It's scientific to do so. I'll leave whether it's "better" to the eyes of the beholder — Kenosha Kid
No, they don't define non-physical at all. It's not on their radar; if it is, they're not doing so as physicists but as metaphysicists. — Kenosha Kid
The argument from physics is closely related to the argument from causal interaction. Many physicists and consciousness researchers have argued that any action of a nonphysical mind on the brain would entail the violation of physical laws, such as the conservation of energy. — Wikipedia
Whether physical laws are apparently violated, yes. They see a physical effect, they seek a physical cause. Why so narrow-minded? Because it's proven a successful strategy for 500 years or so, no other reason. When undetected physical causes are hypothesised, they are then sought and typically found (neutrino, antimatter, Higgs boson, etc.) No more unreasonable than supposing every nail is amenable to a hammer (which is what physics is: a tool). It would be so rare to not find a physical cause that one would be justified in concluding that it's difficult to find rather than that an entirely new, entirely different, non-physical thing is at play, a pointless conjecture that cannot hope to be verified or falsified. — Kenosha Kid
You're contradicting yourself. If it's scientific, it's better in the eyes of "someone". — TheMadFool
I'm not interested in the merits of science. — TheMadFool
Where everyone is making a mistake here, is in looking for 'the non-physical' as an object or a cause in the physical sense. Where you look for it, is in the reason that you act as you do. Say you decide to disagree with what another poster is saying - that assessment, that weighing up, is the aspect of your activites that is not physical, even if there's some neural activity that is triggered by it. — Wayfarer
If it has any impact on physical outcome, it is a cause of physical effects. If I wish to raise my right arm and do so because of it, ultimately somewhere along the line that wish caused a physical event. Therefore ascribing physical causation to mind is perfectly accurate. — Kenosha Kid
If it has any impact on physical outcome, it is a cause of physical effects. — Kenosha Kid
But from that it doesn’t follow that the cause is physical or determinable in terms of physics. — Wayfarer
Precisely what is the nature of intentional action is what is at issue. What about the insights of mathematicians who solve conjectures and so on? What has physically transpired in those cases? — Wayfarer
Where everyone is making a mistake here, is in looking for 'the non-physical' as an object or a cause in the physical sense... So looking at for a mental substance or thing or cause, in that sense, is misplaced. — Wayfarer
The fact that humans are physically embodied is not at issue, and ‘the fact of raising your arm’ is also not at issue. — Wayfarer
Yes, it's better in my eyes, but I'll leave it to you as it whether you think it's better. No contradiction, just not being arrogant about it. — Kenosha Kid
If you're not interested in why physicists do what they do, don't ask about them, or make ill-founded claims about them. Perfectly simple! — Kenosha Kid
You misunderstand me. The achievements of physicists are irrelevan to my argument. That's all. Do you mean to argue that just because physicists have made so many contributions that they're right about their take on nonphysicalism? Shouldn't it be the exact opposite? :chin: — TheMadFool
scientists and physicalists always maintain something physical is going on whether physical laws are being violated or not — TheMadFool
What is a physicist's stand on the nonphysical? — TheMadFool
No, they don't define non-physical at all. It's not on their radar; if it is, they're not doing so as physicists but as metaphysicists. — Kenosha Kid
Many physicists and consciousness researchers have argued that any action of a nonphysical mind on the brain would entail the violation of physical laws, such as the conservation of energy. — Wikipedia
Dark energy you say is physical. Ergo the physical violates physical laws ( :chin: ). It's the "scientific" way. — TheMadFool
No, I was treating the point: — Kenosha Kid
This is refuting, not defining. — Kenosha Kid
This doesn't make sense. An uncaused expansion of the universe would violate physical law. Dark energy is a physical hypothesis in which no physical law would be violated. — Kenosha Kid
1. If x is nonphysical then x violates physical laws — TheMadFool
What dark energy and its implication on the conservation physical laws does is it makes statement 2 above false i.e. it's true that that x violates physical laws & x is physical. — TheMadFool
Considering thoughts aren't physical, how are you ever going to detect that this event has occurred? What do you expect to see when a thought does something? — khaled
10. If x is nonphysical then either x doesn't violate physical laws or x violates physical laws [7 - 9 conditional proof] — TheMadFool
To re-iterate, a recurring theme in this thread is how to conceive of a non-physical entity such as a mind. I’m saying, the question is misguided, because the mind is not an entity or object of any such analysis. — Wayfarer
Say you decide to disagree with what another poster is saying - that assessment, that weighing up, is the aspect of your activites that is not physical, even if there's some neural activity that is triggered by it. — Wayfarer
So looking at for a mental substance or thing or cause, in that sense, is misplaced. — Wayfarer
What about the insights of mathematicians who solve conjectures and so on? What has physically transpired in those cases? — Wayfarer
1. If x is nonphysical then x violates physical laws — TheMadFool
How could one refute sans a definition? — TheMadFool
Your befuddlement is understandable. I too am equally if not more confused. — TheMadFool
See: Violation of energy conservation in the early universe may explain dark energy
Ergo, following your lead,
2. If x is physical then either x violates physical laws or x doesn't violate physical laws — TheMadFool
This is a mere assumption not any kind of absolute logical entailment or truth. Physical laws (if they exist), by definition, govern the physical, and have no necessary relation to the non-physical (however that is defined). A simple category error is giving rise to the illusion that these "principles" you are asserting are sound. — Janus
Something being ill-defined is a good reason to refute it. — Kenosha Kid
As I've already said, non-physical doesn't make sense as a concept: either it interacts with the physical, in which case it's physical, or it does not, in which case it cannot make itself known — Kenosha Kid
And you wrote it! :rofl: — Kenosha Kid
Let's be explicit. Denotatively a physical law is epistemological: it is a statement about our knowledge of the universe. Colloquially, it also refers to the referent of the former: the ontological truth about the universe. So the law of conservation of energy is precisely a statement about human knowledge, and imprecisely a property of the actual universe that we think is true. — Kenosha Kid
When we say that a physical law is violated, we mean one of three things:
1. our well-tested knowledge about physical reality (physical law) is nonetheless wrong or at least inaccurate;
2. our physical laws are fine (or good enough) but our description of nature or an observation is incomplete;
3. something non-physical is happening. — Kenosha Kid
Your reference to conservation laws maybe changing with time is an example of the first, as is the orbit of Mercury which led to Newtonian gravity to be usurped by Einstein's general relativity. But be clear, this is epistemological. We're not saying that the actual ontological rules governing the universe have been violated, rather that our knowledge has been upended. — Kenosha Kid
You're contradicting yourself! No harm though! — TheMadFool
Not much point saying that unless you (can) point to the contradiction. — Janus
non-physical doesn't make sense as a concept — Kenosha Kid
either interacts with the physical, in which case it's physical, or it does not, in which case it cannot make itself known. — Kenosha Kid
it is simply that which does not supervene on or is not supervened on by physical reality. — Kenosha Kid
What's ill-defined? — TheMadFool
Are you a priest? :rofl: — TheMadFool
There's got to be a correspondence (a 1-to-1 correspondence) in terms of logical implications between epistemology and ontology. — TheMadFool
You speak as is they're completely independent of each other. — TheMadFool
At least you had to intellectual honesty to consider option 3. something nonphysical is happening. :up: — TheMadFool
That's exactly the issue here. If "laws" can change science is reduced to nonsense! — TheMadFool
Change in one must be reflected in the other - that's how it works, no? — TheMadFool
How can it be said something doesn’t interact with the physical, if that something hasn’t made sense as a concept? — Mww
That the mind is a valid concept is given merely from the thought of it, — Mww
Supervenience is a post-modern analytic construct, which is irrelevant in epistemic methodologies in which “mind” doesn’t hold any power. — Mww
I submit to you, Good Sir, that you have already imbued your comments with a conception that has made itself known to your thinking, if not to your words. You have attributed “quality” to the concept of mind, as the only possible means for you to state what it is or is not, and what it can or cannot do. How would you suppose, guess, want, need or just think any of that, without some ground by which to make those judgements, when experience offers no help? — Mww
Which is impossible, because it is the case that he must necessarily employ the very things he is attempting to revoke. — Mww
Something being ill-defined is a good reason to refute it. As I've already said, non-physical doesn't make sense as a concept: either it interacts with the physical, in which case it's physical, or it does not, in which case it cannot make itself known. This is the refutation of non-physical mind you refer to. It doesn't need further elaboration: it is simply that which does not supervene on or is not supervened on by physical reality. — Kenosha Kid
Not much point saying that unless you (can) point to the contradiction. — Janus
It's our little secret! G'day — TheMadFool
No, Master Fool, it's your little secret; I have no idea what you think the contradiction is. — Janus
What's ill-defined?
— TheMadFool
Non-physicalism. — Kenosha Kid
Jesus, dude, it's just chat, don't be so offensive ;) — Kenosha Kid
Well that's easily dismissed. There are too many theories for the same thing. — Kenosha Kid
I am a scientist after all. — Kenosha Kid
I don't think that can be inferred. — Kenosha Kid
Apropos of nothing, I'm on a train and the most beautiful sunset I've ever seen is going by. Anyhoo, option 3 is there for completion. It is the "I don't want to find out, I just want an answer" option. — Kenosha Kid
It is the self-correcting nature of science — Kenosha Kid
Yes, exactly, that's it! The time has come, scientist, to correct your stand on nonphysicalism. — TheMadFool
How would one define or identify the non-physical? — Tom Storm
What's wrong withExistence is poorly defined. — TheMadFool
as a working definition for existence? This implies that 'whatever exists' is a fact – a contingent entity causally related to other facts; therefore, 'whatever does not exist' is a non-contingent entity not causally related to any facts. So abstract objects e.g. numbers do not exist but rather, as Meinong designated, they only subsist...1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things. — TLP
So abstract objects e.g. numbers do not exist but rather, as Meinong designated, they only subsist... — 180 Proof
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.