that they are the same thing. Do you have a way to resolve this question other than by waiting patiently for neuroscience to do it?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Unfortunately, there will be. But I do not believe it is out of dumbness but out of necessity. The only way to defend the materialist position is to deny that qualitative experience exists or deny that such words have any meaning.

Oh, please. There is nothing in the acknowledgment of qualitative experience that messes up the "materialist position," as long as everyone agrees that the acknowledgment does not entail admitting to some sort of dualistic situation. Getting people to agree to that does seem problematic, however.

~~ Paul