They’re the instrument of minds. Were there no mind, there would be no computers. — Wayfarer

That is simply false. The universal computer first evolved through natural selection.

Which, I am saying, cannot be accounted for with reference to only physical laws. — Wayfarer

That's a Straw Man. That everything that exists is subject to the laws of physics, does not mean they alone are required to account for everything.

That is simply false. The universal computer first evolved through natural selection. — tom

Does a universal computer exist? Is it something found in nature? When you say it ‘evolved through natural selection’, are you saying it’s an organism? If it’s not an organism, then what does it mean to say that it evolved?

That everything that exists is subject to the laws of physics, — tom

The laws of physics are not themselves physical.

So to counter that, I gave the example of the difference between the semantic and physical aspects of language - language is represented physically, but the semantic content requires interpretation of the meaning and relationships of words. So I am arguing that the semantic cannot be reduced to the physical as it comprises a different type of order to the physical. It is suggestive of at least some form of dualism, (although I certainly didn't introduce the idea of 'the soul') — Wayfarer

A language without semantics is not a language. There are robots that can interpret human language already. One is even a citizen of Saudi Arabia, though strangely she is not required to wear a burqa.

Computers and robots are perfectly capable of semantics.

Does a universal computer exist? Is it something found in nature? When you say it ‘evolved through natural selection’, are you saying it’s an organism? If it’s not an organism, then what does it mean to say that it evolved? — Wayfarer

The human brain is a computationally universal device.

The laws of physics are not themselves physical. — Wayfarer

If the laws of physics are not physical, then why are you obeying them?

The human brain is a computationally universal device. — tom

But it’s neither a computer nor a device.

Computers and robots are perfectly capable of semantics. — tom

As they have been programmed to do by humans.

The laws of physics are mathematical descriptions of the behaviour of phenomena. As such, they are created on the basis of abstractions. The whole terminology of ‘laws’ and ‘obedience’ was after all a product of the belief that the ‘laws’ were the expression of the ‘divine will’. But whatever their ontological status is, they’re not actually physical, as the act of prediction and measurement which validates the so-called ‘laws’ are entirely intellectual in nature.

But it’s neither a computer nor a device. — Wayfarer

If an object is computationally universal, in what sense is it not a computer?

As they have been programmed to do by humans. — Wayfarer

And human brains are programmed by natural selection and culture.

The laws of physics are mathematical descriptions of the behaviour of phenomena. As such, they are created on the basis of abstractions. The whole terminology of ‘laws’ and ‘obedience’ was after all a product of the belief that the ‘laws’ were the expression of the ‘divine will’. But whatever their ontological status is, they’re not actually physical, as the act of prediction and measurement which validates the so-called ‘laws’ are entirely intellectual in nature. — Wayfarer

The laws of physics operate in Reality. The fact that we can discover mathematical expressions of them (or at least approximations to them) is proof that our brains are computationally universal.

If an object is computationally universal, in what sense is it not a computer? — tom

Brains are not objects as such. The human brain only operates in the context of being an embodied organ in the human nervous system, in the environment.

You continually confuse metaphors with real things. The mind is not software, brains are not computers, humans are not devices. Done arguing.

Brains are not objects as such. The human brain only operates in the context of being an embodied organ in the human nervous system, in the environment. — Wayfarer

You forgot the cosmos! I think you are jumping the shark here. You claimed the brain is not a device, now it's not an object! How about an organ? If you accept that it's an organ, then it is also by definition an object, and a device.

You continually confuse metaphors with real things. The mind is not software, brains are not computers, humans are not devices. Done arguing. — Wayfarer

You don't understand computational universality or its implications. These are not metaphors.

Fair enough. Can we agree on this, though: You hold a trust/faith/belief that things such as the true nature of experienced/enactive aesthetics will be answered via investigation of objects while I hold the trust/faith/belief that such things can never so be discovered?

(I say "trust/faith/belief" because they in at least one sense all signify the same thing.) — javra

I believe that the true nature of the relationship between mind and world will be answered via the investigation of natural processes using a different vantage point than what we are using now. Like I said, most of the great discoveries that provide great predictive explanations of new experiences are the ones we acquired by taking a different look at the data.

There's a quote by someone (I can't seem to remember or be able to find it in a quick Google search) that goes something like this:
"The essence of discovery is seeing what everyone else seen, but thinking what no one else has thought."
This basically sums up the discoveries of Galileo, Newton, Einstein and Darwin.

I think a line in the sand has to be drawn. Physicalists can't constantly retreat into yet to be discovered physics. Of course, new physics has to be admitted, but the line says that all new things will adhere to the fundamental principles of physics.

We have a set of principles, which are laws about laws. A physicalist seems compelled to draw the line there. There may be new principles, but the old ones must survive.

So, according to physicalism, mental activity obeys the laws of thermodynamics; it requires energy and increases entropy. — tom

Personally, I don't like the term, "law", applied to how things are. It implies that there is some intent in the way things are, which would then require an explanation I don't think we can get to without contradicting current "laws".

I tend to think that the way things are are simply the way things are, and then there are our very accurate explanations (laws) which are used in predicting the way things will turn out. Scientific laws are really rules for making predictions, not the fundamental nature of reality, so I take issue with your "laws about laws" statement.

It seems that most people using the terms, "physical" and "non-physical", imply that there are two different fundamental natures of reality. Science, it is said, gets at the physical, while only religion, or "spiritual" experiences get at the non-physical. It seems to me that those that try to defend this distinction are really trying to defend their religious, or "spiritual", presumptions. What they can't seem to get past is the intimate causal relationship that exists between both.

In short: Thoughts and ideas possess inherent meaning or intentionality; brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, and the like, are devoid of any inherent meaning or intentionality; so thoughts and ideas cannot be identified with brain processes, as they are of a different order to the physical. — Wayfarer

Meaning, like information, is related to the relationship between cause and effect. Meaning is the same as information.

The meaning of some ink mark is the relationship between some ink mark and it's cause, which is either someone's ideas and their intent to convey them, or some accidental blob of ink, which was unintentional but still informs us of something - namely an unintentional release of ink from a pen. To say that that ink mark means nothing is to say that that ink mark doesn't have a causal relationship with some intent, but it does provide information about something.

This shows that intent can be, but doesn't have to be the meaning, or cause of some ink mark. Intent is not required for the existence of meaning. All that is required is causal relationships.

This also means that ink marks have meaning long after all life is extinct, because they were caused. It doesn't matter if some organism comes along and tries to make heads or tails of the ink marks. In fact, if any organism did come along and did try to make heads or tail of it, and wanted to get at what the ink marks really mean, they'd have to get at the cause, which is what the writer intended. If the organism just arbitrarily applied some meaning to the marks, are they really getting at the meaning of the marks?

Personally, I don't like the term, "law", applied to how things are. It implies that there is some intent in the way things are, which would then require an explanation I don't think we can get to without contradicting current "laws". — Harry Hindu

Meh. The word "law" implies no such thing.

I tend to think that the way things are are simply the way things are, and then there are our very accurate explanations (laws) which are used in predicting the way things will turn out. Scientific laws are really rules for making predictions, not the fundamental nature of reality, so I take issue with your "laws about laws" statement — Harry Hindu

The Principles of physics are laws about laws. The Principle of the conservation of energy, for example, tells us that all laws of physics must respect that principle. CofE doesn't tell us what will happen, or even how to measure energy! That laws of motion such as Schrödinger equation or the classical Hamiltonian for a system of particles obeys the CofE is not immediately obvious, but we know that if they don't, they are wrong. The laws of physics, as we express them, are constrained to respect CofE!

Most of the Principles of physics are to do with symmetry. One particular symmetry is time reversal. That the laws must work just as well forwards in time as backwards in time is an extremely surprising and profound statement about Reality and an extreme constraint on the form the laws can take.

The Principles cannot be used alone to predict anything, and are not in themselves even testable for that reason. They can only be tested indirectly via the Laws that respect the Principles.

If you think science is just rules for predictions, you are quite simply ignoring the history of scientific progress, its success, and the aspirations and motivation of scientists.

You're right, Janus, reincarnation is incompatible with Materialism. ...you know, Materialism, that disregards (when it doesn't deny) "nonphysical whatever".

Some people claim to not be able to "make sense of " anything but Materialism.

You're looking at it in terms of a thing, like a soul, or emptiness (??!) that reincarnates. A noun-subject to go with the verb. — Michael Ossipoff

I don't think reincarnation or resurrection, for that matter, are logically incompatible with materialism. But they are both incompatible with present human understanding of the physical; there is no conceivable mechanism by which they could be actualities. So, I don't say that it is definitive that they are not actualities, or that there could not possibly be an immaterial soul or non-physical mental tendencies or whatever that is reborn; all I am saying is that I cannot see any reliable evidence that would compel me to believe in such things.

I don't believe in a soul separate from the body. But I've amply described how the person, unconscious at some stage of death-shutdown, but still retaining his/her subconscious wants, needs, predispositions and attributes, thereby remains someone who is the protagonist of a life-experience possibility-story. There is a life-experience possibility-story about that person.

Another thing that s/he retains is an orientation toward the future and life.

If that sounds fantastic, I remind you that it's also fantastic that you're in a life now. Why are you? Why did it start?

What you are describing just sounds like somewhat wildly imaginative speculation to me. I haven't seen you provide any evidence to support it. From the fact that it might be "fantastic" that I'm "in a life" now, it does not seem to follow that some other fantastic story is therefore true. I wouldn't put it that way, in any case' I would say that life is mysterious because we don't know how it originated. It's also possible that it will remain a mystery. When faced with that mystery we can be drawn to religious faith or we can sustain a hopeful faith that science will one day explain it all. I tend more towards the former; but for me faith is more of a feeling for the indeterminate than a set of determinate fundamentalistic propositions which take forms like 'we are reincarnated' or 'we are resurrected' or 'we repeat the same life over and over' (some form of "eternal recurrence" with or without variations) and so on.

You don't know? Then it isn't justified to draw convinced-conclusion about it.

Then is it so implausible that, if the reason why it started remains at the end of this life, then the same reason will have the same result?

As I've said, I don't have proof of reincarnation. I doubt that proof is possible. But it is implied or predicted from a plausible, reasonable explanation for this life, and by an uncontroversial metaphysics.

That exactly right; so I don't draw convinced conclusions.

There doesn't have to be a "reason why it started", that demand may just reflect a human need to project beyond its relevant ambit a requirement for the kinds of explanations we need to navigate the empirical domain.

I haven't seen anything that convinces me that reincarnation is "implied or predicted from a plausible, reasonable explanation for this life" and I don't believe there is any "uncontroversial metaphysics", because all metaphysics start from unfounded assumptions, and the best they can hope for is to be consistent with those assumptions, and thus remain exactly as sound as those assumptions are. In the final analysis metaphysics is a matter of taste and any who claim that they do not start from their own (usually but perhaps not always culturally instilled) prejudices in these matters is being intellectually delusional or dishonest in my view.

Meh. The word "law" implies no such thing. — tom

Of course it does. Look it up in a dictionary. Laws are statements about things and statements are intentional.

The Principles of physics are laws about laws. — tom

This is circular and therefore meaningless. You're basically saying, "The Principles of physics are a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions about a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions."

Of course it does. Look it up in a dictionary. Laws are statements about things and statements are intentional. — Harry Hindu

OK, what or where is the intent in the Schrödinger equation, the law of motion for all particles?

This is circular and therefore meaningless. You're basically saying, "The Principles of physics are a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions about a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions — Harry Hindu

No idea what you are on about. The Principles of Physics are laws about laws, or if you prefer Meta-Laws. There is absolutely nothing circular in that.

That everything that exists is subject to the laws of physics, does not mean they alone are required to account for everything. — tom

So everything that exists is subject to the laws of physics?

Sure, if "existent" is taken as synonymous with "physical"

Materialism, in other words.

Michael Ossiopff

"So much better than the "arrogance" espoused by the "New Atheists." " Ah, the sweet sound of sarcasm fills the air.

So everything that exists is subject to the laws of physics? — Michael Ossipoff

I think that is basically repeating what I typed, but replacing a full-stop with a question-mark, so yes!

Sure, if "existent" is taken as synonymous with "physical" — Michael Ossipoff

You could transpose that statement into something like "nothing that is not subject to the laws of physics may exist" if you like.

Obviously, we are teetering on the edge of circularity, but I vaguely recall drawing a line-in-the-sand in a previous post to prevent this: The Principles of physics are obeyed by everything that can exist.

There is no hint that thought or feeling are not subject to the laws or principles of physics. In fact there exists a physical principle that states they are. It's called the "Church-Turing Principle" by its discoverer, but the "Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle" by the rest of us. Please do not confuse it with the Church-Turing Conjecture.

Materialism, in other words. — Michael Ossipoff

I have some recollection of explaining on this or another thread that Materialism refers to the 1st law of thermodynamics, and physicalism refers to the 1st and 2nd law. So no, it's physicalism.

"So much better than the "arrogance" espoused by the "New Atheists." " Ah, the sweet sound of sarcasm fills the air. — Mitchell

They're a pretty shallow and toxic bunch though, don't you think?

Not much worse than their critics, or, especially, the target of their ridicule. I just wish they would stick to arguments and not reduce the discussion to name-calling.

Not much worse than their critics, or, especially, the target of their ridicule. I just wish they would stick to arguments and not reduce the discussion to name-calling. — Mitchell

Isn't that what you just did?

Anyway, I find their denial of certain consequences of evolution, such as the existence of races and racial differences hilarious. Also people like Hitchens and his supporters are blood-thirsty warmongers. Ask yourself why that is?

I have some recollection of explaining on this or another thread that Materialism refers to the 1st law of thermodynamics, and physicalism refers to the 1st and 2nd law. So no, it's physicalism. — tom

Physicalism has two meanings: science-of-mind Physicalism and metaphysical Physicalism..

Metaphysical Physicalism differs from Materialism by explicitly allowing the existence or reality of such non-material things as forces and fields.

Because Physicalism has two meanings, then, to avoid writing an additional word to distinguish between those two meanings, it's much easier to just say "Materialism", with the understanding that it's meant to allow the things like forces and fields allowed by metaphysical Physicalism.

So I say "Materialism", with that meaning, instead of saying "metaphysical Physicalism".

I've seen a number of definitions of Materialism and Physicalism, but I've never heard of either defined in terms of the laws of thermodynamics.

In general, metaphysicses aren't defined in terms of physical laws.

Michael Ossipoff

Metaphysical Physicalism differs from Materialism by explicitly allowing the existence or reality of such non-material things as forces and fields. — Michael Ossipoff

You are kidding me, right?

What has "forces and fields" got to do with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

Metaphysical Physicalism differs from Materialism by explicitly allowing the existence or reality of such non-material things as forces and fields. — Michael Ossipoff


You are kidding me, right?

What has "forces and fields" got to do with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? — tom

I didn't say anything about whether it does or not.

In the quoted passage, I relayed what I'd read about the difference between the definitions of Materialism and metaphysical Physicalism.

And, as i said, metaphysicses aren't defined in terms of physical laws.

Michael Ossipoff

And, as i said, metaphysicses aren't defined in terms of physical laws. — Michael Ossipoff

Metaphysics is defined by the Principle of Demarcation, so yes Metaphysics is defined precisely by physical law.

Metaphysics is defined by the Principle of Demarcation, so yes Metaphysics is defined precisely by physical law. — tom

That's a reply to something that i didn't say..

I said that metaphyicses aren't defined in terms of physical law.

It is, or should be, obvious, that "metaphysicses" refers to individual metaphysicses.

You evidently are referring to the definition of metaphysics itself, as an area of discussion.

...another topic.

The word "Metaphysics" has a lot of definitions, and is sometimes broadly extended to include Ontology and a lot of other areas. I've seen a fairly long list of definitions for "Metaphysics".

An old unabridged Merriam-Webster said that metaphysics is the topic of origins and ultimate-reality.

A more recent Merriam-Webster:

Mataphysics:

a(1): A division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology.

a(2): Ontology 2.

b: Abstract philosophical studies; a study of what is outside objective experience.

Ontology:

1. A branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being.

2. A particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence.

-------------

"Real" and "Existent" aren't metaphysically defined. Neither is "Is". But it can be said that there undeniably are things whose existence or reality is denied by some who agree that there are those things in the broadest sense of "are" and "is".

So I try to avoid arguments about what's real or existent, and speak more of thing that undeniably are, even if some don't call them real or existent.

Ontology seems to emphasize being or is-ness more, but it's included in a number of definitions of metaphysics. I usually call the topic metaphysics, because of that word's broader coverage, and because the real-ness or ultimate-reality issue sometimes comes up.
------------------------

As for definitions of metaphysics, I've never seen the definition by "the principle of demarcation". But I've only looked at modern definitions. Are you referring to an obsolete, unused ancient definition?

I'll look up the principle of demarcation, but if (as it sounds like), you're talking about a definition of metaphysics based on the difference(s) that demarcate it from physics, that would be a really silly way to define metaphysics.
------------------------

But, more relevantly, my comment was obviously about how particular metaphysicses are defined, and not about the definition of the subject of metaphysics.

Michael Ossipoff

I searched Google for Principle of Demarcation.

I didn't find it.

But I found Principles of Demarcation. (plural)

Those were stated to be some principles for demarcating science from pseudoscience. ...for evaluating the scientificness of a theory.

...not for demarcating metaphysics from physics. ...or, in any way or regard, for defining the subject of metaphysics.

At least some of those principles, like falsifiabililty, seem valid for evaluating a metaphysics, but they don't define metaphysics as a topic, as you implied they do.

Nor are they used as the basis for defining a particular metaphysics.

If they can be useful for evaluating a metaphysics, that doesn't support a claim that particular metaphysicses are defined in terms of "the principle of demarcation."

And no, the principle of demarcation isn't physical law.

Michael Ossipoff

At SEP, i found where it said that Popper wanted "a criterion for a scientific theory or hypothesis to be scientific, rather than pseudoscientific or metaphysical."

At some point in that article, the author qualified that wish further, saying, "...falsifiable by a [physical] observation".

To be falsifiable by physical observation, a statement would have to be about physics. Metaphysicses don't usually make specifications or or stipulations about physics. So it isn't saying a whole lot, to say that you can demarcate between physics and metaphysics by falsifiability by physical observation, :D

And you can't define metaphysics that way, because, for example, the rules of word-games don't include statements that are falsifiable by physical experiment observations.

In any case, what I'd said was that metaphsysicses (implying particular ones) aren't defined in terms of physical laws.

I wasn't talking about the definition of the subject of metaphysics.

And even if the "principle of demarcation" defined the subject of metaphysics (but it doesn't), the fact remains that the principle of demarcation isn't a physical law.

So why do you make those sloppy statements?

By the way:

If several metaphysics are all consistent with the same physical world, regardless of physical observations, then a claim that one of those metaphysicses is right and the others are wrong can't be verified or falsified by physical observation either.

That's why I emphasize that I don't say that it's definitely incorrect to claim that the objectively existent physical world that Materialists believe in superfluously exists alongside the inevitable complex system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals that I describe.

But such a claim would be an unverifiable, unfalsifiable proposition of an unsupported brute-fact.

Michael Ossipoff

I said that metaphyicses aren't defined in terms of physical law. — Michael Ossipoff

"metaphyicses" is almost a Google-Whack. Well done!

I searched Google for Principle of Demarcation.

I didn't find it. — Michael Ossipoff

Funny, I get lots of results.

And no, the principle of demarcation isn't physical law. — Michael Ossipoff

You are not a serious person. Thanks for clearing that up.

OK, what or where is the intent in the Schrödinger equation, the law of motion for
all particles? — tom

Simple. The intent lies within the cause of the equation themselves - Schrödinger. Why else would you call it the Schrödinger equation if not for the intent of Schrödinger himself when coming up with the equation. Wherever you find a statement, or law, you will find intent, for as far as I know, only people write statements and laws. Did Schrödinger design the universe to behave a certain way, or did he just write some equation that represents the way the universe behaves in a certain way?

No idea what you are on about. The Principles of Physics are laws about laws, or if you prefer Meta-Laws. There is absolutely nothing circular in that. — tom

Okay, so you mean something else with the second use of the term, "law", than you mean with the first use. Like I said, I dislike the use of the term, "law" when referring to the way things are. There is no underlying code, or rules for the way things are. There is simply the way things are and our representation of the way things are with language and math (laws).