Is static electricity part of the car door?Either physicalism is true or nonphysicalism is true! — TheMadFool
Good point!. I haven't ever come across a philosophical argument to conclude that Logic is physical. Of course, logical thinking is always "correlated" with human bodies. But what is it about those bodies, and gnarly neural networks, that "sees" invisible relationships? Capital Murder is always correlated with human bodies --- but what is it about those bodies that causes the death of another body? "Your honor, my perverted Logic made me do it! Maybe you can fix it with a logic lobotomy." :joke: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
Do those different labels have the same meaning to you? If not, how are those different aspects of human experience correlated? :smile: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
You might do well to consider the quality of your companions. — Banno
Religious moderation gives cover to religious fundamentalism — Sam Harris
Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence to achieve political aims. It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants (mostly civilians and neutral military personnel) — Wikipedia
That's why Rovelli repeats his assertion that observation of a physical event involves three parties : two interacting physical entities and one observing mental entity to make the logical connection between Cause & Effect. :nerd: — Gnomon
What are you afraid of, that makes you proud to avoid metaphysical "assumptions" like "Mind is not the same thing as Matter"? — Gnomon
Do you "assume" that there is no difference between res extensa and res cogitans, because to open that Pandora's Box would put you on the slippery slope to religious heresy against the authority of Science? — Gnomon
Should philosophers be barred from examining what makes conscious matter different from non-conscious matter? — Gnomon
Do you see the white triangle with your mental imagination or with your physical eye? Is the meaning of the word "see" the same in either case? — Gnomon
a philosophical argument to conclude that Logic is physical — Gnomon
I see both the white and black triangles on the screen. Both triangles have portions of their boundaries missing. — Janus
He was not discussing how the information propagates. Just that "two's an interaction, three's an observation". :joke:Information propagates over a substrate. Is Rovelli saying it propagates over something else? — Pop
I see both the white and black triangles on the screen. Both triangles have portions of their boundaries missing. Beyond that I don't know what you are asking, or what you think you are trying to prove. — Janus
For me, this hypothesis fits with the notion that Information/Energy is ultimately weightless, frictionless, undetectable mathematical relationships -- not little bullets of stuff, or "perturbations" in a material fabric or field. So, it's actually a meta-physical (mental) substrate. The mind of the observer connects the dots. :nerd: — Gnomon
My point would be clearer to you, if you could see that Mind & Body appear different to the observer, even though they ultimately consist of the same "stuff". In my thesis, that fundamental "substance" is Information. Which is manifested in two basic forms : Matter & Mind. If that assertion does not make sense to you, I can refer you to my thesis and blog for more information. It will give support references and arguments for some of my “unwarranted assumptions”.Do those different labels have the same meaning to you? If not, how are those different aspects of human experience correlated? :smile: — Gnomon
It's not clear to me what point you are trying to make. — Janus
In your post you said that you “treat 'mind' and 'matter' or 'mental' and 'physical' as being simply terms we use to identify different aspects of human experience.” Which is true, but trite. And that evasive answer seems to dismiss the OP as a petty quarrel about semantics - shemantics. So, my point was that the "paradox" is actually a true/false difference of interpretation about Physics (Body) and Meta-physics (Mind). And that debate has exercised scientists and philosophers for at least 2500 years.I haven't said that mind is the same thing as matter. Horses are not the same things as trees, and so on; but what point do you really want to make? — Janus
And I agree. But some people seem to believe that one of those perspectives is, not only wrong, but wrong-headed, and suitable only for religious fanatics. In this special case, I am a substance dualist, but ultimately an essence monist : everything in this world is one form or another of Generic Information.You don't believe in res extensa and res cogitans if you are, as you have avowed, not a metaphysical substance dualist. I follow Spinoza in thinking that the ideas of extensa and cogitans merely represent two perspectives on things. — Janus
Au contraire! Lots of scientists have shed much ink on this very subject. And many scientists, and physicalist philosophers heatedly deny that there is any such thing as immaterial Minds and metaphysical Consciousness. They are just names for imaginary fairly tales.It's not "heresy against science" because science has nothing to say on this. — Janus
I'm not criticizing you personally. But others on this forum are not as laissez faire as you. And you are dismissing as unimportant, an idea that has divided humanity into warring camps : Scientific versus Religious. I don't intend to be offensive, but it's hard to make subtle points in brief posts without making sharp distinctions. Also, I don't think of it as a "defensive" posture, but as a "positive" attitude. I'm reacting to your expression of disgust (distaste?) toward the contentious Mind/Body "paradox", which has engaged philosophers and scientist for millennia : "This is a tedious, even incoherent, debate." I'm trying to describe a vitally interesting and philosophically coherent argument in favor of a unified understanding of Mind & Body.You are being alarmist: I haven't spoken about barring anyone from anything, but just saying how I think about these issues. I wonder why you are acting in such a defensive way. I have noticed on these forums that those who are most entranced by these, what I see as incoherent, polemics, seem to have dogs in the race; and they seem to think that the issues around idealism versus materialism are of real metaphysical and/ or religious import, and this thinking seems to stem from either their attachment to, or rejection of, religious thinking. — Janus
It's OK with me that you are OK with the various religious and scientific belief systems. My belief system is not religious, and not a matter of faith. But some people are not so open-minded. The arguments on both sides may be dumb, but some pretty smart people have come close to shedding blood over it. For me, the Mind/Body paradox is the crux of my personal philosophical (not religious) worldview. If the arguments are so poor, here's our chance to raise the level of discourse. Besides, what else do we have to do on a philosophy forum? :wink:Personally I think it's fine to be religious or not, it's a personal matter of choice, but I really don't see anything worthy of arguing about. The arguments on both sides are just dumb, based on reification from both sides and just go around the same boring circles ad nauseum. The arguments on both sides, in my opinion, are so poor they are not worth the effort to criticize; it's the arguing itself that warrants criticism. — Janus
Yes. Logic and Physics are "correlated" in Carlo Rovelli's terms. But the relation is between physical instances and metaphysical generalities.IE, physicalism was an inherent part of Wittgenstein's logic. — RussellA
If Logic was empirical, you could put it under a microscope. But David Hume noted that inductive reasoning -- from specific instances to general principles (laws) -- is not justified, except as a rule of thumb. Logical inferences don't occur in nature, but in human minds. We "see" those connections in imagination, not in fact. :smile:IE, if logic is empirical, then it is physical. — RussellA
Reason constructs them for us, probably just so we don’t waste time trying to figure out what the picture might represent if the oddball stuff wasn’t consolidated into something residing in intuition already. — Mww
Not only that, but notice that we don’t intuit those things that look like cheese wheels with a wedge taken out, as fully formed circles. Yet we intuit an undefined empty space as a fully formed triangle. — Mww
That's my understanding, yes. They are figuratively waving, but in fact "blinking". That last part is my own interpretation. Does that notion make sense? The graphic image in my post illustrates that discrete points of data are combined by the mind into a smooth analog curve. Besides, some scientists have concluded that even space-time is granular (quantized). Do you disagree? I can work with the wave/particle notion either way. :grin:↪Gnomon
So ... gravity waves, for instance, are not literally "waves" (because the vacuum of spacetime is "no fluid substance to wave in")? :brow: — 180 Proof
Not really. The distinction you make here makes no actual difference because frequencies of "blinking" are mathematically – not "figuratively" – synonomous with wave patterns.That's my understanding, yes. They are figuratively waving, but in fact "blinking". That last part is my own interpretation. Does that notion make sense? — Gnomon
You're aware that the notion of a field is an imaginary mathematical construct, right? It's used like a matrix to organize abstractions into something resembling concrete reality. The field is physical only in the sense that it is a tool for mathematical physicists. They can't smash a field in a cyclotron. It's actually a metaphor, but they treat it as-if it's a real thing.I don't think this works. Information is perturbations of a field. Without these perturbations a field would be flat , no information would exist, so nothing would exist. — Pop
In the case illustrated in my post, the integration of discrete bits of information into a smooth curve is done in the mind of the observer. I'm not sure what you mean by "information integrates itself". That does sound mysterious. Please explain. :smile:The mystery is what specifically integrates the information, given that the integration of the information is subconscious, and the answer seems to be that the information integrates itself. Given that information integrates itself everywhere else, why should it not in mind? — Pop
My point would be clearer to you, if you could see that Mind & Body appear different to the observer, even though they ultimately consist of the same "stuff". — Gnomon
And that debate has exercised scientists and philosophers for at least 2500 years. — Gnomon
It's not "heresy against science" because science has nothing to say on this. — Janus
Au contraire! Lots of scientists have shed much ink on this very subject. And many scientists, and physicalist philosophers heatedly deny that there is any such thing as immaterial Minds and metaphysical Consciousness. They are just names for imaginary fairly tales. — Gnomon
My belief system is not religious, and not a matter of faith. — Gnomon
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.