Matter--substances consisting of subatomic particles, which combine to make atoms, which combine to make molecules, etc. in various structures of gases, liquids, solids, plasmas, and Bose-Einstein condensates — Terrapin Station

I wont pretend to even understand the last one but you seem to define matter as molecules that are made of atoms that are made of particles.

Trees are particular combinations of molecules, undergoing particular processes. Hence, trees are matter. — Terrapin Station

So you are saying that objects are specific combinations of the components of matter?

Mind is particular subsets of brain structure and function. Brains, of course, are composed of particular molecules undergoing particular processes, too--many different materials than trees, — Terrapin Station

Ok I have a problem here, firstly I don't understand what a particular subset of brain structure means. Secondly Brains and trees are largely made of water, so the must more shared matter between brains and trees than distinct matter. Also these processes you talk of bother me, surely a the matter in a brain (a thinking substance) is undergoing more processes than the matter in a non-thinking one?

Trees are living and so perhaps can be seen as pseudo thinking in comparison to a rock let's say, however trees are in a constant state of growth and change whereas once fully grown brains are just slowly decaying organic material. We can see how a tree can be about wood, bark, branch, root and leaf, but what is a brain about?

You're not using "radical, brute separation of all things from one another" to simply refer to the idea of there not being literal physical laws that obtain everywhere, are you?

What are you basing this likelihood on? — Terrapin Station

On the other guy for sure :)

So I answered about weight. It doesn't really make sense to talk about a theory's weight, just like it doesn't really make sense to talk about the wind's weight, or it wouldn't make sense to talk about the weight of your circulation. That doesn't imply that the wind or your circulation aren't physical. — Terrapin Station

The wind - masses of air in motion - is physical. Theories and ideas are not. That is the point of the argument - quite a simple point, which has triggered pages of confused babbling.

If all things are merely physical then what would be the universal principle that determines that physical laws obtain everywhere, even across regions that cannot be energetically connected due to the immense distance separating them? — Janus

Do you mean their nature?

So there is certainly a profound difference between idealist and physicalist views. — Janus

Would you say that as a theory materialism is instrumentally better than idealism? (in the Berkeley / Locke debate)

So you are saying that objects are specific combinations of the components of matter? — Jamesk

Well, objects are matter, but at least unless they're subatomic particles, they have "parts," if that's all you're basically saying there.

Ok I have a problem here, firstly I don't understand what a particular subset of brain structure means. — Jamesk

Weird,

So here's a structure of marks:

//[[]]\\

Here's a subset of that structure:

[]

Here's another subset:

]\

Secondly Brains and trees are largely made of water, so the must more shared matter between brains and trees than distinct matter. — Jamesk

What the heck would it matter if there is more of the same sorts of molecules, etc. than different? How would that in any way be relevant to anything I'd said?

Also these processes you talk of bother me, surely a the matter in a brain (a thinking substance) is undergoing more processes than the matter in a non-thinking one? — Jamesk

Again, what would a quantification matter there? Why would we be quantifying whether there are more mental than non-mental brain processes?

Trees are living and so perhaps can be seen as pseudo thinking — Jamesk

"Living" doesn't at all seem to be sufficient for "thinking."

whereas once fully grown brains are just slowly decaying organic material. — Jamesk

Brains don't continue to increase in terms of extensional boundaries--your head doesn't keep getting bigger, obviously, but brains certainly keep developing as long as you're alive.

Re the "principle of charity," what would you say is the explanation re it seeming like you're trolling, or like you maybe never really had any science education?

but what is a brain about? — Jamesk

For example, did you learn nothing about brains in biology? I can give you some basic info or direct you to some online resources, but what this seems like to me is you trying to argue in kind of a cocky way from a position of near-complete science illiteracy.

Terrapin Station
5.3k
But music is not the thing you are sensing,
— Metaphysician Undercover

lol. You are really off your rocker. — Terrapin Station

Well in the case of the Grateful Dead it is something that they believe that they sense. They also believe that it is music :)

Theories and ideas are not. That is the point of the argument — Wayfarer

That's your thesis. And you're telling me it as if it's some revelation, as if I either pay as little attention to what you say as you pay to what I say, or as if I'm also going to pretend that I have no memory, that my brain is a sieve.

I know you're not a physicalist. I am a physicalist, and presumably you know this. Repeating that you're not a physicalist isn't an argument against physicalism.

The short bus is here to pick you all up.

what this seems like to me is you trying to argue in kind of a cocky way from a position of near-complete science illiteracy. — Terrapin Station

I think that is called doing philosophy. If I wanted a scientific discussion / debate I wouldn't expect to find it on A PHILOSOPHY FORUM.

Philosophy isn't about pretending to be ignorant. You don't do good work in philosophy by feigning ignorance, or feigning an inability to reason, etc.

I know you're not a physicalist. I am a physicalist, and presumably you know this. Repeating that you're not a physicalist isn't an argument against physicalism. — Terrapin Station

Actually it kind of is.

What in the world would be the definition of "argument" you'd be using? "Saying something contrary to"?

Philosophy isn't about pretending to be ignorant. — Terrapin Station

Part of it is

Haha . . . we have enough problems without people pretending to be morons.

An idea as such can hardly be matter as it is an idea. Talking identities. A letter as such is a letter and not some ink. Of course it is hardly anything else then. You could try to answer the question if the letter actually is some ink or a brain-state.

What in the world would be the definition of "argument" you'd be using? — Terrapin Station

That he doesn't accept your premise and has not been convinced by Bose-Einstein condensates

An idea as such can hardly be matter as it is an idea. — Heiko

Why can't we just go, "An idea as such can hardly not be matter because ideas are matter"?

Haha — Terrapin Station

At least Socrates thought so :)

So all I ever need to do with you in order to present an argument is disagree with you? Sweet.

Too bad I didn't have you as a professor.

Answer my question and maybe I'll follow.

So all I ever need to do with you in order to present an argument is disagree with you? — Terrapin Station

https://youtu.be/uLlv_aZjHXc

What was your question? Was it "Is a letter some ink or a brain state?" If so, it depends on the context. it can be both. Sometimes it's just one or the other. (And of course, sometimes it's things other than ink, too.)

You're not using "radical, brute separation of all things from one another" to simply refer to the idea of there not being literal physical laws that obtain everywhere, are you? — Terrapin Station

No, I'm saying the idea that there are "literal physical laws obtaining everywhere" is inexplicable on the position that energy or matter is the universal substance, and logically incompatible with the idea that all connections between things obtain mechanically. To repeat, the vast distances between some things makes such mechanical (energetic) connections impossible due to the limitation of light speed.

Do you mean their nature? — Heiko

And what would that be, as explained in physicalist terms?

Then you weren't addressing what I asked you to address and you instead wanted to change the topic to something you wanted to talk about instead.

You had said that the idea of physicalism amounting to a "radical, brute separation of all things from one another" was a logical conclusion. I asked you to explain the logic--to show your work basically.

Why change the topic to natural laws? (I'm not a realist on natural laws, by the way.)

Why change the topic to natural laws? (I'm not a realist on natural laws, by the way.) — Terrapin Station

How can you claim to be a physicalist and not be a realist on natural laws?

How can you claim to be a physicalist and not be a realist on natural laws? — Jamesk

What do you see as the conflict there? It's difficult to explain to you without having some idea of what you'd believe to be the conflict.

To me being one seems to entail being the other.