Originally posted by: mrkun
Originally posted by: Flyback
Originally posted by: mrkun
You've got me there. You said you're a dualist. What's your argument for the existence of qualia?
Faith.
That's an argument?
Are not the axioms of predicate logic that a naturalist would assume for debate just as much faith based as is my own personal belief, just a different variety?
Back on topic: the whole point is that I was never arguing for the existence of qualia from an objective and scientific point of view. I was challenging it and merely pointing out what I feel are some of the inconsistencies (using 'experience' to prove 'experience' of qualia and not a measurable and objective system) and in doing so am not necessarily required to defend my own position (in order to challenge another).
I will fully admit that I take an uneven playing field in assuming dualism; I don't think we can even agree on some premise to debate, really, because I'm on a totally different (radical?) end of the spectrum. I acknowledge this.
Originally posted by: mrkun
Originally posted by: Flyback
Originally posted by: mrkun
I know next to nothing about the nervous system, but to my knowledge pain killers work by inhibiting certain chemical responses in the brain, which is subsequent to the stimulation of c-fibers. So, yes, the stimulated c-fiber can indeed exist without pain.
I think you misinterpreted what I was posing to you: why is the consensus that the two are one in the same, though? Are they type-identical and if so, why?
Whose consensus is this?
I thought reductive physicalism was *by far* the most dominant theory promoted by non-theists and non-deists--the belief that there are no things in existence other than physical things?
I guess you got me there, if you argue for non-reductive physicalism (I did not think that position was altogether common, though.)