How does determining the meaning change the course of action? — khaled
I might decide your reply is not worth responding to. Then I won’t respond. The ‘mechanism’ is not really a mechanism, to call it that is itself reductionist. — Wayfarer
Never will. — Wayfarer
Have a look at the Schopenhauer quote on my profile. — Wayfarer
It's a principle of physics though.That's not a logical principle. — khaled
The weather you are exposed to can affect you, and in turn you can somewhat control the weather you are exposed to. For one thing, you can travel to sunnier shores. For another, you can take shelter to reduce your exposure to adverse weather, eg cold or rain. Certain species hibernate to skip the colder months.The weather can affect me but I can't affect the weather. — khaled
And what would the mind affecting the body look like, exactly?
I don't know, but it squares well with the principle of action-reaction.How do you square it with conservation of momentum and energy?
It's a principle of physics though. — Olivier5
None of these simple, familiar event can be understood without recourse to some capacity of symbolic language (and thus abstract human thoughts) to produce physical outcomes. — Olivier5
I don't know, but it squares well with the principle of action-reaction. — Olivier5
Sure but we’re not talking about physics are we?
In fact we’re talking about something non physical. A mind. Asking whether or not it causes physical changes. — khaled
All of them can be understood in terms of a sufficiently advanced neurology and biology. — khaled
The burden of proof is on you to show that the mind has any room to interfere here.
What is the mind, is part of that whole question. You can't assume the answer before solving the riddle. You cannot assume it is some metaphysical or supernatural thing. It looks very natural to me. — Olivier5
I don't think so. Biology is not that advanced. — Olivier5
We are talking of the mind-body problem in a scientific, i.e. 'physical' conceptual frame — Olivier5
That is precisely why you raise physical laws such as the conservation of energy in this discussion. Otherwise, drop that argument. — Olivier5
The very concept of 'proof' requires or assumes that human thoughts and language can say something meaningful and true about the world. It therefore assumes the existence and effectiveness of — Olivier5
Natural? Sure.
Physical? Definitely not.
Does your mind have momentum? Mass? Velocity? — khaled
I struggle to see how the word “mind” can ever be applied to something you can pick up. — khaled
Biology is not that advanced.
— Olivier5
Sure. But once it becomes that advanced.... — khaled
First, do you agree that they contradict? — khaled
The assumption that thoughts and language say something meaningful and true, is not the same as the thought that they effectively cause physical changes. You can have the former without the latter. — khaled
My mind has a certain velocity — Olivier5
Does light have a mass? — Olivier5
Once it become more advanced, it will provide further proof of the ability of the human mind to understand the world, and itself... — Olivier5
I don't. — Olivier5
It would imply that for a human being, knowing the truth about some case is irrelevant to whatever he or she can do about the case — Olivier5
i.e. that knowledge is powerless. — Olivier5
Does light have a mass?
— Olivier5
Sort of. — khaled
Once it become more advanced, it will provide further proof of the ability of the human mind to understand the world, and itself...
— Olivier5
Sure. When was that in dispute? — khaled
All of them can be understood in terms of a sufficiently advanced neurology and biology. ... The burden of proof is on you to show that the mind has any room to interfere here. — khaled
Is it not the case that a mind causing something would mean there is a movement for which there is no physical cause?
And is that not an example of a net increase in momentum? — khaled
When you said:
All of them can be understood in terms of a sufficiently advanced neurology and biology. ... The burden of proof is on you to show that the mind has any room to interfere here. — Olivier5
And what proof do you have of the "net" part? How do you know it doesn't consume say chemical energy? — Olivier5
don't see the dispute. — khaled
Where does the mind come in when chemical energy is converted to some mechanical energy? — khaled
You said: biology will one day prove that the human mind "does not interfere"; and yet biology itself is a product of the human mind. — Olivier5
Any time biologists find something, their mind "interferes". Any time they write down a paper, their mind acts on the world. — Olivier5
In the decision to do so, apparently. — Olivier5
Again, M1 can imply P2 but doesn’t necessarily cause it. — khaled
What role does the mind fulfill? — khaled
Making decisions. — Olivier5
It would also break the law of action-reaction, as I explained already. — Olivier5
My explanation was correct, but your mind causes nothing to happen at all, not even understanding, so it has many limitations. — Olivier5
Sure. And what physical impact does that have, precisely? How do you go from the decision to the movement? Where on the causal chain of the movement is the decision? — khaled
You can’t apply physical laws when talking about minds. It’s as ridiculous as claiming your mind has a mass or color. — khaled
And even if it was done, and the conclusion was what you wanted, it would still not contradict my position. — khaled
I really liked the quote when I read it the first time actually. — khaled
I’m not denying that we have a symbolic language and abstract thoughts. I’m denying they interfere in the causal chain — khaled
they are the consequence of symbolic language and abstract thought, are they not? — Wayfarer
To all intents and purposes, you seem to be arguing for materialism, but then you say that you're not arguing for materialism. So it's hard to counter an argument that seems self-contradictory. — Wayfarer
That's why I don't understand how you can say that such things as reasoned argument are physical, or can be seen as 'neural events'. — Wayfarer
Do you recognise the need for two levels? — Wayfarer
So, what happened? — Wayfarer
How does a thought result in movement? Because to me, that's nothing short of telekinesis. — khaled
Apparently this is telekinesis — Wayfarer
That my memory of the route does not cause me to take it. — Wayfarer
That I only turn right ‘as a coincidence’. — Wayfarer
That nobody can ever do anything intentionally. — Wayfarer
When you can’t defend your position your resort to ad Homs as if that accomplishes anything. — khaled
You called my ideas ridiculous and faulty, — Olivier5
without any other argument that "minds are not physical", which is itself a pretty ridiculous argument because it assumes you know what the mind is made of... — Olivier5
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.