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
Trees are particular combinations of molecules, undergoing particular processes. Hence, trees are matter. — Terrapin Station
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
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
So you are saying that objects are specific combinations of the components of matter? — Jamesk
Ok I have a problem here, firstly I don't understand what a particular subset of brain structure means. — Jamesk
Secondly Brains and trees are largely made of water, so the must more shared matter between brains and trees than distinct matter. — Jamesk
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
Trees are living and so perhaps can be seen as pseudo thinking — Jamesk
whereas once fully grown brains are just slowly decaying organic material. — Jamesk
but what is a brain about? — Jamesk
Terrapin Station
5.3k
But music is not the thing you are sensing,
— Metaphysician Undercover
lol. You are really off your rocker. — Terrapin Station
Theories and ideas are not. That is the point of the argument — Wayfarer
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 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
What in the world would be the definition of "argument" you'd be using? — Terrapin Station
An idea as such can hardly be matter as it is an idea. — Heiko
https://youtu.be/uLlv_aZjHXcSo all I ever need to do with you in order to present an argument is disagree with you? — Terrapin Station
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
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? — Jamesk
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.