I see there is a need to distinguish between "process" as a particular process, a particular event which is happening to a particular physical object, or objects, and "process" in the sense of a generalized, or universal, type of event which may happen with objects. The former is a physical event, the latter is not, being conceptual and applicable to many different physical events, in a descriptive way. If "time" is said to be a sort of process, it is the latter, a generalized or universal conception, and therefore not physical. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't think they know the causes of psychosis or even claim to know. It's like they are sure it must be physical but they can't show the mechanism. — Mark Nyquist
even if it does just rule out <one thing that isn't physicalism>, that's still loosely evidence for physicalism. It would be evidence for everything that's not pure idealism, which physicalism isn't. — flannel jesus
You're running with MUs line because you and he share a conclusion, or because you like what he has to say about evidence? — flannel jesus
However the form,
Brain; (mental content) — Mark Nyquist
The way I do it is information (the story) only exists as,
Brain; (information) — Mark Nyquist
You're waffling too much for me. It seems like you're deliberately trying not to understand, but it's possible this is really just all too much for you. Since you can't answer my straight forward question, I'm going to bow out of this conversation with you. I don't see it going further if you cannot give a simple answer to my simple question. — flannel jesus
Simply asserting that conceiving of a universal is not the outcome of a physical process is unpersuasive in light of understanding things like this: — wonderer1
The person who wrote the book is the source of the information (in his brain). He encodes it into a book. The book is encoded physical matter. The person reading the book hopefully decodes the book in the way it was intended. — Mark Nyquist
Simply asserting that conceiving of a universal is not the outcome of a physical process is unpersuasive in light of understanding things like this: — wonderer1
I'm guessing public education taught you wrong and you just need to reset. — Mark Nyquist
I'm guessing public education taught you wrong — Mark Nyquist
like that he seems to grok my issue with using unrelated findings to go toward confirming physicalism to some degree or another. — AmadeusD
Your question is simple trickery as I explained, like the old example 'have you stopped beating your wife?' Answering it would be to agree to your terms which demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of the nature of "evidence". — Metaphysician Undercover
it is incoherent to claim the very same object to be evidence both for and against the truth of a particular statement
Literally any other person would be able to answer the question with ease. It's not trickery, you're just weird. — flannel jesus
I'll explain what I did say again one last time and allow you a fair chance to be more honest next time you post to me: what I said was not "it is EVIDENCE for and against a claim", I said you can have something that is evidence for one claim and COMPATIBLE with another claim. If you want to know the difference, feel free to ask — flannel jesus
If the object is judged as consistent with S, (supporting S, is evidence of S), then it cannot also be judged as COMPATIBLE (consistent) with not-S without contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover
You think the finding is unrelated? The finding in question seems very very related to me. — flannel jesus
I understand that most 'evidence's for physicalism amount to mainly evidence that mental states are 'intertwined' with, or 'closely related to' neural activity. — AmadeusD
Though, i guess my position is that I think Physicalists are wrong for making the claim you're making. — AmadeusD
because of preclusive evidence in another position, isn't evidence for any of them, imo. — AmadeusD
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.