The subjective apple has objective correlative brain patterns indeed, but what else?
You're imagining an apple, using stored memories to create an image in your mind. Nothing else.
What if I imagine an object that i've never seen before? No stored image there. Or just watch the ambient closed-eye-visuals that seem to run constantly in the background like a screen saver? Those and many other examples of different ways that people use their brains will require just as many rebuttles which I'm sure you'd provide but that gets us nowhere.
The image of an apple "means" something and cannot be completely reduced to electrons or synapse patterns without losing the concept of "apple".
Sure it can, it is just patterns after all.
Then why do we look at images on the computer monitor? Why not just watch the electrons flow? Why do we imagine in images at all then? Either way the tiresome point-by-point breakdowns into arguing the logical bits outside of their context very much captures symbolically the essence of what we're going on about here I think.
Reductionism. The following statements both true:
A cell is nothing more than a giant chemical reaction and can be eventually explained (with enough scientific understanding) on the molecular level.
The cell as a whole exhibits characteristics and behaviors totally different than any of its molecular counterparts.
You say the latter above quote that the apple image can be boiled down to its electrons and it is still an apple on that level. But then you say in response to my previous quote:
It loses the apple, for now it is just "brain patterns" or electrons.
No it doesn't, materialism doesn't deny subjective mental experiences.
And then:
Neuroscience has pretty well established that consciousness is an illusion Followed by That's merely a subjective mental experience of reality, something completely accepted by materialists and science.
Then go on accuse me of misunderstanding materialism. But in fact your position changes from reductionist materialism to non-reductionist twice in one post. Which is progress in my opinion!
What if I imagine an object that i've never seen before? No stored image there. Or just watch the ambient closed-eye-visuals that seem to run constantly in the background like a screen saver?
What if what, science doesn't deny imagination.
Those and many other examples of different ways that people use their brains will require just as many rebuttles which I'm sure you'd provide but that gets us nowhere.
They don't require any rebuttals because once again, science/materialism does not deny that people have mental experiences. You seem to be trying to make a point but I can't see what it is.
Then why do we look at images on the computer monitor? Why not just watch the electrons flow? Why do we imagine in images at all then?
I see no point in this line of questioning. You can't see electrons flow, and that we use monitors to reproduce images or use imagination to create new ones in no way says anything about scientific materialism.
You say the latter above quote that the apple image can be boiled down to its electrons and it is still an apple on that level.
I said no such thing. An apple is composed of atoms and at the atomic level is not an apple, it's just atoms. An apple is a macro object, a name we assign to a particular collection of atoms. Again, still have no clue what point you're attempting to make.
But in fact your position changes from reductionist materialism to non-reductionist twice in one post.
I did no such thing.
Neuroscience has pretty well established that consciousness is an illusion Followed by That's merely a subjective mental experience of reality, something completely accepted by materialists and science.
All mental experience is an illusion, those statements are in no way contradictory nor are they flip flops between opposing world views. They are all well accepted by scientific materialists.
At this point I'm no longer convinced you have an actual point to make. You jumped into this conversation claiming the absolutist mindset of the scientific materialist was somehow flawed and haven't provided a single argument to demonstrate your point that wasn't simply a straw-man tear-down of your own misunderstanding of the scientific point of view. You seem to think scientific materialists deny mental experiences, but they don't, so the very basis of your objection is flawed.
You engaged me, not I you, so again I ask, what is your point, what are you trying to get at?
Well I provided many arguments in attempt to illustrate my points. They proceeded to get cherry-picked--which effectively removed their context. You deconstructed all of my posts in an attempt to redefine each term used. Maybe I mistook a straw man for you, but you haven't acknowledged any of my greater themes here so either you missed them or their outside of your worldview. I'm sorry if I wasted your time.
I don't think it was a waste of time, I did enjoy the conversation but I'll let it end here as it's too deeply nested and a pain to check and we aren't really getting anywhere.
You're imagining an apple, using stored memories to create an image in your mind. Nothing else.
What if I imagine an object that i've never seen before? No stored image there. Or just watch the ambient closed-eye-visuals that seem to run constantly in the background like a screen saver? Those and many other examples of different ways that people use their brains will require just as many rebuttles which I'm sure you'd provide but that gets us nowhere.
The image of an apple "means" something and cannot be completely reduced to electrons or synapse patterns without losing the concept of "apple".
Sure it can, it is just patterns after all.
Then why do we look at images on the computer monitor? Why not just watch the electrons flow? Why do we imagine in images at all then? Either way the tiresome point-by-point breakdowns into arguing the logical bits outside of their context very much captures symbolically the essence of what we're going on about here I think.
Reductionism. The following statements both true:
A cell is nothing more than a giant chemical reaction and can be eventually explained (with enough scientific understanding) on the molecular level.
The cell as a whole exhibits characteristics and behaviors totally different than any of its molecular counterparts.
You say the latter above quote that the apple image can be boiled down to its electrons and it is still an apple on that level. But then you say in response to my previous quote:
It loses the apple, for now it is just "brain patterns" or electrons.
No it doesn't, materialism doesn't deny subjective mental experiences.
And then:
Neuroscience has pretty well established that consciousness is an illusion Followed by That's merely a subjective mental experience of reality, something completely accepted by materialists and science.
Then go on accuse me of misunderstanding materialism. But in fact your position changes from reductionist materialism to non-reductionist twice in one post. Which is progress in my opinion!