:grin: :up:

I don't think time is real in the sense it exists outside of our minds. Assume time has a beginning, call it point X. We can always ask for any point like X the question, "what time was it before X?", implying time extends to infinity in the past. Yet, if the past is infinite, how on earth did we reach this point in time? Since the paradox arises because we assume time to be something as real as space, we must discard the idea of time being real. :confused: — TheMadFool

I agree. Particularly in context of the BB; something outside of time presumably created the energy necessary for time itself. But if time always existed in some way, shape or form sort-a-speak, then we are back to regressive (infinitely regressive) turtle power! Perhaps no less absurd than multiverse theories.

That is the question: What is the use of reading something that the author himself has made illegible? — David Mo

I think you have to pick your poison in order to make your case (whatever case you're making). I think a lot of good philosophy or philosophically good ideas, get tripped into weeds with sometimes an extraneous amount of details that otherwise distract form a good thesis. Like Kant (someone mentioned him), the jist of his arguments relate to attacking the various ways of thinking, one being formal logic and its limitations.

As a broad brush, because philosophy lives in words, and since the way we think (our existence/consciousness) itself remains unexplained, almost all philosophy tends to get caught up in the weeds unintentionally. In a way, it's like blind leading the blind. When reading much of philosophy, I find you've got to be able to stay with the intentions behind the original theory and don't get too distracted with the extraneous stuff.

Using a simple analogy of mechanical engineering (engines), where the basic design premise of an internal combustion engine is simply spark and fuel/air. We can discuss all the attributes of what makes it run more efficiently and more powerful. However, if one stumbles too heavily into the weeds about how gasoline, steel or electrical wiring is manufactured and/or imported, you can easily get lost in the original idea of how the engine is supposed to work.

Or consider yet another analogy over discussing the philosophy of music. One can certainly posit theories about the harmonics and nature of music itself, and the phenomena relative to the human perception if it. And they can also discuss music theory, (chords, scales, modes, cadences, etc..) however, if one were to get into the weeds about what kind of saxophone, guitar, piano is best, including all the discussions about amplification (one guitar over the other, this amp v. that amp, ad nauseum) then one becomes equally distracted from the intention behind arguing about the philosophy of music itself. The instrument is just a means to an end, the end being creating the sounds of music.

Some philosophy is rhetorical too... . Reminds me of Dennett's book on consciousness unexplained. It's another thick book that in the end, starts at the beginning. That beginning being mystery.

TMF!

Simple question (well maybe not so simple), could an interminable amount of regressive turtle power suggest infinity and/or eternity of time exists?

think it only seems subordinate or de-emphasised in relation to the importance you appear to attribute to it. The ‘aesthetic object’ is an arbitrary division, so why would I need to emphasise it? — Possibility

Because we are subjects looking at subjects (or 'subjective objects'), which in turn are making judgements about each other's aesthetic existence. And the arbitrariness is that which we cannot escape from (AKA: Kierkegaardian subjectivity), nor as we've said, would we necessarily want to. We enjoy the freedom to make such arbitrary judgements about aesthetical existence, otherwise in our context here, we are back to pre-arranged marriages, and that sort of thing... .

Alternatively, a very simple example using pragmatics (the philosophical approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application) you must be able to explain why say, the cosmetic industry; clothing, shoes, health and fitness, (any thing having to do with appreciation of the human body) etc. etc. still thrives.

It may be inspired by attending to physical beauty, but relation to an ‘object’ isn’t necessary for this faculty to operate. So I would argue that the aesthetic ‘object’ is being used as a crutch. — Possibility

What do you mean by crutch? Are you suggesting we are brains in a jar?

Kant’s third metaphysical faculty begins with awareness that our experience transcends our conceptual reality. Kant’s ‘first moment’ refers to an interoception of affect that suggests an ‘indeterminate concept’ - a qualitative aspect of experience — Possibility

And that is the arbitrary subjectiveness of the aesthetical judgement that transcends logic. The metaphysical component is that which cannot be explained, yet has universal communicability. Much like part of the physical phenomenon (Eros) of Love ("I don't know why I love him/her I just feel connected").

It’s only if we fail to perceive someone as more than an object, that aesthetics seems to be important. — Possibility

And so if you choose to subordinate the aesthetical phenomenon to the point of denial, you are no better off. You've dichotomized your theory as being tantamount to brains in a jar.

Why not?

Again, that is what the mathematics of the big bang theory describes. — Banno

No exceptions taken. I'm supprised though, I didn't think you'd acquiesce to Deity.

that is, time started with the big bang. — Banno

I see. That would mean a creation event occurred. Kind of like when St. Augustine proclaimed that the world was made with time and not in time which is precisely the modern scientific position.

Surely you don't believe that do you?

I think you would be making stuff up if you were to try and argue that. Kind of like arguing multiverse.

3. There is no "before the big bang". — Banno

Are you sure? That seems to be patently false because energy was created prior to the Big Bang.

F-it. I'm done, this is giving me anxiety with your constant convolution of the discussion or constant re-adjusting of positions/lines of argumentation. I'm going to take the advice I should have from the other few posters I directly asked about this discussion or you and just stop. — substantivalism

Well, I'm sorry you feel frustrated enough to throw in the towel. I was just getting ready to provide some additional fodder to digest. Meaning, there are other features of conscious existence that are equally as mysterious ( aside from how the conscious and subconscious works together). With respect to metaphysics, (the Will) as we've been discussing, does in fact function in other mysterious ways during cognition/everydayness.

For instance,

• St. Thomas, the Intellectualist, had argued that the intellect in man is prior to the will because the intellect determines the will, since we can desire only what we know. Scotus, the Voluntarist, replied that the will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know.

"

can stand up and move my arms. Yes, you can do two things at once and here you are doing one thing (daydreaming) while not doing another as efficiently or not doing entirely at all (driving). How is this contradictory? — substantivalism

Because it transcends logic: bivalence/LEM.

you will support your burden of proof on christianity? That Jesus really existed or was god.
21h — substantivalism

Yes, Jesus existed. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? I'm still confused regarding your burden of proof argument.

Does the mind occupy a space? — Daniel

Great question.

Consider that in consciousness during human cognition when neurons interact with each other they end up having a weight to them. Then consider the computer analogy where memory is full and presumably there is no more space.

Then also consider when two computers are talking to each other like on a lan Network they presumably are occupying a 'simultaneous space'. This could be further analogized to going to a concert being in the same space and time having reactions to the same music being heard. Music itself is conveyed through space-time and the harmonics of moving air.

This little synopsis seems to suggests space is required for the mind to function and presumably exist.

Kant’s argument is against Cartesian dualism - I get that, which is why I referred to it as a hurdle. Both theories are forms of metaphysical dualism, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to defend. My point was that ‘metaphysical’ is often mistaken to mean ‘other than physical’, but I would argue that it’s inclusive of ‘physical’. — Possibility

Agreed. If you agree to your own interpretation of the ' inclusive ' nature from the aesthetic experience, then the question becomes how do you subordinate the aesthetic object itself? Your philosophy thus far has not emphasized this phenomenon. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, your theories de-emphasized that.

And so as Kant realized, the metaphysical phenomena (he calls judgment) as a result of the physical appearance(s).translate to human sentience. In other words, once the subject observes the object (or another subject/person), there is a feeling apprehended and/or apperceived through cognition and the senses. Have you accounted for that in your theory? This is fundamental to aesthetics, and in our discussion, phenomena associated with romantic love and physical appearances of each gender.

does a subject whose faculties of imagination and understanding are in ‘free play’ - with a state of mind that is non-conceptual - relate perceptually to another subject presumed to be in a similar state of mind? How does Kant’s three forms of ‘judgement’ operate here? And what does it mean to relate to such a subject with ‘pure aesthetic judgement’? — Possibility

I interpret 'free play' as our cognitive stream of consciousness. Thoughts randomly appear in our consciousness during say, daydreaming and when computing concepts of sense perception, which include memory, apriori and a posteriori apperception, etc. etc. (otherwise during everydayness of cognition/normal recall ). The universal communicability is the metaphysical reaction to the object viewed. Meaning, we might say we love that car, that guitar, that house, that whatever object being apperceived (or we may not love it/them). Hence this sense of judgment.

The notion of a pure aesthetic judgment is very intriguing, I think. As a comparison, if we consider pure logic as comprising the axioms of formal logic ( which in part he critiqued), what would we consider pure metaphysical sentience? In other words, if every subject ( human) had feelings and judgments about physical objects ( which we do) and other subjects, what would be this pure aesthetic judgment(s)?

We could not compute it like formal logic and mathematics. Instead, we compute it subjectively. And that subjectivity includes mostly, metaphysical sentience. In our context, I think that is the 'power' that we can associate with the feelings of romantic love and/or Eros. Perhaps Kant might say it is the phenomenon of subjects observing or perceiving other subjects.

And so, the general or basic takeaway remains, how important is the aesthetical judgment to romantic love and/or the traditional Greek theory of Eros (not Platonic/Eros/love)? If it's not purely of a logical nature, it nonetheless is a universally subjective judgment about subjective objects. In a physical world, how can we escape this sentience and subjective judgment(s), or should we even try? If we deny this, I think we are brains in a jar.

What you mean consciousness can do two things at once? It can only be conscious of experiences and those it isn't are called unconscious. I'm waiting for your explanation of how our brain and all the surgeries that go into fixing people every year don't have any connection to our conscious experience or effect it (that these life saving surgeries are in fact meaningless because they don't get your philosophy?)? You are at a loss scientifically/experientially. . . remember that jumping in front of a bus will get you killed. — substantivalism

Driving and daydreaming to the point of distraction and accidental death.

Not sure I'm connecting the dots on your logic associated with performing brain surgery.

Jesus was a real person and was human then yes, stupid, he would have a consciousness just like me. Feel free to support that he did really exist, did anything he was claimed to have done in the bible, or was the son of god. — substantivalism

Great, there actually might be agreement there. You passed history 101!

What your stance lacks in strength is due to the missing female and the all-male equation; it even rubs off in your own mind with boring God logic. — opt-ae

Interesting. Are you suggesting that God has a gender?

Literally, consult actual scientists on this matter who have given time/resources to investigating the relationships between evolutionary theory, biology, chemistry, physics, etc. Especially since while you may be perhaps skeptical of the relationship between our experiences and the phenomenon that give rise to our experiences certain relationships are highly well proven to be consistent or reproducible. Such as having interactions with the "physical" brain affect how an individual experiences the world around them even if this relationship truly is merely coincidentally linked rather than purely casual (you haven't told me what this means by you or your position on it, non-humean or humean) or emergent such as in substance dualism — substantivalism

Are you familiar with mathematical/physicists Paul Davies, John Wheeler, Roger Penrose... ? I hate to drop names, but you might want to study some of their theories relative to physical existence (and metaphysical) and science.

Otherwise, regarding "brains" I think now would be the time to explore cognitive science/psychology relative to consciousness/sub consciousness and how it works, since it appears you are at a loss philosophically. Think about that question regarding how consciousness can do two things at once, then provide your theories. Or, if there is a psychologist that supports whatever view you have, please share.

Jesus in christian philosophy/theology is said to either be equivalent to god (triune) or truly a mortal counterpart to him. Whatever the case this is mystery (assuming I even partake in this philosophy) to how JESUS could be both human as well as god. It's a mystery about this particular individual and not about existence in general. Unless you are claiming, like a solipsist, that i'm a god or god himself but just don't know it as well as cannot access higher order abilities associated with such a thing. — substantivalism

You're actually starting see this existential mystery and/or paradox. Jesus had a consciousness just like you. And just like you, your own consciousness is a mystery, to you.

There is possibly a way to define "God" and "not God", but it's nothing like Christianity and is scientific. — opt-ae

Are you sure? I thought the history of Jesus' existence defined God? Meaning, Jesus had a conscious mind, yet the explanation of which is germane to the mystery associated with existence, even your own existence, no?

Sounds paradoxical, yes?

Now you are truly a creationist who doesn't understand that evolutionary theory and cosmology/physics are different scientific disciplines or here you're mixing it up with philosophy. You are also blatantly just asserting without evidence/arguments that consciousness, music, mathematical ability, what we call the will, temporal assumptions, or casual intuitions cannot arise through such a theory. — substantivalism

I certainly don't know how metaphysical phenomena (the nature of conscious existence) can emerge from Darwinian evolutionary, survival of the fittest kinds of logic, can you?

Are you knew to the english language? — substantivalism

nulla sed tibi videor esse, cum tua spelling

am but are neurobiologists/neuro-chemistry unable? Are you going to jump ahead on me once more and assume that because I don't in particular know (nor do you) you are going to assume it's a philosophical/scientific mystery that will never be resolved or assume basely that therefore your answer (a form of non-classical logic?) is correct? Which fallacy will you commit? — substantivalism

It appears that your response is indeed acknowledgement that you're without an appropriate answer to the question LOL

Depends on what parts of brain were responsible for correct motor control and what parts were responsible for daydreaming as well as whether you would or could assign the label of conscious/unconscious to certain processes or to others. You are readily conscious of the day dream you are indulging in and those experiences are like a movie that doesn't entirely (or not at all) come from conscious influence but from parts of the brain that you are not in complete conscious control of or the unconscious. — substantivalism

Are you unable to answer the question as to whether it was your subconscious or conscious that was doing the daydreaming while driving, at the same time?

I'm asking why you only want to seem to discuss language? — substantivalism

Language? You mean phenomenology and metaphysics.

But you also wrote that something is or isn't metaphysical when you really mean't is it something we can study under the discipline of philosophy called metaphysics not that it was actually metaphysical (made of metaphysics)? — substantivalism

You mean it's that which transcends physics?

Can you actually tell me you watched the video I sent describing correctly evolution? — substantivalism

It doesn't account for metaphysical phenomena, consciousness, music, mathematical ability, causation, the Will, the illusion of time, etc.. etc., therefore, it is not comprehensive enough. Is it?

Did you. Metaphysics is a discipline that studies the things he mentions in the video. What i've been telling you this whole time. — substantivalism

Is that not what we're doing? I'm confused now.

Exactly certain things are studied by metaphysicians such as the mind or physical reality but there is nothing that is metaphysical only studied by metaphysicians. — substantivalism

Did you not comprehend the video?

You're playing a semantics game like calling the universe god and not defining what you mean by god or merely just having the word "god" be a place holder for other terms. Maybe when I say god I mean that chair across from me but that is both useless and meaningless to do, so why are you doing it? — substantivalism

You keep asking me to define God, and so, am I not telling you what you want to hear? With respect to Ontology and bivalence/vagueness/logic, etc., ask yourself whether your consciousness or subconscious was to blame when you die in a car accident while daydreaming? Was it your consciousness or subconscious driving the car?

You seem to be struggling with Metaphysics, this may/may not help you (short easy to understand video):

Oh you mean you mean you abused someone in other threads, the horror. — substantivalism

Well, if you want to call a first round knock-out being abusive, well, that's your call :snicker:

Yes, so if call a tree a truck then a truck is a tree and vice versa. Basically you are fucking language raw if I may put in less appealing or rather disgusting terminology. You're using linguistic shorthand to describe the same exact concepts using a new word and adding nothing to the discussion. — substantivalism

Really?

Tree=plant
Cosmological God=mathematics
Ontological God=the color red.

And your point?

Actually, with respect to Ontology/Epistemology and logic, I personally prefer my definition which is, God is a mottled color of red. Think of a red apple whose color from a distance appears red, but on closer examination is not red, but a mottled color of red. And so in logic, it becomes red and not red, P and not-P (principle of Vagueness/Bivalence) which in turn transcends the laws of excluded middle. And so in Ontology, the analogy would be that your consciousness and subconsciousness working together also violates such formal laws of non-contradiction. Meaning, you yourself, and your conscious existence, are not purely of a logical nature.

You abuse peoples quotes and don't seem to justify it? :chin: — substantivalism

You're confusing a discussion I had with Jorndoe awhile back on another thread. You may want to bow out of the discussion there.

Yes but it's not a substance it's a discipline of study. That may or may not include scientific methodology or the natural sciences which DEPEND on our personal or shared experiences for pragmatic value. — substantivalism

So consciousness (in part Metaphysics) is not real?

It may not be required for survival but this doesn't mean it couldn't have arisen by traits that were naturally selected including our ability to vocalize and communicate rather complex ideas to other members of our species. You only need to add in bits of creativity and formulate the same evolutionary helpful vocalizations into forms our ancestors or later viewed as appealing to their ears. Our parents needed to survive but not every single thing they thought, did, or performed needed to some how lead to their utmost survival or contribute to it only the net outcome of their choices needed lead to their survival. Also define what modern evolutionary theory is. You haven't shown to me that you understand evolutionary theory is so define it.

There is no such thing as macro versus micro evolution there is only evolution period. — substantivalism

I'm at a loss over your point. How does that address the nature of music theory, and Darwinian survival value.? Again, is music theory metaphysical?

Ontological god is consciousness" so you are not calling consciousness, consciousness, but calling it god. So you are playing a semantics game. — substantivalism

Think of it this way; red is red (God is red). Or alternatively, in cosmology, God is mathematics.

Why did you quote mine? — substantivalism

Not following you on that one.

Also stop using the word metaphysical as a representation of substances there already exist words for that it's a word that represents a discipline of study. You can study music in music theory but nothing is made of music theory. — substantivalism

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies once wrote that metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature, and the purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying reality and order. The relationship between mind and matter, and the existence of free will. Some just truncate it by saying the nature of existence.

With respect to mind and matter, is music theory metaphysical? We've already ruled out that it's not required for Darwinian survival. So please share your thoughts :chin:

Confucius he say, "Stick in water chestnut make good party food." — unenlightened

And a good Latino friend once said, " I have party in my panks!!"

LOL, sorry it's almost Friday!

Do you think we understand stuff on a day to day basis without abstractions? My actions might be specified, but my beliefs which show themselves within them are often conceptual. Concepts seem a lot like abstractions to me - being generalisations from experience.

So I imagine that it's an inescapable source of error in philosophy, but simply because it's an inescapable source of error everywhere - the world won't always behave in the ways I expect it to. — fdrake

Well said fdrake! How existential of you!!

Einstein's sentiment was roughly that a- and theist fanatics alike weren't his cup of tea. — jorndoe

No exceptions taken. And your point? BTW, I hate to offer this observation or admonishment, but you had been sadly misguided about God not being inclusive of most philosophy, so you've got your work cut out for you to reestablish credibility... :snicker: In other words, what other fanatical misrepresentations are you willing to regurgitate?

Define god. Also, what do I believe in all knowing telepath? — substantivalism

Did we not cover this ground already? I'm not sure if you're on a fishing expedition or a witch hunt, but in any case let me be cordial and repeat: The cosmological God is that which is a mathematical and metaphysical abstract.

As it relates to our recent discussion about conscious existence, the ontological God is consciousness (via the Christian God/Jesus) which is once again, part of a metaphysical phenomena.

3017amen is a tarbaby troll. I notice that somewhere above he calls the Bible a history book. Winning against such is not only not well-defined, it's not defined at all. Which may give some insight into religious massacres of the middle ages. The only thing to do with a tarbaby is to turn it loose and resolve not to be drawn into grabbing at it next time or any time. — tim wood

Timmy!

Not to digress too terribly on such a commentary of human nature, but I see a few ironies emerging here relative to that human condition, and the approach to challenging your (and perhaps other atheists) belief systems.

You mentioned history book. In that same history book, ad hominem is certainly nothing new under the sun (OT/wisdom books/Ecclesiastes). Meaning, in NT, as many of us know, the Scribes and Pharisees often felt uncomfortable (and threatened of course) for reasons we are all too familiar with. Sad, but worth noting in this case. Actually, it is quite existential if you care to ponder those implications.

The modern day observation from Einstein I could not agree more with. He correctly concluded that the atheist's "fanaticism"was alive and well. Again just something worth noting and/or being aware of... .

In my personal observation or experience, I do notice that during spirited debates about EOG, hiding behind ad hominem seems to be the rule rather than the exception. It may provide for a false sense of empowerment, not sure. In any case, fast-forwarding, that human dynamic usually translates into political pivoting first (avoiding answering tough questions), then when pressed or left without options, relegating the subject to either attacking the process or personal ad hominem.

But it's all good, like I say, nothing new under the sun there.

No some parts of consciousness may be non-reductive to their physical counterparts or be entirely different substances (or have different ontological grounding, sufficient reasoning, intrinsic properties, etc). Metaphysical attributes of god? What attributes, maybe you could DEFINE IT. — substantivalism

That would contradict what you said about the metaphysical will to live, no?
With respect to metaphysical attributes of God, sure the cosmological God is mathematically abstract, and the God of consciousness is both material and immaterial. Both of them share metaphysical features of existence.

Both. — substantivalism

I'm intrigued with psychology and cognitive science. What was it again you wish to explore there? I think you were asking about what modern medicine was required to help fight disease and so forth, so I'm not sure how that's germane. Nevertheless, would you care to talk about pathology and the human condition? Seems like that would relate more to the phenomena of human motivation(s).

Then it isn't physicalism it's panpscychism. Also, define what physicalism is. — substantivalism

A modern form of Materialism, correct? And your point?

I'm actually an ignostic in this discussion now because you haven't defined god. DEFINE GOD. — substantivalism

Well, the Christian Bible is a history book. And in that book, God became man, who also had a conscious existence. Does that provide for your definition in real terms?

Something can't come from nothing therefore there was always something. — substantivalism

Are you sure there was always something? How so?

Does it exist in reality and or is an activity executed by entities that exist? Then it's STUDIED by metaphysicians/physicists. It isn't just metaphysical? — substantivalism

Exception taken as noted: It is both. If you wanted to discuss the Will (desire/goals/purpose) within the framework of cognition and cognitive science/psychology now would be a good time :snicker:

Not every feature of an animals growth of evolution has to 100% always benefit it. There are little biological advantages to your appendix and perhaps it once did have a use but now it doesn't. Still fully explained by evolution. Remember the critical thinking skills that lead to better survival given sedentary/agricultural life styles later gave rise to these thoughts not the other way around. Stop talking like a stereotypical creationist. — substantivalism

Forgive me, but that sounds like a politician pivoting. Otherwise, it still contradicts Darwinism. It still holds that there are no biological advantages to metaphysical features of conscious existence , some of which I already mentioned (mathematics, music, the Will, wonderment, Love, etc.). You can talk around it, but I suggest rather than deny it, acquiesce to its brute fact. Have you studied existentialism? (Of course you haven't, sorry.)

How would a person who desired to not live and made it their goal continue surviving? — substantivalism

They wouldn't. But instinct would preclude it. Get it?

Also it seems you still don't want to discuss substance metaphysics and would rather keep using a discipline to talk about what ontological things exist? — substantivalism

Sure. Consciousness exists, right? And your point?

1. Yes, let's investigate that with scientifc, mathematical, and metaphysical rigor. I never said it was both true and false at the same time I don't know whether it is true or false which isn't equivalent to the positive claim that it is true/false at the same time. This is a claim about my amount of knowledge required to answer the question. . . not an answer to the question.
2. Are asking about wonderment or how we build causal intuitions? Make up your mind and stop gish galloping.
3. Where does the knowledge exist? — substantivalism

1. Okay, so you are unsure. It proves another point about the mystery of your own existence.
2.Both.
3. In consciousness. Can you explain your consciousness?

How is instinct all that's needed for existence? — substantivalism

Because lower life forms exist on instinct, emergence, etc. etc.. Not because they are self-aware Beings.

Here's the thing, people who exercise love and those that don't survive making them both fit for their environments. Cave men had no knowledge of calculus but survived and people today become experts in it but also survive so in both scenarios THEY WERE FIT FOR THEIR ENVIRONMENT. Natural selection isn't just bad evolved traits or good ones but also neutral traits that may or may not impact at some time your survival rate. So people without said traits would be said to perhaps evolve just as fit as those with them and good/bad traits could later serve no use. — substantivalism

So are you saying metaphysical phenomena are not required for survival? If so, you need to explain why they exist.

Though, to survive in our concrete jungles today you are required to know these thing lest you not get the best jobs available, survival of the fittest at work again. — substantivalism

That would not square with Darwinism. It does however square with post-modernism. And that would suggest subordination of the instinct toward rather the higher reaches of human nature and/or existential angst. And then in turn, leads to consciousness, self-awareness, metaphysics, purpose, will, love, phenomenology, etc. etc.. You know all that human condition kind of stuff :snicker:

Try defining consciousness without appealing to science or losing sight of our personal experience/everything in scientific psychology to date. — substantivalism

Sure! Part of consciousness is metaphysical, no? Some say there are attributes of God that are metaphysical too, yes?

Tell me why a person should take medication to deal with brain related illnesses. From your perspective? — substantivalism

Are you referring to medical science or psychology?

Materialism is a much older and somewhat outdated term that is usually seen as synonymous with modern day philosophical approaches to defining physicalism. Materialism implies to me somewhat of an ancient outdated physics at attempting to understand the world through basic collisional mechanics (a la descarte). An ontology that most physicists definitely probably don't hold onto and have added onto their ontology many more entities those in previous philosophical traditions of materialism would have scoffed at. Again, DEFINE PHYSICALISM? You do it. — substantivalism

Physicalism must accept that panpsychism is true. Meaning, in panpsychism, the belief is that everything material, however small, has an element of individual consciousness. I'm not necessarily a panpsychist, however, it remains just another belief system. Just like your belief system.

No, just that literally historically it came before it. They can have or possess overlapping features that perhaps were similar in many ways but different in others. — substantivalism

No exceptions taken.

Can you tell me why we should or shouldn't give material medicine to people to treat physical/material/mental problems. — substantivalism

There is no reason not to is there?

I don't know you and did not know this. DEFINE GOD. — substantivalism

I'm a Christian Existentialist. I don't have to, but the atheist does. Otherwise, who would know the mind of God? You don't even understand your own mind (consciousness) and how it works, so how can you expect, using that same undefined consciousness, to define yet another's? Isn't it blind leading the blind? Of course it is.

Alternatively, some link God to causation. Accordingly, I would take no exceptions to that first-cause view of cosmology. For all we know, eternity and turtles were caused too :snicker: . There exists something; not nothing. Nevertheless, you must know something that we don't know, so please feel free to share LOL

you mean most philosophers who care to actually discuss the topic use that term. DEFINE the WILL. Nothing is metaphysical (substance wise) there are things that are studied by metaphysicians and perhaps (under certain definitions of said disciplines) not studied by them. Is the study of metaphysics itself doing metaphysics? — substantivalism

Will= Desire. Is desire not metaphysical?

If you designed the world perhaps that may be how it turned out but this is reality. . . the actual world. . . and it does contain things which act out being conscious as well as possess these desires/goals which themselves can be seen as highly complicated assemblages of instinctual effects but also past experiences, our self-awareness, our understanding of more complex concepts, etc. All of which i'm waiting for you say contradict evolution, physics, chemistry, our understanding of psychology, sociology, etc. — substantivalism

It contradicts Darwinism. There are no biological advantages to metaphysical features of conscious existence , some of which I already mentioned (mathematics, music, the Will, wonderment, Love, etc.). And your point?

You need to always specify at least (simplified down) a goal together with desires with most actions as you usually do something to attain something else you instinctually, consciously, or un-consciously hope to attain. — substantivalism

Why would this become a need, so that it precludes suicide? Seems like the logic of metaphysical necessity (your desires/goals) is causing you to stay alive then, no?

see you are now ignorant of metaphysics as you keep using metaphysics as if it's a substance rather than just talk about substance metaphysics. Where do emergent phenomenon or reductive substances fit into your perspective? — substantivalism

You may want to study Kant and Schopenhauer. (You've got to do the training to debate with me.) But to answer your question succinctly, emergence seems to work just fine with lower life forms, but not higher levels of conscious existence and self-awareness.

1. It could be true and could be false. . . IF YOU DEFINED WHAT YOU MEAN BY CAUSE. Until you define it I don't even know whether it's probable, improbable, logically contradictory, or likewise coherent. What is this causation you keep talking about OR GOD WHAT IS GOD HERE?
2. Intuition and past experiences. Many PHILOSOPHERS have used the idea that we see one experience always lead to another together with concrete solid waking experiences enforce perhaps a casual intuition. Whether this always extends (the hole argument in general relativity and certain interpretation of quantum mechanics) is a different unanswered question DEPENDING WHAT YOU MEAN BY CAUSATION.
3. Is it impossible to form in a mind? — substantivalism

I'll enumerate them in a respective fashion:

1. Well then, there appears to be mystery to your physical existence, no? Otherwise, how can something be both true and false at the same time :snicker:
2. But that doesn't explain how your sense of wonderment works.
3.Not sure that's really a coherent answer, can you restate that please?

Natural selection and survival of the fittest in evolutionary theory really only care about whether the animal survives or not in its environment. Even a reasonably over weight person in a tall building programming is surviving right now and thusly fit for his environment. Though, why CRITICAL thinking skills wouldn't be biologically/selectively preferred is up to you to support — substantivalism

Sure. As I've mentioned previously, how does knowing the laws of gravity help me survive in the jungle, when I have the ability to dodge falling objects without such knowledge? How does musical theory provide for survival of the fittest, how does your Will (desire /goals) provide for natural selection when instinct is all that's needed for existence, the feelings of Love are not required for survival either...etc.,etc. etc..

In consciousness, those metaphysical languages or phenomena are all quite perplexing, no?

LOL

In my view, distinguishing a ‘metaphysical component’ is a misunderstanding of metaphysics. Cartesian dualism is a difficult hurdle. Subject-object fails to recognise either the experiential relation of the ‘object’, or the material relation of the ‘subject’ — Possibility

I'm not referring to Cartesian dualism. I referring to Kant's theory of aesthetics, which is metaphysical. Hopefully you will stay on-board with that. This takes Eros to yet another level.