• Dualism and the conservation of energy
    ...the law of conservation is not true... — Metaphysician Undercover
    :roll: We're still waiting for the disproof of Noether's theorem (e.g. a "perpetual motion machine").

    This is why I am a dualist. I believe materialism provides us with some of the picture. And Immaterialism fills in the rest. — Benj96
    Aka "woo-of-the gaps" (via false dichotomy due to reification fallacy of binary-opposition semantics). Okay. I appreciate your honesty, Ben.

    ↪universeness
    :up:
  • Dualism and the conservation of energy
    ↪universeness
    :smirk:

    ↪Banno
    I got carried away with a (Jayne Cobb) partial quote from the movie Serenity. :snicker:
  • Dualism and the conservation of energy
    (1) The universe is an isolated system.
    (2) In an isolated system, the total amount of energy is constant.
    (3) If souls interact with bodies, they change the total amount of
    energy of the universe.
    (4) Souls interact with bodies.
    (5) 1–4 are inconsistent.
    (6) Therefore, reject 4.     — José Gusmão Rodrigues
    The argument is not sound because, unlike the universe & bodies, there is not any public evidence of "souls".

    ↪Banno
    I enjoyed nBSG as a more adult, grittier, semi-harder tech "reimagining" of the cartoony oBSG which was an excremental, faux-Mormon Star Wars-clone. Okay, yeah, the premise doesn't make sense but ...

    ↪Bartricks
    :roll: My muscular buttocks you have "peer reviewed.".
  • Why Metaphysics Is Legitimate
    I'm only suggesting that physics, or even the notion of physicality as we adults know of it, is impossible without first holding some estimate of what identity and causality are - these being metaphysical concepts. — javra
    This seems overstated. There's a difference between 'working assumptions' and well-defined, or determinate, 'concepts'. Belonging to the world to begin with, we study and intervene in the world by relying on working assumptions (heuristics) e.g. "identity", "causality", "physicality" long before we (have need to) reflect on them as categorical properties of the world (re: metaphysics), thus, ta meta ta physika, or "the book after the book on nature".
  • Being vegan for ethical reasons.
    Addendum to
    ↪180 Proof
    on prospects of vat-grown meat:

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/17/health/fda-lab-meat-cells-scn-wellness/index.html
  • Veganism and ethics
    ↪frank
    You sound like one of those "landing men on the moon" nay-sayers from 1950s, frank. :smirk: :point:

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/17/health/fda-lab-meat-cells-scn-wellness/index.html
  • Dualism and the conservation of energy
    This is what this thread is about, you incredibly incompetent people. — Bartricks
    Cries of a wet toddler because the adults can't decipher her babytalk. :yawn:
  • Dualism and the conservation of energy
    Science is not perfect. It's often misused. It's only a tool. But it's the best tool we have. — Carl Sagan
  • Dualism and the conservation of energy
    I prefer the label physicalist rather than materialist. — Down The Rabbit Hole
    I prefer naturalist which covers them both.

    (I also prefer atomist to materialist.)
  • Dualism and the conservation of energy
    Just a dualist. Between the material and immaterial. — Benj96
    If you don't mind, please explain why you are, if I understand correctly, a "material-immaterial dualist".

    ↪Bartricks
    :razz:
  • Dualism and the conservation of energy
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover
    :up:
  • Why Metaphysics Is Legitimate
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover
    Strawman. I have not made any claims about truth-values, but you have. I took issue with your claim that Planck units are "fictitious"; I claim instead that they are approximative (precision metrics). Rulers – measurements – are not truth-bearers, that's your misunderstanding, MU. You conflate, or confuse, epistemology with ontology, typical idealist / platonist mistake (i.e. reification fallacy).
  • US Midterms
    Additionally takeaways are that Beto and Abrams should stop running for senate, they do not have what it takes. — Maw
    :up:
  • Consciousness question
    ↪GLEN willows
    No. No. What "theory"?

    From our PM exchange earler:
    I don't accept that philosophers [propose] "theories", just interpretations of theories or thought-experiments in order to provoke conjectures about the world. A "materialist theory" makes no sense to me. Today we have eliminative materialists and physicalists: the latter denotes conceptual dependence of a physical (neurological) substrate and the former only a principle of filtering-out folk concepts from conjectures about "consciousness" or mind. Neither are "theories" as far as I can tell. — 180 Proof

    You might find this post interesting:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/756516
  • Dualism and the conservation of energy
    The issue is whether the principle of the conservation of energy is COMPATIBLE with dualism. — Bartricks
    The issue, lil D-K troll, is whether the principle of the conservation of energy is COMPATIBLE with 'five-sided triangles' or 'conscious atoms' or "angels dancing on pinheads' like yours. :roll:
  • A Scientific Theory of Consciousness
    Oh, no one is interested ... perhaps, because it is incredibly stupid? — Bartricks
    :smirk:
  • A Scientific Theory of Consciousness
    However, part of that hard-line Reductionist Realist stance seems to be the questionable assumption that our current understanding of Quantum physics is complete. It also presumes that there is a well-defined border between Empirical Science (observation) and Theoretical Science (conjecture). — Gnomon
    Once again, sir, you're barking at shadows of strawmen. Woof woof sophistry. :sparkle: :sweat:
  • Circular time. What can it mean?
    The more things change, the more things stay the same.

    Change is constant but progress is an illusion.

    Direction without destination.

    Homo Viator – no departures, no arrivals, there's only the journey.

    ... imagine Sisyphus happy.

    Breathe in, breathe out ...
  • Consciousness question
    ↪GLEN willows
    Dictionary definitions are uninformative. If that's all you,'ve got, GLEN, then your phrase "materialist source of consciousness" is empty.
  • US Midterms
    I believe you predictable a blue wave, no? Didn't really materialize, but you were closer than what the media was saying. — Mikie
    I didn't predict a "blue wave", just the complete absence of a red one. I thought the Dems would hold the House – close but no cigar.
  • A Scientific Theory of Consciousness
    All the cleverest quantum woo-woo speculations (e.g. pseudo-scientistic / idealist reductionism to faux-holistic "non-local purpose" or some such :roll:) notwithstanding, I find the following insights much more consistent with the extant evidence of the neurosciences:
    (a) The smallest neuronal structures in the human brain are both three orders of magnitude too large and too hot for quantum activity (e.g. superposition, entanglement, etc) to cohere. Thus, the human brain is an entirely classical processing system.

    (b) Mind – phenomenal self-modeling (PSM) – is how sufficiently complex (e.g. human) brains reflexively interactive with their environments.

    (c) "Consciousness", an entirely classical emergent phenomenon, is mind feeling itself mind-ing (e.g. updating its PSM).
    For those who wish to avoid pseudo-science traps and quantum woo sophistry, I recommend as a start The Unconscious Quantum (reviewed here).
  • Dualism and the conservation of energy
    ↪universeness
    :up:
  • Why scientists shouldn't try to do philosophy
    ↪alan1000
    The so-called "Fermi Paradox" also fails because its assumption that we (e.g. mid-20th century "scientists" like Fermi) would, or even could, recognize "aliens" – either their signals or presence – is unwarranted.
  • US Midterms
    Addendum to
    ↪180 Proof
    ...

    Almost three-quarters of women, it's been estimated, voted for the Democrats in the midterm elections. Murica ain't "Gilead" yet, bubba. :up:

    And maybe this electoral gift will keep on giving:

    • Sen. Warnock wins re-election handily in run-off on December 6th

    • House of Reps – GOP 219 222, Dems 216 212

    • Rep. Kevin McCarthy fails to get 218 votes needed to become Speaker of the House on January 3rd because several or more
    "Freedom Caucus" Trumpstains don't vote for him ... Maybe an outside, non-member of Congress (e.g. retired federal Judge Michael Luttig :yikes:) will be elected Speaker by mostly GOP and several conservative Dems (which could very much limit the obstructive Trumpy shenanigans next year)

    • Sen. "Moscow Mitch" MCConnell loses Senate Minority Leader title (unlikely, but one can still hope)

    • Senate Dems form Senate Select Cmte on January 6th Insurrection to pick up where House Select Cmte will leave off after the GOP takes over in the House

    • with 2022 midterm elections concluded, by mid-December the DoJ indicts Individual-1 (at least for Obstruction of Justice, maybe also for Espionage) and/or Fulton County, GA district attorney begins indicting 2020 election interference co-conspirators (e.g. Guiliani, Meadows, fake electors, et al)
  • What are you listening to right now?
    ↪Amity
    :clap: :cool:
  • Consciousness question
    ↪GLEN willows
    I still don't know what you mean by this.
  • Why Metaphysics Is Legitimate
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover
    Your response seems disingenuous. On the one hand you claim that Planck units are "fictitious" and then on the other you claim that "falsity often works well". :roll:
  • Consciousness question
    ... a materialist source of consciousness. — GLEN willows
    Is this what we're looking for? What does that even mean?
  • Currently Reading
    ↪Maw
    Thanks for the precis. From my studies of Marx decades ago there doesn't seem much new or applicable to the real world in Peter Hudis' account. Schweickhart, being both a philosopher and economist, makes much more sense to me with his very concrete, historically-situated, post-capitalist conjecture.
  • What are you listening to right now?
    BRUTHA RAY'S KILLA RIFF ... :cool:


    "What'd I Say, Pt. 1" (3:05)
    A-side single, 1959
    Ray Charles

    *


    "Watch Your Step" (2:44)
    A-side single, 1961
    Bobbly Parker

    *


    "I Feel Fine" (2:25)
    A-side single, 1964
    writers, Lennon-McCartney
    performer, The Beatles


    "Day Tripper" (2:50)
    A-side single, 1965
    writers, Lennon-McCartney
    performer, The Beatles

    *


    "The Girl I Love She's Got Long Black Wavy Hair"
    BBC Sessions (live), 1997
    writers, Sleepy John Estes, Robert Johnson, Willie Dixon, Bonham, Page, Jones & Plant, 1929-1969
    performer, Led Zeppelin

    *


    "One Way Out" (4:55)
    At the Fillmore East (live), 1971/1992
    writers, Sonny Boy Williamson & Willie Dixon, 1961
    performer, Allman Brothers
  • 2001: A Space Odyssey's monolith.
    Addendum to
    ↪180 Proof
    :nerd:

    part one

    part two


    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/760115
  • Dualism and the conservation of energy
    ... pain - mental event .. — Bartricks
    :rofl:
  • Dualism and the conservation of energy
    180 Proof Yeah, er, that made no sense. — Bartricks
    Oh, I'm sure to you, kid, my comments go way over your head. Worse for you being so incorrigibly dogmatic too.
  • Consciousness question
    ↪Jack Cummins
    Anthropocentricity here is clearly unwarranted. At least in mammals, as far as I know, feedback from the peripheral nervous system is integral to central nervous system homeostatic functioning as each mammal's autonomic regulator of 'body organs' as well as subpersonal coordinator of environmental perceptions and adaptive behaviors. Mind (sys. 2) is the enactive "rider on the elephant" of embodiment (sys. 1) and whatever the anthropocentric, cultural expression (e.g. "chakras" "chi" "humors"), mammalian biology – psycho-physiology – is experimentally undeniable. Mind (sys. 2), it seems to me, is how sufficiently complex, embodied brains (sys. 1) interacts with – is enacted by – their social-imbedded-in-natural environment.
  • Why Metaphysics Is Legitimate
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover
    So it's your position then, MU, that the Planck constant is not (and any other constants derived from it e.g. Dirac constant), in fact, a fundamental physical constant? And therefore that quantum mechanics does not work (i.e. likewise is "ficticious", extreme precision notwithstanding, instead of approximative)? Because, so to speak, this theoretical map is not identical with the phenomenal territory?
  • Dualism and the conservation of energy
    ↪Bartricks
    Hey, I'm not trying to persuade you, kid, just help expose your witless vapidity as a public service. When I'm bored I troll D-K trolls like you. :razz:
  • Dualism and the conservation of energy
    In the OP I argued that dualism does not violate the principle of the conservation of energy. — Bartricks
    The argument is unsound because [1A] one of your major (implicit) premises is incoherent (re: category error ~ attributing physical properties to nonphysical substance). [1B] Your other unstated premise is that physical substance is not bound by causal closure, again compounding the unsoundness of what what you "argue". [2] If, however, "nonphysical" substance shares physical properties (e.g. causation, kinetics, inertia, etc) with physical substance, then there is one substance and not two, different substances (à la neutral monism). Either way, Bratshitz, your OP (as usual) doesn't coherently say, or "argue", anything.

    ... if A is true, can B be as well?
    Yeah, and if A is conceptually incoherent, then nothing follows.

    What you don't do is say "A isn't true" or 'B isn't true". That's to ignore entirely the claim that is being defended.
    If the "claim" is false (or in this case not even false), then, on the contrary, to say so, Bratshitz, is to address the "claim" directly. You're the one ignoring elementary logic and any warrant for making such a "claim".
  • Consciousness question
    Dude ... do you then presume yourself to thee solipsist? — javra
    No.

    One, how does this - logically, coherently - evidence the unreality and/or physicality of consciousness again?
    Non sequitur (strawman assumption).
  • Why Metaphysics Is Legitimate
    ↪Bylaw
    And your point is?
  • Why Metaphysics Is Legitimate
    Currently we use the Planck scale, to individuate distinct, fundamental space-time units. But I would argue this is completely fictitious ... — Metaphysician Undercover
    Such an argument would suffer from your faulty premise, MU. Planck units are approximative metrics and are no more "ficticious" than e.g. yards, inches or light seconds. Besides, account for Einstein's model of the photoelectric effect – from which Planck's constant is derived IIRC – without them.
Home » 180 Proof