But insofar as they're physical processes then they're not different in principle. — Wayfarer
When you examine brain-scans, you're interpreting graphical images, which are physical in nature - you're examining the trace left by blood-flows in millions of neurons, which is surely a physical process. But it's the nature of interpretation which is at issue - interpreting what the data means is what is at issue in all of this. And you indeed then go on to concede this very point, by saying that 'mental processes are meaning makers' and 'meaning-making is first person'. So your second two paragraphs take back what the first is trying to assert. — Wayfarer
That is why the role of number, logic, and language are significant in this context. Numbers are objectively constant for anyone capable of counting, but at the same time, they're not material objects - they're purely intellectual in nature. The same can be said for logical operators such as 'equals' 'greater than' and so on. — Wayfarer
They might prove that information is not to be identified with any specific material thing, but that's not quite the same thing as proving that information is not material itself. After all, I cannot identify mass with any specific material thing, since it is a feature shared by many (well, let's face it, all) material things, but mass is a material property. — ProcastinationTomorrow
Firstly, in my ontology, all existents are constantly changing. There are no "static-instants", for example. That means that both (objective) facts/events/states of affairs and mental events (which are subjective facts/events/states of affairs) are constantly changing/in motion. Any existent at time T1 is non-identical with itself at any other time in the past or future. — numberjohnny5
So "objective relations," as the ways in which particular things/properties interact with other things/properties, are constantly changing, through time T1, T2, T3, and so on. — numberjohnny5
You are missing the point. Just because the relata of a relation are constantly changing does not entail that the relation itself is constantly changing. Counting relata and counting relations are to count two different kinds of things.So "objective relations," as the ways in which particular things/properties interact with other things/properties, are constantly changing, through time T1, T2, T3, and so on.
You are missing the point. Just because the relata of a relation are constantly changing does not entail that the relation itself is constantly changing. Counting relata and counting relations are to count two different kinds of things. — ProcastinationTomorrow
What numberjohnny5 needs to do is read Plato's Theatetus for the definitive refutation of that idea. The basic idea of Plato's (and I think Metaphysician Undercover is getting at precisely the same point) is that the notion of flux only makes sense in the context where there is a background of stability (and one can turn the table also and say even the notion of stability requires that there is some kind of flux). — jkg20
If everything is constantly changing, then there is no such thing as a state of affairs. To assume that everything is changing, and that there are states of affairs is contradictory. So in your claimed ontology, facts or truths cannot be expressed as states of affairs. — Metaphysician Undercover
(1) Why you're deflecting the question back to me? — numberjohnny5
I expected that you'd recognize that the question was a rhetorical question. You asked me how do non-physical things exist if they have no properties and my answer (by way of rhetorical question) is that properties are non-physical things. So it doesn't really make sense to ask about the properties of properties. — Metaphysician Undercover
So, Ill now ask you the question. Do you or do you not apprehend properties as non-physical things? Take the property "large" for example. Many physical things are large, so it is impossible that large is any particular physical thing. — Metaphysician Undercover
It appears to me, like you do not adequately understand what "ontology" is. Ontology consists of the assumptions which we make about existence, and we always have our own reasons for the assumptions which we make. So my ontological assumption is that non-physical things have existence no less than physical things. — Metaphysician Undercover
Non-physical things are apprehended by the mind, they are called intelligible objects like universal ideas, concepts like "large", "red", etc.. — Metaphysician Undercover
How do you think that the numeral "2" stays the same, as the numeral "2", within my mind, if all there is in my mind is brain activity? How does the numeral "2" stay in my mind as a static object, if my "mind" is only accounted for by brain activity? — Metaphysician Undercover
So let's readdress this question. There is brain activity which corresponds to me thinking should I or should I not shut down my computer. Then I make a choice and proceed with the appropriate activity. What, other than the non-physical mind, causes the actual choice? It cannot be the brain activity which is the cause of the decision, because the brain activity is considering the options, weighing the possibilities, and the choice causes the end of this brain activity, to be replaced with a different activity, the movement of the body parts. The brain activity cannot cause the activity of the bodily parts directly, because a choice is required. Nor is it something external, which is the cause, because the choice comes from within me. — Metaphysician Undercover
It's not that because everything is always in flux that there is no general stability to things.
This is utter nonesense. To say that everything is always in flux is precisely to say that there is no general stability to things. — MetaphysicsNow
So instead of
It's not that because everything is always in flux that there is no general stability to things.
You should have more accurately stated;
It's not that because everything is always in flux that there is no general regularities to how things occur/are. — MetaphysicsNow
I repeat; this is utter nonsense - to say that everything is always in flux is precisely to deny that there are general regularities to how things occur/are, since if there were such general regularities they would be things exonerated from being in flux. — MetaphysicsNow
I didn't realise, no. It's difficult for me to grasp how non-physical things exist (even if you say that properties are non-physical), and at the time, I was hoping you'd clarify that for me. That's why I asked you a direct (non-rhetorical) question. — numberjohnny5
It depends how we use "large" -- whether it's a mental property of our minds assigning things as "large" (the concept "large" is a thought) in terms of relative scales, or whether we're referring to non-mental properties of things that actually take up more space than other things, say. There are no "comparisons/measurements" that are non-mental though. — numberjohnny5
It's not that it's not like a sequence of brain activity that involves perceiving the situation, weighing up possibilities, making a choice, and making sense of the consequences of that choice. That's all (conscious) brain activity; and it's constantly doing/juggling multiple things sequentially; and this is all happening while nonconscious brain activity is working too. — numberjohnny5
Metaphysician Undercover has been too patient trying to help you understand your errors and as a result has allowed you another opportunity to become enthused by the verbosity of your own loquaciousness. — MetaphysicsNow
As it is difficult for you to grasp that non-physical things exist, it is equally difficult for me to grasp that physical things exist. I have extreme difficulty grasping what it means to exist. When I started to understand what "exists" means, I started to realize that it's more logical to assume that non-physical things exist than it is to assume that physical things exist. This is expressed by Descartes' "I think therefore I am". However, I see the need to assume that physical things exist as well, therefore I lean toward a dualism. — Metaphysician Undercover
My point is that it is impossible that there is such a thing as a "non-mental property". If something takes up more space than another thing, this is a judgement made by a mind. — Metaphysician Undercover
Let's say that a brain is "weighing up possibilities" as you describe. What is a "possibility" other than a non-physical thing? — Metaphysician Undercover
Your way of speaking has inherent within it, the assumption of non-physical things. — Metaphysician Undercover
You claim that your ontology allows for no such non-physical things, but you're always referring to them in your speech. — Metaphysician Undercover
In talking about "changing relations", it is implied that there are static things which are being related to each other in this expression of change. — Metaphysician Undercover
Definition of the claim "Everything is in constant flux": Every single existent thing alters from one moment to the next.
Definition: "General regularity" = An unaltering pattern, such as a natural law (e.g the force felt by a falling object is proportional to its gravitational mass). — MetaphysicsNow
Your responses are utter nonsense because you seem to think you can give both responses at one and the same time, which you cannot, since by doing so you would be violating the law of non-contradiction. Please don't respond "paraconsistent logic", because that really is utter nonsense. — MetaphysicsNow
I define "general regularity" as a consistent, recurring or reiterative pattern
Nevertheless, leaving your mastery of the English language aside, let's focus in on "recurring" shall we? — MetaphysicsNow
"consistent, recurring or reiterative" are you supposing those terms are synonymous? — MetaphysicsNow
If a P pattern recurs, then P occurs at at least two distinct times, T1 and T2. Since P at T1 is the same pattern as P at T2 then P has not changed between the times T1 and T2, consequently P has not altered between T1 and T2. Hence a recurring pattern is an unaltering pattern, and despite your word play our definitions are ontologically equivalent. — MetaphysicsNow
patterns are not events — MetaphysicsNow
I leave you with the recommendation to read this article
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43154157?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents — MetaphysicsNow
brain weighing up possibilities is a brain experiencing a situation with perceived options that they care enough about in order to make a decision re which options to choose. — numberjohnny5
I'm afraid not, and it's interesting that you believe that's the case. — numberjohnny5
Anyway... — numberjohnny5
How, then, could the information be physical? — Wayfarer
But, Harry, the information and the cause are distinct entities; the reality of the latter need not impart reality to the former. I would define "information" as "any mental abstraction of data from the perception of a phenomenological object or occurrence which contributes to the evaluation of an entity". What if the entity being evaluated is itself not real? If I were to research, in a dictionary of the supernatural, about the supposed ghost of Dylan Thomas haunting the old Chelsea Hotel in New York City, I would gather much information about this haunting. Even so, I think that we can all agree that there is no ghost of Dylan Thomas haunting the Chelsea...if the object of the information is not real to begin with, then how can the information itself based upon said unreality be real?It is physical because the cause is physical. Is there an actual three-masted Greek ship on the horizon? Yes, or no?
[...]
What has happened is that the cause has triggered a chain of events that results in some physical structure representing the cause in some way. We can say that the information was processed, or changed, in some way, but we can still point to the initial cause as what this new structure refers to. — Harry Hindu
The key is, that the creation of information involves abstracting data from phenomena — Michael Zwingli
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.