Occams Hatchet and Is Materialism "Special"

[Foxaèr]

Materialism is found in any culture, even among the Amish. Sure, they live in accordance to the dark ages, but there is still the existence of want. True non-materialism means completely squashing want for what is only necessarily needed.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not the materialism we're talking about, but true.

[Bunburryist]

You and I both know the material explanation for both sound and music.  We learned it as children. 

I hope that since you learned this explantion as a child (I didn't), and hence should be explainable in terms a child could understand, that you will provide a physical/material explanation for any experience.   If anyone could actually come up with one they would get a Nobel Prize.  I'lll say this again - there is, in principle, no way to have a physical explanation for any experience since no experience can be described in physical terms.  The fact that you believe that experience result from physical processes is not an explanation.  It's merely an expression of your belief that there is one.  As I sit here I have the experience of yellow over there away from my body.  Please tell me how the experience of yellow can be described in physical terms. 

There's also the problem that no experience can be found in the spatial context within which physical processes are described.  That is, we can't look into a material brain and say, "There's the yellow Bunburryist sees - let's measure it in physical terms."  My experience of yellow can't be located, nor can it be shown to occupy space in a material world.  My experience of yellow can't be located in the same spatial context within which brain processes are measured, and so there is no way to put the experience and the physical measurements into the same description. 

The real problem here is that, as children we learn to hold two contradictory beliefs regarding this experience A) that is a material world and B) that it is an experience happening in a material brain.  It can't be both.  But everyone uses words and phrases that conflate the two.  And so kids are taught to believe that the green tree they see (something supposedly happening in a brain) is made of atoms.  It can't be!  Atoms aren't green, and experience happening in a brain (what they see) aren't made of atoms.  Unless one make a conscious effort to do it, it's so easy to fall into conflation mode and talk about "seeing material objects," "red light," etc.  This is what we learned as children - to hold contradictory beliefs about this experience.  I have never I my life seen a science book draw out a diagram of (for example) the visual process, label the various aspects, define words like see, feel, etc. in non-ambiguous terms.  Unless that is done you'll never get out of conflation mode.  Understanding this doesn't prove or disprove the materialist theory of experience.  What is does do is allow one to think clearly about the materialist sense story and draw logical conclusions from it.

[Foxaèr]

Now I see, Rhythm. They've decided to go full mental concerning materialism.

[robvalue]

Okay, enough of this I say! Enough.

From now on, everything is separated into the testable (things that literally exist), the abstract (things that don't literally exist but represent something), rules (the way reality works such as forces, etc.) and the untestable (everything else I haven't accounted for).

Happy now? Good. Any further attempts to conflate the testable with the abstract will be highlighted in red ink and underlined.

For example, I have an opinion about some bullshit painting. This is represented in the testable by the physical configuration of my brain, and in the untestable by [I don't know what. Neither do you. Stop making things up.] It's also represented in the abstract, as "my opinion of this stupid painting".

Gravity is a force, and as such doesn't literally exist, so is a rule; but it can affect the testable/untestable. My opinion of the painting not so much, at least not directly. Gravity also exists in the abstract as a concept: our attempts to model it. It may work through the testable/untestable, via "gravitrons" or whatever. Do some more research.

[Bunburryist]

"Qualia" is one of what I think of as "back door" words or phrases (like "red light," "visible light," etc.) - ways of trying to sneak experience into the back door of physical science.  Qualia has no defined meaning in physical terms.  It can't be detected.  It can't be physically defined.  It has no physical parameters.  It can't be located in a material world.  It was never discovered to exist.  Being derived from Latin, it does sound scientific, so it tends to carry a certain amount of argumentative weight, even if it has no scientific meaning.

[The Grand Nudger]

You and I both know the material explanation for both sound and music.  We learned it as children. 

I hope that since you learned this explantion as a child (I didn't), 

Yes, you did, which is why I'm no more interested in humoring you than him, and why I snipped that lengthy response (and hey, I know about writing long forum posts, I appreciate the effort if nothing else). 

I won;t do this.  I respect myself, and I respect -you-, more than that. I invite anyone who desires it, now, who feels the need....... to dogpile in on this fucking debasement of human integrity. Nows the time. Here's the gotcha quotemine, here's the moment that someone -flatly- refuses to indulge you, refuses to play. Sound, fucking sound..is not an immaterialist black box. That is -all- I have to say about that.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Qualia" is one of what I think of as "back door" words or phrases (like "red light," "visible light," etc.) - ways of trying to sneak experience into the back door of physical science.  Qualia has no defined meaning in physical terms.  It can't be detected.  It can't be physically defined.  It has no physical parameters.  It can't be located in a material world.  It was never discovered to exist.  Being derived from Latin, it does sound scientific, so it tends to carry a certain amount of argumentative weight, even if it has no scientific meaning.

This, however, I;ll say something about this.  It's bulllshit from the top to the bottom.  Qualia can be and -has been- detected.  It's not even difficult to do so.  We recognize it in others -with no training whatsoever-, no understanding of the phenomena at all, required.   It has a definition, it has parameters, it can be located....discovered...discovered, discovery -is- qualia...jesus fucking christ......."discovering" anything at all....anything.......is simultaneously "discovering" qualia. That's what the term refers to, an experience.

Useless deepity. Congratulations. I'm -all in- for a deep and thoughtful criticism of how we see the world. Nothing, and I mean nothing..in this thread, even approaches that. It's just been silly, and if I were handing out awards, the post above would take the honors of the evening.

[bennyboy]

Qualia can be and -has been- detected.  It's not even difficult to do so.

ikr? My Qualo-meter 2100 is on its way from Amazon even as I type! Soon, I will be able to know exactly what physical systems do/don't experience qualia, and WHAT exactly they are experiencing.

Oh, wait. . . that's not a real thing. I suppose I have to wait for you to tell us that things that aren't qualia really are.

 We recognize it in others -with no training whatsoever-, no understanding of the phenomena at all, required.   It has a definition, it has parameters, it can be located....discovered...discovered, discovery -is- qualia...jesus fucking christ......."discovering" anything at all....anything.......is simultaneously "discovering" qualia.  That's what the term refers to, an experience.

We assume it in others, and call it recognition. Is making an assumption the same thing as recognizing?

[bennyboy]

I'm sorry, the best evidence we have suggests this is the case.  You think it's question begging, it's not, but it wouldn't matter if it were....because it's -still- the suggestion of the best evidence we have.  

"Best evidence" seems to amount to "Our theory isn't actually provable, and requires philosophical assumptions to even get off the ground, but it sounds more sciencey than what you're saying."

What's your evidence that anything experiences qualia? It laughs at the right jokes? It leaks salty water when it watches Beaches? I want to know what "best evidence" you have that isn't 100% rooted in philosophical assumptions that beg the question.

[about observing and drawing inferences]. . .Which is what we've done, regardless of whether or not you find them convenient, amenable, or satisfying.

Here is the essence of our difference. You are convinced by commonalities in your experiences that there's a material universe with such and such properties, and you are ready to "move on" to the next issue. I am not so convinced, even by the commonalities which are consistent enough to do science on, that it is right to move on to that view of the world; in fact, I believe it to be highly suspect. It seems to me that since all of what we "know" can definitely be coined purely as idea and experience that the belief that it's "really really out there" doesn't add much.

We aren't really disputing experience, OR even the worth of science. We have different, and I think very arbitrary, positions on how many assumptions, and of what type, we should accept in moving on to new avenues of inquiry.