SO explain, using only physics, why folk stop at the red light. — Banno

Sure.

As you approach a red light, you physically move your eyes through nerve signals that allow waves of light that enter into your eye and bounce against the nerves at the back. These electrical and chemical signals are sent to the brain, where they are processed as 'a red light'. Your brain accesses memory through dendrite signaling, to know that a red light means stop.

Further processing results in a 'decision' to hit the brakes. Electrical and chemical signals are sent to the calf and leg muscles to coordinate muscle contraction in such a way that your foot depresses on the brake to stop the car.

I would state that everything that we've discovered so far is physical in origin.
— Philosophim

On what basis? — Wayfarer

Current discoveries in neuroscience and medicine. To my knowledge, we have not discovered anything that exists apart from matter and energy.

But, this would need proof of existence before it became anything more than speculation.

Well, that's what people believe they are demonstrating in their papers. In any event, the converse isn't decisively demonstrated. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I just wanted you to know that I think you're making fantastic points. I do understand that some people believe this, but I have not seen any success in this regards. Also yes, just because our best understanding today is that consciousness is from the brain, doesn't mean that tomorrow we could find something new which would change this. My point is that currently, the idea that consciousness does not come from the brain is speculative, and speculation cannot overrule the facts that we have today.

we have not discovered anything that exists apart from matter and energy. — Philosophim

Yeah, we have. Traffic laws.

we have not discovered anything that exists apart from matter and energy.
— Philosophim
Yeah, we have. Traffic laws. — Banno

Where did traffic laws come from?

Are you going to argue that traffic laws are physical? Wouldn't that be a category error?

Can you point to a physics text that shows how to derive "stop on the red" from first principles?

Philosophim Are you going to argue that traffic laws are physical? Wouldn't that be a category error? — Banno

Are you going to answer my question with a question, or answer it? This isn't a one sided conversation. Where do traffic laws come from Banno? Once you answer that, I'll answer any follow up questions you have. If you're going to avoid answering, I see no reason to continue discussing with you.

Are you going to answer my question with a question, or answer it? — Philosophim

Answering a question with a question is answering...

Where do traffic laws come from Banno? — Philosophim

It's your argument. I'll not put it together for you.

Answering a question with a question is answering... — Banno

Bye Banno.

I’m assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the argument may be made that traffic laws are created by minds behaving according to natural physical processes - solving problems, expressing preferences.

Minds responding to other minds acting in the world perhaps.

Maybe you can be 's foil in a game of Socratic irony? I suppose he wants to construct a regress of some sort.

Ha! I guess for those untrained in philosophy the delineation of what is physical is difficult. I like your earlier reference to grammar.

. All the evidence that is used to support the claim that "everything that has been discovered to date is physical," could equally be used to support the claim that "everything discovered to date has been mental." — Count Timothy von Icarus

The starting point, for a physicalist, is the basic, innate belief in a world external to ourselves, one that we perceive a reflection of through our senses .

What's the starting point for an idealist? Don't you have to adopt a position that is contrary to our innate noetic structure?

I guess for those untrained in philosophy the delineation of what is physical is difficult. — Tom Storm

...and even worse for those trained in philosophy. I'm taking as a rule of thumb that the physical is the stuff they talk about in physics books.

Cheers concerning the grammar thing. Pretty much stolen from Wittgenstein I'm afraid.

Inference to a best explanation is nothing if not a metaphysical process, right? — Mww

It's an epistemological process.

So you dismiss all the arguments against physicalism in the source article? Or is it more that you think we can safely assume they’re wrong? Or you haven’t considered them?

I prefer it because “physical” is one of the few descriptions of being that is harmonious with the sensual evidence. One doesn’t even need an argument to come to accept it. Everything else is discordant and muddled.

Physicalists accept this axiom because it is indeed all that's needed to account for everything known to exist - i.e. it's the most parsimonious ontology.

This is exactly what idealists claim, in favor of their own position. No one has ever observed the noumena, it's impossible. Every empirical observation ever has been phenomenal. No one has ever had an experience outside of subjective first person experience. Not one datumn has informed a scientific paper anywhere that wasn't experienced in the mind.

Thus, everything is mental. This is equally parsimonious, perhaps more because it doesn't need to explain why there seems to be a different sorts of stuff, mental life and physical stuff. Science, so the claim goes, is our empirical study of how mental stuff, phenomena, works. Nothing that is not mental has ever been observed. Claiming otherwise would be to claim that one has perceived something without their mind, seen without their vision, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I don't see how that position is anymore ad hoc. All the evidence that is used to support the claim that "everything that has been discovered to date is physical," could equally be used to support the claim that "everything discovered to date has been mental." What such evidence actually amounts to seems to be more a refutation of dualism than support for either position.

But the fact that such evidence can't decide the issue makes me question how useful the distinction is in the first place. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is an excellent post. I have always argued here that, in light of the Hard Problem, idealism is the most parsimonious theory. I think that that parsimony will only increase as science continues to fail at the Hard Problem and the question of machine consciousness takes on ever greater importance.

we have not discovered anything that exists apart from matter and energy. — Philosophim

Sherlock Holmes?* The Pythagorean Theorem?

*Holmes was invented, but someone could certainly read the book and "discover" Holmes, all the other delightful characters, and the fictional world they inhabit.

↪Philosophim So you dismiss all the arguments against physicalism in the source article? Or is it more that you think we can safely assume they’re wrong? Or you haven’t considered them? — Wayfarer

The topic here was about a snippet from the source article, in which I made my own addendums.

I would just modify one thing. I would state that everything that we've discovered so far is physical in origin. It does not mean that everything is physical, as we have not looked at everything yet. I also wouldn't even say this is a philosophy, this is just the fact of the known universe at this time. Finally, this does not preclude the use of terms such as metaphysics, ideas, or words that are not necessarily associated with 'the physical'. The point is to understand that the origin of everything so far known is physical, and shouldn't imply more than that. — Philosophim

Feel free to point out an issue with my proposal. If you feel one of the points in the article would be a good criticism for it, feel free to reference why it would.

Sherlock Holmes? The Pythagorean Theorem? — RogueAI

Yes, these are physical in origin too. Sherlock Holmes does not reside in a separate subspace or as a separate material from matter and/or energy. It was created by the physical brain of Arthur Conan Doyle. It was then written with physical ink on physical paper. Printed by a physical machine, and read by physical eyes and brains.

The Pythagorean Theorem is based off of a physical construct we call a triangle. We studied its physical properties, and came to the conclusion that the physical properties logically lead to certain consistent conclusions. It was communicated with physical speech as the air bent to philosopher's tongues. A physical feather written on physical parchment.

If you don't believe these things are physical in origin, then what are they made of? Where did they come from? In what space do they reside?

Regarding red lights, suppose I'm full of rage and want to run a red light so's I can smash into a particular car because it belongs to the man who's cheating on my wife. Let's say you describe all that rage and red-light running in purely physical terms and then showed it to an alien who didn't know if humans were p-zombies or not. Could the alien figure out, from that purely physical description of my rage-induced red-light running behavior, that I am not a p-zombie? If no, then the physical explanation is not explaining everything. It's leaving out the fact that a mental state was involved in running the red light.

Could the alien figure out, from that purely physical description of my rage-induced red-light running behavior, that I am not a p-zombie? — RogueAI

You could turn that around and say that given a physicalist understanding of human beings, the alien would conclude that you are a p-zombie, and it would be correct in doing so. Accounting for your phenomenology would be not just impossible but also redundant.

If you don't believe these things are physical in origin, then what are they made of? Where did they come from? In what space do they reside? — Philosophim

Fictional characters and mathematical theorems and numbers are not physical. Picture Holmes in your mind right now. Is the Sherlock Holmes you're imagining physical? Is there a little physical Sherlock Holmes in your brain? Now, you might say neurons xyz are doing their thing when you think of Holmes, but that does not entail that Holmes IS a collection of neural activity and brain states. That would be a fantastical claim. Who lives at 221 Baker Street? A guy with a pipe and deerstalker hat? Or a neural/brain state pattern?

Fictional characters and mathematical theorems and numbers are mental objects. This is another reason I think idealism is more parsimonious: it nicely maps on to our intuition that the things we imagine and think of are mental things and not physical things.

Let's say you describe all that rage and red-light running in purely physical terms and then showed it to an alien who didn't know if humans were p-zombies or not. Could the alien figure out, from that purely physical description of my rage-induced red-light running behavior, that I am not a p-zombie? — RogueAI

We don't know what an alien would say, as they may have a greater understanding of the universe then us. We don't need p-zombies either. Lets just separate consciousness into two parts. Behavioral consciousness and subjective consciousness. Currently, the only way we understand objective consciousness is through behavior. Currently, the only way we understand subjective consciousness is through our own personal experience.

In other words, science has never attempted to define objective consciousness through subjective behavior. That's because its impossible to know what its like to be another subject besides yourself. Did you know that some people do not have an inner monologue, while others cannot visualize a single thing? How can your or I ever objectively understand what that is like without experiencing it ourselves? We can't. Its beyond human knowledge.

A p-zombie is a 'pointless zombie'. We've never used subjective assessments of consciousness to objectively describe conscious behavior. So its irrelevant what a zombie subjectively experiences, its how a zombie behaves.

What we can do is tie behavior to the physical brain. Neuroscience and psychiatry are proven fields with real results in managing consciousness with medications, anesthesia, and brain surgery. Mental states are physical states. The subjective experience is the experience of being the brain matter. We can see the brain matter and watch your behavior. But we cannot know what you are feeling while your brain matter is responding with the behavior. And in no way does this discount that your subjective experience is also physical in origin.

Picture Holmes in your mind right now. — RogueAI

In my physical mind? Of course. My brain is matter, and its a cacophony of electrical and chemical processes all letting me experience my individual subjective experience of "Sherlock Holmes".

Fictional characters and mathematical theorems and numbers are mental objects. — RogueAI

And aren't mental objects an experience of a physical brain? Do mental objects form in reality outside of brains? Do they exist in a subspace? What is a mental object made out of? I'm not trolling, I'm cracking your indoctrination. This is philosophy where we are supposed to freely think. Really think on it.

You could turn that around and say that given a physicalist understanding of human beings, the alien would conclude that you are a p-zombie, and it would be correct in doing so. — goremand

It would be wrong in doing so, since I'm not a p-zombie. Are you saying it would be correct in making the move to conclude from the purely physical description that I'm a zombie? Possibly, but only if it doesn't have mental states of its own. If the alien is not a zombie, it would know mental states cannot be expressed in purely physical terms. It would continue to have an open mind about whether I'm a zombie or not. In fact, it will never know if I'm a zombie or not. It will always wonder. No amount of brain scanning and physical descriptions would clue it in to the fact that I have a mind. It's Mary's Room all over again.

Accounting for your phenomenology would be not just impossible but also redundant. — goremand

There's the rub. I'm not a zombie, but it is impossible for me to conclusively prove that to anyone other than me. There is nothing I can say or do or write down that will convince anyone else that I'm not dead inside. It's a uniquely insolvable problem. The scientific method is useless. Only through some type of direct knowledge we don't have access to and can't really imagine can we really know if another is conscious or not.

Yes, these are physical in origin too. Sherlock Holmes does not reside in a separate subspace or as a separate material from matter and/or energy. It was created by the physical brain of Arthur Conan Doyle. It was then written with physical ink on physical paper. Printed by a physical machine, and read by physical eyes and brains.

The grammar is doing the heavy lifting. The grammar states that the noun represents a person, place, or thing, and apparently this is enough to conclude that this noun refers to something extant. But because they cannot find it or point to it, it must be non-physical. It’s quite a common methodology, but in the end it’s talking about words like “Sherlock Holmes”, which the last time I checked are physical.

I was indoctrinated in materialism for almost all my life. It's only recently that I've discovered it's incoherent. Materialism claims that we could be in a simulation. That would entail that all our feelings and imaginings and dreams and the essence of who we are are a collection of electronic switches. Doesn't that strike you as completely absurd? That the joy of playing with your children or the grief of losing a loved one can emerge if you take some switches, run some current through them, and turn them on and off in a certain way? Why on Earth should I believe such nonsense?

It would be wrong in doing so, since I'm not a p-zombie. — RogueAI

You are, given a physicalist view of human beings. Insisting that you are not is just question-begging.

Possibly, but only if it doesn't have mental states of its own. If the alien is not a zombie, it would know mental states cannot be expressed in purely physical terms. — RogueAI

Would you call everything which lacks phenomenological consciousness a zombie? Are rocks zombies? Why would you assume that an alien had phenomenological consciousness?

↪Philosophim I was indoctrinated in materialism for almost all my life. It's only recently that I've discovered it's incoherent. Materialism claims that we could be in a simulation. That would entail that all our feelings and imaginings and dreams and the essence of who we are are a collection of electronic switches. Doesn't that strike you as completely absurd? That the joy of playing with your children can emerge if you take some switches, run some current through them, and turn them on and off in a certain way? Why on Earth should I believe such nonsense? — RogueAI

A simulation? It means material is reality RogueAI. It doesn't strike me as absurd at all that this is how we work. Ever seen a bisection of the body? Seen the veins, muscle, viscera? You can come away with two opinions. Either its gross and unseemly, or you realize its a magnificent triumph of matter.

Yes, if someone messed with your brain, they could turn that joy off. Why should you believe such nonsense? For the same reason you should know that a bear can eat you. That if you want to continue to have joy with your kids, you have to treat your body and brain well. Eat well, don't drink alcohol beyond moderation, don't smoke, exersise, etc.

Even further, if you start having memory loss or strokes, you can go to the doctor and get treatment to fix or minimize the issue. That 'nonsense' is why we can treat brain disorders like schizophrenia, suicidal depression, and a whole host of other psychological issues. Because understanding reality gives you power to make it better instead of being completely at its whims, or worse, creating problems through choices of ignorance.