Same team, different parts to play.

Some light reading for you:

http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/webstuff/consc1/consc1.html

I suppose when I say that you can’t have one without the other, I mean that physicality is needed to give a venue for the mental, while the mental is needed to give meaning to the physical. — Noah Te Stroete

Does this mean that no physical theory can be complete because it will always fail to account for the mental component in deriving the physical theory?

I think so.

I think so. — Noah Te Stroete

So physicalists fail to take that into account?

I’d say that about covers it. And all from the absolutely strictest human perspective.

I would have to interrogate a physicalist to know for sure.

I’d say that about covers it. And all from the absolutely strictest human perspective. — Mww

Certainly an alien being would have different mental phenomena, but his maths should correspond to our maths. We would both have minds perceiving the same matter.

I would have to interrogate a physicalist to know for sure. — Noah Te Stroete

I'm pretty sure you can find a few on here. @Terrapin Station

LOL and we’ve arrived back to Terrapin Station.

Just because we cannot even conceive the fallibility of math isn’t warrant for suppositions concerning other things that are merely possible.

Just because we cannot even conceive the fallibility of math isn’t warrant for suppositions concerning other things that are merely possible. — Mww

That’s true. I mean I think I agree, but what exactly do you mean? Could you expand?

LOL and we’ve arrived back to Terrapin Station. — Noah Te Stroete

Only the mental conception, though.

I think his mind would take issue with “only”. :wink:

But does he only perceive himself mentally?

What do you mean by “only” and by “perceive himself”?

I guess to Terrapin Station, his mind is the “given”, the stage where things happen.

Reflecting back to the strictly human perspective. It’s the ground of all we think we know, and it’s impossible to know anything at all except from that perspective. Still, there’s nothing given in all we know, that suggests we know things as they actually are. We don’t know of any other minds, and if there are any that they will do our kind of math based on our kind of logic or even arrive at our conclusions.

We think it means something that dolphins rub on rocks, surf, and hang upside down. It seems like it should have meaning, but we actually don’t have any right to think that, except to suit our expectations.

Presumptuous bunch, we humans.

As if you can even speak of something extra-mental — Noah Te Stroete

Based on what you've been arguing, Terrapin cannot speak of himself extra-mentally.

You’ve convinced me. Now work on Terrapin Station.

You’ve convinced me. Now work on Terrapin Station. — Noah Te Stroete

Why does it feel like you won the point?

Why does it feel like you wont the point? — Marchesk

I don’t understand.

I don’t understand. — Noah Te Stroete

In my mind, it seems like you proved your point. Horses are mental cats.

Oh wait, mixing things up with the OP.

Based on what you've been arguing, Terrapin cannot speak of himself extra-mentally. — Marchesk

To Terrapin Station, his own mind is the “given”. To speak of himself is the mental.

Are you being sarcastic? I’m not always quick on the uptake.

Are you being sarcastic? I’m not always quick on the uptake. — Noah Te Stroete

Sort of, but I was conceding your argument. For now.

Ok. But it’s not always fun to be surrounded by only people who agree with you. Fight me! LOL

What you call a “burger” is your perception of the matter consisting of what you ate. What it is like without a mind perceiving it cannot be conceived. — Noah Te Stroete

The burger, when not being perceived, is like a burger, only one that is not being perceived.

Then you ask me a silly question like, "But what does it look like?", and I reproach you for asking a silly question like that.

That's usually how this goes, anyway.

The burger, when not being perceived, is like a burger, only one that is not being perceived. — S

Then it is being conceived. That also requires a mind.

What you call a “burger” is your perception of the matter consisting of what you ate. What it is like without a mind perceiving it cannot be conceived.
— Noah Te Stroete

The burger, when not being perceived, is like a burger, only one that is not being perceived.

Then you ask me a silly question like, "But what does it look like?", and I reproach you for asking a silly question like that.

That's usually how this goes, anyway. — S

What I should have said was that a burger is always perceived or thought about when spoken of. What it is like without a mind perceiving it or thinking about it (a mental picture for instance or the memory of its taste) is nonsensical. Matter is always either thought about or perceived when people speak about it. In this sense, it is impossible to speak of something extra-mental.

The burger, when not being perceived, is like a burger, only one that is not being perceived.
— S

Then it is being conceived. That also requires a mind. — Noah Te Stroete

That's either obviously false or obviously irrelevant, although it isn't clear which, because you're playing on the ambiguity. But it's still lose-lose.

What I should have said was that a burger is always perceived or thought about when spoken of. — Noah Te Stroete

Doesn't address the point. The point had nothing to do with someone speaking of a burger.

What it is like without a mind perceiving it or thinking about it (a mental picture for instance or the memory of its taste) is nonsensical. — Noah Te Stroete

No it isn't. I just made sense, and an argument from incredulity is a fallacy.

Matter is always either thought about or perceived when people speak about it. — Noah Te Stroete

Doesn't address the point. The point had nothing to do with someone speaking of matter.

In this sense, it is impossible to speak of something extra-mental. — Noah Te Stroete

No isn't. I just did so.