If beauty doesn't require God, why should morality? (Bite me Dr. Craig.)

[Angrboda]

You think you have subjective experience, with all these qualifiers about its independence that you've added, but you don't know that you have qualia as you envision it. It could be an illusion.

I don't need to envision qualia. I just have them.

And then you envision what your having them means.

Claiming that we have two words for the separate aspects therefore they are different is a semantic non sequitur.

You can say that, but the fact is that what people are talking about when they say, "Oooooh, a pretty rainbow!" is not the same thing they're talking about when they say, "The fMRI shows increased blood flow in regions X, Y, and Z."

Unsupported assertion. You don't know they aren't the same thing. Having different terms for something doesn't imply any existential difference, no matter what you mean. When I look at myself in the mirror, everything is reversed. It looks totally unlike what people see when they look directly at me. And inside a camera, the reversal is again different. They're still all looking at the same person. Differences in appearance don't mean jack shit.

Casablanca is in fact just blotches on celluloid. You're arguing that because they appear different from different perspectives that they therefore are different; that doesn't wash.

--edit--
It is the existence of "different perspectives" that I was originally using to address the OP. Specifically, the existence of ANY perspective is not really compatible with pure physical mechanism.
___

Sure it does. "Casablanca" is something which must be experienced to be understood.

Understood? What is that bullshit about? We're asking what a thing is, not what to understand a thing is.

This doesn't follow. If your qualia are in fact your brain processes then I can in fact observe your qualia. That they appear different from the different perspectives does not make them therefore different. You keep making this same logical error.

Can you observe my qualia? No. You can watch my brain and convince yourself that since obviously qualia must be brain function, you are watching my qualia. But no matter how much you tell yourself that, you do not know what it's like for me to experience the drinking of some hot chocolate, or the viewing of a sunset.

Irrelevant. I don't need to know "what it's like for you."

You have oft repeated the claim that if qualia are my brain processes, then you cannot observe my qualia. GIVEN THIS, it follows that qualia are not my brain processes, since you cannot observe them.

No I haven't. And even if I had, this would not follow. Appearance is not ontology, no matter how loudly you protest.

And again the same error. Differences in appearance do not automatically imply ontological differences.

It is the appearance of experience which defines the experience. Any view of qualia which does not accept this is not a view of qualia at all.

Unsupported assertion.

And again. It's currently beyond our ability to identify the two as being one, but that doesn't necessarily imply the two are different.

An apple is red, and it is wet. Are you saying that redness is wetness? The view of qualia which would be most compatible with your view is that qualia are a property of either matter or its functions. To say that qualia ARE the functions is to say that redness IS the apple.

No it's not. You're equating it to saying that is just a bizarre red herring.

Yes, as a matter of fact, that's exactly what it means.

No. Correlation doesn't work that way. There's a 1:1 correlation between birth and death. However, only a hippie could claim that "birth is death."

No, there isn't a 1:1 correlation between birth and death at any particular time. You're equivocating. If there is a 1:1 correspondence between the two, in the absence of evidence of additional effects, it is irrational to believe without justification that there is some additional unspecified causal factor. Arguments from appearance don't count. Arguments from semantics don't count. Arguments from "ooh pretty" don't count. Arguments from incredulity don't count. Unsupported assertions don't count.