Nevertheless, if I write something that gives you the shits, your pulse will accelerate slightly, your adrenals will uptick a little. But nothing physical would have passed between us. If, on the other hand, I beat you on the head with a stick - not that I would - then something physical would have taken place. — Wayfarer

I'm glad to see you're understand that material reality has laws one must obey. Good to know we're making progress.

you’re not seeing the point. Nothing material was transmitted, yet it has psycho-somatic effects. Nothing to do with physical causation.

you’re not seeing the point. Nothing material was transmitted, yet it has psycho-somatic effects. Nothing to do with physical causation. — Wayfarer

Psychosomatic effects are physical. The words I'm seeing you having written are the results of physical actions on physical hardware. There is nothing non-physical about the entire procession.

That's not a false dichotamy, that's literally the language we're using — Garrett Travers

You claim that 'why' is incorrect, but it is commonly used in that way.

Ironically, I see you were just quoted saying:

Again, its time to move on from this, you staying stuck on this terminology bit is only going to make your points stranger and stranger. — Garrett Travers

In this case, you are staying stuck on this terminology bit.

By means of the inviolable laws of the nature of the universe. — Garrett Travers

Those laws may not be inviolable. Rather than "read about science" read what scientists are actually saying and arguing about.

But I see that others have taken your measure. Perhaps something they say will get through to you.

You claim that 'why' is incorrect, but it is commonly used in that way. — Fooloso4

Incorrect usage is a support for your claim, and not the actual definitions of the words?

Okay...

Ironically, I see you were just quoted saying — Fooloso4

Where's the irony?

In this case, you are staying stuck on this terminology bit. — Fooloso4

No, I was moving on from it because the words have clear definitions that I provided, which the two of you were using incorrectly, which as you said is "common." Talk about irony...

Those laws may not be inviolable. Rather than "read about science" read what scientists are actually saying and arguing about. — Fooloso4

Name one. Name any single law that is up in the air right now?

But I see that others have taken your measure. Perhaps something they say will get through to you. — Fooloso4

Well, if the current theme of anti-reality continues, I will simply keep dismissing arguments with facts and science.

The words I'm seeing you having written are the results of physical actions on physical hardware. There is nothing non-physical about the entire procession. — Garrett Travers

They're symbolic, which act on a different plane to the physical. Symbolic form only has meaning because you interpret it, which only a rational sentient being is able to do. Written words are only ways of conveying meaning. And the same information can be translated into a variety of languages or different types of media whilst still retaining the same meaning. So the meaning is separable from the physical form.

All signs, symbols, and codes, all languages including formal mathematics are embodied as material physical structures and therefore must obey all the inexorable laws of physics. At the same time, the symbol vehicles like the bases in DNA, voltages representing bits in a computer, the text on this page, and the neuron firings in the brain do not appear to be limited by, or clearly related to, the very laws they must obey. Even the mathematical symbols that express these inexorable physical laws seem to be entirely free of these same laws. — Howard Pattee, The Physics and Metaphysics of Biosemiosis

They're symbolic, which act on a different plane to the physical. — Wayfarer

No, they are made by brains and interpreted by brains. That's the material realm.

Symbolic form only has meaning because you interpret it, which only a rational sentient being is able to do. — Wayfarer

With their brain.

Written words are only ways of conveying meaning. — Wayfarer

Writing is a physical action, interpreting is a physical action.

And the same information can be translated into a variety of languages or different types of media whilst still retaining the same meaning. — Wayfarer

Translation is a physical action, and no, meaning does not remain unless people who can physically interpret them, using their physical brain, do so. That's why languages your brain can't interpret - which is action as Wittgenstein reminds us "To interpret is to think, to do something; seeing is a state" - mean nothing to you.

So the meaning is separable from the physical form. — Wayfarer

No evidence suggests the truth of this claim. Interpretation is a neurological process, not separated from the body. Sleeping people can't interpret anything for this reason.

Shouldn't be an issue, here's google: physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy. — Garrett Travers

Anything defined with "in general" is conceptual, so "physical substance in general" is purely conceptual. And so is "occupies space", as well as "rest mass".

Matter is a human concept that maps to reality, that's called correspondence. — Garrett Travers

So far you've only mapped matter to the above concepts, "physical substance", "occupies space", and "rest mass". You haven't shown how any of these concepts map to reality. So you've provided no indication of how your concept of "matter" partakes in "correspondence".

Laws of reality don't ask your opinion. Humans map those laws through conceptual framework, nothing else to it. — Garrett Travers

Laws are created by human beings. I'm still waiting for you to explain how you conceive of a law which is not created by human minds. Who would create such a law?

Since you seem really stuck on this idea that there are "inviolable" laws which you must obey, perhaps you could point me toward where I could find them, so that I might be able to read, understand, and therefore obey them. Since they are said to be inviolable, I think I'd better take extra time in understanding them, because the punishment must be very severe if I do not obey them. So please, lead me to these laws, show them to me. And don't show me human conceptions, and claim correspondence, I want to see the laws themselves, so I can judge whether or not the human laws correspond with the natural ones. Where in your materialist world do these laws hide, and how do we know how to obey them?

No, they are made by brains and interpreted by brains. That's the material realm. — Garrett Travers

You know what the largest and most expensive machine in history is? Why, that would be the LHC. Its object of analysis is the very most simple things in existence, namely sub-atomic particles. There are enormous conundrums involving that and the so-called 'standard model' of particle physics. Meaning, we don't even know what 'physical' means. And the human brain is the most complex phenomenon known to science - there are more neural connections than stars in the sky. And you confidently proclaim it's 'in the material realm'.

Interpretation is a neurological process, not separated from the body — Garrett Travers

You could study medicine for decades, and never find supporting evidence fo that claim, as it is not taught, and not understood.

Anything defined with "in general" is conceptual, so "physical substance in general" is purely conceptual. And so is "occupies space", as well as "rest mass". — Metaphysician Undercover

The people of Hiroshima don't share your opinion, neither does science, and neither does that definition. In general does not imply conceptual, you just made that up. In general, all substances; that's matter. And (in physics), that'd be science, all things that occupy space and possess mass. That's not conceptual, you have misinterpreted the definition entirely. As if this has to be covered for you.

So far you've only mapped matter to the above concepts, "physical substance", "occupies space", and "rest mass". You haven't shown how any of these concepts map to reality. So you've provided no indication of how your concept of "matter" partakes in "correspondence". — Metaphysician Undercover

If I have mapped matter to those concepts, then it has been mapped to reality, those concepts characterize reality. Newton and Einstein have done the rest for you. This is a poor attempt to negate reality.

Laws are created by human beings. I'm still waiting for you to explain how you conceive of a law which is not created by human minds. Who would create such a law? — Metaphysician Undercover

Laws are not created by humans, they are noticed and provided a symbolic representation for by humans. And I don't know "who" you could be reffering to. It seems that mystics just say things that they want and claim it to be true.

But, here's a challenge: describe something extant without mass and which does not occupy space. That is the ONLY thing that could help your position, at all. No amount of trying to negate reality through the use of language can possibly help you. You will have to demonstrate that there is a reality outside of the one you live and are bound to.

You realize that the onus is on you to demonstrate that reality isn't material, right? The material nature of reality is already established scientifically and is self-evident, even by you every time you send a message through a physical device you are accepting as much. But, hey, keep this nonsense coming, I have fun squashing anti-realityism.

You know what the largest and most expensive machine in history is? Why, that would be the LHC. Its object of analysis is the very most simple things in existence, namely sub-atomic particles. There are enormous conundrums involving that and the so-called 'standard model' of particle physics. — Wayfarer

An argument from ignorance does not negate physical reality. Not understanding how subatomic PARTICLES, that's material, operate, in absolutely no way conceivable is a support for the position that reality is not material. To demonstrate that reality isn't material, it is YOU who must show that such things exists, as the material nature of reality is not only the scientific understanding, but absolutely self evident every waking moment of existence, to all people, at all times, including you. You demonstrate as much every single time you send me a message on a physical device, or continue breathing, or eat food, or do any activity whatsoever.

And you confidently proclaim it's 'in the material realm'. — Wayfarer

Beyond any shadow of any doubt, there is NO evidence of anything other than a material world. Find me even a single scintilla of evidence indicating as much, and I will call you God. This is a formal challenge that another person, another mystic like you, didn't want to take. I offer it to you.

You could study medicine for decades, and never find supporting evidence fo that claim, as it is not taught, and not understood. — Wayfarer

Um, au fucking contraire:

https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain/brain-functions/visual-perception
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15739
https://news.mit.edu/2014/in-the-blink-of-an-eye-0116

This is mainstream science, man. Has been for some time.

:up:

Should have stuck to my plan

Should have stuck to my plan — Wayfarer

Yes, I will shoot down every fake argment you present against reality. It would be wise of you to "stick with your plan."

The people of Hiroshima don't share your opinion, neither does science, and neither does that definition. In general does not imply conceptual, you just made that up. In general, all substances; that's matter. And (in physics), that'd be science, all things that occupy space and possess mass. That's not conceptual, you have misinterpreted the definition entirely. As if this has to be covered for you. — Garrett Travers

If you do not understand that "occupy space", and "possess mass" are both conceptual, then please read some philosophy before posting on a philosophy forum in the pretense of knowing something philosophical.

Laws are not created by humans, they are noticed and provided a symbolic representation for by humans. — Garrett Travers

OK, explain to me where I can find one of these laws, so I might observe it, and be able to make a symbolic representation of it.

You realize that the onus is on you to demonstrate that reality isn't material, right? — Garrett Travers

No, you claimed "the brain is made out of matter". The onus is on you to support this claim. All you've done is made some vague allusion to substance, occupying space, and possessing mass. And in the mean time, demonstrated a pathetic lack of understanding.

If you do not understand that "occupy space", and "possess mass" are both conceptual, then please read some philosophy before posting on a philosophy forum in the pretense of knowing something philosophical. — Metaphysician Undercover

I knew your pathetic attempt to fight reality would only lead you to offer up insults like a coward. Coward, another concept, much like occupying space and possessing mass, that clearly maps to reality. Correspondence is cool like that. In this case, your anger at not being good at analysis, or philosophy for that matter, has led you to insult my intelligence, even thought it is indeed you who are denying reality with bullshit arguments. The metaphysical is the only domain in which you need to push your intellectual luck, science is not for you.

OK, explain to me where I can find one of these laws, so I might observe it, and be able to make a symbolic representation of it. — Metaphysician Undercover

You've not the intellect to do such a thing. There's one law.

No, you claimed "the brain is made out of matter". The onus is on you to support this claim. All you've done is made some vague allusion to substance, occupying space, and possessing mass. And in the mean time, demonstrated a pathetic lack of understanding. — Metaphysician Undercover

White and gray matter, this well known science. This is so god damn pathetic. You mystics, man. Never know what they'll say next. You've been dispensed with, I'll be moving on from here.

Adieu.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3201847/

I'm waiting for you to address the issues I raised. Show me where I might find one of these laws of reality that you insist I must obey. Where is the substance of these laws? Where's the space they occupy, and the mass they possess? And quit trying to negate the reality that there isn't such a thing as "a law" in your material world. It's just a brain without an intellect which is saying these things.

I'm waiting for you to address the issues I raised. Show me where I might find one of these laws of reality that you insist I must obey. Where is the substance of these laws? Where's the space they occupy, and the mass they possess? And quit trying to negate the reality that there isn't such a thing as "a law" in your material world. It's just a brain without an intellect which is saying these things. — Metaphysician Undercover

You've been dispensed with, embarrassingly so, move on to something else.

You claim to have a scientific perspective, but I think the trend by modern scientists, especially physicists, is toward idealism. What's commonly accepted is a form of Platonism, the position that all of reality is composed of mathematics and laws, and matter itself is just an illusion. This is much more consistent with the physics of today, as matter has become an outdated idea.

You claim to have a scientific perspective, but I think the trend by modern scientists, especially physicists, is toward idealism. What's commonly accepted is a form of Platonism, the position that all of reality is composed of mathematics and laws, and matter itself is just an illusion. This is much more consistent with the physics of today, as matter has become an outdated idea. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is just more of you embarrassing yourself. There is nothing true about this statement whatsoever. You have been dispensed with, guy. Move on.

I will shoot down every fake argment you present — Garrett Travers

All those bullets are being stopped by your feet. :grin:

All those bullets are being stopped by your feet. — Wayfarer

Yep, the moment I walk up, they fall down.

Wittgenstein was saying that the laws of nature are not logically necessary - that they are contingent. Look at the context — Banno

I personally agree. He, however, did not exclude the possibility that the laws of nature as established by human scientists are right on. Maybe that's what "contingent" means. Contingent to me means "goes with it", or "seem to occur together", or "occurs at the same time as". However, Hume has established that several hundred years prior, so Wittgenstein can go suck an egg. Why he is revered to be such a great thinker will forever escape me. He simply paraphrased the obvious, or else paraphrased prior thinkers. He never made an argument or a logical proof himself. He stated truisms, but if you look at them, they had all of them been shown before him, so he had no original insight, other than into the obvious.

Why he is revered to be such a great thinker will forever escape me. — god must be atheist

Probably.

Probably — Banno

hehaha

He, however, did not exclude the possibility that the laws of nature as established by human scientists are right on. — god must be atheist

They're not 'established' in the sense of being set up by scientists. They're discovered - that is precisely what the meaning of 'discovery' is. I asked the question, 'what is not contingent', to which nobody here has an answer, and I submit that this is because there is no conceptual space in modern philosophy for the idea of a necessary being. All that remains is a God-shaped hole.

Have you presented your methodological physicalism here? I certainly wasn't responding to it in the prior posts because I'm sure I haven't read it, I was simply speaking generally about the topic. Hence, "I can't tell you if your idiosyncratic version of the word has problems because I don't know what it entails.

All I know about it is that it doesn't make ontological claims and all the scientist agree on it. But since I'm not aware of any disagreements I have with the methodologies employed by most scientists, as best I can tell, I'm actually in agreement with you.



There are some takes I've read where 1+1 "causes" 2, with the caveat being that these are generally eliminativist vis-á-vis causation as a whole. There was a quote from Russell posted somewhere around here on eliminating cause the other day.

Anyhow, some arguments state that "cause" is simply identity, generally because "things" are actually processes. So, if cause is identity, and 1+1 = 2, the proposition holds, although some pretty heavy baggage comes along with it.

I personally think trying to get rid of / transform cause muddles more than it clears up.

Abstractions never cause physical effects?

↪ZzzoneiroCosm Correct. (All too often "idealists" make this mistake.)

I had forgotten, this is a point I had meant to comment on. Abstractions generally have to be able to cause physical effects for a physicalist. Otherwise you end up paying the hefty metaphysical toll of embracing eliminativism towards abstractions. That may be a toll worth paying, but it seems a high one for a philospher.

Example: Racism is a socially constructed abstraction. Racism results in physical effects, such as hate crimes and measurable discrimination in the provision of physical public goods to the victims of racism.

Now, if a someone wants to say, "sure, that example is true, but it is true because racist ideas are actually physical processes in the physical bodies of people, and it is those people's physical bodies that carry out racist acts."

That's fine. Rebuttals of this type often take the form of claims that reduce racism down to the the level of "brains" or "neurons." This is a coherent claim, although it does entail reductivism in the aforementioned form.

However, it seems like this response is making the physicalist take extra steps (and potentially embrace reductivism they might not otherwise want to embrace). If abstractions such as "racism" are actually just names for physical phenomena, then there is no reason for the physicalist to have any qualms at all with saying that abstractions have physical effects, since physical phenomena can obviously cause physical effects.

If the argument is instead that:
A. Abstractions exist; and
B. They don't cause physical effects,
Then the position is more problematic for physicalism. Because clearly people think about abstractions (case in point, this site). However, if abstractions can't cause physical effects because abstractions are not physical, then how is it that people, who are physical systems, can interact with them? This seems like a position that is in serious danger of falling into "woo."

A way out might be for us to say that abstractions are a sort of emergent phenomena, that abstractions only exist in human minds as the results of thoughts. "They exist as neural activity only," could be a phrasing. However, this argument isn't actually getting away from the problem, since neural activity is responsible for almost all vertebrates' actions, which are physical effects, so it is still to be seen why abstractions are different.

Plus, even if we have a system where abstractions are somehow isolated from ever having physical effects, but still exist as physical entities within the physical constituents of minds, you still run into the problem of violating Ockham's Razor. If all meaningful effects are physical, and abstractions cannot cause physical effects, then abstractions have no explanatory power. But if abstractions have no explanatory power, why are we positing additional entities to explain something when less will do?

Which leads to the last option, eliminating abstractions. People once thought mental illness was caused by demons. We now know that demons have no explanatory power in that regard. Perhaps abstractions are the same thing. Like qualia, abstractions can be eliminated from our lexicon, at least as respects serious thinking about causality. This solves the problem of how physical people can think they can access abstractions, while said abstractions have no physical effects.

This radical line seems to come with several difficult consequences. First, eliminating abstractions necissarily means jettisoning most of the social sciences (and it is unclear how much would remain of the other sciences). Unless the eliminativist has a substitute for these with more predictive strength than the existing systems, it doesn't seem that jettisoning abstractions is actually clearing things up. Not to mention that it also seems difficult to explain other sciences when appeals to systems, networks, complexity, etc. have all been rendered meaningless.

Perhaps this is why there are no well known philosophers who are eliminativist vis-á-vis abstraction. It's easier to stake your claim on eliminating qualia, the heart of subjective experience, than it is to deal without abstraction. Plus, there seems no reason to pay this high price, since the claims of eliminativism are generally that whatever is being eliminated is actually something physical that is different from what naive realism thinks it is. But in that case, why not just say abstractions are physically instantiated?

This means of avoiding eliminativism isn't too far off an embrace of trope theory, or some sort of language based nominalism, versus having to embrace some sort of all out hyper-austere nominalism where only particular physical entities obtain and their traits are all unanalyzable truths.

Anyhow, if anyone thinks they have a physicalist system where abstractions aren't eliminated and still cannot have physical effects, but these issues don't obtain, I'd love to hear them.

:confused:

But, here's a challenge: describe something extant without mass and which does not occupy space. — Garrett Travers

The apple-image, the thought-apple, I ate in my nightdream or daydream last night or this afternoon, respectively, that I don't doubt you'll be glad to reduce to brain shocks and twitches.

It's only a reductionism. It's easy to do. A reductionism is easy to do.

But to do it you have to hedge out (kingdomless king!) the apple-image, the thought-apple.

Some folks are happy to do that, some folks aren't so happy. So many cups of tea.

But, here's a challenge: describe something extant without mass and which does not occupy space. — Garrett Travers

I wonder if you've ever picked up Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents. The oceanic experience Freud describes in the opening pages - Freud writes that though he acknowledges the existence of the oceanic experience he has never himself had the experience.

Divide humankind into:

1. Those who have had (including those who have (more or less) learned to sustain) the oceanic experience.
2. Those who (like Freud) have had no access to the oceanic experience.

The former tend to feel there's something distinctly psychical about the physical world. The others are happy to reduce the world to the physical.



(You can tell which camp I'm in by the fact that I call it a reduction.)