I think we should discuss Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False,” That sets out the terms of the dualist-embodied debate nicely. — Joshs
He might have said that, but that doesn't mean the explanation is going to be what we now understand as a scientific one, for reasons that I won't begin to try to explain to you. — Wayfarer
Can you explain why you think Stephen Bachelor's separation of the practical aspects of Buddhist teaching and practice from its unfounded, superstitious elements is a bad idea? I believe Gautama is reputed to have said that we should believe nothing on account of authority or tradition, but should just practice and see for ourselves. — Janus
there is no physical evidence for reincarnation — Janus
the question is whether we should believe in the non-physical 'whatever' (soul? emptiness?) that is purported to reincarnate, and if so, how, and on the basis of what, could we make sense of it ? — Janus
Your "unwillingness" to explain is evidence for my case - that you can't explain the distinction between "physical" and "non-physical". To hold back information that you are unequivocally correct, would be like holding back information of your innocence and the guilt of another just to spite the prosecutor who you think doesn't deserve to be "educated". Give me a break. You don't explain, not because you won't, but because you can't. — Harry Hindu
However arguing against the possibility is another thing. — Wayfarer
but you can't say there's no evidence. — Wayfarer
There's a statement on reincarnation by H H The Dalai Lama here which addresses many of those points. — Wayfarer
It's not physical evidence; but anecdotal. — Janus
A Turkish boy whose face was congenitally underdeveloped on the right side said he remembered the life of a man who died from a shotgun blast at point-blank range. A Burmese girl born without her lower right leg had talked about the life of a girl run over by a train. On the back of the head of a little boy in Thailand was a small, round puckered birthmark, and at the front was a larger, irregular birthmark, resembling the entry and exit wounds of a bullet; Stevenson had already confirmed the details of the boy’s statements about the life of a man who’d been shot in the head from behind with a rifle, so that seemed to fit. And a child in India who said he remembered the life of boy who’d lost the fingers of his right hand in a fodder-chopping machine mishap was born with boneless stubs for fingers on his right hand only. This type of “unilateral brachydactyly” is so rare, Stevenson pointed out, that he couldn’t find a single medical publication of another case.
I have read somewhere that the Dalai Lama has acknowledged that some of the tenets of Buddhism might need to be revised if they do not accord with modern science, and particularly, neuroscience. If that report is accurate it leaves me wondering if he was genuine about that. — Janus
Thank you for this. I'm not sure if you noticed, but I put "physical" (and "non-physical") in quotes because the whole basis of this thread is questioning the validity of the distinction between the two. I keep asking for a explanation of the distinction, but thankfully I haven't been holding my breath.You’re concluding rhetorical question relies on a circular argument, as far as I can currently see.
Just as can be the case with any other stance regarding, basically, philosophy of mind—idealisms (in plural since these can take many forms), Cartesian substance dualism, pluralism, and (my now personal favorite) dual-aspect neutral monism—so too can physicalism be a circular argument in search of some justification for not merely being a “because I say/believe/will so” argument.
Hence: P1) because I/we/they so assert, everything discoverable by science is physical (even though science might have no clue as to what it is; e.g. dark matter and dark energy (maybe over 90% of the known universe and of what we ourselves consist of as physical beings, this in the colloquial sense of physical); P2) because I/we/they so assert, everything shall be discovered by science at some future point in time (including all aspects of being and its becoming involved in consciousness); C) therefore, everything is physical (this due to the cause of me/us/them so saying it is—as explicitly affirmed in the two former premises).
This, as presented, is then a circular argument (where the conclusion is implicitly upheld in the premises) that does not demonstrate any stance to be true at expense of any other stance being erroneous. — javra
When you say, "laws of physics", do you mean the explanations science currently provides, which even science admits could be wrong, or do you mean the way things are?Physical things are those things that obey the laws of physics.
Which laws? Certainly the conservation laws and principles. — tom
I have read somewhere that the Dalai Lama has acknowledged that some of the tenets of Buddhism might need to be revised if they do not accord with modern science, and particularly, neuroscience. If that report is accurate it leaves me wondering if he was genuine about that. — Janus
When you say, "laws of physics", do you mean the explanations science currently provides, which even science admits could be wrong, or do you mean the way things are? — Harry Hindu
according to physicalism, mental activity obeys the laws of thermodynamics; it requires energy and increases entropy. — tom
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. — tom
Then how can there be "physical" stuff that science hasn't yet explained? How is it that the mind, and it's relationship with the world, isn't just one of those "physical" things that science hasn't yet explained? — Harry Hindu
The mind deals with meaning and symbolic logic, which is not inherently physical; this is reflected in the distinction between semantic content and physical representation. — Wayfarer
Brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, the motion of water molecules, electrical current, and other physical phenomena, are devoid of inherent meaning (as physicalists never tire of telling us). By themselves they are simply patterns of electrochemical activity. — Wayfarer
Then I read read about Hamiltonian dynamics, a chapter that presumably didn't have any prerequisites other than the chapter on Lagrangian dynamics. I couldn't understand Hamiltonian dynamics.
Hamilton worked it out around 1830 or so. Picture him getting out of a horse-drawn carriage, with his papers rolled up and tied with ribbon. But in 1980, I couldn't understand it, even when I (presumably) had studied what is prerequisite to it.
Even in those days, it sometimes seems unbelievable how advanced and clever some people were.
I had no idea what he was talking about. And it was just classical mechanics. — Michael Ossipoff
If you think that is what the mind does, then computers are capable of that now, and in many tasks easily defeat minds. — tom
You CLAIM that physical processes are devoid of meaning, yet we have biodiversity and libraries. — tom
the notion of re-birth is taboo in Western culture, on the grounds that I mentioned. Generally there is a lot of hostility towards the idea. — Wayfarer
--Janusthe question is whether we should believe in the non-physical 'whatever' (soul? emptiness?) that is purported to reincarnate, and if so, how, and on the basis of what, could we make sense of it ?
thoughts and ideas cannot be identified with brain processes, as they are of a different order to the physical. — Wayfarer
Thoughts, ideas, feelings, wants, fears, aversions, can all be identified with the person's (or other animal's) physical body. — Michael Ossipoff
according to physicalism, mental activity obeys the laws of thermodynamics; it requires energy and increases entropy. — tom
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.