First we have to know what makes something science — but leaving that aside: we don’t observe photons — are they not physical? What about forces? They’re identified, certainly — but so is the mind, and love, and morality. All “identified” as such. — Xtrix
So we can talk in everyday terms, or we can talk in technical terms about things. The former gets us nowhere, in this case, and the latter doesn’t exist.
So there is no problem, and the question is meaningless — Xtrix
Explain how a theory is not also a "technical notion". (What do you mean by "technical"?)The standard model is a theory, not a technical notion. It does deal with particles and forces, but doesn’t give a technical notion of matter. — Xtrix
Explain how we/you know this to be true.The thing is that mind is clearly something non physical. — dimosthenis9
Explain how we/you know this to be true. — 180 Proof
Appeal to popularity fallacy. C'mon ...Cause that's what humanity always did. — dimosthenis9
That's mere nosiness, or curiosity, not wonder (Plato et al). Philosophers strive to reflectively reason to better, more probative, questions. An answer, after all, is only a question's way of generating another question – wonder is not satisfied by "answers".It's our a priori thirst for answers.
This is so ... confused. Philosophy, as I understand it, describes (or critiques), at most, concepts, interpretations and other discursive practices for clarity's sake. Science, on the other hand, concerns testable explanations of phenomena that's either observed or postulated. Philosophy, dimo, isn't theoretical and doesn't consist of propositions (truths) about the physical world or nature (like e.g. logic, mathematics, theology, etc).Philosophy was always trying to find possible explanations for things that couldn't yet be understood.
To what extent is consciousness based on the physical basis of human experiences? — Jack Cummins
Philosophy, dimo, isn't theoretical and doesn't consist of propositions (truths) about the physical world or nature (like e.g. logic, mathematics, theology, etc). — 180 Proof
Obviously... But maybe I might learn something here – Cite a "philosophical theory", dimo, that has been tested by making unique predictions about the physical / natural world with repeatable experiments. I'll wait. :yawn:Philosophy isn't theoretical? I can't understand that.
Have you read the CPR or any Kant? (Rhetoric question.) :roll: — 180 Proof
Cite a philosophical theory? Explain how thoughts are not physical? Why make shit up instead of accepting 'you don't know'? — 180 Proof
To the same extent that a program is identical to a computer. — khaled
To the extent that the wood is identical to the camp fire. — DingoJones
None of this helps at all. My mind is not made up of jittering neurons and electric currents. My mind is made up of colors, shapes, sounds, smells, tastes and feelings. Walking legs, burning wood, and functioning computers are all composed of these components of mind. Brains are no different. Why can't you see a mind when you look at a brain, like you can see walking when looking at legs?walking is to legs so mind is to brain. — TheMadFool
Why can't you see a mind when you look at a brain, like you can see walking when looking at legs? — Harry Hindu
The standard model is a theory, not a technical notion. It does deal with particles and forces, but doesn’t give a technical notion of matter. — Xtrix
Yes, one where the same logic your using us also applied. That should tell you something. — Xtrix
My mind is not made up of jittering neurons and electric currents. My mind is made up of colors, shapes, sounds, smells, tastes and feelings. — Harry Hindu
Why can't you see a mind when you look at a brain — Harry Hindu
like you can see walking when looking at legs? — Harry Hindu
legs and the ground, both of which are processes themselves. Processes all the way down. — Harry Hindu
Photons are identified with technological scientific means and exist on their own in nature(even without human existence). — dimosthenis9
So of course are physical. Love and morality are human aspects of human behavior.So of course non physical. I don't see any connection here. The difference is obvious. — dimosthenis9
So it is a meaningless question that disturbs philosophy and science all these centuries?And even nowadays. — dimosthenis9
Physical world is whatever exists in universe and we have scientific observed and verified. Mind is something that we are sure that exists from our internal empirical observation of ourselves but still science hasn't observed it. So of course we can talk about that distinction. — dimosthenis9
Explain how a theory is not also a "technical notion". (What do you mean by "technical"?) — 180 Proof
Matter denotes dissipative structure. — 180 Proof
The standard model is a theory, not a technical notion. It does deal with particles and forces, but doesn’t give a technical notion of matter.
— Xtrix
I'm not sure what to say to such a statement. — T Clark
The theories and discoveries of thousands of physicists since the 1930s have resulted in a remarkable insight into the fundamental structure of matter: everything in the universe is found to be made from a few basic building blocks called fundamental particles, governed by four fundamental forces. Our best understanding of how these particles and three of the forces are related to each other is encapsulated in the Standard Model of particle physics. Developed in the early 1970s, it has successfully explained almost all experimental results and precisely predicted a wide variety of phenomena. Over time and through many experiments, the Standard Model has become established as a well-tested physics theory.
DingoJones just did.My mind is not made up of jittering neurons and electric currents. My mind is made up of colors, shapes, sounds, smells, tastes and feelings.
— Harry Hindu
I don't think anyone disagreed with that. — khaled
How do programmers write programs that they can't see? I think you're thinking about the output of the program, like the webpage you see on your screen right now. But there is code that creates this webpage and that is written by programmers and you can see if you have the right software. You can't do this with your mind. Your mind is of a different category - of which you only know of brains and bodies and their behaviors via your mind composed of colors, shapes, smells, sounds, and feelings.Why can't you see a mind when you look at a brain
— Harry Hindu
For the same reason you can't see a program when looking at a computer. — khaled
This doesn't make a difference, if you want to talk about sleeping legs then I could just point to looking at your sleeping brain and seeing a sleeping brain rather than your dream you are experiencing.like you can see walking when looking at legs?
— Harry Hindu
I doubt you see all legs walking. If they belong to a sleeping person for example, it is very likely you can't see walking in those legs. — khaled
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.