Science is a self-correcting system. — Wheatley

Science isn't a self-correcting system though, because it needs guidance from theory and hypothesis, which are derived from sources non-scientific, like metaphysics.

My contention that Christianity was largely responsible for the destruction of classical literature, and culture generally, is that presented by Gibbon, and one or two others since. You will need something more than just naysaying. — Banno

Ever consider the possibility that what really happened is that Christianity provided people with the freedom to do what they wanted? And what they wanted was to destroy classic literature. The reason? Because it was full of lies, deception, and immorality, being the medium of a deprived culture..

So perhaps, what Christianity really provided was freedom from a corrupted, degenerative regime, by enabling revolt. And destruction of the medium through which the oppressors have operated was the final symbolic rejoicing, as they reveled in freedom. It's not mere coincidence that the acts you refer to coincide with the fall of the Roman Empire.

I also have a problem with the notion of an experiential state; there's a reification there that I find uncomfortable. Experiences are not always sufficiently static to count as individuals; or at least there are issues for consideration in the individuating of sensations. (@Metaphysician Undercover mentioned something along these lines above, but it made no sense.) — Banno

I'd go further than this, to say that experiences are never static things, but neither are physical objects in the world static things. However, this does not change the fact that we talk about both of these as if they are static things. So if there is an error here, in referring to one or the other as a static thing, it is not specific to one or the other.

What I think is that we recognize or apprehend certain aspects of both, experiences or feelings, and physical objects, which appear to be unchanging, and this provides the basis for talking about these as if they are static things. Perhaps it is more difficult to find consistency in experiences and feelings than it is to find consistency in the physical world around us, so this creates the illusion of a big difference between the two.

A common philosophical error is to assume that a grammar implies a state of affairs. In the phone example, the similarity of grammar is taken to imply that pain is some sort of individual, or thing, and so leads to questions of observation and identity and so on, all of them misplaced, all of them the result of not noticing that the grammar hides a distinction.

@Metaphysician Undercover in particular makes this sort of mistake often and repeatedly, but doesn't see it. — Banno

Really, it is simply you who is not following what analysis of the language is showing us, and you are trying to make a distinction which is unwarranted, unsupported by the use of language, and in error. It is not the case that the grammar is hiding something, it is the case that you are not accepting what the grammar is showing you, thereby assuming that there is some other reality inconsistent with the grammar, and hidden beneath the grammar.

The real distinction to be made is between the static and the active. Such a distinction can be carried through. But both, the internal feelings, and also the external physical objects, have each, active and passive elements. So to separate the two, internal feelings from external objects, on the premise that one is active and the other is passive, as the basis of this separation, is a mistake.

See the sentence immediately preceding this...

"So you are saying that the word 'pain' really means crying?" – On the contrary: the verbal expression of pain replaces crying and does not describe it.

So "I have a pain in my neck" is the same as "ouch!"

and at the start of §244 ""How de we refer to sensations?" - the italics are in the original; the answer is that it is muddled to think of ourselves as referring to sensations at all. We express them.

Language cannot refer to a pain - it cannot get between a pain and its expression. — Banno

As demonstrated by my argument above, the fact that "ouch", or "I have a pain in my neck", can serve as a replacement for crying, indicates these cannot be the sensations themselves which are being expressed. They are a response to the sensation. And we apprehend them as representative of the sensation. In the one case we even refer to the sensation as "a pain". The idea that we express the sensation with these expressions, rather than respond to the sensation is rather ludicrous.

If you watch the Elton John movie Rocketman, it is implied that young Elton (or whatever his real name was) had the same sort of talent. He would just sit down at the piano and play a tune that he had heard, or seen played, without ever having practiced it.

Perhaps. But if we read the text as saying that it is, ∮245 works.

What's being rejected, and here I think I'm following Kenny, is that notion that talk of sensations takes the form of object and reference - see ∮293. So Kenny to:
To sum up: if by name one means "word who is meaning is learned by bare ostensive definition" then pain is not the name of a sensation; but if by name one means what is ordinarily meant by the word then of course "pain" is the name of a sensation.

The sensation has the same grammatical structure as an object: "I have a pain in my hand" against "I have a phone in my hand". The phone is a thing; the pain is not. We refer to the phone, but give expression to the pain.

So if one refers to a pain it is not in the way one refers to a phone, despite the superficial similarity int he grammar. — Banno

What you are missing, is that there is some form of judgement between the pain and the expression, as I described here:

What lies between pain and the expression of pain is some sort of judgement. The determinist will say that this is not a judgement at all, it's an automatic reaction, cause and effect; hit me and I will react. ,But using words as a form of expression is seen to sometimes consist of conscious judgement. So word use seems to cross the boundary between automatic reaction, and conscious judgement, consisting of some of each. — Metaphysician Undercover

That it is necessary to assume a medium, such as a form of judgement, is required due to the fact that there are many different possibilities for a single person's response to pain. The multitude of possibilities implies that there cannot be a direct causal relation between pain and expression. So, we must assume a medium which "chooses" from the possibilities.

We can see "pain" as the name of a type of sensation, just like "phone" is the name of a type of object. So I think your post displays ambiguity between naming a particular object, as one might do with a proper noun, and using a word like "phone" to refer to one object out of a group of things which could be called by the same name. Notice that 'the phone in my hand' would single out one phone out of many possible phones, but it is the context 'in my hand' which makes the word a name. You could have used any word to name the object. It's not necessary to call it "a phone", so that is not its name. However, if you held up a phone and talked about 'the cup in my hand', people would be very confused as to why you were referring a phone as a cup. This is why "meaning is use" is not straight forward, and actually somewhat deceptive. If meaning really was use, "cup" would be acceptable as being used to refer to the object. But "meaning is use" doesn't account for some preconceived notions that people have developed, which leads them to misinterpret other people's use.

You ought to recognize that "phone" is not the name of the object in your hand, though it might appear that way, when "phone" is given that context. In reality "phone" signifies a whole class of similar objects. Likewise, "pain" is not the name of the sensation in your big toe, after you stub your toe, it is the name of a type of sensation. Since both, "pain" and "phone" signify a type of thing, and are not properly the name of any one thing, .the proposed separation, or distinction between the two, which you describe is unwarranted.

Is it possible that he had seen it played before, remembered the process with a photographic memory, then practiced the finger movements without a piano?

Nobody taught you how to speak English? — Luke

Right, I'm self-taught, through the scientific methods of observation, and trial and error. Aren't you?

This must be hell for English teachers. Why is it impossible? — Luke

No English teacher I have ever known has attempted to teach me the correct use of a word. Such a thing is impossible because no two particular sets of circumstances are exactly the same and successful usage varies according to the circumstances. A word is like any other tool, and there is no such thing as the correct use of a tool, it is used differently by different people in different situations. That there is such a thing as "the correct use" is just a false assumption that some people make.

"Good", "bad", "worse", and "better", implying a variance by degrees is a completely distinct concept from the dichotomous "correct" and "incorrect".

I don't think this is what Wittgenstein wants to convey. — TheMadFool

Well I probably am not in total agreement with Wittgenstein on this point, but it is actually very difficult to decipher exactly what he has said to be able to determine such agreement. And, the fact that his use of words can, and is, interpreted in many different ways, is evidence that there is no such thing as "the correct way". In fact, if you pay very close attention to his use of words, you may notice that what he appears to be saying with his words, is something inconsistent with what he is doing with his words.

This is a form of hypocrisy which he presents us with, when you are doing something different with your words, from what you say you are doing. It's the foundation of deception. Take a look at the inverted form of the liar paradox ("I am not lying") for a very simple example of that type of hypocrisy.. The reason why it becomes a paradox upon inversion, is that we cannot find the principles to allow for the lack of consistency between what the person is saying and what the person is doing. If meaning is use, then saying something is doing something. But this presents us with a very peculiar problem of accounting for the real existence of deception. Deception is doing something different from what you are saying, and for this to occur there must be a separation between the meaning of what you are saying, and what you are doing. Therefore the two are different, as evidenced by the reality of deception. So deception successfully demonstrates that meaning is something other than use.

There is such a thing as correct usage of words. How else is this conversation taking place and how are we to read Wittgenstein's works if there were no such thing? :chin: — TheMadFool

I think I already sort of explained how this conversation can take place without such a thing as "the correct use of a word". We proceed in our actions, and have success in our actions without the need of determining "the best", or "the correct" way of doing things. Actions are the means to ends, and we have many choices as to the particular means to any end, which is something more general. So we choose and we proceed. If we are unsuccessful we might designate that particular way as "incorrect", as commonly happens in trial and error. But contrary to popular opinion, the fact that many ways can be designated as "incorrect", does not imply that there is one "correct way".. Actually it would be more likely that there are many correct ways. And if there are many correct ways, This rules out "the correct way", though some might still be better than others.

1. The referent of S is known only to you. So, no possibility that you might inform a second person of what S means. There goes your chance of being able to establish a corroborative backup in case you ever forget what S means. — TheMadFool

This is not an issue because the possibility of informing a second person of what S means is highly unlikely in the first place. "S" refers to one's own sensation, a feeling that a person has. How do you propose that you can show another person your own feeling, to inform that other person what S means? The idea that you might inform another person of what S means has no place here. So this is just a bad premise.

2. Suppose now you doubt what S means. You and you alone can clear this doubt (from 1) but you can't because you're in doubt. You can't expect a person, viz. yourself, who's uncertain what S means to tell you what S means. — TheMadFool

As I said, you can never completely rid yourself of this type of doubt, to be absolutely certain, but this does not prevent us from proceeding. In other words, it's impossible to clear this doubt, and that's just a fact of life, accept it.

What does it mean to use S correctly? Well, it means to never get its meaning wrong but from 1 and 2 (above), this is impossible. If you ever doubt what S means, you're in thick soup - only you know what S means but now you don't. What happens next is incorrect use of S unless you're grotesquely lucky and all of your guesses are correct. — TheMadFool

Right, it's impossible to ever know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the correct use of a word. But contrary to what you are saying here, this does not entail that "incorrect use" is inevitable. It just implies that there is no such thing as the correct use of a word. Once you come to understand this, and accept it as a fact, your doubt will be quelled because you will no longer be inclined to doubt whether or not your usage is correct. You will see that you are free to use words however you please.

Can't a body, or matter, have quantities? Mass, charge, position, maybe velocity? — Philofile

These are all things we assign to the body, in predication. We might say that the body has something real, a property which corresponds to the concept assigned, but that all depends on the accuracy of the concept, in its capacity for modeling reality. That's why Banno's "instantaneous velocity" is a bad conception, when judged for truthfulness. Though it is a very useful concept, it's obvious that there is nothing real which corresponds with it.

"Mass" is similar, in the sense of being very useful, but not very truthful. It's like a magical power which we assign to a coherent group of particles which we observe to exist as a unified body. In theory, the massive object consists of a group of parts. But the theoretical parts, in summation, of each one's "mass" cannot account for the quantity of power that the unified whole is observed to have as "mass". So to be truthful we should represent this power which is attributed to "mass", as something which is produced by magic, or magically comes into existence, when parts are unified as a whole.

Every velocity is an average one. — Philofile

Your efforts are wasted on Banno. Some people think they know everything and refuse to learn anything.

To address your op, there is no such thing as a "physical quantity". "Physical" means of the body, where a body is a thing, or object. A quantity may be of one, or a multitude of objects. That's why quantity is an abstraction, or universal, and not something physical

Fair point but, from what I gather, the certainty Wittgenstein is concerned about regarding whether or not the sign "S" is being used correctly applied can be treated in a relative sense. We aren't as sure of the sign "S" and its referent as we are about the referent of "water", the former being private and the latter being public. Therein lies the rub. — TheMadFool

Some words, like "water", we are very sure about, other words, we are less sure about. It's generally a matter of being familiar with the word and its use. Why would "S" be any different? The use here, which one would become familiar with, is one's own use. But I don't see how the judgement of "correct" would be any different in principle. In the one case consistent with the use of others would be the criteria for the judgement, and in the other case consistent with one's own use would be the criteria.

Either way, if we assume that there is a first use of any word, there is no basis for a judgement of "correct" in that first use. And; if a following use is different, or what you'd call incorrect in relation to that other use, it is still a use, and serves as the basis for a further judgement of correct. So the word could then have two correct uses even though one of these began as incorrect . This I admit could pose a problem to the private user. But it's not a problem that couldn't be overcome, the person would just have to choose between the two.

You mean to say, a private linguist doesn't need to be certain what a sign S refers to in faer private, inner world? — TheMadFool

No, I mean in any use of language one does not have to be certain of what the words mean. That's just the way language is. It's that type of thing, something we can do, without being certain of what we are doing. There is no fatal consequence, for example, for making a mistake, so we can proceed rather carelessly.

So, S is like a variable and can stand for any sensation, this particular category of experience being chosen by Wittgenstein out of necessity? What S stands for can change at any time; a private linguist might, for instance, say, "oh, this feels right for S" and run with that. That's exactly what Wittgenstein claimed will happen - the notion of whether a word is being used appropriately/properly is N/A. What do you think this leads to? I'm curious. — TheMadFool

Looks exactly like what happens to language; word meaning evolves and changes as people are free to use words however they please.

I would be interested in what others think of this passage. What would be in between pain and the expression of pain? Is there something there that could be referenced? I would think not. I'm not sure what Wittgenstein is getting at. What is it that he's trying to get us to think about? — Sam26

What lies between pain and the expression of pain is some sort of judgement. The determinist will say that this is not a judgement at all, it's an automatic reaction, cause and effect; hit me and I will react. ,But using words as a form of expression is seen to sometimes consist of conscious judgement. So word use seems to cross the boundary between automatic reaction, and conscious judgement, consisting of some of each.

A private language user, if fae's not sure if fae's using the sign, say, S, correctly has only one option: ask faerself about whether S is being used correctly or not but fae doesn't know that; isn't that why fae's asking faerself. It's like a judge in court who's unsure about a certain article of the law and then consults faerself about it; fae doesn't know. — TheMadFool

You seem to be using the premise that one must be absolutely certain before judging something as correct. But that's really opposite to reality. There are degrees of certainty, but we never obtain to the level of absolute. Nor do we require absolute certainty before proceeding with an action. So fae can use a sign, and we can interpret this as meaning that fae has in some sense judged it as being correct for the situation, even while maintaining doubt as to whether it truly is the best sign for the situation.

There is an entire range of degrees of doubt which we could look at. Down at the base is trail and error. There is a judgement that the thing tried ought to be tried, so that is a judgement of "correct", even though the probability for success, from the trial is known to be very low. At the top, there is a healthy respect for the fact that even when we proceed with the highest degree of certainty , there is a faint possibility that things will go wrong, accidents do happen. So even when we proceed with the highest degree of certainty we ought to keep in mind the possibility of mistake.

So your example doesn't give us anything real to go on. The person using the sign doesn't need to be certain, and in reality ought to never have that attitude of absolute certainty. So the second guessing oneself, which you are talking about, though it does occur, is not a necessary aspect of using a sign, and it ought not be presented as if it is.

Wittgenstein then claims, for the private language user, the only possible means by which fae can know that fae is using a word/sign in that private language correctly is to consult oneself and that's problematic for the simple reason that whatever seems/is thought to be correct will be taken as correct. The notion of correct usage becomes meaningless as the verificatory process is, at the end of the day, circular: — TheMadFool

Why do you say that the notion of correct usage becomes meaningless? As Sam26 says, the verification is not circular. The individual applies one's own criteria and makes the judgement of "correct". Isn't that how any judgement of "correct" is made, by an individual applying what is believed to be the relevant criteria? Where's the problem? What makes such a judgement meaningless?

You would have to ask me if I am intending to point at the mirror, the imagine in the mirror, or am using the mirror to point my finger at itself. — Yohan

That's right. And this is an indication of the inherent ambiguity within "pointing". To clarify, and resolve the ambiguity, we need to ask, 'what are you pointing at, and the pointer must provide further context to ensure that the person being shown the thing interprets the pointing in the same way as the person pointing.

The part that refers cannot be referred to while referring. — Gobuddygo

Why is this a problem for you? I see no problem, as long as we maintain as reality, that there is always a medium between the person doing the referring, and the thing referred to. Point your left finger at your right finger, and say "I am pointing at my finger". You can be pointing at either your right or your left, because it is you who is pointing, and your finger, as the means is just a medium. When I say "I" the part that refers, myself, is doing the referring. The medium, the word "I" is just the means which I choose, like when I choose my right finger to point at my left finger. The ambiguity is a feature of the choice of medium..

I'm glad you agree. Now consider that there are a number of different forms of these crucial statements. I would say that they are definitional. So in the famous example from Aristotle: All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; Therefore Socrates is mortal, you can see clearly that "man" is defined as mortal, and "Socrates" is defined as a man. The way A explains it, the concept of "mortal" is within the concept of "man". I say "within" means a necessary part of the definition, "necessary" being relative to that specific logical proceeding.

The premise in your example is slightly different but similar. "Rain" is defined by "the ground will be wet" as necessary for the logical procedure. So you place the concept of "the ground will be wet" within the concept of "rain", as necessary. It is what I would call definitional.

I would say that the principal difference between the two examples above, is that the former defines a type of object (making that the subject) "men", through predication, "are mortal", while the latter defines an activity "rain" (making that the subject) through a causal relation "the ground will be wet". You could have stated something different as your definition, like "If it's raining there will be drops of water in the air". This is more like a simple predication. We replace the causal relation with a straight relation of predication, but the situation is the same, logically. Every time it is raining, there are drops of water in the air, but not necessarily every time there are drops of water in the air is it raining. The concept of "drops of water in the air" is placed within the concept of "rain" through this definitional act. And the definitional act enables the judgement of validity, relative to the conclusion.

When you use the mirror, doesn't the tip of your finger point at itself through the means of reflection? Can't a pointing be reflected?

I can use my finger to point at my body, but I can't point the tip of my finger at itself. — Yohan

What about that mirror thing? It's pretty freaky. Just remember to account for the inversion or you'll get all fucked up. The mirror image is said to be identical, because it has the same chirality, but's really not identical because it is a reflection.

The form of premise 1, as a conditional statement, is crucial to the validity of the conclusion, as what is used to determine the truth table. For example, if the premise was changed to a biconditional, the truth table would be different.

Aristotle,trying to show virtue is a middle way, said
1.In decorative arts such as pottery one seeks to stay in the middle ground between extremes
2.Since virtue superior to pottery etc. that must also be true for virtue too
3.therefore virtue is a middle way between extremes — Ioannis Kritikos

It's a bit more complicated than this. He gives examples such as eating, the correct amount being the mean between too much and too little, and courage, being the mean between cowardly and rash. So it's an argument from examples.

3 has to be true; no possible world exists where 1 and 2 are true with 4 false. — TheMadFool

Well that's not telling me what makes it true. You are just repeating that it has to be true, necessarily. What makes 3 true, when 2 is stipulated as true, is the relationship between P and Q which is stated in 1. The truth or falsity of 2, in your example of rain, is a direct empirical determination The truth or falsity of 1 is a logical determination. So we can ask what type of logic supports such premises.

As for temporal aspects of sufficient and necessary conditions and causality, we can forgo discussion on them for they muddy the waters. — TheMadFool

If you're just going to repeat over and over again, that 3 is necessarily true, if 1 and 2 are true, then there is no discussion to be had.

Modus Ponens
1. If P then Q
2. P
Ergo,
3. Q

1a. If it rains then the ground will be wet
2a. It rains
Ergo,
3a. The ground will be wet

If the premises 1 and 2 are true, it's impossible for the conclusion, 3, to be false. — TheMadFool

What makes it impossible that 3 is false? It's not one of the three fundamental laws, identity, non-contradiction, or excluded middle. And I don't believe it's a combination of the three, it's a completely different principle.

Can we call this a principle of logical priority? We say that Q is logically prior to P. The ground being wet is logically prior to it raining, as raining necessitates logically, the ground being wet, as a logical requirement. Notice that in this case there is a reversal of ontological, or temporal causation. If "P causes Q", is an ontological determination, through a necessary temporal relation which implies P as temporally prior to Q, then Q is logically prior to P, as the determination of cause and effect is what validates the inverse logical priority.

Cause and effect is just one example, as there are many other ontological principles which validate a logical priority.

Moral guidance is to direct people in relation to the future. Future events have not yet occurred and are understood as possible. So there is no truth or falsity with respect to the future, and we have the is/ought divide. Therefore if you portray the purpose of religion as giving moral guidance, and someone wants to argue that facts are relevant to religion, they need to first provide you with a bridge across that divide. Then their argument will only be as acceptable as the bridge they've provided.

Right, there are things we can't do and things we must do. And nowhere does it state that we have to mandate people to take a vaccine and deny them access to society if they do not. There is nothing unfeasible about it.

I don’t see how it is reasonable to discriminate against the unvaccinated, especially when natural immunity can offer better protection than some vaccines, and the vaccinated are not immune from spreading the disease. It seems more reasonable and justifiable to discriminate against those infected with the virus, the only people capable of spreading the disease. — NOS4A2

The origin of of Covid-19 remains unknown to the greater population of the world. Regardless, biological warfare has a long history and is a very real and serious concern. Defence against biological agents is not a simple matter, requiring a concerted effort and a strongly unified community, with an impenetrable line of defence. We've seen this requirement. Rogue individuals such as yourself have no place in a society on the defence from this type of biological agent, and there is no other option but to "deny them access to society". In this situation there is some truth to George W. Bush's words "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists".

Prepare yourself, as far worse biological agents could be in store for us in the future, and this is but a drill. Do you have the moral strength, will power, determination, and courage, to do what it takes to defend your community from these agents of death, or will you reject your community's efforts and become an outcast? .

Did you ever take lessons on how to use the English language, 180? — Metaphysician Undercover

Your posts just don't make any sense.

So which is it that you actually believe, what you first stated, that non-physical, abstract ideas have no causal relations with physical systems, or what you later demonstrated with your words, that non-physical, abstract ideas have causal relations with physical systems?

And that causal relation between an idea and physical system is what? — 180 Proof

It's a causal relation between the physical and the non-physical, contrary to what you were saying. Look:

Ideas" are abstract and therefore are not in causal relation to facts. — 180 Proof

Unencoded "ideas" cannot affect physical systems and, in this sense, are not informational (vide C.S. Peirce, A. Turing, C. Shannon, S. Wolfram or D. Deutsch ... re: — 180 Proof

After telling me to read a physics textbook, you are familiar with Newton's third law aren't you? It's the law of interaction. If a physical system is causing changes to something non-physical, then the non-physical must be causing changes to the physical. Don't you think so?

Right, the second physical system you referred to ("being changed accordingly by another physical system") causes the ideas to be encoded. So there is a causal relation between this physical system, and the non-physical ideas.

I've used the term brain state as both static and dynamic. Physical brains will always be in a dynamic state and information linked with brains will always be in a dynamic state. I agree, any theory of information that uses a static state is suspect. — Mark Nyquist

I really think that "dynamic state" is oxymoronic. So any type of theory which talks about a state as anything other than static would seem incoherent to me. I'll see if I can explain this to you. Suppose something like a brain is dynamic, actively changing. You might describe its condition at one time as state #1 and its condition at a following time as state #2, and we could conclude that there was active change between #1 and #2. But we cannot combine state #1 with state #2 to say that these are actually one "dynamic state" because we've already made the premise of two distinct states. And we cannot describe the activity between #1 and #2 as a state because we've already designated it as the change between state #1and #2, therefore not definable as a "state".

A dynamic brain holding mental content is physically equal to a dynamic brain state, as a definition. — Mark Nyquist

So this definition is clearly unacceptable, as incoherent.

Once "ideas" are encoded onto a physical system by being changed accordingly by another physical system (e.g. recording music) they then can be processed as (they become) "information". See the link provided in my previous post. — 180 Proof

So the ideas are changed by a physical system. How is this not a casual relation between ideas and a physical system?

You moved on to the second step too soon. You may understand it, but could you offer a little more so I could too. — Mark Nyquist

Do you see that blueprints are expressed ideas, which are causes in relation to the physical things which come into existence from the blueprints? Here's an example to demonstrate what I mean. Suppose I'm building a shed or some other small building, and I use the Pythagorean theorem to lay out my right angles. Do you see that this idea is the cause of that aspect of the shape of the building?

We have material brain states and these brain states have the ability to hold abstract ideas, so you can have material brain states in a causal relationship with material things. Why would that be a delusion? — Mark Nyquist

I agree with wayfarer, that "brain states" is an incoherent idea. The brain is always active so there is no such thing as the "state" which the brain is in. And if the brain was in a "state", then it would be inactive, and your talk of it being in a causal relation would not make any sense.

The view that abstract ideas can exist unsupported and can affect physical matter...? — Mark Nyquist

I didn't say anything about being unsupported. Read the following.

I wouldn’t describe it as “the materialist delusion”. But rather an ideology which doesn’t (from its own perspective) require a sentient being as the knower of abstract ideas. Take that knower out of the system and nothing has been lost. — Punshhh

Perhaps this ontology is better described as you do, but there is something incoherent about discussing abstract ideas which do not require a being for their existence. Most forms of idealism, like Berkeley's for example, propose the existence of Ideas independent from human minds, but as far as I know all such ideologies maintain a God of some sort to support the existence of those ideas. So they do not have an ideology which holds abstract ideas without the requirement of a knower.

The materialist will seize hold of this notion of independent Ideas or Forms, with complete disrespect for the support given by the knower, "God", and insist that such Ideas cannot interact with the physical world. But this is nothing but a total misrepresentation, a strawman, because the independent Ideas or Forms of the I\idealist are understood to interact with the physical world through the means of God, just like we understand human ideas to interact with the physical world through the means of human beings.

I don’t think we as people who attribute a more fundamental role to the knower in this can dismiss this view. We are simply on the other side of the intellectual division between idealism and materialism. The other side of the same coin. — Punshhh

I think that any view which proposes a dichotomy between material (or physical) objects, and immaterial (or non-physical) objects, without the possibility of any interaction between the two, ought to be dismissed as completely unrealistic. And, it is really only the deluded materialists who propose such a view, as a strawman representation of dualism. They can easily demonstrate that such a view is untenable, therefore they dismiss dualism. The so-called "problem of interaction" is often touted by materialists as a conclusive argument against dualism. But these same materialist appear to be completely unaware that this "problem" was resolved long ago by Plato, in the same work which demonstrates that dualism provides the only rational approach toward understanding the nature of reality.

So I don't accept your "other side of the same coin" analogy. These materialists who deny interaction haven't got a knower at all, because the knower provides the medium of interaction. They haven't got "a coin" in the analogy. They propose two sides, the physical and the non-physical, without any coin which the two sides are properties of. Then they demonstrate that such a position is untenable. Now, instead of realizing that what they've missed is the coin itself, (true reality), they propose one side of the coin as the correct representation of the coin. Of course that is a misrepresentation.

I think that the first step in dispelling the materialist delusion is to understand that there is a causal relationship between abstract ideas and physical things. The second step, is to understand that unlike simple processing, where 'processed' is the effect, in the case of abstract ideas, the ideas are the cause and artificial goods are the effect.

By information I understand "ideas" (signs, heuristics, algorithms) encoded in – processed by – a physical system. — 180 Proof

If a physical system can process abstract ideas, then there must be a causal relationship between the abstract ideas and the physical system which processes them. Agree?

. "Ideas" are abstract and therefore are not in causal relation to facts. — 180 Proof

I think I've figured out what you're saying here. You're saying that ideas are abstract, non-physical, therefore they can't have any causal relation to the physical. Isn't that just begging the question?

If ideas cannot have any causal relation with the physical, how do you account for the relationship between ideas and artificial things which are physical?. How can there not be a causal relation between the ideas and the artificial thing which comes into existence when someone puts the ideas into action?

abstract and therefore are not in causal relation to facts — 180 Proof

What do you think "causal relation to facts" means? I can't figure it out. Did you ever take lessons on how to use the English language, 180?

The rest are physical. Please open a high school physics textbook, MU. — 180 Proof

What are you suggesting, that all terms used in a physics textbook refer to something physical because they are in a physics textbook? That's another stellar example of an extremely deprived faculty of logically reasoning.

Take issue with my "logic" all you like but that's trivial so long as you don't / can't answer my question about 'non-physical causes'. — 180 Proof

Huh? You didn't read my post? I gave you a whole slew of examples of non-physical things which cause changes in physical systems. Let me go back and see if I can name them all, in the order they appear in my post: "ideas", "gravity", "forces" "potential energy", "fields". Do you simply ignore anything which is inconsistent with your metaphysics?

X causes changes in physical systems or things. Name a non-physical, or merely abstract, which causes such changes. — 180 Proof

The point is that your logic is sorely deficient. Whether or not I can give you an answer of something non-physical which affects the physical (which is easily done, ideas, as evidenced by the existence of artificial things) is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is the logical basis of your principle, "whatever affects the physical is, at least in part, physical".

What I have issue with, is your proposed annihilation of the separation between things which makes them distinct things.. You seem to be saying that if one thing affects another thing, it is to some degree, that other thing. This I believe annihilates the separation between distinct things, saying that if they interact they are in some sense conjoined, But this is clearly not the way that we currently understand the reality of the universe. We allow that things which do not appear to be conjoined can interact with each other.

So the moon interacts with the earth for example, through gravity, though the two are understood as distinct objects. Now physics can represent the "affects" of gravity, but they have no representation of gravity itself. So to answer your question, with a more sophisticated answer, gravity causes changes in physical systems, and it is itself, non-physical. And once you come to understand this, you'll see that all forces talked about by physicists are non-physical, and that's the way that physicists represent the interactions between physical bodies, as occurring through a medium which is non-physical. So physicists understand distinct physical bodies as interacting with each other through non-physical mediums, such as potential energy, and fields. The physical body causes a change to the non-physical, then the non-physical causes a change to another physical body, and that's how physicists understand distinct physical things to interact.

Whatever affects the physical is, at least in part, also physical.... — 180 Proof

How does this statement make any sense to you? You have a classification of things predicated with "physical". Then you claim that anything which affects a thing of this type, the physical type, must itself be a physical thing. Where's your missing premise? Anything which affects something else must be the same type of thing as the thing affected?

What may have been a decent argument, an opportunity to further the reasoning behind taking a vaccine, quickly becomes a justification for the government to assert its power and mandate people taking them. — NOS4A2

Vaccination mandates are not new. What's the problem with adding another disease to the list of mandated vaccines? Do you think it's OK that vaccinations be mandated for children, because they need to be told what to do, but once they grow up to legal age they should be allowed to decide for themselves? Or do you think that parents ought to decide whether their children will get vaccinated? Do you think it's not right to keep unvaccinated children out of private or public schools, as a pressure tactic on the parents to encourage vaccination?

As I said, answering flash cards and such things requires rapid response, which is specific to the particular situation, when the required response was completely unknown until that time. That's why I don't categorize it as automatic or habitual. If however, it is the case that acquiring the capacity to make such a rapid response requires being subjected to the same flash cards, or colours, a numbers of times, so that the person gets familiarized with that particular response to that particular question, then I think it might be habitual.

So I can't place the total organism of an ameba as having less complex anticipatory mechanisms that the knee jerk you refer to. — javra

I wouldn't necessarily say that the ameba's anticipatory mechanisms are' "less complex". In fact, with anticipation, it appears to me like the less complex is the more highly developed. This is because, with rapid discernment, as we've been discussing, the simpler it is, the faster it is. This actually may be what differentiates higher levels of consciousness from lower levels, that the process of discernment, gets simpler and simpler. So when you talk about a conscious judgement requiring a deliberation period, this is really a sign of weakness in that consciousness.

Consider what conscious judgement requires. First, we need to suspend the habitual, the automatic, to free ourselves from that influence of such causal mechanisms. In a general sense, this is what we call "will power", it enables us to resist the temptation of following subconscious inclinations. Then, the conscious mind is free to consider options. However, we ought to also consider that the conscious mind itself will add another layer of habitual, or automatic responses to deal with simple problems which do not require extended deliberation, like learning the flash cards. And there might be many layers like this within a living being.

This scenario would create multiple levels with the stop (will power) required at each level to allow discernment which is not causal in the determinist sense. This would be cumbersome and time consuming, so I think that the conscious mind must have the capacity to bypass multiple levels, and place the stop at the bottom of the chain of causation. This would allow the conscious mind to avoid the complex causal structure, allowing its habits, automatic response to take precedence when required, and also forced deliberation if required.

So in general, what I'm suggesting is that the subconscious level is complex, created with many levels of stops (inherent will power), which is required to allow the being to act in a way which is not causally determined. Then the conscious mind short circuits this whole complex system, implanting itself as close to the bottom of the causal chain as possible, rerouting the activity directly to the top, when it deems necessary. In this way it has found a way to simplify the complex anticipatory system which was required to be complex in the first place to avoid costly mistakes.

I don't assume the block cosmos of eternalism. I so far give my ontological beliefs the label of presentism, for lack of a better term. But the details are complex (e.g., laconically, and for all intended purposes, the past is yet static due to causal reasons that are conjoined into the realities of the present - and it is remembered as having been physical, hence "the physical past"), and, besides, I did say I'd drop the subject of time. — javra

The difficult thing, is that if the present is active, and the past is static, how can we account for a transition between these two? This is the issue which has tied Luke up now, he asked me at what point does the present end and the past start, or something like that, and I said that to talk about "points" here does not make sense. This is why I suggested that further and further into the past there is something like slowing down, until we get to what we call the beginning of time, when things would have been static. So I see the past as the end of motion, and facing the future, we see that motion begins in the future. Our perspective is in the middle somewhere.

That said, although we'd both agree that there currently is no physical future, would we nevertheless agree that there will be a future physical present as a consequence of what occurs in the present? If so, as shorthand, I termed this future physical present the physical future. — javra

No, I wouldn't agree with this, as I explained, I see reason to remove the necessity here. The entire future is possibility, so there is nothing necessary which will come to be at a future present. Even the future present is not necessary, being contingent on the passing of time.. What occurs at the present, we say is a consequence of what has occurred in the past, but this is just the result of our faulty, backward way of understanding causation. The real cause of everything we experience is the passing of time. and we know of nothing which necessitates this. This is why the true cause is always in the future from us, as I described. The passing of time requires future, and the past is a consequence, the effect of time passing. Until we understand and grasp what necessitates the passing of time, we cannot assume that it is necessary.