Materialists......

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why, Paul, I agree. Your problem is that the word "physical" is already taken, just as "mind" is already taken; and they don't mean the same things to anyone except apparently you and Stimpy.

You say this every time we have a discussion about what physical means.* I offer a definition that I think makes sense. You reject it because I used the word physical instead of snork or something. So I have two choices:

I can ask you what the "correct" definition of physical is and get no response.

I can reject both materialism and physicalism and propose snorkism.

Do either of those two choices make you happier?

~~ Paul

* Note how we're discussing what physical means. This is the sort of discussion where people propose what physical means.

 

[chriswl]

I feel your pain.
No, wait. I don't feel your pain. I feel mine.

But his "private" sensations are, in a sense, observable to you, are they not? Even over the Internet.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But his "private" sensations are, in a sense, observable to you, are they not? Even over the Internet.

But apparently not quite observable enough to call them physical.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Since when does the definition of material exclude QM stuff?

As soon as QM starts talking about "uncollapsed wave functions". "Material" is the name for one half of the quantum "duality" - the quantum world as experienced by us. Specifying the nature of the quantum world when it is not being experienced by us is where the problems all start.

My definition of physical is not open-ended. If you can find things that behave illogically or truly inconsistently, or things whose governing laws cannot be determined by observation, then I'd be willing to entertain the idea that they are not physical.

How would one establish that something had governing laws which could not be determined by observation?

There can be no such thing, and even if there was I can't see why such a thing should be "non-physical".

Like inner experience. Certainly you agree that my inner experience can be observed to some degree by others.

No, I would not agree. You cannot partially observe my experiences. You cannot observe them at all. You can observe only their consequences.

To what degree does it need to be observable by others before you'd say it was physical?

I never agreed to your definition of physical in the first place. It doesn't mean anything to me.

But as a monist, don't you say that they are not dualistic, even if they seem that way?

No. The world of mind-and-matter really is dualistic. It is only from the POV of things in themselves that they are one sort of thing.

Consciousness does not have an extension in space and time?

Some components of consciousness are extended in time. None are extended in space, unless you are going to start including all of the material things you experience as being part of consciousness, which would be heading towards idealism. My fear has no extension in space.

Why does it make the word more meaningless than any other word we would use for the single existent?

Because it is already in use as a description of "material". If you use the term "neutral stuff" you are making it quite clear that you are not talking about mind and not talking about matter. If you use "physical" then this is far from clear.

If there is only one fundamental existent, then everything should appear to be that existent.

Exactly. And some things do not appear to be physical.

Call it physical, ideal, what difference does it make? If you can't get everything to fit its description, then you are not a monist.

And there is the crux of the problem. You are not supplying a meaningful description of "physical".

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Good idea. Let's let 'red' mean every possible photon wavelength.

Just helping you & Stimpy with your daffynitions, mmmkay?

Exactly. As soon as you define red as "every type of X" it can no longer mean "the red type of X".

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm not convinced I know it all--I am convinced that you don't know it all either, but that you are convinced you do.

I don't care what you are convinced about.

I know a lot about how people fool themselves and a lot about consciousness...

You, for example.

, because it interests me, and I want to know the facts.

No you don't. You think you already know them.

I think that most people could agree that consciousness is entirely in the brain or it can exist independent of the brain.

Then you would be utterly wrong.

The facts support the former.

Total rubbish.

I think we can agree that either synchronicity exists or its an illusion created by a mind that evolved to see patterns and meaning. The evidence supports the latter.

Wrong.

That is all I'm claiming--no mystical subjective truths--no claims of knowing something you can't know or that I could sell books about...I'm not the one claiming to have insight into "higher truths"--that would be you.

Wrong. You speak of absolute truth. Not me. I say "neti, neti" instead.

And so your insult would be better aimed at yourself since your "view" is the one that can not be changed no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented.

No, that is best aimed at you. Your mind is locked in a closet.

That is called "faith"--it may be great for philosophy, but it sucks for understanding the facts.

Correct. Which is why your own understanding is hopelessly crippled.

Do you have any evidence to support your claims?

More than you do for supporting yours.

Because that is all it would take to change a skeptic's mind.

You are not a skeptic. You are a pure dogmatist. I am a skeptic.

I would say it's the faith-based thinking that is impervious to logic--because who needs evidence when you just "feel" it's true.

Speak for yourself. At least I know the difference between faith and facts. You don't.

Unless you have anything new to say, I will now go back to ignoring you.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So why should anyone engage in these debates with you. You presume you have something to teach but nothing to learn?

That is why I ignore YOU, articulett. You think you have something to teach me, but nothing whatsoever to learn. You are blissfully unaware that I believed pretty much exactly what you believe for the majority of my life. I have learned nothing from you because everything you "know" I "knew" by the time I was 12.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Dude, we're talking about the one fundamental existent, not merely some subset of it. Doesn't everything have to fit its definition?

No. Everything on the level of "things in themselves" must fit the definition of "neutral stuff". Material and mental things do not.

Additionally, you have not provided a meaningful description/definition of physical. You have claimed "everything is physical" but you have not explained what "physical" means or how it relates to mind and matter. You therefore cannot even test whether everything fits the definition. You can merely claim that one day physics will describe it, whatever it is.

If not, what does it mean for a metaphysic to be a monism?

You have to claim there is only one sort of stuff and define the nature/description/definition of that stuff. Materialism, idealism and neutral monism all do this. Your version of physicalism does not.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Why, Paul, I agree. Your problem is that the word "physical" is already taken, just as "mind" is already taken; and they don't mean the same things to anyone except apparently you and Stimpy.

Exactly.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You say this every time we have a discussion about what physical means.* I offer a definition that I think makes sense.

No you haven't. You've defined physical to mean "everything" and then asked "why should anything be non-physical?".

You reject it because I used the word physical instead of snork or something. So I have two choices:

I can ask you what the "correct" definition of physical is and get no response.

I can reject both materialism and physicalism and propose snorkism.

Do either of those two choices make you happier?

No. Snorkism does not capture the essence of neutrality required.

* Note how we're discussing what physical means. This is the sort of discussion where people propose what physical means.

Except you haven't done so.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But his "private" sensations are, in a sense, observable to you, are they not? Even over the Internet.

Not over the internet. Not over a telepathy machine. Not by laying on hands. Not by "heterophenomenology". Not at all. Not ever.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But apparently not quite observable enough to call them physical.

~~ Paul

They are not observable at all. If they were observable, at all, then we could experimentally detect a p-zombie or experimentally prove that somebody was not a p-zombie. We can do neither of these things.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

As soon as QM starts talking about "uncollapsed wave functions". "Material" is the name for one half of the quantum "duality" - the quantum world as experienced by us. Specifying the nature of the quantum world when it is not being experienced by us is where the problems all start.

That's just part of an interpretation of QM. I agree that the interpretations can cause all sorts of confusion.

How would one establish that something had governing laws which could not be determined by observation?

One would observe the hell out of it and not get anywhere with a model of it. Granted, one has to be careful that one is observing something real and not just deluding oneself. And one may have to observe for a long time.

No, I would not agree. You cannot partially observe my experiences. You cannot observe them at all. You can observe only their consequences.

But that is true of everything, which is why real things are defined as things that have some effect on something else. If that is the criterion for declaring something nonphysical, then everything is nonphysical.

I never agreed to your definition of physical in the first place. It doesn't mean anything to me.

Treat it as a working definition and give it a shot. That's what you ask others to do.

No. The world of mind-and-matter really is dualistic. It is only from the POV of things in themselves that they are one sort of thing.

I don't know what that means.

Some components of consciousness are extended in time. None are extended in space, unless you are going to start including all of the material things you experience as being part of consciousness, which would be heading towards idealism. My fear has no extension in space.

The concept of fear has no extention in space, as with all other concepts. But the process by which you feel fear certainly does.

Because it is already in use as a description of "material". If you use the term "neutral stuff" you are making it quite clear that you are not talking about mind and not talking about matter. If you use "physical" then this is far from clear.

It's clear if you read the definition.

Exactly. And some things do not appear to be physical.

That depends on the definition of physical.

And there is the crux of the problem. You are not supplying a meaningful description of "physical".

You are not trying very hard. Since you can't give any other definition of physical, I don't understand why you won't try a little harder with mine. Maybe if you look for quarters while thinking about it.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Exactly. As soon as you define red as "every type of X" it can no longer mean "the red type of X".

Come on, you guys are being silly. We are talking about the single fundamental existent here, not colors or rocks or teddy bears.

Are you saying that you will not allow anyone to assign a name to the single fundamental existent? Apparently you are, because when I try, you laugh and say that I'm defining physical to include everything.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No. Everything on the level of "things in themselves" must fit the definition of "neutral stuff". Material and mental things do not.

I am not using the words material or mental. Apparently, however, you will not let me use any word except "neutral stuff."

Additionally, you have not provided a meaningful description/definition of physical. You have claimed "everything is physical" but you have not explained what "physical" means or how it relates to mind and matter. You therefore cannot even test whether everything fits the definition. You can merely claim that one day physics will describe it, whatever it is.

Of course I can't explain what physical actually means. That would be tantamount to explaining what the single fundamental existent actually is, which we agree is nonsense. I am providing a definition of physical from an epistemological viewpoint, not an ontological one. The axioms are falsifiable.

You have to claim there is only one sort of stuff and define the nature/description/definition of that stuff. Materialism, idealism and neutral monism all do this. Your version of physicalism does not.

It defines their nature from the point of view of what we can know about them. Of course I can't specify what they actually are. And materialism, idealism, and neutral monism don't either.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

I can reject both materialism and physicalism and propose snorkism.

Do either of those two choices make you happier?

No. Try "neutral monism"; that might be what you are searching for.

* Note how we're discussing what physical means. This is the sort of discussion where people propose what physical means.

Phooey. We both have very very good ideas what "physical" means.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No you haven't. You've defined physical to mean "everything" and then asked "why should anything be non-physical?".

Why should anything be something other than the fundamental existent?

They are not observable at all. If they were observable, at all, then we could experimentally detect a p-zombie or experimentally prove that somebody was not a p-zombie. We can do neither of these things.

Is a p-zombie even a coherent concept under monism?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Phooey. We both have very very good ideas what "physical" means.

Well, that was my other choice. So what is your definition of physical?

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

That's just part of an interpretation of QM. I agree that the interpretations can cause all sorts of confusion.

Before QM, no such difficulties existed. QED.

One would observe the hell out of it and not get anywhere with a model of it. Granted, one has to be careful that one is observing something real and not just deluding oneself.

Can't you see the problem here???

Unless you could empirically determine the laws by which it behaves then somebody will always claim it is mere delusion. There is no way around this. You cannot have it both ways.

And one may have to observe for a long time.

Like.....lots of synchronicity?

But that is true of everything....

No it is not. It is not true of the pain I just felt when I lost my footing on the step-ladder and smashed my funny bone. You could have observed my swearing and seen that I was in pain, but you are no closer to knowing how that pain felt to me. It is not true of the pain I felt when I passed a stone from my salivary gland. I've never felt anything like that before. I hope I never pass a kidney stone, that's all I can say. I don't want to know what that feels like. Watching some-else experience it is not the same.

, which is why real things are defined as things that have some effect on something else.

That definition is useless. Do minds have causal power?

I don't know what that means.

What don't you understand about it?

The concept of fear has no extention in space, as with all other concepts. But the process by which you feel fear certainly does.

My fear itself has no extension in space. It does not have a physical location.

It's clear if you read the definition.

That depends on the definition of physical.

You are not trying very hard. Since you can't give any other definition of physical, I don't understand why you won't try a little harder with mine.

Because your definition of physical includes "potentially everything". It has no limit. It doesn't mean anything.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Come on, you guys are being silly. We are talking about the single fundamental existent here, not colors or rocks or teddy bears.

Are you saying that you will not allow anyone to assign a name to the single fundamental existent?

No, I am saying I will not allow anyone to assign a name that is already in use unless they can explain exactly what they mean, and why they are overloading this name.

Apparently you are, because when I try, you laugh and say that I'm defining physical to include everything.

That is precisely what you are doing. You define physical to mean "everything" and to mean nothing else. So it doesn't mean anything. It is a tag which can be attached to everything which exists. We already have a word for that : "exists". If something exists we say "X exists". You are now just saying "X is physical" instead, and then claiming that there is no reason why minds can't be physical. You are just redefining "exists" as "is physical". That is NOT what "physical" has ever meant.