Ultimately you might note that the people who initially rejected your idea start to defend it. — Olivier5

I have had this happen a number of times, although I think that sometimes they may be unaware of it. They are so busy arguing against you they do not realize they have come around to where you were.

When I post in a public forum such as this one it is not just the person you are responding to that is being addressed. Regardless of how that person may respond others are reading and considering what is said.

sometimes they may be unaware of it. — Fooloso4

Yes of course, the process of adopting a new idea is often subconscious, especially when the conscious person comes with an attitude, a negative a priori that tends to reject any new incoming idea.

I guess what I am saying is: don't treat your ideas as if they belonged to you. They don't. Chances are you adopted them from someone else in the first place, even if you remain unaware of your intellectual debt. Pass them forward the best you can, but respect them more than you respect yourself. Ideas have a strength of their own.

To convince other people, do not try and prevail personally over them. Rather, some of 'your' ideas may convince some people, if you describe them well, without boasting too much.

(this said, I am often the first one to boast )

No individual gluon is alive, but all living things we know of are made of them (and other things -- the focus on gluons specifically was kind of a joke for the physicists in the audience, about where most of the rest-mass of matter comes from), which are at least physical if not material.

Are you saying that your gluons can think better than mine? — Olivier5

Nope.

@Pfhorrest

So your saying living things are made of matter?

Is there a distinction between matter and life to you?

Yes, living things are made of matter. But not all matter is living, so yes there is a distinction. Living is a thing that matter can do, but not all matter actually does it.

@Pfhorrest
But this is just materialism.

How does matter go from inorganic to organic?

Which came first,the inorganic or life?

But this is just materialism. — Protagoras

Physicalism, but sure, close enough.

How does matter go from inorganic to organic? — Protagoras

I think what you actually mean to ask is how life arises from non-life. Organic matter is just carbon-based matter, which is created all across space all the time through the mundane chemical interactions of atoms created through nuclear fusion in stars. The atmosphere of Jupiter has tons of organic chemicals in it, for example.

That non-living organic matter became life when some of those chemical reactions formed cycles (one reaction instigating another instigating another etc... which eventually instigates the first kind again) that produced more of the same kinds of chemicals used in all of those reactions, thus turning more and more matter into the kind of matter that reacts in such cycles. Cycles of reactions that were more efficient produced more of the chemicals involved in themselves, so those kinds of chemicals and thus the cycles of reactions involving them became more widespread over time, and every possibility of improving on the efficiency of such cycles of reactions resulted in those more efficient reactants becoming more and more common.

Eventually we ended up with oceans full of complex self-replicating molecules like RNA and DNA constantly spreading and mutating and competing with each other for the most efficient and so most widespread kind of chemical, and then some of those started producing protective shells of molecules around themselves and those were the first cells of life. The process of replication and mutation continued, and that's what evolution is.

Are you saying that your gluons can think better than mine?
— Olivier5

Nope — Pfhorrest

What I wonder is where does your distinction between good and bad thinking originates from? If them gluons (or neurotransmitters for that matter) make all the thinking, what makes for good or bad thinking? Bad gluons?

@Pfhorrest

So life just started randomly from dead matter?

Sounds like a fairy story.

My two pennies:

After reading 180's lack of responses, I must say, Golly Geee:



180 tends to use political statements instead of philosophical arguments (I know we all have to be careful there, but c'mon man!). Here you go again 180, projecting your own lack of understanding onto other's. I think most have figured him out, including Hanover. For instance, when he has nothing, he projects in this case, his own straw man and non sequitur fallacies to make himself look like he knows something. When Hanover points it out, 180 then pivots to attacking the 'process' and not the substance. Very 101. It's just a smoke screen and an illusionary budding intellect... .

Oh well, nothing new under the sun there. Another disappointment. Hanover did his homework, where 180 so far did not. (Actually, not sure why 180 even agreed to the debate... .) Hanover also calls him out and corrects his misuse of ad hom's. Sorry for the tough love 180, really, you gotta give us something man; not just the usual smoke and mirrors. :razz:

Anyway, be that as it may, Hanover has been more than gracious, and has offered some other interesting arguments that have real import.

1. I liked the notion of Subjective truth. NICE.
2. SD: " It admits to the obvious metaphysical difference between hats and perceptions of hats, and that the latter cannot be experienced except by the subject." YEP.
3 "we each walk around daily with the freedom to choose, something that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in a physically limited universe.That is to say, SD gives a path for a meaningful free will, entirely lacking in a purely physical world." I loved the notion and/or suggestion of Metaphysical Will ala Schop and others! Or how about this, someone explain the Will period, without positing some dualist metaphysical concept.

Also, this is an interesting supposition below. I would like to see both 180 and Hanover exploring this one a bit (180 hasn't touched it yet). This could prove interesting. In the meantime, someone here provide some insight to its implications:

"And there is a critical distinction between not detected and not detectable, with the latter suggesting that no amount of technology can locate its existence. I get that I can't hear extremely high frequencies, but they are detectable, not just not detected. On the other hand, you will never experience my experience. Ever. That is what makes mental states different from physical states."

How does this relate to independent existence?

For example, 180 supposedly said through Hanover's interpretation of same that: "is that I [Hanover]deny specifically that there are physical properties that are completely incapable of being sensed in some capacity and so measured, including dark matter."

Is 180 suggesting there is independent existence?

↪Protagoras

Great Post!
A lot of good insights.
Be good to see both read this and expand.

What do you mean by independent existence? @3017amen

@Hanover
@180 Proof

Be good if your discussion expanded on these points.

I am asking why you think it is necessary to argue against a claim for which there is not good reason to think it might be true — Fooloso4

You don't, unless you think there is good reason to think it might not be true.

The latest from 180. More tripe.
This is not philosophy,it's science based materialism.

Spinoza is spinning in his grave!

And all those who say the mind is non physical do themselves no favours.
Of course your desire is physical. Every time you raise your hand that is physical direct will and desire.
Not material but physical. Like breathing.

In that case there would be good reason to argue against countless claims regardless of whether they have any merit or not.

Why would you bother arguing against a claim that you thought had no merit?

Why would you bother arguing against a claim that you thought had no merit? — Janus

Right. That is my point. Someone who posits substance dualism must first provide an argument with enough merit in order to expect someone else to argue against it. I will leave it up to the members here to decide for themselves whether that has been done.

What do you mean by independent existence? — Protagoras

Pending on the context, the whole concept can take different forms of discourse (cosmology versus metaphysics).. But I think how Hanover & 180 have framed that particular area of discussion, he probably means metaphysics-transcendental idealism (at least that's how I'm interpreting the aforementioned comment from him).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_idealism#:~:text=Transcendental%20idealism%20is%20a%20philosophical,Kant%20in%20the%2018th%20century.&text=Kant%20argues%20that%20the%20conscious,the%20conditions%20of%20our%20sensibility.

I believe at some point in the discussion, if it continues, that metaphysical notion of existence if you will, will likely rear its head :grin:

What I wonder is where does your distinction between good and bad thinking originates from? If them gluons (or neurotransmitters for that matter) make all the thinking, what makes for good or bad thinking? Bad gluons? — Olivier5

Better or worse structure and thus function of the really complicated systems built out of them.

Is a better car (a thing better at doing what a car is for) made from better atoms, or are the atoms just arranged in a better way to make a structure that functions in a better way?

So life just started randomly from dead matter? — Protagoras

Whoever said random?

Matter that’s better at making more matter of the same kind becomes more common. That process of propagating more of your own kind is life. So forms of matter that are better at living become more common over time. Nothing random about that.

Right. That is my point. Someone who posits substance dualism must first provide an argument with enough merit in order to expect someone else to argue against it. I will leave it up to the members here to decide for themselves whether that has been done. — Fooloso4

Right, so if it is the case that the only argument for substance dualism is that we ought to expect reality to accord with the basic ways we understand things, or perhaps better, we should expect the basic ways we understand things to reflect reality, would you consider that an argument with merit, and if so how would you go about arguing against it?

@Pfhorrest
But you haven't explained how matter turns to life.

So forms of matter that are better at living become more common over time. — Pfhorrest

I think this does not follow. Lifeforms always simply adapt or fail to adapt to changing circumstances. Your assertion would have us being better at living than hunter/gatherers, which I think is patently false; if anything I would lean towards the opposite conclusion.

But you haven't explained how matter turns to life. — Protagoras

Life is matter, and I explained already how that matter takes on the form of life.

Your assertion would have us being better at living than hunter/gatherers, which I think is patently false — Janus

"Forms of matter that are better at living become more common over time" is not equivalent to "over time, matter becomes better at living"; it doesn't mean that life-forms have to get better at living over time, it just means that when life-forms get better at living (in the sense of become better at making more of themselves and keeping more of themselves alive) then over time more and more of those accumulate, possibly at the expense of other life-forms that aren't as good at that.

And if we count our learned cultures as part of ourselves, then yes in that sense modern post-industrial people are better at living than hunter-gatherers, since our populations are larger and our lifespans are longer, often at the expense of peoples who still practice the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

But you haven't explained how matter turns to life. — Protagoras

When he does, I hope we're all invited to the Nobel ceremony.

@Pfhorrest

So you didn't explain you just asserted that life is matter.

Any examples of matter suddenly becoming lifelike?

Any lab mixing of chemicals suddenly sprouting life?

My subjectivity sure doesn't feel like matter or seperate gluons.

Does all matter have the potential for life?

What drives matter to become more complex?

And why does most matter remain inorganic?

@Wayfarer

Exactly. Scientists have had a lot of time to really explain or show this,but they just resort to asserting it as true.

A real sleight of hand from science.

Better or worse structure and thus function of the really complicated systems built out of them. — Pfhorrest

Ok so bad thinking comes from bad thinking structures. You presumably have your own brain in mind.

So dualists just have a poorly functioning brain? Is that what you are saying?

It could be the opposite though: monists could have some brain damage or deficiency making them unable to understand the world correctly... :-)

So you didn't explain you just asserted that life is matter. — Protagoras

You asked for an explanation of how non-living matter can become living, not an argument that that must be what happened. I'm happy to explain the view if you're just not clear what it is, but it doesn't seem like it would be productive to actually argue with you.

Any examples of matter suddenly becoming lifelike? — Protagoras

Who ever said "suddenly"? But matter becoming lifeline in general, sure: somewhere in the range of 4.5 to 3.5 million years ago, on Earth, some matter gradually became more lifelike until things we're happy to call "alive" without qualifications were around.

My subjectivity sure doesn't feel like matter or seperate gluons. — Protagoras

Phenomenal experience ("subjectivity") and life aren't the same topic. In my view (as I implied in my first post in this thread), phenomenal experience must be omnipresent, because the alternatives are either that it doesn't exist, or some inexplicable magic happens somewhere, and I have reasons to discount both of those alternatives.

Does all matter have the potential for life? — Protagoras

Since life is a functionality and functionality is multiply realizable, many kinds of matter could in principle potentially implement life. I'd hesitate to claim they all could, but I also wouldn't say for sure that not all could.

What drives matter to become more complex?

And why does most matter remain inorganic? — Protagoras

Complexity is a separate issue from life. Matter doesn't always become more complex. Not even living things always become more complex. When they do, it is because the complexity confers a fitness advantage: the more complex stuff is better able to make more of itself and keep more of itself alive, so over time more of that kind of stuff accumulates, possibly at the expense of other kinds of stuff. There are more possible kinds of complex stuff than simple stuff, so once some kind of complex stuff has beaten all the simpler options, the only possible options for future winners will be more complex stuff.

And organic is also a separate issue from life, as already clarified; but most matter remains non-living because it doesn't yet have the opportunity to live.

So dualists just have a poorly functioning brain? Is that what you are saying? — Olivier5

Not as categorically as you seem to impute, but inasmuch as any error constitutes some failure to function, sure. Dualism can be known false a priori, so incorrectly thinking it is true is to some extent a "malfunction". Nobody's brains are without malfunction, though.

Dualism can be known false a priori, — Pfhorrest

How would your brain know that?

@Pfhorrest

I understand your views.

As I said it's all speculation designed to bolster a materialist view.

It contradicts phenomenal experience and facts.

And precisely how do you know that this process is over millions of years and started with matter?

I'm just interested in what "non-physical energy" is currently. I've only ever heard Bartricks say something like that which is how you know it's bullshit. Is there "non-physical mass" by any chance? What about "non-physical momentum"? Note that momentum is also conserved.