Sorry, my not responding to you the way you wanted me to respond isn't trolling. Your calling it such shows a real arrogance in your expectations of others.

However what I re-posted of yours in my last post was pure personal-attack trolling. So, you're showing great hypocrisy as well, Troll Ossipoff.

LOL, I agree with you of course, but since banning is an act reserved for the moderators, and I personally can't be bothered to bring little ol' Death Dirt to their attention, I'll just ignore him or her. Ignoring is equally effective if practiced with due diligence.

It's cute how John thinks that talking about someone right below their post on a thread actually constitutes "ignoring them."...:)

I think banning can only be done by administrators.

Without it, Ignoring is the only remedy that's available. But I couldn't resist suggesting that banning is called-for in this most blatant and undeniable troll-instance.

Michael Ossipoff

I don't think there is any trolling going on here. It is just the inevitable outcome of a conversation where people know the truth but they are different truths. Best to just accept the differences and move on.

There is nothing 'mere' about material. You are just underestimating the potential of material and energy to describe reality. Energised matter gives us physicalism and there is nothing that this will not ultimately explain. There is no other -ism capable of beginning to illuminate our existence.

It is just the inevitable outcome of a conversation where people know the truth but they are different truths. — Rich

Absolutely not. If you aren't an administrator, I won't ask you to read the discussion that would be needed to support this, but Thanatos was habitually insisting that I didn't show a conclusion that I set out to demonstrate.

Then, if that's so, there must be some error or fallacy among my statements and conclusions, in the posts to which Thanatos is referring.

But, when invited him to specify a particular statement or conclusion in my posts that contains that error or fallacy, he said, "No, you just didn't show it." But, if I claimed to show something, then there'd be a fallacy or false statement somewhere on the way to that conclusion, in my posts.

Obviously, it's too easy just say, "You didn't show it". How would someone answer that charge? A repetition of the discussion that I already posted? But that's already available to Thanatos, and wouldn't change anything. The answer, of course, is that, if someone says, "You didn't show it", and says that the burden isn't on him to show what's wrong with where you claimed to show it, then there's no way to answer that vague charge.

That's a common, definitive, troll-tactic. Repetition without any verification or justification.

Another typical, standard troll tactic is the habitual replying to something that wasn't said.

As someone else pointed out, there are only two possibilities:

1. Thanatos is a typical, incredibly-sloppy &/or dishonest troll.

2. Thanatos is sincere and honest, but he's quite delusional....delusional to a degree that's problematic to the decorum, order and integrity of the forum.

Either way, he's a detriment and a liability to the forum..

Michael Ossipoff

You are just underestimating the potential of material and energy to describe reality. Energised matter gives us physicalism and there is nothing that this will not ultimately explain. There is no other -ism capable of beginning to illuminate our existence. — charleton

Oh really.

How does Physicalism explain why there's this physical world which, according to Physicalism, is Reality itself. ... independently, fundamentally-existent.,

Why is there that independently, fundamentally existent physical world, that comprises all of Reality?

It's just a brute-fact, right?

That's the same as saying that Physicalism can't explain it.

The metaphysics that I propose, Skepticism, doesn't need or make any assumptions, or posit any brute fact(s).

Michael Ossipoff

Thanatos was habitually insisting that I didn't show a conclusion that I set out to demonstrate.

This is not trolling; it is called disagreeing with you, and you didn't show that conclusion you set out to demonstrate...and saying that is not "trolling" either. We are allowed to criticize or disagree with peoples opinions or modes of expressing them.

But, when invited him to specify a particular statement or conclusion in my posts that contains that error or fallacy, he said, "No, you just didn't show it." But, if I claimed to show something, then there'd be a fallacy or false statement somewhere on the way to that conclusion, in my posts.

This is not trolling either. It's called a disagreement in both content and modes of expression.

The answer, of course, is that, if someone says, "You didn't show it", and says that the burden isn't on him to show what's wrong with where you claimed to show it, then there's no way to answer that vague charge.

This is too unclear for me to say what it is, but it is also not trolling, and is not an accurate depiction of what occurred.

That's a common, definitive, troll-tactic. Repetition without any verification or justification.

Even if that were true, the only one doing such repetition was you, so you just identified yourself as a troll. I, myself, saw your repetition as just struggle.

As someone else pointed out, there are only two possibilities:

1. Thanatos is a typical, incredibly-sloppy &/or dishonest troll.

2. Thanatos is sincere and honest, but he's quite delusional....delusional to a degree that's problematic to the decorum, order and integrity of the forum.

Either way, he's a detriment and a liability to the forum..

Now all of this above is trolling and untrue. The only incredibly dishonest, sloppy, and delusional one has been you, and detrimental to the order and integrity of the forum...and that is when your posts are even semi-coherent, which is rare. You are just resorting to immature personal attacks here, which is even worse then your misrepresenting me as you did above.

So, if you are so obsessed with cleaning up trolling in the forum, I suggest you clean up your own. It has certainly been a detriment and liability to this thread.

"How does Physicalism explain why there's this physical world which, according to Physicalism, is Reality itself. ... independently, fundamentally-existent.,"
Nothing explains that. What makes you think it is explicable?
You can hardly demand the answer to such a question that nothing can explain.

"Why is there that independently, fundamentally existent physical world, that comprises all of Reality?"
You are asking a phantom question. Why do you think it is "independent". Independent of what exactly?
Physicalism is a description of what is the case. There is no where you can stand outside of it to view it independently. I think, once you have divested yourself of your disabling dualism you might be better equipped to understand the questions you are asking.

Physicalism is a description of what is the case. — charleton

Not. Physicalism is a description of what can be measured physically.

Even if we are not Only material beings as understood by materialists, it doesnt mean that we have a soul seperate from our body

Rubbish. Physicalism is not than just measurement. "Description" goes far beyond measurement.
Havce you nothing else to offer?

Physicalism is a description of what is the case. — charleton

I agree. Physicalism just states that everything is physical. Anything that exists or may be discovered is physical. (Just as Hinduism claims all religions are Hindu). Physicalism explains nothing and is not even a philosophy. It is a point of view.

The flip side of physicalism, which I embrace, is that everything is mind. I guess my approach might explain a bit more since it does explain the nature of discussion (to share ideas been minds) and the purpose for life, i.e. to experiment, explore, learn, and share.

Physicalism is a description of what is the case. — Charleton

Not. Physicalism is a description of what can be measured physically. — Wayfarer

It's my understanding that the physical world is composed of things that have a causal influence on each other. It must be that things that have a causal influence on each other are made of the same substance. If the physical world has a causal influence on our minds and our minds have a causal influence on the physical world, then it must be that they are all of the same substance - physical, mental, information, or whatever we decided to call it (and does it really matter?).

It's my understanding that the physical world is composed of things that have a causal influence on each other. It must be that things that have a causal influence on each other are made of the same substance. If the physical world has a causal influence on our minds and our minds have a causal influence on the physical world, then it must be that they are all of the same substance - physical, mental, information, or whatever we decided to call it (and does it really matter?). — Harry Hindu

This would be the case if mind/physical were given equal status.

In some cases mind is transformed into some illusion (I guess this the essence of materialism) , thus giving it less status - I suppose. This kind of thinking is hard for me to get my arms around. I prefer to think of physical being more substantial and mind being less substantial but - and this is a big but - mind being the motivator, the impetus. In this manner, the living body is a fully holistic living body.

Forgetting about mental imagery and visualization being a prime mover (though perhaps less energetically than in an as yet unexplained way) of matter is an oversight. Are dreams physical? Protein synthesis can be caused by mental imagery. The nature of photons and light appear to be closer to mind-stuff than matter stuff. The best I can do in meeting the physicalists (who oddly seem to have forgotten the new physics entire) is with neutral monism. Also, psychophysical parallelism and preestablished harmony are appealing ideas.

Whether or not you think there's such a thing as eternal or timelessness influences how you think of the mind-body problem (inasmuch as truly, nothing ever happens that isn't in this moment; yesterdays and tomorrows either were now or will be now when they happened or will happen). And if every event (past and future) is somehow superimposed on top of itself in a way we can never comprehend, it further makes sense that psychophysical parallelism and preestablished harmony may be at work in some hard to understand or impossible to understand way.

To our limited selective mechanisms, it may only appear that one event causes another; the fact we have to make observations to try to understand the universe is possibly an indicator of our limited understanding of causality. If there is a universal mind, absolute and omniscient, it doesn't have to make any observations, and so we are closer to it when we aren't making observations or trying to understand it. And indeed it is true when I'm zoning out or meditating, or in a state of deep sleep, time flies, the subjective nature of time is more obvious when making fewer observations. Causality itself comes into question.

One local event is causing another all around the universe far beyond any isolated local causality. Even though we have a small perspective of our own lives and activities, within a local sphere of causality, it has to be remembered that in a way, everything causes everything when nonlocality is introduced. Which is in fact what is happening. Everything informs everything as though it were one unfathomably monumental event. We tend to get stuck in trying to apply local causality to the big picture or to infinitude. Splitting the universe into pieces is done by human observers, not by the universe itself.

You have completely missed the point. Mind is physical. any move towards a dualism which suggests otherwise is just question begging nonsense.
Only physicalism can answer how it is that your mind can be altered by drugs. If the mind is note physical, then you have a job on your hands to say how this works.

You have completely missed the point. — charleton

Isn't that what I just said. Physicalism is like Hinduism (everything is Hindu), everything is physical. It's a point of view. If you can name it, experience it, measure it, think of it, whatever, it is physical.

Only physicalism can answer how it is that your mind can be altered by drugs. If the mind is note physical, then you have a job on your hands to say how this works. — charleton

Physicalism simply says that mind is physical, drugs are physical, chemicals are physical, molecules are physical, atoms are physical, elections are physical, electron clouds are physical, quantum it's physical, and it's all affecting each other.

Ok. Just replace physical with mind and it's all the same, only mind becomes the impetus.

Anything that has mass has energy, is matter. A thought has not mass, possibly no energy, can't be measured, therefore isn't matter...therefore all is not physical.

There is not an isomorphic correlation between chemicals, brains scans, TMS, shocking the brain and a thought. We can experience far more thoughts and qualia subjectively than can be measured physically. To limit mind to what can be measured physically is to do away with subjective reports of inner cognition. Subjective experience is still entirely impervious to physicalism, thank goodness, or my mind would be an fMRI. Whatever data you have and are trying to say IS the thought of the subject is a very strange view.

Anything that has mass has energy, is matter. A thought has not mass, possibly no energy, can't be measured, therefore isn't matter...therefore all is not physical. — Anthony

It gets tricky here. A neurologist may simply say that a thought are some little neurons going off here or there. Watch the TV show Superhuman where the resident neurologist explains everything that is happening by neurons going bang, bang, bang here and there. That is the scientific explanation for all things mind related. Sometimes he proclaims it is complicated and definitely Superhuman.

How does a thought equate to a mass of neurons? How is the chasm crossed, is a philosophical discussion not a scientific one. What I am suggesting is that the motivator of the discussion is an active, experimenting, learning, evolving mind.

"According to the law of identity, if A=B then what is true of A is true of B and vice versa."

That's worth thinking about. Suppose Jim is a burglar who has not been detected. The police know the burglar committed the burglary. But they don't know that Jim committed the burglary. So something is true of the burglar that is not true of Jim. And Jim is identical with the burglar.

.
I'd said
.

How does Physicalism explain why there's this physical world which, according to Physicalism, is Reality itself. ... independently, fundamentally-existent.,"

.
You replied:
.

Nothing explains that.

.
That's called a "brute-fact". As I said, Physicalism posits a brute-fact.
.

What makes you think it is explicable?

.
Well, for one thing, the fact that Skepticism (the metaphysics that I propose) explains it.
.

You can hardly demand the answer to such a question that nothing can explain.

.
No, but you can ask and answer a question that nothing in Physicalism can explain.
.
I agree that the inexplicable-ness of the physical world is a basic tenet of Physicalism.
.
As I said, the metaphysics that I call "Skepticism" explains it.
.
Skepticism, as I said, doesn't need or use any assumptions, or posit any brute-fact(s).
.
I’d asked:
.

"Why is there that independently, fundamentally existent physical world, that comprises all of Reality?"

.
You replied:
.

Why do you think it is "independent". Independent of what exactly?

.
That would be a good question to ask of a Physicalist. You aren’t a Physicalist, are you.
.
According to Materialism or Physicalism, the physical world is independently, fundamentally existent, and comprises all of Reality.
.
You said:
.

Physicalism is a description of what [it says] is the case.

.
Every metaphysics, including Physicalism, is a description of what it says is the case.
.

There is no where you can stand outside of it to view it independently.

.
Maybe you’re confusing or conflating Physics with Physicalism.
.
Physics seeks to describe the physical world, is workings, the interactions among its parts.
.
Physicalism is a metaphysics that says that our physical world is independently, fundamentally existent. …that this physical world is simply what is, and comprises Reality.
.
“Independently” of what? Independently of anything at all.
.
I have no quarrel with physics.
.
Physicalism posits a brute-fact, and that’s a demerit for a metaphysics.
.

I think, once you have divested yourself of your disabling dualism…

.
And what Dualism might that be :)
.
I don’t advocate a Dualism. The metaphysics that I propose, Skepticism, is an Idealism.
.

…you might be better equipped to understand the questions you are asking.

.
No, I asked you only one question.
.
And it wasn’t a complicated question. I asked you how Physicalism explains the existence of the physical world, and you answered that it doesn’t and can’t.
.
I agree with your answer. You’re saying that the physical world is a brute-fact, in Physicalism, and I agree with that too.
.
Thank you.
.
I define Skepticism, my metaphysical proposal, in a topic entitled “A Uniquely Parsimonious and Skeptical Metaphysics”, in the “Metaphysics and Epistemology” forum at this website.
.
Later in that topic-thread, I further discuss Skepticism, answering objections to it.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Physicalism is a description of what can be measured physically. — Wayfarer

You're confusing Physicalism with Physics.

Physics seeks to describe this physical world, its workings, the interactions of its parts.

Phsyicalism is a metaphysics that says that this physical world is independently, fundamentally, existent. ...and is simply what is, and is all of reality.

Michael Ossipoff

Phsyicalism is a metaphysics that says that this physical world is independently, fundamentally, existent. ...and is simply what is, and is all of reality. — Michael Ossipoff

This is what you might call a brute fact. I would call a belief.

There are as many varieties if physicalism as there are off Buddhism. I would say physicalism is a point-of-view that declares everything is physical, but then again this is my POV of physicalism.

This is what you might call a brute fact. I would call a belief. — Rich

Certainly a brute-fact is a belief, for someone who believes in the metaphysics that posits that brute-fact.

There are as many varieties if physicalism as there are off Buddhism. I would say physicalism is a point-of-view that declares everything is physical

Yes, and that the physical world exists independent of anything else, as the fundamental existent.

Michael Ossipoff


, but then again this is my POV of physicalism.[/quote]

This would be the case if mind/physical were given equal status.

In some cases mind is transformed into some illusion (I guess this the essence of materialism) , thus giving it less status - I suppose. This kind of thinking is hard for me to get my arms around. I prefer to think of physical being more substantial and mind being less substantial but - and this is a big but - mind being the motivator, the impetus. In this manner, the living body is a fully holistic living body. — Rich

What makes them equal is their causal influence on each other. We observe physical things interacting and we observe the mind interacting with physical things and vice versa. I don't see any inequality - just a bunch of stuff interacting with each other.

To our limited selective mechanisms, it may only appear that one event causes another; the fact we have to make observations to try to understand the universe is possibly an indicator of our limited understanding of causality. — Anthony

I think it is more of an indicator of the nature of knowledge/understanding itself.

If there is a universal mind, absolute and omniscient, it doesn't have to make any observations, and so we are closer to it when we aren't making observations or trying to understand it. And indeed it is true when I'm zoning out or meditating, or in a state of deep sleep, time flies, the subjective nature of time is more obvious when making fewer observations. Causality itself comes into question. — Anthony

An omniscient being doesn't need to make observations because it's mental representation of reality would mirror reality itself. The question is, "how did it's mental representation become a mirror of reality without observing (learning), as that seems to be the nature of understanding/knowledge?" Another questions would be, "what form does an omniscient being's knowledge take?" We understand the world in colors, shapes, sounds, feelings, etc. This is the form our knowledge takes - the form of the information that comes through our senses (qualia).

One local event is causing another all around the universe far beyond any isolated local causality. Even though we have a small perspective of our own lives and activities, within a local sphere of causality, it has to be remembered that in a way, everything causes everything when nonlocality is introduced. Which is in fact what is happening. Everything informs everything as though it were one unfathomably monumental event. We tend to get stuck in trying to apply local causality to the big picture or to infinitude. Splitting the universe into pieces is done by human observers, not by the universe itself. — Anthony

It seems like it has to do with our limited ability to conceptualize extremes in time and space. Over enough time and space, everything does have a causal influence on each other, eventually.

There are as many varieties if physicalism as there are off Buddhism. I would say physicalism is a point-of-view that declares everything is physical, but then again this is my POV of physicalism. — Rich

You're right in that the term is used loosely and is but one category of beliefs.
The way I've heard it distinguished (sometimes, not necessarily) is that Materialism involves what Ossipoff is denying: that material is fundamental, and that the existence of the material is thus some sort of what is being called a brute fact. Physicalism just say's we're physical things, that people are built of the material and nothing immaterial. It does not necessarily assert that the physical is fundamental, or even objectively existent.

How does Physicalism explain why there's this physical world which, according to Physicalism, is Reality itself. ... independently, fundamentally-existent.," — Michael Ossipoff

Materialism would perhaps care to address that question, but your question assumes that there is something, physical or not. So how do you explain that there is whatever you assume there is?

It seems to be a contingent truth, putting it in the realm of modal logic which requires a frame. I (whatever I am) am an existing state a frame which we'll call the universe. Existing in the universe is not the same as existing, so I (a physicalist in this context) make no such assertion of that generalization.

What makes them equal is their causal influence on each other. — Harry Hindu

In a dualist interpretation the question remains what is at the boundary? How does mind cause an action on a physical? What creates the impetus for matter to cause some action of the mind.

My own preference is to think of the two as one and the same, with different substantiality, sort of like the difference between the quanta wave and the electron (the electron being a wave perturbation).