I'm employing the standard definitions as they appear in the relevqnt wikipedia pages — TheMadFool
my concerns are specific to mind — TheMadFool
hypothesis — Wayfarer
Either physicalism is true or nonphysicalism is true! — TheMadFool
TMF! Nice post.
Why can't both be true? — 3017amen
TMF! Nice post.
Why can't both be true? — 3017amen
It's not my position but I'm merely towing the official lines as it were. By the way, we're talking about the mind only and it can't be both physical and nonphysical, right? That would be a contradiction! — TheMadFool
if physicalism is true, something physical (the mind) is trying to connect as it were with that which it is not, the nonphysical. — TheMadFool
I beg to differ with your over-simplified religion-versus-science characterization of this perennial Mind-Matter "debate". For those who are not interested in metaphysical philosophy, discussions about Mind/Body distinctions may indeed be "tedious" --- probably because it questions their basic assumptions (or prejudices) about the world. But for many professional Quantum physicists, who are not concerned about "religious faith", the Mind-Matter Paradox is of vital interest. Wouldn't you agree that reveals a third category of far-from-foolish "people", who are vitally interested in the metaphysical aspects of Reality?This is a tedious, even incoherent, debate. I think it's safe to say that the only people interested in it are those who think it has some bearing on religious faith; either those who wish to justify religion or those who wish to refute it. Either way, it's a fool's errand! — Janus
From the beginning, [Rovelli] makes it clear that the matter we see & touch is not fundamental. Instead, it's the conceptual functions of the "mind" that do the conscious seeing and touching. More specifically, he calls those elementary, presumably "out-there", realities : "relationships" or "relative information" or "meaning". And he also notes that, what we call "relationships", are mental attributions of non-physical connections between physical things. — Gnomon
The richest prescientific articulation of the alternative worldview came in the second century BCE writings of the Indian Mahayana Buddhist thinker Nagarjuna. His doctrine of sunyata, or emptiness, says that nothing exists entire unto itself but only in relation to other things. This was not quantum theory avant la lettre, but Rovelli argues that Nagarjuna’s Middle Way provides the right framework for understanding “a reality made up of relations rather than objects".
So it’s not true that quantum theory requires us to accept the absurdity that the properties of objects change depending on whether they are observed or not. Rather, the properties of an object always depends on what it is interacting with. Think of how a vibration of air can be invisible to one ear and an intolerable screech to another. Hence it’s not that looking at reality has a special power to alter it but that “any interaction between two physical objects can be seen as an observation”.
Quantum entanglement is similarly explained. The moment a third party — in this case, the observer — enters the picture, it’s not that the picture changes but that we’re looking at a different picture. — FT Review of Helgoland
Sometimes relationships are between immaterial abstractions, between mental ideas apart from physical things. — Gnomon
I've always seen this idea as a deliberate separation of things that are meant to exist in unison. I believe that the spiritual and material are both true and have value. We are not mindless zombies, nor are we floating ghosts. We are humans. — Kasperanza
Mind posting them? — Olivier5
The physical world is quantized, ideal mathematical concepts are imaginary exclusions of quantization, equivalent to a unicorn or a leprechaun for pure thought. They are not a nonphysical substance, but rather fictions that prove extremely functional because they optimize precision. — Enrique
You can't see the fool ishness of this? If physicalism is true, there is nothing that is nonphysical — Banno
Another basic mistake, of the sort that make up most of your posts. — Banno
Hahaha! How'd you guess :joke:
Yes of course TMF, towing the official lines is good as a starting point, but we're continental/post modernist's :yikes:
Maybe that's yet another Kantian thing that's beyond pure reason! Or perhaps we should throw SK and Existentialism in there too! — 3017amen
Let me spell it out for you:
Physicalism is true. Check.
1. A physical thing (mind) can conceive of the nonphysical (what it is not). Marvel of marvels!
2. A physical thing (mind) is unsure about whether it's physical or nonphysical. Will wonders never cease! — TheMadFool
Physicalism: Everything is matter & energy
Nonphysicalism: Physicalism is false (some things are not just matter and energy) — TheMadFool
For those who are not interested in metaphysical philosophy, discussions about Mind/Body distinctions may indeed be "tedious" --- probably because it questions their basic assumptions (or prejudices) about the world. — Gnomon
So it all hinges on the definition of 'matter and energy'. And no one knows what matter is, exactly... so we haven't made much progress.
Like, is Beethoven's 5th symphony composed of matter and energy? And how many grams does the number 5 weight? — Olivier5
Matter is anything that has mass and volume. — TheMadFool
Logic is the relationship between ideas, pure and simple. Of course all the physicalists will then say that such ideas are 'in' or 'correlated with' neural events, but you have to be able to use logic to understand what a 'neural event' is. ;-) — Wayfarer
You’ve used “different aspects of the same thing” several times, but without exposition of what the same thing would be. Is it spatial/temporal relations? But then, of what are they aspects? — Mww
I just discovered, a physical object (mind) uncertain of its own physicality and if the latter is true, a nonphysical object (mind) is in two minds about its nonphysicality. I — TheMadFool
How can one kind of thing conflate itself with another kind of thing? Unless...as you suggested, it's both (physical & nonphysical). — TheMadFool
TMF!
Are you saying that self-awareness, in itself, represents a non-physical quality (qualia) that is essential for physical consciousness as we understand it? — 3017amen
All I'm willing to say is, it's rather odd that the mind has set up a criteria for telling the difference between physical and nonphysical, has applied it with great success I might add but...the catch is...it doesn't seem to be able to determine whether it itself is physical or not!
That's like a person who can tell the difference between a man and a woman but failing to identify his own sex! Perhaps, just perhaps, as you suggested, this person is both! — TheMadFool
It's true that Mind and Matter are merely different aspects of one reality, just as heads & tails are different aspects (views) of a single coin. But, as a philosophical question, what's the problem with discussing what makes them different? For example, how and why are they distinct from each other? If you prefer not to distinguish between them, does that mean you think it's dangerous to "look into the gaping abyss" of Metaphysics? What are you afraid of, that makes you proud to avoid metaphysical "assumptions" like "Mind is not the same thing as Matter"? Should Science avoid discerning what makes one part of a whole different from another?So, I at least, find it tedious because I don't make assumptions like that, but treat 'mind' and 'matter' or 'mental' and 'physical' as being simply terms we use to identify different aspects of human experience. — Janus
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.