Most people are not physicalists, or materialists, and believe in an incomprehensible world beyond the manifest. I think that in strawmaning such a naive view, the supposed alternative ain't much more sophisticated.

Or to put it another way, an apple is to observation and the independent environment as coffee is to water and coffee beans.

As I said, I don't buy that "molecules", or atoms, or quanta are more real than apples. They reduce to the perceptual world, and are just a reformulation of the naive view. Like one has gone deeper by looking closer at their smaller parts, or counting bits, or energy outputs...

As I said, I don't buy that "molecules", or atoms, or quanta are more real than apples. — Wosret

I didn't say they're more real. I said they're independent of perception (assuming scientific realism).

I don't know what you meant than, that object permanence isn't object eternalism?

They may not be physicalist in regards to how they label themselves, but they quickly become such when it comes to biology and the nature of life, where all of a sudden everything perceived by the mind is still there (hiding in genes or neurons somewhere) and the mind is gone. What exactly is a brain without the mind?

As I brought up here, consider a cup of coffee. Coffee "happens" when water mixes with coffee beans. The water is real, the coffee beans are real, and the resulting coffee is real. The water can be independent of the coffee beans, the coffee beans can be independent of the water, but the coffee is dependent on both the water and the coffee beans. If we (somehow) reversed the process and separated out the water and the coffee beans then we wouldn't have coffee anymore, just water and coffee beans.

So an apple "happens" when an observer interacts with some other stuff in the environment (e.g. field quanta, if scientific realism is the case). The observer is real, the other stuff in the environment is real, and the resulting apple is real. The observer can be independent of the other stuff in the environment, the other stuff in the environment can be independent of the observer, but the apple is dependent on both the observer and the other stuff in the environment. If we separated out the observer and the other stuff in the environment then we wouldn't have an apple anymore, just an observer and other stuff in the environment.

Everything is kind of a mixture of things, and all entangled up in the environment, and we differentiate it. Water and beans too. I don't think that coffee is special in this regard.

Well, I can't really say much about what the hypothetical joe blow thinks about this. A brain absent a mind is a non-functional brain, I imagine.

Well, I can't really say much about what the hypothetical joe blow thinks about this. A brain absent a mind is a non-functional brain, I imagine. — Wosret

A brain? But this is the rub, isn't it? Now watch the physicalists come out of hiding. Here comes the non-mind mind in the non-third-person person to create the brain.

I overspoke a bit, because of course no metaphysics can be proved.

So all that I can say on that matter is that it seems to me that there's probably reincarnation, because it's implied by the most parsimonious metaphysics. ...and that I wouldn't expect there to be detailed reports of previous lives, because, by that metaphysics, they aren't expected.

Yes, I was going to say that too: Detailed past-life reports are difficult to debunk or verify.

Either way, you pretty much have to take the word of some author. ...unless you have the time, money and opportunity to go out and do all the field-work, and the meticulous checking.

So the matter of likelihood is all that can be stated.

Michael Ossipoff


.

I agree

It is the human mind (and other minds) that morphs a quantum state into what humans recognize as an object. — Rich

No.

There is something there. It is called a quantum state. — Rich

It could equally be called a "spiritual state". The cup is there in the cupboard in spirit.

Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation

It's not what most physicists think happens. It looks and smells like new-age wishful thinking.

No.

And here.

Right. There is teacup floating out there.

Let's be totally clear here. Science only recognizes systems in quantum states. How it is morphed into a thing is totally a subject of metaphysical speculation.

Yep. Something it takes a special type of sophistication to deny.

Nope. Philosophers have to learn that there is nothing out there except systems in a a quantum state. Forget about this stuff about atoms. Plus there are no boundaries. None.

↪Banno Nope. Philosophers have to learn that there is nothing out there except systems in a a quantum state. Forget about this stuff about atoms. Plus there is no boundary.

Says someone who mistakenly thinks they are the apodictic authority on the matter and has given no evidence or sufficient argument to support their erroneous claims.

There are only quantum states. Whatever you and the neurologists wish to make up does not change that physicists can only find quanta. There is no glass nor is there shape. Just the probability equation and what is observed by humans. It has to be observed.

Objectivists can't stand this and are praying for the day for quantum theory to be overturned as Einstein did until his death. Sorry. No wiggle room on this one.

↪Thanatos Sand There are only quantum states.

You can keep repeating that falsehood all you like. Until you back it up with evidence and/or convincing argument; it remains the falsehood it is.

Whatever you and the neurologists wish to make up does not change that physicists can only find quanta.

The physicists find much more than quanta. You must be listening to people who just call themselves "physicists."

There is no glass nor is there shape.

There is both.

Just the probability equation and what is observed by humans.

No, there is more and there are many things existing in many galaxies unseen by humans. They exist just fine.

It has to be observed.

No, it doesn't....it really doesn't.

Sorry. Absolutely nothing but quanta. Everything else is wishful thinking of your own mind.

Sorry, as I said above:

"You can keep repeating that falsehood all you like. Until you back it up with evidence and/or convincing argument; it remains the falsehood it is."

So, the wishful thinking of one's mind is solely yours.

Evidence?? Of what?? There is nothing there except quanta. You find me the quantum definition of a teacup. It doesn't exist. You are making it up with your mind and then want to insert it into the .... where? Your own textbook on physics?

There is nothing there except quanta. — Rich

You keep saying that as if you have no idea theres' no evidence of that and you have provided none. It's cute.

You find me the quantum definition of a teacup. It doesn't exist

I don't care about the quantum definition of a teacup. Quanta is your nonsensical fixation.

You are making it up with your mind and then want to insert it into the .... where? Your own textbook on physics?

No, that describes you perfectly, not me. You're the only one whose own personal textbook on physics says "all is quanta."

I don't care about the quantum definition of a teacup. Quanta is your nonsensical fixation. — Thanatos Sand

I know you don't.

Oh, those good old days of Aristotle and Newton. We do miss them don't we? Life was so much simpler.

Oh, those good old days of Aristotle and Newton. We do miss them don't we? Life was so much simpler.

You think they're entirely gone? The quality of on-line universities must really be declining.

yeah, but turning this into a personal attack is not cool.

I made a joke. Rich started with the personal shots; I merely returned them in kind.