Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have used "paraphrase" to show where we are describing the same thing using different words
par·a·phrase
verb
express the meaning of the speaker using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity.
noun
a rewording of something written or spoken by someone else.
some correlations are direct; some are similar
if I had to try and "explain" your term "qualia" it sounds to me like the thoughts, feelings, emotions, perceptions, dreams, visions, ideas, anything "non physical" that you experience individually through the "non physical essence" of you which is the "non physical soul" which inhabits the "physical body." Physical reality can be seen and measured and touched. Non-physical reality is experienced directly by the inner essence of you.
Then paraphrasing the (speculative/unknown) cause and working of qualia as soul is merely paraphrasing material/physical as 'miraculous. It means nothing, without some proof that it is anything but physical. In my view, substance dualism doesn't do it. labelling it with theistic terms does it even less.
btw, dear lady, should "I was talking to Gaylen, not to you' pop into your head, let it pop out again. I post to whomsoever I wish.
if I had to try and "explain" your term "qualia" it sounds to me like the thoughts, feelings, emotions, perceptions, dreams, visions, ideas...
Okay, so far. Although I might quibble and say that may of the things you are list are not 'qualia' as such, but they are qualitative, which is to say, composed of qualia.
Quote:
...anything "non physical" that you experience individually through the "non physical essence" of you which is the "non physical soul" which inhabits the "physical body."
You could be right. Perhaps qualia are non-physical. But I think it is important to recognize that being "non-physical" is not part of the definition of 'qualia' - it is not part of what I, or hardly anyone, means by the term.
Quote:
Physical reality can be seen and measured and touched. Non-physical reality is experienced directly by the inner essence of you.
Again, this may be true. And I won't fault you for wanting to use the term 'non-physical' for that which is directly experienced. You might be right to do so. But I've been trying to explain why I do not agree. I don't think that the word 'physical' has to necessarily exclude the possibility of being directly experienced. I say: Some aspects of a physical object are objectively measureable, and (for some physical objects, like living brains) some aspects are only subjectively knowable. (Back to Mary, the superneuroscientist who walks out of the B&W room and directly experiences red for the first time, despite previously knowing every objectively-accessible fact about the neural firings, etc. of people's brains when they experienced red.)
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 09-03-2017 at 07:17 AM..
...C.S Lewis is making the eternal error of theism - starting every argument with an assumption that God exists until disproven - to those who rely on faith rather than proof, anyway. It means that all their thinking is screwed from the start.
a post that says "all their thinking is screwed from the start"
indicates to me superficial, shallow and inaccurate, with nothing of substance or depth on offer
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-03-2017 at 09:15 AM..
Your observation only works if you make the logical error I speak of. The error lies is assuming a claim a priori without validating it. If you think the god -claim has been shown anything other than without logical or evidential validation, you have a decade of post -reading to catch up on.
Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.[25][26][27][28]
Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
The a priori - fallacy occurs when someone decides ahead of time what the conclusion to an argument is, then only considers evidence that supports that conclusion, or twists what evidence there is to support the predetermined conclusion.
Burden of proof (philosophy)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about burden of proof as a philosophical concept. For other uses, see Burden of proof (disambiguation).
In epistemology, the burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shorthand for Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
(Wiki, but many philosophy sites will validate the above.)
It takes a particular kind of theist to dismiss accepted logical fallacy as simply the opinions of humans.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-03-2017 at 08:53 AM..
Okay, so far. Although I might quibble and say that may of the things you are list are not 'qualia' as such, but they are qualitative, which is to say, composed of qualia.
You could be right. Perhaps qualia are non-physical. But I think it is important to recognize that being "non-physical" is not part of the definition of 'qualia' - it is not part of what I, or hardly anyone, means by the term.
Again, this may be true. And I won't fault you for wanting to use the term 'non-physical' for that which is directly experienced. You might be right to do so. But I've been trying to explain why I do not agree. I don't think that the word 'physical' has to necessarily exclude the possibility of being directly experienced. I say: Some aspects of a physical object are objectively measureable, and (for some physical objects, like living brains) some aspects are only subjectively knowable. (Back to Mary, the superneuroscientist who walks out of the B&W room and directly experiences red for the first time, despite previously knowing every objectively-accessible fact about the neural firings, etc. of people's brains when they experienced red.)
it may not be part of how you use the word "qualia" but it certainly is according to the english language dictionary definition. Qualia are non-physical because they are internal subjective perceptions.
qua·li·a
noun the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena.
I am seeking to use common language for increased understanding and to find common ground. Regarding use of the world "physical" to mean something that is entirely NOT physical (though part of being a physical human person with a physical body having non-physical experiences) my observation is using a word that in common usage means something very different (if not the exact opposite) does not lead to greater understanding or to finding common ground between people. But rather it can create confusion and muddy the waters.
i agree with your use of the phrase "dualistic" and i agree that it is apt. A human person has a "physical" body and also "non physical" elements (thoughts, feelings, emotions, perceptions, dreams, visions, individual experience, memories) that can not be "verified" or "experienced" by anyone else except the person having them. These are subjective and internal.
it is all part of being a human person. and i agree with you on that.
you seem to object or have a problem with describing "internal qualitative perceptions" as "nonphysical." To me it is accurate using common language.
because using common language these are not considered "physical" (in the sense they can not be measured or verified or validated by others) and are therefore "nonphysical":
That dictionary description puts it very wel. Yet dictionarie do not purport to always give watertight scientific definitions.
The word 'subjective' is a handy signpost, like "God" or 'Spritual" or "love". Immediately we all have an idea what we are talking about so we can comunicate. But is where the discussion begins, not where it ends. Discussion, and these terms start to come apart and all sorts of meanings, mechanisms and metaphysics come into it, and the problem is not to get the Other side to accept Oue meaning, but to reconsider and ask just whether Our meaning actually stacsk up.
That dictionary description puts it very wel. Yet dictionarie do not purport to always give watertight scientific definitions.
The word 'subjective' is a handy signpost, like "God" or 'Spritual" or "love". Immediately we all have an idea what we are talking about so we can comunicate. But is where the discussion begins, not where it ends. Discussion, and these terms start to come apart and all sorts of meanings, mechanisms and metaphysics come into it, and the problem is not to get the Other side to accept Oue meaning, but to reconsider and ask just whether Our meaning actually stacsk up.
my goal is to increase understanding
increase clarity
find common ground
use common language
identify how a word or phrase is being used
I was never raised in a religious home and I think that has a lot to do with my not being religious. I went through a phase in my teen years and early adult years when I was some what religious and went to church. However, as I matured the thought of there being one supreme being in charge of everything seemed at best to be a man made fantasy to cope with the fact that there is nothing past our immediate existence. How can you have a conscious thought once your brain dies? It's like a computer with a dead battery and no electricity. Then I started to wonder which religion was the original religion and which God was the right God. Every religion thinks there's is the right way and the only way. Isn't Hinduism the oldest religion in the world? Yes. Why do they have so many Gods if there is but one? Why aren't we all Hindu's? Maybe because religion is a regional thing? If it's a regional thing then isn't it man made? There are no fact based answers in religion. It's a faith based, which goes against my scientific way of thinking. I like facts and bottom lines, not fantasy.
Some feel a strong need to believe in religion, and that's fine. Whatever works for you. I went to the Hindu temple with some Indian friends. The priest came in all of his traditional garb and performed a fire ritual and blessing for our friends anniversary. It was very dramatic, until the plate was passed for donations. Some things never change.
it may not be part of how you use the word "qualia" but it certainly is according to the english language dictionary definition. Qualia are non-physical because they are internal subjective perceptions. qua·li·a
noun the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena.
But notice that "non-physical" is not part of the definition. You simply ASSUME that "internal subjective" implies non-physical. You could be right about that, but I'm saying that this is not something that we should just assume. I need a argument showing me that subjective logically implies non-physical. I've suggested one possible path of argument: IF you define physical in such a way that physical objects can only have objective properties, then you might have a good chance of showing the logical implication to non-physical. But why should we define physical in that way?
Quote:
I am seeking to use common language for increased understanding and to find common ground.
So am I, but there is no universally approve definition of 'physical'. Some definitions favor your view (E.g., "having to do with body as opposed to the mind"), but these are not the only definitions, nor are they necessarily the most common. And even if the most common definitions did favor your view, I would still insist that these are not the best definitions. Sometimes common-folk understanding is not the most useful for effective theorizing. Also: context matters. When trying to understand the relationship between mind and brain, it is silly to ASSUME from the start that "mental" properties can't be physical by simply defining 'physical' in such a way that mental properties can't possibly be physical (unless you can effectively defend this definition of 'physical' as being "the best" definition).
Consider these definitions of 'physical':
Physical | Definition of Physical by Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physical
1: having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature.
2a: of or relating to physics
2b: characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics.
3: of or relating to the body.
None of these definitions preclude the possibility that physical systems might have subjective properties. I'm saying that qualia have "material existence" (they are physical processes), but this does not mean that they can't also have subjectively-knowable properties. "Material existence" is an ontological; objective/subjective are epistemological. What something is and how we can know about it are two different realms of philosophical inquiry.
My ontological claim is that qualia are physical processes.
My epistemological claim is that qualia can be known objectively from some points of view, and subjectively from other points of view.
Quote:
Regarding use of the world "physical" to mean something that is entirely NOT physical (though part of being a physical human person with a physical body having non-physical experiences) my observation is using a word that in common usage means something very different (if not the exact opposite) does not lead to greater understanding or to finding common ground between people. But rather it can create confusion and muddy the waters.
Keep in mind that we are in a realm of discussion where common sense is not always the best guide. As scientists have discovered countless times, reality sometimes defies common sense understanding (which is why it take years of study to get a high-level science degree). Again I would suggest keeping context in mind. Do our minds survive the death of our brains? There is no guarantee that common sense concepts will be sufficient to answer this. There is a great deal that we do not yet know about physical reality. Still, all said and done, I don't think my dual-aspect view is contrary to common sense. The "weirdness" of the idea stems mostly from unnoticed and unjustified assumptions. Once we understand the unjustified nature of these assumptions, the idea is not quite so weird.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 09-03-2017 at 10:37 AM..
... Do our minds survive the death of our brains? There is no guarantee that common sense concepts will be sufficient to answer this. There is a great deal that we do not yet know about physical reality. Still, all said and done, I don't think my dual-aspect view is contrary to common sense. The "weirdness" of the idea stems mostly from unnoticed and unjustified assumptions. Once we understand the unjustified nature of these assumptions, the idea is not quite so weird.
Do our minds survive the death of our brains?
Yes.
there is nothing weird about it. it is common knowledge. it has been known and accepted for thousands of years, tens of thousands of years, in every wisdom tradition. it is basic and accepted. new to you perhaps. but not new at all because throughout human history, this has been known and understood all along.
the essence of you that is inside your physical body survives the death of the physical body and the death of the physical brain. the essence of you existed before it entered your physical body, the essence of you exists inside your physical body while you are alive and "uses the physical brain", and the essence of you leaves the physical body at "death" (to enter into other bodies in the future, and do it again and again)
the essence of you uses the physical body and physical brain, and animates it like a hand in a glove. It looks like the glove is moving, but take out the hand and the glove is dead. the hand animates the glove. the essence of you animates the brain and body.
does your hand survive the death of your glove?
yes
does your mind survive the death of your brain?
yes
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-03-2017 at 10:52 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
btw, dear lady, should "I was talking to Gaylen, not to you' pop into your head, let it pop out again. I post to whomsoever I wish.
