Your subjective experience is unique to yourself.

Correct.

Your Self (your personal subjective experience -- which is denied by the scientific materialists)

I dispute that claim, science does not deny subjective experience nor does materialism; you've simply misunderstood them.

So the problem is is that this subjective experience has no real evidence of its existence

False.

so it doesn't exist right? Just like fairies don't exist, right? And THAT is the absolutistic mindset of the scientific materialist.

You're confused, materialists don't deny subjective experience, they deny subjective reality and they are correct in doing so. There is an objective reality, and there is your brain's limited interpretations of that reality that create your own personal subjective experience of that reality.

Your subjective experience is not a thing (i.e. physical) that can exist or not, it's simply your limited interpretation of reality. Your subjective experience, in the real world, is just patterns of electrical signals in your brain, that's what actually exist. Your subjective experiences exist much as a thought exists, as electrical patterns in your brain.

So how's that different than my "subjective reality" -- that isn't really a thing either.

And to hammer the confusion further you say:

* Your subjective experience, in the real world, is just patterns of electrical signals in your brain, that's what actually exist*

So my subjective experience IS an objective phenomenon and nothing more? If its something more than what we can measure "in the real world" then what is the part that is "more"? It doesn't exist right?

I can only logically conclude that pure Subjective Experience doesn't exist! As scientific materialism has always claimed.

Not a new term, it's vital to understand the distinction between subjective experience and subjective reality to even make sense of a conversation like this. They are vastly different things.

So how's that different than my "subjective reality" -- that isn't really a thing either.

Subjective experiences happen in objective reality. Color and taste are entirely subjective things that don't exist in reality. However, there exists a measurable testable objective reality that exists independently of your subjective experiences.

There are also those who believe in subjective reality, i.e. they believe consciousness somehow creates reality itself and what you think affects reality itself, i.e. the book "The Secret".

So my subjective experience IS an objective phenomenon and nothing more?

Obviously, and there exists no evidence anywhere that this isn't the case. Your brain is a machine, not a magic connection between your body and some other reality where your mind resides.

If its something more than what we can measure "in the real world" then what is the part that is "more"? It doesn't exist right?

It's not something more, so talking about it's existence is moot; your subjective experience exists in the same way your memories exist, as coded patterns in your neurons. There's no such thing as "exists outside the real world" as the very definition of the word exists is have objective reality or being. To say "exists outside the real world" is an utterly meaningless statement.

I can only logically conclude that pure Subjective Experience doesn't exist! As scientific materialism has always claimed.

Scientific materialism makes no such claim. Once again, subjective experience happens, it's not a thing, it's an event in your mind. Science does not deny it. Science denies subjective reality, i.e. the notion that your impression of the world is reality and isn't just a personal delusion. The Secret is a popular book that sells the idea of subjective realities as fact, i.e. what you think affects and changes reality itself. It is of course complete and utter nonsense written to separate fools from their money.

I am pretty sure that, subjectively and objectively, this sort of nonsense discussion of the definitions of words and reality is non-constructive.

Say I'm being monitored by a machine that can detect my brain patterns in real time. I am asked to imagine an arbitrary object, say an apple. I close my eyes and think of the apple and all of its sensual properties etc. My neurons fire and the machine picks up all of the brain patterns that correlate with my idea of "apple". And yet nowhere will the machine detect anything remotely resembling an apple. Only I "see" the apple in my "minds eye". The subjective apple has objective correlative brain patterns indeed, but what else?

Now to follow that, you could counter with the fact that a computer's graphics processor will have all kinds of electrons flowing in certain patterns to produce an image of an apple on screen. And I don't deny that the brain is indeed a high-order computer. But the difference here is that the actual computer (of today's technology) requires an end user whereas the brain (we can only assume) has one built in more or less. There is an experiencer that has yet to be explained by any science I know of yet. Maybe you do, and I'm not going to claim that it resides independent of the brain, but I will claim that it is this very end user that creates it's own interior subjective reality.

See we all "fabricate" a worldview within our minds. We take inputs from objective reality and process them according to the picture of reality that we construct there over time. We all contain a subjective reality maintained by our hardware that is dependent upon but quite different than the hardware itself. The image of an apple "means" something and cannot be completely reduced to electrons or synapse patterns without losing the concept of "apple". It fits into this scheme that we create. This is how we "learn about our world." Some people use different means than others. Some people value The Secret. Some people value science. And so on. Materialism reduces it all to something less. To that which only can be detectable in the objective world. It loses the apple, for now it is just "brain patterns" or electrons. No, it is only in part those things, but also a part of a subjective reality that may or may not be shared by others.

You're imagining an apple, using stored memories to create an image in your mind. Nothing else.

There is an experiencer that has yet to be explained by any science I know of yet.

Neuroscience has pretty well established that consciousness is an illusion created by your mind as a running narrative of what your brain just did. While we don't yet know how the brain does this, experiments do show that your awareness of this actually happens after the fact as your decisions happen in you brain before you are aware you made them. It's a very cool very fancy machine, nothing more as far as we can tell.

See we all "fabricate" a worldview within our minds. We take inputs from objective reality and process them according to the picture of reality that we construct there over time. We all contain a subjective reality maintained by our hardware that is dependent upon but quite different than the hardware itself.

Correct.

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.

Materialism reduces it all to something less.

No it doesn't.

To that which only can be detectable in the objective world.

The objective world is the only world there is. Your subjective reality is an illusion in your mind, the word world does not correctly apply.

It loses the apple, for now it is just "brain patterns" or electrons.

No it doesn't, materialism doesn't deny subjective mental experiences.

No, it is only in part those things, but also a part of a subjective reality that may or may not be shared by others.

That's merely a subjective mental experience of reality, something completely accepted by materialists and science. Honestly this whole conversation leads me to believe you have misunderstood materialism, or at least the consequences of it. You keep saying things about what materialists think that are simply wrong.

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 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?

Rather, it is a system of deciding the weight to give different components of the subjective experience in terms of constructing belief systems.

A good way to "unstump" such people, is to ask, "Is there such a thing, as what it's like to be you? When Thomas Nagel used some such phrase in his essay "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?", a lot of light bulbs were switched on.

Any experiencer, once his attention is properly directed, shall be certain that experience exists. Science, on the other hand, would be perfectly consistent with the non-existence of experience and experiencers.

Not so. You're referring to qualia, and this is a much debated and unsettled topic, but really "exists" is the wrong word to apply to it. To "exist" means to "have objective reality or being." IMHO, qualia no more exist than Superman does, it's a trick of perception created by your mind to help understand the world, a subjective experience of imagination.

To put a software metaphor on it, qualia are no different than your web browser, it runs on the computer, but no examination of the computer itself will find what you think of as the web browser within it, it's just a collection of bits in memory just as qualia is a collection of patterns in the brain. What you experience (qualia or the browser) and what actually exists in the hardware are vastly different things, both are illusions created in a running system that bear no resemblance to the collections of patterns in the hardware that creates them.

However, as it's a hot topic of debate among philosopher's there's no real point in rehashing what can be easily looked up on Wikipedia to see what all the current opinions are. However, the burden of proof is on those claiming it exists, not on those who critique the idea. As no such evidence exists, then it's nothing more than a hypothesis at best; and a very old one at that.