AgnosticBoy wrote:
I'm not asking materialists to do anything different than the following...
I'm willing to be more lenient. If you can't afford to build such a computer (that was Divine Insight's explanation) then at least work with the brain we have and demonstrate with scientific peer-reviewed evidence how the brain produces subjective experience, such as our perception of mental imagery.
We are working on it.
It seems as if you're grasping for any or all brain hardware or physical process to say that that's all images involve. The fact is that only specific types of physical processes and hardware enable us to perceive an images. Using science and logic, I've already explained what's involved in our perception of images (sensory stimuli, sensory organs, visible light, and all objectively observable -IF purely physical, etc). None of these factors are present when it comes to our perception of mental imagery.
How on Earth would you know these factors aren't present when it comes to our perception? How on Earth would you know these factors aren't the only factors present?
Some materialists here (DrNoGods, Divine Insight) have pointed to specific components and processes, like memory and visual cortex, that are involved in mental imagery. While this shows what's involved, their explanations still fall short in that they lack empirical evidence to demonstrate how or what would enable us to have "internal" images, that happen to be nonphysical (e.g. hallucinations) and internal perception to perceive them.
You haven't established that there is anything non-physical with hallucinations yet. All you have is circular reasoning along the lines of: it's not physical because we don't have a physical explanation; we don't have a physical explanation because it is non-physical.
To reiterate the point in the quote at the beginning of this post, we certainly haven't engineered this ability in computers since there are no "internal" images nor are there any internal subjective or "first-person" experience (perceptual like) to even be aware of these types of images to begin with.
Granted.
The simple fact is that images in the form of digital information only exist in fully extracted and perceivable form when it gets transmitted to a screen or printed out.
Right, and yet there is zero reason to think there is anything non-physical about digital information. So why would you jump to the conclusion that there is something non-physical about hallucinations?
It does not only involve the flow of electricity and chemicals. Mental imagery involves color, shape, dimensions, and can even be projected onto physical space without really occupying space (e.g. hallucinations).
You don't know any of that to the true. You are inventing a problem to sell a solution.
If we still cannot explain consciousness AFTER we have fully explained the brain, THEN you can say perception does not involve just electricity and chemicals, and not a moment before that.
None of these features I brought up, have been shown to be properties of "electricity", "chemicals", nor a physical brain.
Granted, and that's quite different from showing these feature to be something other than the properties of "electricity", "chemicals", or a physical brain. You know that right?
You could say that these are involved in leading to physical perception but then we'd have to bring in more components, like sensory stimuli, sensory organs, etc.
Besides your lack of empirical evidence, have we even engineered this in computers. In other words, does the flow of electricity in a computer lead to "internal" images and enable the ability to perceive them, or are they only perceivable once transferred to monitors?
Current computers are not conscious, and cannot perceive digital images. I readily accept that. But that is not enough to conclude that future computers can never be conscious.
But the experience that I'm talking about isn't about experiencing 1's and 0's. In the case of mental images, we have a perceptual-like experience of "images".
Right, but that's no reason to think it isn't about the electricity and chemical in the brain.
Scientists have no problem classifying them as non-existent. We can at least say that the "image" itself (colors, objects, of ghosts, people, etc) certainly doesn't occupy physical space. Perhaps they exist physically in a non-extracted form, like digital information in our memory.
In the same sense, digital images can be classified as non-existent. We can say that the digital image itself doesn't occupy physical space. And yet you've stated that digital images are physical. Why the double standard?
Except that we know how data on a computer leads to an image. We perceive that data "physically" with monitors, light, etc. I would like to see proof of how that would work in our brain since we have no monitors/speakers in our minds yet we still experience imagery, sound, etc.
You could say the same to someone who doesn't know anything about the workings of computers and digital images, and he wouldn't be able to tell you anything other than, "we are working on it." His lack of an explanation of how 1 and 0 lead to pixels lighting up on a screen, doesn't mean materialism is an inadequate worldview.
With the notable exception of a lack of an explanation of consciousness, every one of your other arguments you used to argue mental images are somehow non-material, I can use for digital image. Every other argument you used to argue digital images are material, I can use for mental image.
As for that one exception, you have not justified the thesis that it is a fundamental inadequacy of material explanation; as opposed to our limited understanding of the brain, the same way someone who don't understand computers can't explain digital images. It's a bit premature to declare materialism defeated, don't you think?
defeated materialism long before I took this issue seriously. I'm only adding scientific evidence to his view.
