Does this follow from an argument? Or is it an assumption? — frank
Show me something that doesn't originate from matter and energy. What third type of substance would it be? — Philosophim
Being substrate independent, it seems difficult to reduce information to matter and energy, although some people do think it's possible. — Count Timothy von Icarus
It might point to Hemple's Dilemma though, the idea that if "physical" = anything we have reason to believe exists, the term become vacuous. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Oxygen is another important one, which would also render everything we adore obsolete, nitrogen too. Iron. — Manuel
Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical. — SEP
So yeah, I think there is a deep mystery as regards to oxygen, gravity, mutations, liquidity, and virtually everything, on equal footing with consciousness. — Manuel
As the a.i.'s continue to improve, and achieve human level AGI, people are going to look to the sciences to provide answers to basic questions: are these AGI's conscious? What rights do they have? How should we treat them? These questions will then become the most outstanding problems in science.
Where do you disagree with that? — RogueAI
Odd then, that physics can't even explain how traffic lights work. — Banno
I would state that everything that we've discovered so far is physical in origin. — Philosophim
I would state that everything that we've discovered so far is physical in origin. — Philosophim
SO explain, using only physics, why folk stop at the red light. — Banno
what do you think the best arguments for it are? — frank
I'm just giving a concrete example of Hemple's dilemma. But further, physicalism is itself not a physicalist doctrine, and hence denies itself.Where is this heading - convention and behavior? — Tom Storm
Then give us a physical explanation of why folk sometimes do not stop at the red light. And what often happens next.Of course, people don't always stop at red lights, so the question is inapt. — Janus
I'm just giving a concrete example of Hemple's dilemma. But further, physicalism is itself not a physicalist doctrine, and hence denies itself. — Banno
Then give us a physical explanation of why folk sometimes do not stop at the red light. And what often happens next. — Banno
In any case physicalism does not necessarily entail that everything must be explainable in terms of physics, although of course that may be one interpretation of the meaning of the term. — Janus
What's the Hempel's dilemma aspect of the traffic light... — Tom Storm
contemporary physics cannot provide an adequate description of the function of a traffic light. So it falls back on the claim that some future version fo physics will be able to provide that explanation (see ). It amounts to an act of faith.if physicalism is defined via reference to contemporary physics, then it is false — after all, who thinks that contemporary physics is complete? — but if physicalism is defined via reference to a future or ideal physics, then it is trivial — after all, who can predict what a future physics contains? — SEP
In the body doesn't in some way "produce" the mind, then why does ingesting certain chemicals so radically affect our cognition? Aren't traumatic brain injuries and dementia powerful demonstrations of this fact? — Count Timothy von Icarus
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.