They’re the instrument of minds. Were there no mind, there would be no computers. — Wayfarer
Which, I am saying, cannot be accounted for with reference to only physical laws. — Wayfarer
That is simply false. The universal computer first evolved through natural selection. — tom
That everything that exists is subject to the laws of physics, — tom
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
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 laws of physics are not themselves physical. — Wayfarer
The human brain is a computationally universal device. — tom
Computers and robots are perfectly capable of semantics. — tom
But it’s neither a computer nor a device. — Wayfarer
As they have been programmed to do by humans. — Wayfarer
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
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. — Wayfarer
You continually confuse metaphors with real things. The mind is not software, brains are not computers, humans are not devices. Done arguing. — Wayfarer
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.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
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 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
Meaning, like information, is related to the relationship between cause and effect. Meaning is the same as information.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
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
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
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 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?
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.
Of course it does. Look it up in a dictionary. Laws are statements about things and statements are intentional.Meh. The word "law" implies no such thing. — 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."The Principles of physics are laws about laws. — tom
Of course it does. Look it up in a dictionary. Laws are statements about things and statements are intentional. — Harry Hindu
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
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? — Michael Ossipoff
Sure, if "existent" is taken as synonymous with "physical" — Michael Ossipoff
Materialism, in other words. — Michael Ossipoff
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
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
Metaphysical Physicalism differs from Materialism by explicitly allowing the existence or reality of such non-material things as forces and fields. — 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? — tom
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. — tom
I said that metaphyicses aren't defined in terms of physical law. — Michael Ossipoff
I searched Google for Principle of Demarcation.
I didn't find it. — Michael Ossipoff
And no, the principle of demarcation isn't physical law. — Michael Ossipoff
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?OK, what or where is the intent in the Schrödinger equation, the law of motion for
all particles? — 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).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
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.