By existing when it comes to the laws of physics I mean matter behaves in a very specific way.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:44 amYou seem to be losing your thread of thought already. Above, in trying to clarify (for both of us it seems) just what your ontological view is about this stuff, I asked:bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 12:53 amMatter behaves according to a set of formulas, so-called the laws of physics.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 12:03 am
Okay, but a formula that's a property of each bit of matter, right?
Matter just behaves deterministically. It does not have any formula. What do you mean by non-identical formula?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 10:00 pm --where each bit of matter would have a non-identical formula to other bits of matter?
"So do you see the laws as existing uniquely in each bit of matter?"
And you answered "true."
But now it seems like you're backing away from that.
An argument against materialism
Re: An argument against materialism
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: An argument against materialism
So if the laws are not literally in (as properties, for example) each bit of matter and they're not simply a way that we think about the behavior or matter, what do you see them as--real abstracts of some sort?bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 8:57 pmBy existing when it comes to the laws of physics I mean matter behaves in a very specific way.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:44 amYou seem to be losing your thread of thought already. Above, in trying to clarify (for both of us it seems) just what your ontological view is about this stuff, I asked:
"So do you see the laws as existing uniquely in each bit of matter?"
And you answered "true."
But now it seems like you're backing away from that.
Re: An argument against materialism
It's semantic flim-flammery and it catches many people out. Matter does what it does. We observe matter doing its thing, and if we can attach an equation which fits what we observe passably well, we might call it a 'law of nature/physics'. Once you give something a name, the temptation is to think it has some sort of autonomy - that a 'law of nature' could exist without nature, for example. It either can or it can't, and if you can give a definitive answer, you will have solved a 2500 year old conundrum.
Re: An argument against materialism
The laws of physics only exist abstractly in the mind of an intelligent agent.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:27 pmSo if the laws are not literally in (as properties, for example) each bit of matter and they're not simply a way that we think about the behavior or matter, what do you see them as--real abstracts of some sort?bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 8:57 pmBy existing when it comes to the laws of physics I mean matter behaves in a very specific way.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:44 am
You seem to be losing your thread of thought already. Above, in trying to clarify (for both of us it seems) just what your ontological view is about this stuff, I asked:
"So do you see the laws as existing uniquely in each bit of matter?"
And you answered "true."
But now it seems like you're backing away from that.
Re: An argument against materialism
The laws of physics can only exist abstractly. By abstractly I mean that it is the subject of the experience of an intelligent agent, the so-called mind. It is therefore exists as a substance in the mind of an intelligent agent. Thoughts have different forms.uwot wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:33 pmIt's semantic flim-flammery and it catches many people out. Matter does what it does. We observe matter doing its thing, and if we can attach an equation which fits what we observe passably well, we might call it a 'law of nature/physics'. Once you give something a name, the temptation is to think it has some sort of autonomy - that a 'law of nature' could exist without nature, for example. It either can or it can't, and if you can give a definitive answer, you will have solved a 2500 year old conundrum.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: An argument against materialism
Right. So we're back to that then. We were there earlier and you wound up not liking where it led.bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:03 pmThe laws of physics only exist abstractly in the mind of an intelligent agent.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:27 pmSo if the laws are not literally in (as properties, for example) each bit of matter and they're not simply a way that we think about the behavior or matter, what do you see them as--real abstracts of some sort?
So there is no world if there aren't beings with minds in your view, right? For example, there was no temporal point where anything existed without a being with a mind existing?
- Conde Lucanor
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am
Re: An argument against materialism
You have not shown that consciousness is irrelevant to materialism. Materialism is an ontology. Ontology cares about the existence of things and their properties. Materialist ontology acknowledges the existence of beings with brains that perform conscious processes.
Sure: a physical property of water is that it is a liquid that at standard atmospheric pressure reaches a solid state at 0 degrees Celsius and gaseous state at 100 degrees Celsius. Now your turn: show me how hydrogen and oxygen display the same physical property.
Re: An argument against materialism
There are two things when we talk about the laws of nature, the first is the way that matter behaves, and the second as it exists as a thought in the mind of an intelligent agent.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:26 pmRight. So we're back to that then. We were there earlier and you wound up not liking where it led.bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:03 pmThe laws of physics only exist abstractly in the mind of an intelligent agent.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:27 pm
So if the laws are not literally in (as properties, for example) each bit of matter and they're not simply a way that we think about the behavior or matter, what do you see them as--real abstracts of some sort?
No, I think that there are two substances involved in reality, the first one being minds and the second being the subject of experience. You could have a reality with minds only.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:26 pm So there is no world if there aren't beings with minds in your view, right?
What do you mean?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:26 pm For example, there was no temporal point where anything existed without a being with a mind existing?
Re: An argument against materialism
It does seem that "matter behaves in a very specific way". That behaviour can be described by different mathematical models and attributed to different philosophical models, any or all of which can be called laws, theories, hypotheses, batshit crazy by intelligent agents. Ah well; 2500 years and counting.bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:15 pmThe laws of physics can only exist abstractly. By abstractly I mean that it is the subject of the experience of an intelligent agent, the so-called mind. It is therefore exists as a substance in the mind of an intelligent agent. Thoughts have different forms.uwot wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:33 pmIt's semantic flim-flammery and it catches many people out. Matter does what it does. We observe matter doing its thing, and if we can attach an equation which fits what we observe passably well, we might call it a 'law of nature/physics'. Once you give something a name, the temptation is to think it has some sort of autonomy - that a 'law of nature' could exist without nature, for example. It either can or it can't, and if you can give a definitive answer, you will have solved a 2500 year old conundrum.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: An argument against materialism
So, for example, three and a half billion years ago, there could very well have been no creatures with minds. On your view, that means that three and a half billion years ago, there were also no physical laws, right? Do you think that the Earth existed three and a half billion years ago even though physical laws did not? And based on your other comments, if you answer "yes" here, do you think that matter behaved arbitrarily at that time?bahman wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 2:00 amThere are two things when we talk about the laws of nature, the first is the way that matter behaves, and the second as it exists as a thought in the mind of an intelligent agent.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:26 pmRight. So we're back to that then. We were there earlier and you wound up not liking where it led.
No, I think that there are two substances involved in reality, the first one being minds and the second being the subject of experience. You could have a reality with minds only.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:26 pm So there is no world if there aren't beings with minds in your view, right?
What do you mean?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:26 pm For example, there was no temporal point where anything existed without a being with a mind existing?
Re: An argument against materialism
I already discussed that. You cannot control the electrons in your brain. Therefore, your consciousness cannot affect reality. Therefore, consciousness is irrelevant.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 1:56 amYou have not shown that consciousness is irrelevant to materialism. Materialism is an ontology. Ontology cares about the existence of things and their properties. Materialist ontology acknowledges the existence of beings with brains that perform conscious processes.
Physical properties at the macroscopic level are not anything more than a function of microscopic properties. For example, the temperature is the average energy of atoms, pressure is the average force exerted to a surface, the same for solidity which is nothing more than shear tension.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 1:56 amSure: a physical property of water is that it is a liquid that at standard atmospheric pressure reaches a solid state at 0 degrees Celsius and gaseous state at 100 degrees Celsius. Now your turn: show me how hydrogen and oxygen display the same physical property.
Re: An argument against materialism
You are mixing things. There are two things: Thoughts in the minds of conscious agents and how matter behaves. Matter behaves according to the laws of physics regardless of whether there is an intelligent agent exists or not. Once there is an intelligent agent then the laws of physics could exist as thoughts in the mind of the agent.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 12:30 pmSo, for example, three and a half billion years ago, there could very well have been no creatures with minds. On your view, that means that three and a half billion years ago, there were also no physical laws, right? Do you think that the Earth existed three and a half billion years ago even though physical laws did not? And based on your other comments, if you answer "yes" here, do you think that matter behaved arbitrarily at that time?bahman wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 2:00 amThere are two things when we talk about the laws of nature, the first is the way that matter behaves, and the second as it exists as a thought in the mind of an intelligent agent.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:26 pm
Right. So we're back to that then. We were there earlier and you wound up not liking where it led.
No, I think that there are two substances involved in reality, the first one being minds and the second being the subject of experience. You could have a reality with minds only.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:26 pm So there is no world if there aren't beings with minds in your view, right?
What do you mean?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:26 pm For example, there was no temporal point where anything existed without a being with a mind existing?
Re: An argument against materialism
Yes, matter behaves according to the laws of nature. The consciousness is irrelevant in materialism, therefore, since it cannot interfere and change the laws of nature.uwot wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 9:53 amIt does seem that "matter behaves in a very specific way". That behaviour can be described by different mathematical models and attributed to different philosophical models, any or all of which can be called laws, theories, hypotheses, batshit crazy by intelligent agents. Ah well; 2500 years and counting.bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:15 pmThe laws of physics can only exist abstractly. By abstractly I mean that it is the subject of the experience of an intelligent agent, the so-called mind. It is therefore exists as a substance in the mind of an intelligent agent. Thoughts have different forms.uwot wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:33 pmIt's semantic flim-flammery and it catches many people out. Matter does what it does. We observe matter doing its thing, and if we can attach an equation which fits what we observe passably well, we might call it a 'law of nature/physics'. Once you give something a name, the temptation is to think it has some sort of autonomy - that a 'law of nature' could exist without nature, for example. It either can or it can't, and if you can give a definitive answer, you will have solved a 2500 year old conundrum.