What are concepts according to materialism?

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

raw_thought
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What are concepts according to materialism?

Post by raw_thought »

Science is objective. The subjective is not within its methodology. However, that does not mean that the subjective does not exist.
It would be like saying that if yiu are a good physicist, you must be a good music composer. Since music is physical (patterns of air vibration ).
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: What are concepts according to materialism?

Post by surreptitious57 »

Just because qualia cannot be investigated by science is no reason to deny it. Obviously it exists for I experience it myself and I
know that other human beings experience it too. But I cannot objectively demonstrate that fact however. Thoughts may not be
capable of scientific investigation though they emanate from the brain that is a physical organ that can be investigated as such
And so it is important not to disregard some thing just because it is beyond the remit of science. For there are many untestable
hypotheses though that does not render them false by default. Qualia does exist despite science being incapable of observing it
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: What are concepts according to materialism?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

raw_thought wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
raw_thought wrote:Ok, continue to believe that materialists (like Dennett etc) believe in qualia.
To believe in qualia does not mean that the quale is an accurate representation of reality. It means that one can experience something. One can experience a hallucination. That is a quale that is not a representation of objective reality.

Duh. I did not mention Dennett. Dennett is a fruit cake.
Your second sentence is what I told you already.

We only have our experience, and that is our only access to the material world. If you don't understand how perception and experience works you are a piss poor materialist.

It's like you are incapable of reading what I write.
So you are not a materialist!! You just dont know it. You are saying that we onky know about matter thru qualia.
Please, do some research. It is common knowledge that materialists reject the idea of qualia.
Similarly, you can call yourself an atheist that believes in God. That is equally as silly.
Try and use your brain for a moment.,
Are you a car driver? We all know that car drivers drive on the road.
Does that mean you cannot be a pedestrian?
Obviously if you are walking on the pavement you cannot be driving a car at the same time.
I am a materialist and I accept that the idea of qualia is a good one. I also know for a certain fact that the concept of qualia has helped me to understand how what I perceive is not exactly the same as the material world. As a materialist I accept that qualia information is stored in the brain and needs to be carefully understood if we are to conceive of the world in its correct materialist understanding. If we do not apply materialism to our perceived world then we are at the mercy of delusions and illusions.
Existentialism can help me get through my life, but when it comes to practical considerations, I have to use materialism.

For example I know that an ear ache might tell me that my ear hurts. As a materialist I know that when the foetal nerves developed the ear and throat nerves used the same pathways. This leads to the phenomenon called "Referred Pain". As a materialist I know that the quale of ear pain more likely refers to a problem in my tonsils.
Liver pain can be felt in the shoulder for the same reason.

Thus an understanding of the experience and the limits of perception is a materialist proposition and can be understood by examining the ways in which the qualia of experience can emerge from a materialist understanding of the body.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: What are concepts according to materialism?

Post by Ginkgo »

surreptitious57 wrote:Just because qualia cannot be investigated by science is no reason to deny it. Obviously it exists for I experience it myself and I
know that other human beings experience it too. But I cannot objectively demonstrate that fact however. Thoughts may not be
capable of scientific investigation though they emanate from the brain that is a physical organ that can be investigated as such
And so it is important not to disregard some thing just because it is beyond the remit of science. For there are many untestable
hypotheses though that does not render them false by default. Qualia does exist despite science being incapable of observing it
At the rise of being swamped by an avalanche of criticism from physicalists, materialists and neuroscientists...I agree.
Wyman
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: What are concepts according to materialism?

Post by Wyman »

Ginkgo wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:Just because qualia cannot be investigated by science is no reason to deny it. Obviously it exists for I experience it myself and I
know that other human beings experience it too. But I cannot objectively demonstrate that fact however. Thoughts may not be
capable of scientific investigation though they emanate from the brain that is a physical organ that can be investigated as such
And so it is important not to disregard some thing just because it is beyond the remit of science. For there are many untestable
hypotheses though that does not render them false by default. Qualia does exist despite science being incapable of observing it
At the rise of being swamped by an avalanche of criticism from physicalists, materialists and neuroscientists...I agree.
Just because qualia cannot be investigated by science is no reason to deny it.
Science, taken broadly, is a method of explaining things by observation and rational analysis. I don't know of any other way of investigating something. There is a big difference between saying that science cannot investigate something and saying that science has not explained something yet. It is the former that us materialists object to, not the latter. The former is mysticism.
Thoughts may not be capable of scientific investigation
They certainly are, because they can be expressed and described - in writing, for instance. No one thinks that we cannot explore the nature of thoughts. The problem with qualia is that there is no agreement about what it is that we are trying to explain or describe. Hence, there are no interesting descriptions or explanations to debate. A negative description of 'that which is left over, after everything explainable is explained' says nothing. I cannot imagine something that cannot be explained, because anything imaginable is subject to explanation. Kind of like the old paradox of 'nothingness' - after everything that 'is' is taken away, you are left with something called 'nothing.'
because it is beyond the remit of science


Again, what does it mean to be 'beyond the 'remit of science'? Does it mean that we can never explain it? Can we talk about it? Are you saying that we cannot hypothesize about it? The mere fact of not being able to observe something does not make it outside the remit of science. Before Einstein, many physicists doubted the atomic theory of matter because it could not be observed. He convinced the skeptics by explaining observable consequences of atoms - Brownian motion.
The crux of your descriptions of qualia are that they are unobservable and indescribable and are so by their very nature - i.e. no one will ever be able to observe or describe them.

I am not disregarding qualia because it has not been observed, or because it has not been adequately explained - I am objecting to the much stronger claim (that proponents eventually always fall back upon) - that, although they are 'obvious' (to you) - they are, by their very nature, incapable of being observed or explained. I cannot imagine such a thing.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: What are concepts according to materialism?

Post by Ginkgo »

Wyman wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:Just because qualia cannot be investigated by science is no reason to deny it. Obviously it exists for I experience it myself and I
know that other human beings experience it too. But I cannot objectively demonstrate that fact however. Thoughts may not be
capable of scientific investigation though they emanate from the brain that is a physical organ that can be investigated as such
And so it is important not to disregard some thing just because it is beyond the remit of science. For there are many untestable
hypotheses though that does not render them false by default. Qualia does exist despite science being incapable of observing it
At the rise of being swamped by an avalanche of criticism from physicalists, materialists and neuroscientists...I agree.
Just because qualia cannot be investigated by science is no reason to deny it.
Science, taken broadly, is a method of explaining things by observation and rational analysis. I don't know of any other way of investigating something. There is a big difference between saying that science cannot investigate something and saying that science has not explained something yet. It is the former that us materialists object to, not the latter. The former is mysticism.
Thoughts may not be capable of scientific investigation
They certainly are, because they can be expressed and described - in writing, for instance. No one thinks that we cannot explore the nature of thoughts. The problem with qualia is that there is no agreement about what it is that we are trying to explain or describe. Hence, there are no interesting descriptions or explanations to debate. A negative description of 'that which is left over, after everything explainable is explained' says nothing. I cannot imagine something that cannot be explained, because anything imaginable is subject to explanation. Kind of like the old paradox of 'nothingness' - after everything that 'is' is taken away, you are left with something called 'nothing.'
because it is beyond the remit of science


Again, what does it mean to be 'beyond the 'remit of science'? Does it mean that we can never explain it? Can we talk about it? Are you saying that we cannot hypothesize about it? The mere fact of not being able to observe something does not make it outside the remit of science. Before Einstein, many physicists doubted the atomic theory of matter because it could not be observed. He convinced the skeptics by explaining observable consequences of atoms - Brownian motion.
The crux of your descriptions of qualia are that they are unobservable and indescribable and are so by their very nature - i.e. no one will ever be able to observe or describe them.

I am not disregarding qualia because it has not been observed, or because it has not been adequately explained - I am objecting to the much stronger claim (that proponents eventually always fall back upon) - that, although they are 'obvious' (to you) - they are, by their very nature, incapable of being observed or explained. I cannot imagine such a thing.
Interesting comments. Personally, I don't think qualia will ever be amenable to classical physical explanations. Perhaps a quantum explanation in the future.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What are concepts according to materialism?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

It's kinda funny how some people just have to believe that there is some sort of ghost in the machine.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: What are concepts according to materialism?

Post by Ginkgo »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:It's kinda funny how some people just have to believe that there is some sort of ghost in the machine.
I wonder why that is?
raw_thought
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What are concepts according to materialism?

Post by raw_thought »

Ginkgo wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:Just because qualia cannot be investigated by science is no reason to deny it. Obviously it exists for I experience it myself and I
know that other human beings experience it too. But I cannot objectively demonstrate that fact however. Thoughts may not be
capable of scientific investigation though they emanate from the brain that is a physical organ that can be investigated as such
And so it is important not to disregard some thing just because it is beyond the remit of science. For there are many untestable
hypotheses though that does not render them false by default. Qualia does exist despite science being incapable of observing it
At the rise of being swamped by an avalanche of criticism from physicalists, materialists and neuroscientists...I agree.
I also agree.
raw_thought
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What are concepts according to materialism?

Post by raw_thought »

Ginkgo wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:It's kinda funny how some people just have to believe that there is some sort of ghost in the machine.
I wonder why that is?
Saying that feelings exist is not the same as believing in ghosts. There is empirical evidence (I experience pain etc) that feelings exist. There is no credible evidence that ghosts exist.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What are concepts according to materialism?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Ginkgo wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:It's kinda funny how some people just have to believe that there is some sort of ghost in the machine.
I wonder why that is?
Why of course, their need to prove their god.

Hey if you've noticed, since Sep 2011, I often play different sides of an argument every so often. My ghost is, for the most part, science related.

Actually I wasn't pointing at you, your message just happened to be immediately prior to mine. But of course the shoe apparently fits. Even on some science minded individuals.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What are concepts according to materialism?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

surreptitious57 wrote:Just because qualia cannot be investigated by science is no reason to deny it. Obviously it exists for I experience it myself
In truth you cannot say this, as you cannot prove it, even to yourself. Cite the proof. In fact you can't know what is the mechanism producing that which you attribute to qualia.


and I know that other human beings experience it too.
This is unqualified as well. Because if it cannot be investigated by science, then neither can you investigate it to know that what's in someone else, is in fact, that which is inside of you. You obviously just want it to be the case. What, to be different? is this qualia thing nothing more than tattoos or body piercings?

But I cannot objectively demonstrate that fact however. Thoughts may not be
capable of scientific investigation though they emanate from the brain that is a physical organ that can be investigated as such
And so it's a good place to hide leprechauns and faeries.

And so it is important not to disregard some thing just because it is beyond the remit of science.
How about it being just as important to not create leprechauns and faeries in ones mind?

For there are many untestable
hypotheses though that does not render them false by default.
True
Qualia does exist despite science being incapable of observing it.
No, since it cannot be proven either way, the only thing one can say with any amount of truth is that Qualia "may" exist.......

Prove that there is or isn't leprechauns. You can't! Just like a god they can exist, if only, in ones head.
raw_thought
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What are concepts according to materialism?

Post by raw_thought »

I can prove it to myself! I feel pain. I know that I can see a visualized triangle in my mind's eye. Qualia is pure empiricism! Materialism is implied, not experienced.
raw_thought
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What are concepts according to materialism?

Post by raw_thought »

Proving that leprechauns exist is different than proving that I feel pain.
raw_thought
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What are concepts according to materialism?

Post by raw_thought »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:It's kinda funny how some people just have to believe that there is some sort of ghost in the machine.
I wonder why that is?
Why of course, their need to prove their god.

Hey if you've noticed, since Sep 2011, I often play different sides of an argument every so often. My ghost is, for the most part, science related.

Actually I wasn't pointing at you, your message just happened to be immediately prior to mine. But of course the shoe apparently fits. Even on some science minded individuals.
Ummmm....so proving that I feel pain is the same as proving that God and leprechauns exist????? :lol:
Post Reply