The point is that where there is more than one possible way of interpreting of some evidence, the chosen interpretation should be justified. You have not justified your chosen interpretation. I’m not giving a parallel example because you will simply use it to dodge the point.

Subject change. The point is still your claim that the evidence in question supports a particular conclusion, that you have proven unable to justify.

We’re not talking about all empirical evidence. The evidence in question can be interpreted in more than one way. Which is the best way could be discovered perhaps through more empirical evidence, or through some logical justification. You have chosen your preferred conclusion in this case, but will not justify it.

You made the subject by claiming the evidence shows brain phenomena and experiences are identical. I suggested the evidence could equally show we experience our brain phenomena. You will not justify your chosen conclusion.

You’re changing the subject. You said the evidence has a particular conclusion where there are other possibilities. You will not justify why your chosen conclusion is best.

Then why do you favour that former interpretation over the latter?

You said the evidence shows that brain phenomena and experiences are identical. I suggested it could also show that we experience our brain phenomena. If the latter is an equal possibility, why insist on the former interpretation? If it is not an equal possibility, why?

No it isn’t. Answering the question would be answering the question. This is a subject change. Answer it directly, and if I don’t understand the answer I’ll let you know.

You’re dodging the question, is what you’re doing.

We’re talking about brain phenomena and experience. Your point is that the evidence shows they’re identical. I have suggested it could equally show that we experience our brain phenomena. You then suggested it may show a complete coincidence. You are willing to accept the former without further consideration, but not the latter two. Why?

That’s not the point here. You said the evidence shows the two are identical. I’ve given a reason why that isn’t the case. You’ve just supplied another.

Feel free.

That a change in one amounts to a change in the other shows either that the two are identical, that we experience our brain phenomena, or it’s complete coincidence. You’re willing to accept the former without further consideration, but not the latter two. Why?

That a change in one amounts to change in the other shows either that they are identical, or that we experience our brain phenomena. You’re willing to accept the former without further consideration, but not the latter. Why?

That brain phenomena correspond to experiences shows either that the two are identical, or that we experience our brain phenomena. You’re willing to accept the former without further consideration, but not the latter. Why?

That’s not the point here. You said the evidence shows the two are identical. I’ve just given a reason why that isn’t the case.

Because you could conclude instead that we experience our brain states, in which case they would correspond in the same way.

You posted links. You have not given examples of what is contained in those links. You don’t, because you can’t.

Evidence of brain states corresponding to experiences is not evidence of the two things being identical. If that is not the kind of evidence contained in those links, say so, give an example of what is contained in them, and explain why it necessarily shows brain phenomena and experiences are identical. If you can’t, it’s because you can’t, and you’re free to stop responding.

You neither know nor understand the “evidence”. If you did you would give an example of it and argue from that. You don’t, because you can’t.

You post links but refuse to give examples of anything contained in them. The reason is because you can’t.

You neither know nor understand the “evidence” you’re referring to.

“Waah! I just want to post prejudice and links! Waah! I’m not actually interested in arguing.”

Oh, sorry. I didn’t realise that this was a prejudice and links-posting thread.

No argument. Prejudice and links.

It’s very plain now that you do not yourself know or understand what is behind the links you posted. You’re posting them in order to assert your prejudice. It’s obviously not appropriate to refuse to argue in an argument, but rather refer the argument elsewhere.

No links. Refer to what you have learned from those links. Don’t simply hide behind them.

I asked for a response without a simple insistence that what you believe is true. Give examples of this evidence. Refer to it, show why it shows your position to be the more plausible. Don’t simply post links, I’m not here to argue against links, but against other people, on this, a philosophy forum, populated by people interested in arguing about philosophy, and not only stating what they believe over and over without support.

I’m looking for a response that doesn’t simply insist without argument your position to be the case.

I’m aware that when we experience something, something happens in the brain. What makes you think what is happening in the brain is identical to the experience, as opposed to the experience being of what is happening in the brain? You should give a logical reason why it is more plausible to believe the former.

Why then are our brain states identical to our experiences? As opposed to it being the case that we experience our brain states?

Perhaps restate the argument I’ve been making, to see if you understand it.

Terrapin has simply been insisting without argument that the experience of colour and colour are distinct, and insisting without argument that brain phenomena and experience are the same thing. I’ve been giving reasons why that doesn’t make sense, which have been ignored.

If it’s a “retard-level” argument you should be embarrassed you don’t understand it. Being unaware of a major argument against your position and insisting that it’s proven by all “the evidence”, ignoring the basic logical problem with the whole concept, is no good.

The point being, it’s only in the mind that anything ever appears red. A brain phenomenon does not in itself appear red, but generates redness in the mind. Therefore they can’t be identical. Simply insisting that they are identical is no good, you have to get around this problem.

You’re failing to understand that something does not appear red unless it is looked at.

I’ve been posing the problem of qualia to your position. The observation that redness is a quality that exists in the mind but not in the material world; that brain states do not exhibit redness, and that therefore the mind, which does exhibit redness to the person whose mind it is, must be different from the brain, and different from brain states. Brain states is a paraphrase of brain phenomena. This is one of the principle arguments against materialist theories of mind.

I’m asking you to demonstrate why you think brain phenomena and experiences are identical, not simply to insist that they are.

If light refraction is different from the experience of colour, what makes a brain phenomenon the same as an experience of colour?

There “sense” = manner. In what manner - or in what way - do you think light refraction is the same as colour? I’m saying it’s only in virtue of the fact that when looked at it will be experienced as such.

Our sense of sight is our visual experience of things. Our sense of smell is our olfactory experience of things. Our sense of hearing is our auditory experience of things, and so on.

Yes. That is the definition of a sense.

And you wouldn’t answer in what sense you thought light refraction was the same as colour. It’s colour only in virtue of the fact that, when looked at, it will be experienced as colour. It is not in itself colour, because it is only particles. It is only when looked at that they generate colour, in the mind.