We're simply talking about information - what it is and how it flows. — Harry Hindu
One that has been lost in the to and fro is that I acknowledged at the outset that universals don't exist, but that they're real. — Wayfarer
'Socrates knew that the moral ideas in virtue of which alone we are human, which alone give meaning and value to human life, have no source other than the mind. They constitute an intelligible realm fully independent of the sensible world. — Wayfarer
But the attempt to make such faculties and powers the 'object of investigation' is to reify them, to treat them as things or objects or forces in an objective sense; in short, to objectify them. They're not existing things, but 'only the order the mind itself confers on the world through ideas born in the mind'. However, those ideas and capabilities are fundamental to our ability to know. That is the sense in which they're 'real but not existent'. — Wayfarer
How the mind is different to this, or indeed to anything, is that it is the subject of experience. — Wayfarer
We could have no idea whatsoever what kind of actuality such an order could enjoy. — Janus
Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets. And just as statements about electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which they are concerned and these objects' perfectly objective properties, so are statements about numbers and sets. Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented.
...Platonism must be distinguished from the view of the historical Plato.
...Mathematical platonism has considerable philosophical significance. If the view is true, it will put great pressure on the physicalist idea that reality is exhausted by the physical. For platonism entails that reality extends far beyond the physical world and includes objects which aren't part of the causal and spatiotemporal order studied by the physical sciences.
Moral ideas have their source in feeling, in living intuitions, in the living world itself. — Janus
Platonism holds that the domain of number is a real domain. — Wayfarer
Would you find them in the animal kingdom? It seems to me that they are an essential aspect of the human condition, what it is that makes human life what it is. — Wayfarer
I think you are making an error with the claim that because 1 can be divided, then it loses its original nature of being the most simple unit or identity. 1 whole can be divided into two halves, but notice that we are forced to change identity, as underlined, in order to speak truly. 1 whole = 2 halves, but 1 whole ≠ 2 wholes, because 1 ≠ 2. Similarly, 1 m = 100 cm, but 1 m ≠ 100 m. In other words, for a given identity, 1 remains the simplest unit; and if it gets divided, then it gets divided into different identities. As such, the nature of 1 remains unchanged. — Samuel Lacrampe
It is indeed my position that the particular thing and the universal form are inherently united. If I understand you correctly, your position is that the particular and the universal are distinct, objectively disconnected, and only related by man-made judgement, is that correct? From this view, does it follow that only particular forms are objective real, where as universal forms are only man-made? — Samuel Lacrampe
But then it must also have a universal form in order to be part of the genus or species it belongs to. If this was not the case, then two things made of the same material could in principle behave completely differently. E.g., two rocks composed of the same minerals, when put in contact with fire, could react differently, such that one could be inert, and the other one could blow up. — Samuel Lacrampe
But this would be absurd. We could never know any generalities; only particulars after having done particular tests on each one of them. Furthermore, we could never perform any inductive reasoning, such as "all rocks made of this mineral are inert to fire", or "all fires are hot", or "no human can breath under water", etc. — Samuel Lacrampe
1. What exactly is the distinction you are trying to make when using the terms, "non-physical" and "physical"? What exactly does it mean for something to be "non-physical" as opposed to "physical". — Harry Hindu
Can you provide a specific example or two of when it would be useful to make a distinction between "non-physical" and "physical" when talking about cause and effect and information flow? — Harry Hindu
No. The effect (whatever effect we are talking about) is a representation of it's prior causes. It has nothing to do with whether or not some cause, or some effect is "physical" or not. All effects carry information about their prior causes. All effects are representations of their causes. — Harry Hindu
No, it wouldn't be useful because there could be instances where the cause and effect sequence we are talking about is all "physical", or all "non-physical". — Harry Hindu
It then becomes an arbitrary matter of what part of the chain any group of people are discussing. — Harry Hindu
So if there is no further argument against information being the relationship between causes and their effects, and the only arguments are simply about the kinds of information (the kinds of causal relationships, like between concrete and abstract thinking with the different causal relationships each one has, or between the "physical" and "non-physical" and the different causal relationships each one has), then I think we are done here. — Harry Hindu
So the very abilities we have to determine what is or isn't the case in the objective world are innate to the intelligence, which is able to reflect the order that is found in nature. That is the sense in which it is 'transcendent' - it is the faculty by which we make sense of the world, but the source of which is not itself amongst the objects of analysis (except for nowadays it is widely assumed, falsely in my view, that such abilities have a biological origin.) — Wayfarer
Would you not agree that our intelligence is widely and correctly assumed to have a biological foundation? — ff0
But the number of masts on a ship is a physical thing. You see the masts and can feel them. So you have failed to show what exactly is non-physical. Try again.That's pretty straight forward. Generally, things sensed and understood through the laws of physical are physical, and those which aren't are non-physical. In the context of this thread, we are talking about information, so there is the physical signal which is sensed, and the non-physical, what is meant to be signified. In the example of the op there is a flag as the physical signal, and the non-physical idea represented is the number of masts on a ship. There is necessarily a system of interpretation which relates the two. — Metaphysician Undercover
Did you not read what I wrote. I said that what is signified and what is the signal is what is the effect and what is the cause, and it doesn't matter whether or no one is physical or not, as we could be talking about all physical causes and effects in which case both the signified and the signal are both physical. The fact that you are hallucinating is a effect of some state of your body. Your hallucinating informs me that you are on drugs, mentally unstable, etc. If I have to explain this again, I'm done.In all cases of information we need a clear distinction between non-physical (what is signified), and physical (signal) or else the system of interpretation cannot be properly applied and the signal may not be properly interpreted. The interpretation will be corrupt. This is the case in hallucination, there is not a clear distinction between what is physically real, and what is non-physical, the interpretation. All cases of misinterpretation are cases of not properly distinguishing between what is proper to the physical aspect, and what is proper to the non-physical. — Metaphysician Undercover
Of course it makes sense. It's evidence that we don't need those terms, not that we need to make a distinction - a distinction that you still have yet to make clear.This doesn't make sense. The fact that something could be all physical, or all non-physical is clear evidence of why we need to be able to distinguish between the physical and non-physical in order to produce an accurate interpretation. If something were completely physical, yet you apprehended a non-physical meaning behind it, this would be delusion. If something were completely non-physical, all in your mind, and you thought that it had a physical presence, this would be hallucination. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think they are effects of causes. Does not the fact that one is misinterpreting, deluding, or hallucinating inform you of some state of their body? Doesn't one's misinterpreting, deluding, and hallucinating have some causal effect on the world?Do you think misinterpretation, delusion, and hallucination, are arbitrary matters? — Metaphysician Undercover
What exactly are you interpreting? What does it mean to interpret? Doesn't it mean that information/meaning is there in all causal relationships that you are trying to get at accurately? To misinterpret something is what it means for there to be a true causal relationship that you didn't get at accurately, right? It means that there is a causal relationship independent of your mind that you either get at (interpret) or don't (misinterpret).That information is a relationship between cause and effect, is what is insignificant. It is insignificant, because in order to determine what is meant (cause), from the physical signal (effect), it is required to know the system for interpretation. So the fact that one is the cause, and the other is the effect is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, when there exists information, because the matter is to interpret, and knowing that one is cause and the other effect as a fact, does nothing to help us interpret. It's like looking at a physical thing, and saying I know for a fact that this physical object is a sign, while having absolutely no idea how to interpret it. Without having any idea of how to interpret it, how would you know for a fact, that it is a sign? — Metaphysician Undercover
But the number of masts on a ship is a physical thing. You see the masts and can feel them. So you have failed to show what exactly is non-physical. Try again. — Harry Hindu
Again, information/meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. It doesn't matter if there is some mind that is part of the causal chain. — Harry Hindu
I think they are effects of causes. Does not the fact that one is misinterpreting, deluding, or hallucinating inform you of some state of their body? Doesn't one's misinterpreting, deluding, and hallucinating have some causal effect on the world? — Harry Hindu
What exactly are you interpreting? What does it mean to interpret? Doesn't it mean that information/meaning is there in all causal relationships that you are trying to get at accurately? To misinterpret something is what it means for there to be a true causal relationship that you didn't get at accurately, right? It means that there is a causal relationship independent of your mind that you either get at (interpret) or don't (misinterpret). — Harry Hindu
If I have to explain this again, I'm done. — Harry Hindu
Obviously we have an organic or animal nature which is the subject of the discipline of biology, but I think the emphasis on biology is exaggerated because of the role evolutionary theory plays in modern culture. — Wayfarer
But when a being evolves to that point, of being able to ask 'what am I', 'what does this mean', and so on, then at that precise instant, they're no longer simply a biological creature. And I imagined that threshold was crossed by h. sapiens - indeed it is what endows us with sapience. Tremendously unpopular view, I know. — Wayfarer
If a truck runs me over, then I can no longer pray or write love poems (perhaps the same thing). — ff0
I don't think that, if we remove the identity or unit such as 'm' from the number, that anyone thought that 1 could not be divided. As you say yourself later on, one body can be divided into many molecules, and everyone can see that. So I think your claim once again shows the evolution of symbols, not of the concepts they point to.The point though, was that the concept of one changed, evolved. My proposal was that in the original sense the concept of "one" did not allow that one could be divided. But then someone proposed the principle of fractions, which would require that "one" be redefined such that the one could be divided. There are numerous examples of evolution in mathematical principles. The addition of the numeral 0, and negative integers is one example. More recently we have what is called imaginary numbers. Before imaginary numbers, there was no square root of -1, that was disallowed by the conceptual structure. Now there is a square root of -1, it is allowed. — Metaphysician Undercover
The principle of sufficient reason demands that there is an objective reason as to why all hydrogen atoms behave the same way every time. The reason is one of two: Either the atoms are connected in some way, or they are not. If they are, then this connection is what is called the universal form, or genus, or species. If they are not, then the phenomenon is a mere coincidence, which, while logically possible, fails the law of parsimony until the first reason is refuted.Yes, they are members of the universal form, hydrogen, but that's a human designation based in our determination of similarity. — Metaphysician Undercover
whereas today's dogma is that we're all ape — Wayfarer
The process that allows sensory input to create cognition is not a physical thing. It doesn’t ‘exist’, because we’re at a single point in it at any given time. — Brianna Whitney
You're exaggerating to say the least. — Janus
The process that allows sensory input to create cognition is not a physical thing. It doesn’t ‘exist’, because we’re at a single point in it at any given time. — Brianna Whitney
It's called 'hyperbole'. Daniel Dennett semi-seriously insists that we're 'moist robots' in a similar vein. And many people will insist that we're anything but human. — Wayfarer
Hullo! Thnx! Excited to find you all. — Brianna Whitney
Moral ideas have their source in feeling, in living intuitions, in the living world itself. — Janus
The individual as such is the possibility of rewriting any such tidy set of rules or concepts. This 'living world itself' is exactly the kind of phrase I like for trying to point out the context in which all our thinking-doing-feeling occurs — ff0
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.