Not Everything Is Physical

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 1731
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by Skepdick » Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:03 am

I Like Sushu wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:59 am
Of course. The definition of ‘psychologism’, or any -ism, was part and parcel of the whole debate around the 1900’s. In crude terms ‘psychologism’ suggests Logic is purely a human creation.
Which would lead to another unresolvable debate. What is the difference between a human creation and human discovery?

If we created logic by introspecting deeply about ourselves, does that mean it's discovered in the depths of our psychology, or created by our powers of observation?

I don't know how to decide between either nomenclature, so how about the claim: Logic comes from humans.
Logic/Mathematics is just a language. An engineered one. But it's still a language.

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by I Like Sushu » Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:34 am

I have hard time dealing with the reduction of everything to a matter of “what do you mean?” yet at the same time all too often find myself grasping for clarity and asking others that very question! :D

Through investigation we have managed, practical scientific terms, to be astute enough to figure out that not all the observed phenomenon (I use the the singular due to my own perverse views btw ;)) are necessary for some perceived outcome. In this sense we discover mistakes rather than reveal what is ... yet keep on keeping on with a seeming fascination for greater ‘efficiency’.

All that is just words though! I am interested in the term “creative” too and I’m not entirely sure what being “creative” means - on a personal level - because what I ‘create’ in an artistic sense is more or less a refinement of partly random occurrences. I kind of equate this to brain function in how ‘consciousness’ generally acts as an inhibitory manner rather than as something action led. Something, vaguely speaking, like we have some degree of choice what not to choose (“we” being the consciousness that plans ... I hate language! It is what it is though - s that’s my position in regard to psychologism, the universe isn’t of my making, but I certainly have dubious filters than present an approximation of something ‘extraneous’ rather than purely internalised.

I’ll shut up now and go back to reading my book ... laters!

Belinda
Posts: 2806
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by Belinda » Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:34 am

RCSaunders wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:15 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 10:59 pm
So says the moron who claims that humans are the only animals with a mind.
Not even all humans have minds. Minds only remain so long as they are used. Most people cease using them because they find thinking too difficult. It's easier to just believe whatever is popular, whatever one is taught, whatever they see on TV or whatever irrational sentiments and emotions they substitute for thinking.
The brain-mind never is never entirely at rest.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 698
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by Sculptor » Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:14 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:14 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:16 pm
You can invent many fantastic things, those that might exist and many that could never exist. But to demonstrate those things you need the physical. And, it has to be said, you could not invent them without the physical - a brain.
Or without a physical body, either, since you could not have a brain without a physical body.

But you can have a brain without consciousness, a living brain, like those in a permanent coma.
I think you might be mistaken here. It is not really possible to tell if some consciousness continues. Certainly awareness of the outside world can end completely.
For people, like yourself that deny the brain as the sole source of consciousness, the fact the people can make complete recoveries from a coma is a challenge to your view, since you would have to account for where the consciousness goes, and how it manages to come back.
For those accepting that the brain is the source of consciousness, the coma, reinforces the view that consciousness is brain activity.

The consciousness of the higher animals and human beings is conscious by means of the neurological system, which includes the brain, just as brains exist by means of the physical body, but...

brains do not invent anything.
Non sequitur
It is the conscious mind that is capable of choice, intellectual knowledge, and reason by which all creation and invention are achieved.
Since there is no mind without a healthy brain; no choice without a healthy brain; not knowledge intellectual or otherwise; no reason then you are just talking nonsense.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by RCSaunders » Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:27 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:37 am
RCSaunders wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:15 am
Not even all humans have minds. Minds only remain so long as they are used. Most people cease using them because they find thinking too difficult. It's easier to just believe whatever is popular, whatever one is taught, whatever they see on TV or whatever irrational sentiments and emotions they substitute for thinking.
Then, I have sufficient evidence for the claim that you don't have a mind either.

You are using the popular terms "physical", "material", "ontology" and "metaphysics" rather than designing our own taxonomy.

You are using the same ideas Philosophers have been regurgitating for 30000 years and you are calling them your own.

I guess it's easier than thinking for yourself...
I use the English language because it is the one I know best and is the one most widely used and understood in the world. It's a perfectly good language, and it would be stupid to invent my own for communication since no one else would understand it.

Most of the things I know I've learned from others who came before me and discovered or developed those things. By learned, I do not mean simply believed or accepted, I mean working to understand the concepts and ideas so I know why they are true if they are. Most of the things others have tried to teach me are not true.

The terms I use are the ones most others will be able to understand. (In my own thinking I often use terms that are strictly my own.) If you read any of my philosophy you will quickly learn that how I use most terms common to philosophy are defined and explained in ways almost no other philosopher would agree with. I did not learn those things from them.

I am almost embarrased that I have to explain such things to an adult.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by RCSaunders » Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:33 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:21 am
That doesn't mean they don't have a mind.
It was rhetorical. Nevertheless, a mind that has ceased to function correctly from abuse is probably worse than no mind at all.

Skepdick
Posts: 1731
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by Skepdick » Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:38 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:27 pm
Most of the things I know I've learned from others who came before me and discovered or developed those things. By learned, I do not mean simply believed or accepted, I mean working to understand the concepts and ideas so I know why they are true if they are. Most of the things others have tried to teach me are not true.
But you understood THEIR concepts and ideas. Which come prep-packaged with THEIR words.

Words and concepts like 'ontology' and 'epistemology' and 'metaphysics'. They are not your concepts/words.
RCSaunders wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:27 pm
The terms I use are the ones most others will be able to understand.
Surely, when you are concerned with your own understanding, then you should be using terms that YOU are most likely to understand?
RCSaunders wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:27 pm
The terms I use are the ones most others will be able to understand. (In my own thinking I often use terms that are strictly my own.)
...
I am almost embarrased that I have to explain such things to an adult.
You should be far more embarrased by the fact that you are explaining other people's ideas using their language.
But you aren't at all explaining your ideas and understanding using your language.

Strange, isn't it? that other people's language and concepts are more familiar to you than your own.

You know what people like that are called in the Bible? Prophets ;)
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by RCSaunders » Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:40 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:03 am
... Logic comes from humans.
Logic/Mathematics is just a language. An engineered one. But it's still a language.
Excellent! And sans humans there is no logic, mathematics, language, or knowledge.

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by I Like Sushu » Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:45 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:40 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:03 am
... Logic comes from humans.
Logic/Mathematics is just a language. An engineered one. But it's still a language.
Excellent! And sans humans there is no logic, mathematics, language, or knowledge.
Other animals have facets of human language. Stars will still exist. The tree will still fall. You missed “Understanding Of” after ‘no’?

Skepdick
Posts: 1731
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by Skepdick » Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:46 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:40 pm
Excellent! And sans humans there is no logic, mathematics, language, or knowledge.
For the purpose of this conversation? Sure. It's simplifying assumption, but it's not true.

Dolphins are capable of communication, and therefore they have language.

Skepdick
Posts: 1731
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by Skepdick » Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:49 pm

I Like Sushu wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:45 pm
Stars will still exist. The tree will still fall.
Who would verify such claims?

And if nobody can - do they mean anything and to whom?

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by I Like Sushu » Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:57 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:49 pm
I Like Sushu wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:45 pm
Stars will still exist. The tree will still fall.
Who would verify such claims?

And if nobody can - do they mean anything and to whom?
Not a fan of solipsism. Besides, your great, great, great, great, great grandfather say nothing to say anymore ... does this mean we don’t exist or that we don’t exist for him - as he doesn’t exist for himself?

I get the gist though. ‘Tables” don’t exist as concepts for ants yet they still walk on them. I was assuming people don’t assume I’m a complete halfwit ... well, not ALL the time at least :)

Skepdick
Posts: 1731
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by Skepdick » Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:05 pm

I Like Sushu wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:57 pm
Not a fan of solipsism. Besides, your great, great, great, great, great grandfather say nothing to say anymore ... does this mean we don’t exist or that we don’t exist for him - as he doesn’t exist for himself?
Not alluding to solipsism at all. Merely that the concepts we use to talk about the world are inherently rooted in shared, human experience.

The notion of 'mind-independence' is itself a thought-experiment. Useful, but it still requires a mind.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by RCSaunders » Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:10 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:14 pm
RCSaunders wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:14 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:16 pm
You can invent many fantastic things, those that might exist and many that could never exist. But to demonstrate those things you need the physical. And, it has to be said, you could not invent them without the physical - a brain.
Or without a physical body, either, since you could not have a brain without a physical body.

But you can have a brain without consciousness, a living brain, like those in a permanent coma.
I think you might be mistaken here. It is not really possible to tell if some consciousness continues. Certainly awareness of the outside world can end completely.
For people, like yourself that deny the brain as the sole source of consciousness, the fact the people can make complete recoveries from a coma is a challenge to your view, since you would have to account for where the consciousness goes, and how it manages to come back.
For those accepting that the brain is the source of consciousness, the coma, reinforces the view that consciousness is brain activity.

The consciousness of the higher animals and human beings is conscious by means of the neurological system, which includes the brain, just as brains exist by means of the physical body, but...

brains do not invent anything.
Non sequitur
It is the conscious mind that is capable of choice, intellectual knowledge, and reason by which all creation and invention are achieved.
Since there is no mind without a healthy brain; no choice without a healthy brain; not knowledge intellectual or otherwise; no reason then you are just talking nonsense.
I have no problem with extreme physicalists. If you think the physical brain accounts for consciousness and minds, then you do.

I don't think the physical brain produces consciousness because I cannot accept the premise that something happens that is totally inexplicable. How is the brain, "conscious?" The brain is a complex physical organ and all that can be known about it is its physical attributes and behavior (physical, chemical, electrical, etc.). There is nothing about it that can be called consciousness.

The following is adapted from one of my old articles, ",":
No description of any physical aspect or physical process related to perception explains or describes any perceptual quality or aspect of consciousness.

No matter what physical (mechanical-electrical-chemical) actions are described, that is all they can describe. When the biologist and physiologist have described all that the nervous system and brain have done, they still have not described consciousness as it is experienced—they have only described a complex of physical events, which no matter how complex will never be a description of consciousness or any aspect of it.
Please read the article. It is not very long and describes why I came to the conclusion that the physical just cannot account for consciousness (or life, or mind either). I would love for there to be a physical explanation of life, consciousness, and mind. It would certainly make philosophy simpler, but I had to ultimately reject physicalism as incapable of explaining the nature of life, consciousness, and mind. You might find it interesting to know, one reason I rejected physicalism is because I reject any form of mysticism or the supernatural.

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Not Everything Is Physical

Post by I Like Sushu » Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:12 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:05 pm
I Like Sushu wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:57 pm
Not a fan of solipsism. Besides, your great, great, great, great, great grandfather say nothing to say anymore ... does this mean we don’t exist or that we don’t exist for him - as he doesn’t exist for himself?
Not alluding to solipsism at all. Merely that the concepts we use to talk about the world are inherently rooted in shared, human experience.

The notion of 'mind-independence' is itself a thought-experiment. Useful, but it still requires a mind.
Of course. But we don’t need this (here written stuff) to operate in the world anymore than a chimp does in order to reason and solve puzzles. In fact there is the case of ‘The Man with no Language’ who crossed a border into the US, functioned in society and earned a living; all with NO ‘language’ (born deaf and no comprehension of language until he was in his early thirties I think?)

Again, I find myself asking “what do we mean by ‘language’?” - a question that been nagging me for a long time.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests