The issue is, it seems, rather simple: We don't question the existence of mud, but we're unsure of the existence of Golems. Why? What's the reason for this differential treatment of mud & Golems (mud beings)? — Agent Smith

Update
To put this thread back on track.
Define
1. Existence: That which can be perceived (with our senses & instruments( exists.
2. Physical: That which is matter and/or energy. Both are perceived (accurately) with instruments. — Agent Smith

I cannot justifiably say any claim is NOT data, nor can I say it's data that points to a precise meaning, therefore all claims are justifiable. — Varde

Are full-time employees or employers more important in the economy? ... there is a greater probability of survival for the economy the more there are employees — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Women are more necessary in biological terms than men. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

There may not be a static reality, but some things will never change. — Wayfarer

Its almost three in the night here... — Hillary

But not back to time zero... — Hillary

I have seen a guy in English parliament smashing his writchwatch! Time's up! — Hillary

It would be called a discussion among continental philosophers, who use close readings of texts to buttress their arguments. Not so much on this site, though. — Joshs

I quoted those people because I agree with their views and they make a good starting point for discussion — Joshs

So if you don’t care what Bergson, Prigogine or Smolen think about this issue then you don’t care what I think — Joshs

I would love it if you used quotes to clarify your position. — Joshs

The clock can't be stopped. — Hillary

There is no configuration of objects that stays the same forever. The global arrangement of matter always moves in one direction. — Hillary

But 'real for whom?' then raises the issue of subjectivism - that what is real is up to you or me. — Wayfarer

But it can't be that way - what if I change my mind? Does something that was real then become unreal? It can't be dependent on your or my say-so. — Wayfarer

What if time is static, without the possibility to move? — Hillary

Smolin argues ... Prigogine contends ... for Bergson it is ,,, — Joshs

Measurement presupposes a concept of measurement, — Joshs

Time understood according to certain long-standing assumptions shared by philosophy and science is just a dimension. — Joshs

But to philosophers like Bergson and the phenomenologists it is the structure of reality itself. — Joshs

If time as dimension is a human invention, what features of the world can you point to that are not human inventions? — Joshs

There are only irreversible particle processes. Don't they move in a stationary time? — Hillary

Not according to Ilya Prigogine or Lee Smolen. For them time is fundamentally unidirectional.. — Joshs

We didnt create time, although we create various theories about time. — Joshs

The things we are attempting to measure are in themselves incoherent without the prior being of time. — Joshs

Well, I don't. I don't know that time is unidirectional.
— Alkis Piskas
Don't you think time goes forward only? — Hillary

according to today's empiricist philosophy only that which can be conceived of as existing in time and space is considered real. — Wayfarer

We all know it. Time is unidirectional — EugeneW

This is a paradox one might come across if they consider God's omnipotence. If the answer is yes, then there is one thing he can't do (lift a heavy enough rock), which contradicts the definition of omnipotence (being able to do anything). The same applies if the answer is no. How would you solve this paradox? — Cidat

AI is AS, artificial stupidity — Haglund

And the people who take it seriously are even assumed scientists, — Haglund

People though are impressed by science somehow and continue the myth — Haglund

just let it evolve, instead of trying to accomplish it by a hyperspeedy clocktime and massive quantities of data, following sophisticated programs. — Haglund

I have in mind ordinary people, say many who are religious, which may amount to more than half of the world population. It's my impression that they often do think there's something more to mind than brain. — Manuel

Of course, in a forum like this, it's going to be very rare. — Manuel

It was very much alive in the neo-Platonist tradition up until, roughly after Newton. — Manuel

Dreams are great! Let them try to program one! — Haglund

for many people, there is such a thing as a soul, to which we can attach certain aspects of mind. — Manuel

But do they want you to be you again — Haglund

the particles being you, can never be you again. — Haglund

he Ship of Theseus. What if we reassemble your brain parts. What then? — Agent Smith

Replace one half of the brain by a synthetic. Dream along... — Haglund

book, "Artificial You"? It was written by Susan Schneider, — Bret Bernhoft

I agree, so what happens when that continuity is broken by periods of non-consciousness? Death and rebirth? — RogueAI