Does qualia derive from the brain and cease existence upon death

le Bible XD

>>9876352
What the fuck is qualia

>>9876393
>implying early Christianity and Judaism believe in a literal afterlife and aren't Sadducean readings

>Does qualia derive from the brain
yes, its the result of the brain interpreting the outside world
>and cease upon death
only if you agree with the former premise

>qualia

STOP reading analytic philosophy

START reading phenomenology

DON'T be discouraged by the discovery that most modern philosophers think they somehow overcome dualism by simply ignoring the hard problem of consciousness

DO start flirting with German metaphysics

>>9876536
Okay Hans.

>>9876352
Quality don't exist. Read Dennett.

>>9876589
>Dennett is referred to as one of the "Four Horsemen of New Atheism", along with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens.[5]

Sorry, I refuse to give reddit people the time of day.

>>9876352

Just have fun with your life. You'll find out soon enough.

Wtf is the point of reading if ur brain and mind is just gonna go poof one day and ur not accumulating eternal knowledge

>>9876589
WE WUZ CHEMICULS AN SHIET

Nothing derives from the brain.

>>9876352
Read Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Kant.

Alternatively if you don't want to read all these crucial authors, I can link you to a few lectures on youtube. The professor really provides in-depth insight into the key ideas of these philosophers.

>>9878175
t. pseud

>>9876401
consciousness

>>9876589
i'm experiencing it right now

>>9876589

>qualia doesn't exist
>denying the existence of something literally everyone experiences at every moment of their life
>denying its existence as such and redefining it to serve your dogmatic pursuits

pure.
ideology.

>>9878618
What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

>>9876352
You can't just post a thread on /lit/ that has nothing to do with literature by tacking on "What books talk about this?" to the end of it.

>>9876352
Do people not see how arbitrary they are when they're being "scientifically materialist" and "as rational as possible"? The existence of qualia is itself a miracle and can't be explained by modern science. There is no reason to assume it entirely derives from what we know of the brain and ceases existing upon death, that's as arbitrary of an assumption as to say it doesn't do either.

The short answer is we don't know. And there are no scientific books which deal well with the question, you can study neurochemistry and neuroanatomy and how the brain functions but still not get any closer to an understanding of why experiencing exists at all. And anyone who claims with certainty to know more than a bare minimum about qualia is a presumptuous cunt.

>>9878918
>the parts of the brain that generate consciousness and thought do not generate consciousness and thought

What did he mean by this? Are you just ignoring Terri Schiavo?

File: 1502480227499-590152541.jpg (831KB, 1520x2688px) Image search: [Google]

831KB, 1520x2688px

This is a good intro to philosophy of mind (including qualia) if you don't have much of a philosophical background. It weighs dualism and materialism fairly evenly with maybe a slight edge to dualism, explaining all the proofs/arguments/counter-arguments for both sides.
There are extensive recommended reading lists after each chapter too.

>>9878929
You clearly can't see past your own nose if you don't realize that this is exactly the huge assumption I was speaking of. We have no good theory or even possible analogy as to how a physical process or entity can create experience.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Qualia


uhm sorry sweetie New atheism disproved it

Can I have some reddit gold??

>Does qualia derive from the brain and cease existence upon death

nobody knows

my personal view is something like linguistic idealism, and scientific instrumentalism

don't listen to all the materialisttards

your brain is an object of consciusness anyway, it's in phenomenal idea there something within our head causing our idea that there's something within our head

ideas all the way down

check out nietzches 'reduction ad absurdum' on sensory organs

check out thomas metzingers being no-one for an exposition of the materialist account

fuck dennet

>>9878612
Why don't you just say that

>>9876589
Dennett doesn't deny qualia, he's just trying to square the circle of claiming that there can be illusions without anyone being fooled.

>>9878940
>Feser
Not even once.

File: serveimage.jpg (82KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1200x630px

>pic related for a good book on consciousness and qualia
The sooner we can admit that they're a real fact of our experience and the world we live in, the sooner we can approach a naturalistic explanation that gives us a real understanding of the mind

>>9879108
Feser is my second favorite neo-thomist. What do you have against him

>>9879239
The fact that he's a neo-thomist in 2017.

File: buddha.jpg (138KB, 400x621px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 400x621px

The Pali Canon and the Shobogenzo

'Qualia' are a non-starter, a red herring. They are what you get when you don't pay attention to the lessons of phenomenology.

Read Merleau-Ponty, Levinas, Heidegger, Jaspers, etc.

>>9879104
He's an eliminative materialist, retard.

Qualia are the only thing in the universe we can be absolutely certain of.

>>9879097
To be more accurate, qualia refers to the phenomenal, qualitative aspect of consciousness, that is the rawness of the feeling you cannot explicate into terms. To better convey this, try to explain how the experience of the color red FEELS to someone blind. That's what qualia is: The first-person FELT aspect of consciousness.

File: 1501112021028.png (958KB, 1440x1129px)

958KB, 1440x1129px

>>9878179
Really interested? Could you link them please?

>>9879306
Oh, well that has nothing to do with his intro to philosophy of mind book. It's a fair survey of the thoughts from both sides.

>>9879573
Which doesn't necessitate denying qualia as such, not even the Churchlands do.