:100:

Noether's theorem
and
symmetries in fundamental physics
and ...

When given the choice to throw out the conservation of energy or cartesian dualism, they tend to throw out the latter. — Down The Rabbit Hole

:fire: :up:

Also, philosophically since Spinoza's refutation of Cartesian dualism.

:roll:

So "zombies" would say too. Again, merely anecdotal. The 'problem of other minds' remains.

Your position is that consciousness is a "folk" term, that will eventually be replaced by a scientific objective understanding of brains. Is that correct? — RogueAI

No. However, it's your position on "consciousness" that's at issue, Rogue, so let's get back to that. Non-anecdotal evidence that you or anyone else or anything at all is "conscious"? :chin:

"really real" — litewave

What does such a redundant modifer even mean? As compared to 'not really real' or 'unreally real'' :roll:

Because I am conscious. — RogueAI

Not non-anecdotal evidence; besides, that's what a "zombie" would say.

Don't hold your breath.

If philosophy only raises new questions has science answered anything other than by way of discoveries that give philosophers more to ask questions about? — TiredThinker

In the main, I don't think so. Science solves problems (re: fact-patterns, phenomenal processes, computations), philosophy questions – with grounds – its own questions as well as the framing of scientific problems (re: aporia, ideas, interpretations, criteria, methods). In this way, it seems to me, 'science and philosophy' complement and may inform / influence one another.

"Indefeasible reasoning" denotes systemic use of deductive inferences. That e.g. axioms are variable is a feature of deduction, not a bug or exception (e.g. non-Euclidean geometries).

Even more "absurd", it happens to be a fact. :wink:

Occam's Razor seems to hold here: why assume there's nonconscious stuff at all? Problem solved.

Parsimony cuts both ways, Rogue: why assume there is conscious stuff at all? There isn't any non-anecdotal evidence for it ... (re: problem of other minds, etc).

Poor lil D-K troll. :ok: :lol:

How so?

Again. You can't answer clear, straight forward questions for f e a r that any attempt at answering on your part will expose your utter vacuity and the incoherence of another OP. :sweat:

Why are you framing this physical-nonphysical dualism in physical terms of "causality", "energy", "conservation laws" etc?

What warrants your assumption that nonphysical substance shares the property of "causality" with physical substance?

And if this assumption is warranted, then what warrants assuming that they are two, different "substances"?

What kind of "dualism" are you referring to – (ontology) substance dualism? (epistemology) property dualism?

You can’t raise a question if you don’t already presuppose its answer in terms of a wider framework within which the question is intelligible. — Joshs

So what's your (Heidi's) point? How does it relate to my previous post which you've quoted?

We will never stop questioning ourselves. — Gus Lamarch

(Re: "philosophical suicide") And we're as good as dead whenever we stop. "The unexamined life is not worth living", is it?

Gotcha! :up:

Yes, sometimes you make a declarative statement, and mostly they are in the negative, saying not what your opinion is, but what your opinion is not. — god must be atheist

Again, you accuse me without evidence or argument, and when I request for you as I've done here to corroborate your criticisms of me by citing my own words – nada, silencio. That Is "Spineless" ... :shade:

As for the preponderance of my negative remarks, first I gotta shovel-out the heaps of fallacious, uninformed, poorly reasoned shit folks like you often post before I can find enough space at the bar to belly-up to and properly trash-talk with reasoned opinions over the din of vapid gossip. Lots of folks, gmba, believe they are saying something more than just making onanistic noises to flatter themselves and their fellow illiteratti. I'm sure you know the type ... So yeah, I cop to it, I'm a dialectical rodeo clown, but only when there's a lot of running bulls*** to corral; like Diogenes with his lantern, I loiter on these fora looking for a few well-informed folks to reason with and learn from inspite of you :eyes:

Anyway, gmba, when you put some thoughtful aporia or speculation on the table that's not buried in a manure heap of incoherence and half-ass pesudo-whatever gossip, I'll be happy to bring my own to the table either to discuss or debate. Until then, I'll pass the time as I see fit – as an esteemed philosopher recommends – mostly exposing and disabusing know-nothings and think-me-nots out of their smugness.

The use of philosophy is to sadden. A philosophy which saddens no one, that annoys no one, is not a philosophy. It is useful for harming stupidity, for turning stupidity into something shameful. Its only use is the exposure of all forms of baseness of thought. — Gilles Deleuze

The "how" is e.g. neuroscience (still in its infancy) and not philosophy per se, which, as Witty points out, may describe (i.e. map concepts) but is ill-equipped to explain (i.e. formally model) phenomena. Thomas Metzinger (neuroscientist, philosopher, Buddhist) summarizes quite an insightful story of the workings of "cosciousness" – from over 17 years ago! – in the video lecture I'd previously linked. The "how" hasn't been a complete blackbox for decades; scientists are learning and philosophers of mind, while assisting, are playing catch-up.

It seems to me that philosophers don't "answer" so much as they raise (unbegged) questions of 'our political, ethical and intellectual givens' (e.g. assumed answers, perennial questions, normative solutions or intractable / underdetermined problems).

IMO, some of the more profound philosophers from a century ago (more or less) are Peirce-Dewey, M. Scheler, P. Kropotkin, R. Luxemburg, Russell, Wittgenstein, Popper-Feyerabend, Zapffe-Camus, Buber-Levinas, Merleau-Ponty, de Beauvoir ...

update (re: 20th century innovations):

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/581566

:up:

Mind(ing) is what sufficiently complex brains do. That's a start ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/755060

Apparently, my reference previously to 'Peirce and Wittgenstein' is completely lost on you if you believe my criticism of your ill-formed question is mere "rhetorical posturing". Ask a clear, inteliigible question, javra, and maybe you'll receive an answer that'll interest you.

The issue remains unchanged: how does one justify anything physical without use of metaphysical notions? — javra

Read again ...

What "justifies physicality's occurrence", in other words, are the discursive practices within which "physicality" is used. — 180 Proof

I don't see how my Peircean-Wittgensteinian "stance" relates in any (non-trivial) way to Joshs' p0m0.

So ... the ontic reality of any physical attribute is a reification of the abstract category of "physicality"? — javra

Your original question confusedly suggests so the way you'd formulated it. That's your fallacy, not mine.

"Physical" is derived from phusis in Greek meaning nature (i.e. growing); "physicality", therefore, corresponds to "natural" (in contrast to conventional / artificial-technical). The term begins as a ontic classification and then is generalized into a conceptual category which constitutes a paradigm of interactive / relational assumptions of and derivative observational expectations about "occurences" (i.e. physics). What "justifies physicality's occurrence", in other words, are the discursive practices within which "physicality" is used. Your original expression, javra, suggests 'reifying the abstract category' in the question raised which is nonsensical.

How does one justify physicality’s occurrence, in and of itself, without use of metaphysical concepts and, thereby, without use of metaphysics? — javra

What do you mean here by "justify ... occurrence"?

I just find it amusing that QM is used by so many woo peddlers to assert idealism or that some quasi-spiritual metaphysics is true. — Tom Storm

:100: :smirk:

December readings ...

• The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett III, Peter Byrne
• The Passenger, Cormac McCarthy
• Stella Maris, Cormac McCarthy

I was replying to 180proof's out of context post, which didn't link to the source of the quote. — Gnomon

Which "quote" is that? :roll:

I doubt that 180 actually agrees with even that rephrased equation. — Gnomon

:lol:

Of course, without any basis to "doubt" as my post history demonstrates).

Addendum to &

There's an extensive literature, after Popper, that links the logical structure of propositions to their being verifiable or falsifiable or neither or both. That's one sort of metaphysics. Midgley talks of plumbing, a more general sort of metaphysics.

Metaphysics is not post hoc, but an integral part of physics, and of whatever else we might do. — Banno

:100:

:up:

"MWI" – information or reality or ??? :chin:

@Gnomon, @Benj96, @god must be atheist

:up:

:up:

I don't know what you are talking about. I asked questions of one of Gnomon's posts. Your interjection (re: "entanglement") was a non sequitur, Ben. And, besides, only Gnomon can answer for himself/herself. As for myself, my post history amply demonstrates I expose myself to critique or ridicule as often as I can – bring it if you got it, and expect me to give back as good as I get. No fear, kid.

You suppose wrong. Gnomon hasn't answered me yet. S/He won't, almost never does. S/He fears being exposed ... :smirk:

Your MO: you shit the bed, then accuse me / others of the smell. Like ignoring this:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/754305

Quantum entanglement is the cited model you're looking for 180Proof is it not? — Benj96

Nope.

And since Quantum Science reintroduced the role of the observer into the functions of physics, the human mind can no longer be ignored as a force within Nature. — Gnomon

I'm sure I've missed that "force". Please cite where in any of the equations or formal models used in QM there is a notation for mind/observer (and not the Hermitian operator for measurenent). You're not talking "over my head" and out of your bunghole again, Gnomon, are you? :sparkle: :eyes:

:cool: