Lol, you really need to argue about qualia eh?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
i read the above.
really? Both of your points below are a general rehashing of the two points that are addressed above...
Originally posted by leonheartmm
but arent they actually incompatibility with the sceitific way of investigating, rather than objection to the "existance" of qualia?
They? you need to clarify this sentence. What I get is:
"As opposed to qualia being shown as incorrect by science, aren't they contrary to scientific investigation?"
And ya, you would be correct. It is comparable to things like the crystal spheres of the heavens or the body humors being responsible for health conditions. It is ancient philosophy that is useless when compared to the discoveries of modern science. Qualia fail Occam's Razor.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
in my oppinion, there is one very basic flaw/unexplained part to MY interpretation of qualia{which can be critiqued}.
oh, well, YOUR interpretation of qualia
Science already has addressed the other philosophers' qualia arguments, but ol leo, he has discovered an argument for qualia that will shake the foundations!!!!
Originally posted by leonheartmm
that is, IF qualia is non mystical in its nature,
This premise is incorrect. Qualia are not just non-mystical in nature, but entirely WRONG in describing the perceptual processes. While we do "experience" things, I would like you to show me what evidence you have that supports the idea that our "conscious perception" is composed of "qualia".
Originally posted by leonheartmm
and is just concerned with SEEING, expiriences, and is DIFFERENT{even if dependant} on physical neurobiological processes,
This is a non-sequitur. I actually don't understand it. Is this a continuation of "if qualia is non mystical in its nature"?
Please provide some evidence that shows qualia are different from physical neurological mechanisms of perception?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
than HOW can it affect our "physical" brains in a way, as to make IT behaviourally, MAKE an argument for the existance of qualia{as my body is making right now through typing these words}.
I have no idea what this means.... I am assuming it is something like "How do our perceptual processes affect our behaviour".
Well, here is the textbook for the course I am a TA for: http://www.amazon.com/Sensation-Perception-Media-Bruce-Goldstein/dp/0534639917/ref=pd_sim_b_img_1/104-5025115-1400725
You are over complicating your argument. Qualia are not necessary for perception.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
for all intensive purposes, it would be a quiet non physical homunculus SEEING expiriences, but being seperate from the body, it would not be able to influence its actions. and yet my physical body/brain is here making the argument. which indicates that my qualia{if it exists} is actually, also giviing feedback to my PHYSICAL body.
that argument might have been acceptable in the 1400s, but is totally nonsense in light of modern science.
The perceptual "binding problem" does not require a homunculus.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
the other MORE FUNDAMENTAL question that arises from this and the very concept of qualia is that, "WHY does qualia exist to begin with. i.e. WHY does the subjective expirience of stimuli and SELF awareness exist to begin with.
I think you should read what I copied from that article again. This is almost a verbatim regurgitation of the second argument that they show to be a complete misunderstanding of science.
You might as well ask why light exists to begin with. Those are not scientific questions.
Unless (which I know you aren't) you are asking for the bio-evolutionary process for consciousness and subjective experience.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
if you look at machines, or other physical phenomenon, they have cause and affect relationships with other physical phenomenon. there is no reason to believe{nor evidence} to assume that a HIGHER, virtual, self defined construct is created as a RESULT of those phenomenon.
1) sure there is. We live in a universe that follows physical principals. The burden would in fact be on you to show that a "Higher, virtual, self defined construct" cannot be created by physical phenomena.
2) Consciousness is certainly not a "Higher, virtual, self defined construct"
Originally posted by leonheartmm
but the same definition isnt enough for humans, because we OURSELVES are evidence{if to no1 but our own self} for the existance of the said phenomenon. so then why, why does qualia exist when there is no reason for its existance?
ummm, do you want to maybe back that up?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
{ofcourse, the easy answer would be a mystical soul, but that is equal to forfeting the quest for an answer and attributing things partially illogically, to things which can never be understood or deefined by logic.
as is saying that perception is composed of qualia
Originally posted by leonheartmm
but its a fact that the mystical explanation would give an explanation for how qualia can INFLUENCE the physical body{which it shudnt }, and a reason for the EXISTANCE of a virtual/higher conciousness, which i can not currently find adequate answers for in physics}
ya, no it wouldn't.
Look dude, if you want to believe crazy philosophical nonsense, far be it from me to bring you down with science. But really, if you want to talk about neurology or psychology, you should at least be moderately well read in the subject.
And sort of off topic... Where are you from, what is your native language?