Also as a reminder, you’ve claimed it ridiculous that matter/the physical is of itself purposeful, — javra
you're a materialist and for you goal-directed behavior - this, again, being purpose - is not real. — javra
When? Quote it. — khaled
Also as a reminder, you’ve claimed it ridiculous that matter/the physical is of itself purposeful, thereby denying option (b), here (if I’ve misinterpreted, please clarify):
As to the natural arising part: If mater, or the physical, is that which is natural, and if this is in itself purposeful, then you are just expressing that purposeful given X arose from purposeful given Y. So there's no add-on of purpose involved — javra
Yes. That was the point of the sarcastic comment. — khaled — javra
[option] B I guess is closest. — khaled
I'll again ask from two day's back: Do you find that matter/the physical is in and of itself purposeful, i.e. consists of goal-directed processes? — javra
If "closest" then maybe not quite it. In which case do you believe there is a duality between non-purposeful matter and purposeful matter — javra
Apropos, you are aware that the vast majority of materialists/physicalists would find it absurd that a subatomic quark, as well as any matter in general, engages in goal-oriented processes. Right? — javra
"Goal oriented" is a human construct. Nothing is inherently goal oriented. Humans are what see purposes in things and people. I think we can agree so far. — khaled
If "closest" then maybe not quite it. In which case do you believe there is a duality between non-purposeful matter and purposeful matter — javra
No — khaled
Or whatever you want to call the "second sort of thing" that assigns purposes (which I think there is no need for). — khaled
And, if matter / the physical is of itself purposeful, — javra
Again, we're currently working with the premise that purpose is real, and not merely an illusion which we assign to others as well as to ourselves. — javra
But this is confounding the act of assigning X with the the process itself of being X. — javra
Goal/aim/end/completion-driven processes can be assigned to some object, rightly or wrongly, yes. But this is not the same as the given addressed in fact being goal/aim/end/completion-driven in what they do. — javra
And no, there is no "second sort of thing" required for there to actually be purpose.
The question is, can materialism in any way account for purpose? So far, not that much — javra
It isn't inherently. Some matter we assign purpose. Some matter we don't. Which is identical to saying that some matter has purpose and some doesn't, respectively. — khaled
So you're suggesting some sort of monism in the first sentence. Then asserting that materialism doesn't do it. So idealism? I'm losing you. — khaled
Does a quark assign purpose? You and I might both agree on a "no". Yet we're built from quarks and such, and we assign purpose. — javra
You are in essence saying that the "we" you're addressing is the "second sort of thing". — javra
No, to me you're not getting the difference between assigning X to Y and Y in fact being X. As one difference: The first can be wrong. The second addresses what is factual. — javra
I'm simply saying that materialism fails to account for the reality of purpose, and that only a non-physicalist metaphysics can do so. — javra
If by reality of purpose you're suggesting that things inherently have purpose without anyone assigning it to them then, not only is that not even incompataible with materialism (just say that the matter itself has purpose, your original option b) but it's also, again, absurd in my view. If you think things have inherent real purposes then please tell me the "real purpose" of a PC. Is it to chat on forums? Answer emails? Play games? Which is it? — khaled
That difference doesn't exist here. Replace X and Y with what we're actually talking about. You're suggesting a difference between assigning a purpose to a rock and a rock in fact having a purpose. The idea that a rock can "in fact" have a purpose outside of the assigned purpose is absurd. Do you actually defend this idea? — khaled
Were the goal(s) that drove you assigned to you by some other the way you assign purpose to a rock? — javra
If not, how was your purpose, your goal-driven behavior, in writing this text not inherent to you? — javra
Likewise, is my purpose in replying obtained due to some other assigning purpose to me? — javra
Adjective
inherent (not comparable)
Naturally as part or consequence of something.
Synonyms: inbuilt, ingrained, intrinsic; see also Thesaurus:intrinsic
Antonyms: extrinsic; see also Thesaurus:extrinsic — https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inherent
What definition of inherent are you using? — javra
Naturally as part or consequence of something. — https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inherent
inbuilt, ingrained, intrinsic — https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inherent
Everything that can be known about the brain ( at least about how it appears to us) can only be known by way of the objective sciences. — Janus
I'm frankly getting tired. — javra
The point I was making was that the materialist position was stronger a a century so ago when we felt we had a good grip on what matter was — Count Timothy von Icarus
The problem is in claiming all reality is something, and then being unable to define what that something is. Without a definition for the material you risk falling into a tautology, "everything that exists is matter. What is matter? It's everything that exists." — Count Timothy von Icarus
As to impotence, if results are what matter, the idealists have plenty of those. As the grand father of communism and nationalism, the arch idealist Hegel certainly can't be accused of not getting results; the last two centuries have revolved around the ideas he helped birth. — Count Timothy von Icarus
It is not physics. It is metaphysics. But because it is associated with physics, then it attracts a kind of scientific imprameteur, which is fallacious, in my opinion. — Wayfarer
the wavefunction is physics, not metaphysics. — Kenosha Kid
The wave function, also known as the quantum state, is the description of a quantum object and plays a central role in quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, the nature of the wave function is still debated. — Phys.org
I’m not the one mixing up here. — Wayfarer
I think this actually the problem. There are multiple ways to define physicalism. I've seen physicists refer to their own experiments on non-local causality as "experimental metaphysics," but perhaps others would say the term doesn't fit. — Count Timothy von Icarus
My beef with some of the definitions of either physicalism or materialism (they get used somewhat interchangeably in many places) are those theories that expand their definition to mean essentially "whatever is shown as true fits the definition." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Now it seems likely it will have to do a paradigm shift into something new again. — Count Timothy von Icarus
No such issue with "physical": either it regularly interacts with other physical stuff such that it can be indirectly observed, or it doesn't. — Kenosha Kid
What is "physical stuff"? — RogueAI
Isn't your experience observable to you? — Manuel
But you have to say something about what kind of stuff physical stuff is. It has properties, I assume. — RogueAI
Isn't your experience observable to you? — Manuel
My experience is not observable, no: it is the process, not the object, of observing. — Kenosha Kid
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.