Materialists......

[UndercoverElephant]

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

Yes, bingo!, there 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?

No, Paul. My brain is working properly and I don't believe nonsensical rubbish.

Shall we go back and have another look at what was written?

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

Which of these FACTS are you going to challenge, Paul?
If you cannot challenge any of these FACTS then there is a clear way to distinguish between a brain process and a sensation of red. I know you want to make it more complicated than this, but I see no reason to allow this to happen. Either challenge one of these FACTS or admit that there is a way to distinguish between the two.

This might mean that feelings are something else entirely, or it might mean that they are the same thing.

Do you have a problem reading? I have repeatedly stated that whether you can distinguish between sensations of red and brain processes does not on its own lead to the conclusion that they are "not the same thing", at least in some sense or other which is yet to be clarified. So you have gained nothing by stating that they "might or might not be the same thing". That wasn't what you were asked. You were asked if it is possible to distinguish between them. And unless you are going to challenge one of the above FACTS, I do not see how you can claim that no such distinction is possible.

Do you have a way to resolve this question other than by waiting patiently for neuroscience to do it?

Yep. It's been resolved in this thread already - I am just waiting for the penny to drop and for Paul to realise what is happening. "sensations of red" and "brain processes" are both, in the end, just linguistic concepts. So the question is whether or not there is a fundamental way of distinguishing between these two concepts. And there is. Subjective experiences "feel/look/sound/smell" like something. Brain processes do not. Even if, in the end, it turns out that these two concepts (somehow) refer to "the same thing", you can still distinguish between the two concepts.

Unless, that is, you have totally lost your ability to think critically.

I repeat: if you are seriously trying to claim that there is no distinction possible then you are way, way beyond the merely narrow-minded level of Dawkins and Dennett. Neither of them would utter such a rank absurdity, because if they did so then their academic careers would be over. They would be ripped to pieces. Think about what you are actually saying.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

The only way forward is honesty.

Something which is short supply around here.

I wonder why people are so scared to face up to the truth?

 

[DreadNiK]

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.

Fine. Then don't bother posting anything ever. Because if people disagree with you, particularly if you are ever wrong there is no point in them engaging you in debate, because that will just reinforce your view. Likewise, you should never bother engaging someone else in debate. Perhaps you should engage Interesting Ian in debate, then as soon as one of you disagrees with the other you can take turns dismissing each other as total idiots.

Philosophy students...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Oh, please. There is nothing in the acknowledgment of qualitative experience that messes up the "materialist position,"

So why are you denying it then?

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.

That is why I am only asking you to accept a distinction, and not that this neccesarily falsifies materialism. It may do, but that is not why I started this thread. The point I am making here is much more basic.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Fine. Then don't bother posting anything ever. Because if people disagree with you, particularly if you are ever wrong there is no point in them engaging you in debate, because that will just reinforce your view. Likewise, you should never bother engaging someone else in debate. Perhaps you should engage Interesting Ian in debate, then as soon as one of you disagrees with the other you can take turns dismissing each other as total idiots.

Philosophy students...

I am regularly wrong, about all sorts of things. But I am not wrong about the fact that one basket of fishes does not feed five thousand people, am I? And I'm not wrong about the fact that we can distinguish between a subjective experience and a brain process either. Does this lead to idealism or dualism? Not neccesarily, but that doesn't change the basic fact that we can make a distinction.

 

[DreadNiK]

No, Paul. My brain is working properly and I don't believe nonsensical rubbish.

Yep. It's been resolved in this thread already - I am just waiting for the penny to drop and for Paul to realise what is happening. "sensations of red" and "brain processes" are both, in the end, just linguistic concepts. So the question is whether or not there is a fundamental way of distinguishing between these two concepts. And there is. Subjective experiences "feel/look/sound/smell" like something. Brain processes do not. Even if, in the end, it turns out that these two concepts (somehow) refer to "the same thing", you can still distinguish between the two concepts.

Unless, that is, you have totally lost your ability to think critically.

I repeat: if you are seriously trying to claim that there is no distinction possible then you are way, way beyond the merely narrow-minded level of Dawkins and Dennett. Neither of them would utter such a rank absurdity, because if they did so then their academic careers would be over. They would be ripped to pieces. Think about what you are actually saying.

If a subjective experience is the direct result of a brain process, and can never occur without such a process, surely it is only different conceptually and not actually?

Surely "reaction to a certain subjective experience" means "reaction to a certain brain process"? Unless you can somehow prove that the same brain process leads to different subjective experiences.

And another note, it is possible while discussing a topic such as this for someone to say something without actually 100% being convinced they are right. Given that we are treading on semantic ground, it is possible someone is not saying what they mean to, or are not being interpreted as they mean to. It does not automatically mean they are a total idiot.

 

[DreadNiK]

I am regularly wrong, about all sorts of things. But I am not wrong about the fact that one basket of fishes does not feed five thousand people, am I? And I'm not wrong about the fact that we can distinguish between a subjective experience and a brain process either.

I have a really big basket with 10,000 fish in. It can feed 5,000 people.

I have a really big basket with 5 fish in. They are f**king big fish. It can feed 5,000 people.

I have a small basket with 10,000 fish in. They are f**king small fish. Fortunately the five thousand people aren't very hungry, and are satisifed with two small fish each.

etc

What I believe you mean, but won't say because then it highlights the obvious, is that "A basket of fish that doesn't have enough to feed 5,000 people won't feed 5,000 people".

What follows about distinguishing between brain processes is a total non-sequitur.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If a subjective experience is the direct result of a brain process, and can never occur without such a process, surely it is only different conceptually and not actually?

Not quite, no. If what you are saying is correct then it does not follow that they are actually the same. What does follow is that subjective experience supervenes upon brain processes. This may or may not involve the two things "being the same", depending on how one interprets the relationship between "X supervenes on Y" and "X is identical to Y".

None of which is relevant to my thread. By the time you have admitted that supervenience is neccesary, or that "X is a direct result of Y and can never occur without Y" you have already admitted there is a distinction between them. In this thread, that is all I am asking you for. It is a much more tricky philosophical debate to resolve these other things. There is nothing remotely tricky about recognising that we can tell the difference between them. All you need is a bit of intellectual honesty and the desire to avoid saying something totally stupid.

Surely "reaction to a certain subjective experience" means "reaction to a certain brain process"? Unless you can somehow prove that the same brain process leads to different subjective experiences.

This is a highly contentious issue, and fuels the acrimonious debates about the status of folk psychology. Surely when one takes a headache pill one is reacting to "the feeling of having a headache"? Yet this causes all manner of philosophical problems, leading people like the Paul and Patricia Churchland, and sometimes Stephen Stich (depending what mood he is in) to claim that there are no such things to which the mentalistic concepts of folk psychology refer.

And another note, it is possible while discussing a topic such as this for someone to say something without actually 100% being convinced they are right. Given that we are treading on semantic ground, it is possible someone is not saying what they mean to, or are not being interpreted as they mean to. It does not automatically mean they are a total idiot.

I just want to avoid the debate descending to a "sunday school" level of critical thinking i.e. entirely non-critical thinking. Some things are plain silly, and this is one of them.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I think part of the problem may be equating 1 subjective experience = 1 brain process. It's probably much more complicated than that. There's a lot of unconscious processing that is necessary for us to perceive something, so generally the processes are more complex than the experience. (For instance, it is possible to see red without experiencing it, if some of the optic pathways are separated from higher brain function.) The experience is just the end result (from the subjective perspective) of all these processes.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I have a really big basket with 10,000 fish in. It can feed 5,000 people.

I have a really big basket with 5 fish in. They are f**king big fish. It can feed 5,000 people.

But this is changing the story. It does not say in the Bible that Jesus turned up with a basket the size of tennis court, sitting on the back of an articulated lorry, does it? The whole point in the story is that it was a miracle. The version you have painted makes it non-miraculous, defeating the purpose of the story.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I think part of the problem may be equating 1 subjective experience = 1 brain process. It's probably much more complicated than that. There's a lot of unconscious processing that is necessary for us to perceive something, so generally the processes are more complex than the experience. (For instance, it is possible to see red without experiencing it, if some of the optic pathways are separated from higher brain function.) The experience is just the end result (from the subjective perspective) of all these processes.

Yes, it is part of the problem - but in the end all I want was for you to admit that you know what "the subjective perspective" is. It makes no difference to me whether the problem we need to solve is "Why are there two things" or "Why are there two perspectives on one thing?" What I am complaining about is the rank absurdity of people claiming they cannot distinguish between brain processes and subjective experiences, regardless of whether or not they ultimately turn out to be "two different things" or "two different perspectives". Paul is trying to make out that (honest, guvnor) he cannot distinguish between them. Sorry, but that is a pile of class-A, stinking, steaming b*llsh*t - and deserves to be labelled as such.

 

[Tricky]

(sigh)
You're doing it again Geoff. You started this thread by insulting someone who disagreed with you (someone not even on these boards as far as I can tell) and you have continued to insult anyone who disagrees with you, sometimes in big bold letters. Kevin made some legitimate rebuttals to your assertions, but you refuse to even read his posts.

I'm not even going to discuss this because anything besides absolute agreement just seems to make you furious. Do you think this is healthy debate?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

(sigh)
You're doing it again Geoff. You started this thread by insulting someone who disagreed with you....

I do not know how else to deal with people who set themselves up as intelligent, thinking human beings and then make statements which are completely and utterly absurd. Call a spade a spade, tricky.

(someone not even on these boards as far as I can tell) and you have continued to insult anyone who disagrees with you, sometimes in big bold letters.

Then they should think about what they are writing before they write things like:

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.

This does not even deserve to be treated as a reasonable utterance. It is stupid, tricky. There is no other word for it. Except maybe "dishonest".

Kevin made some legitimate rebuttals to your assertions, but you refuse to even read his posts.

Correct, in Kevins case I cannot even be bothered to read his posts. If his rebuttals were so good, someone will repeat them.

I'm not even going to discuss this because anything besides absolute agreement just seems to make you furious. Do you think this is healthy debate?

No. But that is not my fault. It is the fault of people whose intellectual dishonesty has reached the point where the only sensible response is outright mockery. This is not going to make me popular with those people I am mocking. Perhaps they should think more carefully before posting complete nonsense and trying to make out they really believe it is true?

You understand well enough the need to mercilessly attack rank Christian stupidity. Please understand that from my point of view, rank materialist stupidity is no less reasonable a target - and claiming that brain processes and subjective experiences are indistinguishable really is rank stupidity, even if you are materialist. I see no reason to pretend otherwise.

Geoff

 

[UndercoverElephant]

(sigh)

I'm not even going to discuss this because anything besides absolute agreement just seems to make you furious.

That is simply not true. Several people in this thread have defended non-ridiculous materialist positions which I have accepted as perfectly reasonable, even though I believe they are wrong. I am only getting annoyed at people who have posted things which are worthy only of mockery. I have little time for either dishonesty or for rank stupidity.

Edit: And by the way, it is also very disappointing that none of the reasonable people who have recognised a distinction but still wish to defend materialism have had the courage to come out and agree with my accusation that failing to acknowledge the distinction is absurd. Skeptics like to claim that they are immune to sheep-mentality - that this would be like trying to herd cats. I am not so sure that this is always true. Where is the brave non-sheep materialist who is willing to back me up on this one? Can't see any......

 

[hammegk]

If a subjective experience is the direct result of a brain process, and can never occur without such a process, surely it is only different conceptually and not actually?

Such simple words, yet for most people tacitly assuming materialism True. And if not TRUE at 100%, what do you mean? Are you a dualist, or a ~materialist (that is, materialism False at 100%)?

 

[davidsmith73]

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.

So what do mean by redness then?

Getting people to agree to that does seem problematic, however.

Probably because materialists insist on swaying qualia towards a physical definition rather than trying to sway a definition of physical reality towards one that requires experience. The former is absurd.

 

[hammegk]

(sigh)
You're doing it again Geoff. ..... Kevin made some legitimate rebuttals to your assertions, but you refuse to even read his posts.

Kevin is capable of defending materialism by assuming it True. So what?

I'm not even going to discuss this because anything besides absolute agreement just seems to make you furious. Do you think this is healthy debate?

Yeah, having to choose Black, or White rather than some shade of gray scares most folks. If one is "slightly wrong", what does that mean for this discussion?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Tricky,

Just for you, I read Kevin's post. It wasn't worth reading. It certainly wasn't worth replying to. Precisely which of his "arguments" do you think deserve a response? I couldn't find any.

Geoff

 

[rocketdodger]

Do you think this is healthy debate?

I don't even know wtf these people are arguing about...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't even know wtf these people are arguing about...

Well, I'll tell you. The argument has been caused by certain people trying to defend the claim that there is no way to distinguish between a brain process and a subjective experience, and by myself reacting to this with the utter contempt it deserves - followed by well meaning people telling me I really shouldn't be quite so rude to people. The point being that even a materialist, if he wants to avoid accusations of rank stupidity, must accept there is such a distinction - even if he wishes to subsequently argue that (somehow) they are the same thing. What do you think?