Thoughts are not involved in digestion, metabolism, etc.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:16 amYour objection is not valid. It is the equivalent of this:bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:34 pmI said thought is different from the laws of nature. Thought in fact is dependent on laws of nature within materialism. So my objection is valid. How something whose very existence depends on something else, such as the thought that depends on matter, can affect matter when matter's behavior is already decided, according to the laws of nature.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:06 pm
Why would the "laws of nature" operate independently of myself, a being immersed in the natural world?
Digestion in fact is dependent on laws of nature within materialism. So my objection is valid. How something whose very existence depends on something else, such as the digestion that depends on matter, can affect matter when matter's behavior is already decided, according to the laws of nature.
You can change digestion for metabolism, hematogenesis, evolution, etc.
An argument against materialism
Re: An argument against materialism
- Conde Lucanor
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am
Re: An argument against materialism
You're just pretending that you're not getting it, right? I hope so.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:49 pmThoughts are not involved in digestion, metabolism, etc.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:16 amYour objection is not valid. It is the equivalent of this:bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:34 pm
I said thought is different from the laws of nature. Thought in fact is dependent on laws of nature within materialism. So my objection is valid. How something whose very existence depends on something else, such as the thought that depends on matter, can affect matter when matter's behavior is already decided, according to the laws of nature.
Digestion in fact is dependent on laws of nature within materialism. So my objection is valid. How something whose very existence depends on something else, such as the digestion that depends on matter, can affect matter when matter's behavior is already decided, according to the laws of nature.
You can change digestion for metabolism, hematogenesis, evolution, etc.
I never said "thoughts are involved in digestion, metabolism". I said thought is to the brain and the CNS as digestion is to the stomach and the digestive system, and what metabolism is to a cell. That makes your objection invalid.
Re: An argument against materialism
Could we please focuse on action that your conscious mind is involved with it, like thinking, and then deciding to move your arms?Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 4:52 amYou're just pretending that you're not getting it, right? I hope so.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:49 pmThoughts are not involved in digestion, metabolism, etc.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:16 am
Your objection is not valid. It is the equivalent of this:
Digestion in fact is dependent on laws of nature within materialism. So my objection is valid. How something whose very existence depends on something else, such as the digestion that depends on matter, can affect matter when matter's behavior is already decided, according to the laws of nature.
You can change digestion for metabolism, hematogenesis, evolution, etc.
I never said "thoughts are involved in digestion, metabolism". I said thought is to the brain and the CNS as digestion is to the stomach and the digestive system, and what metabolism is to a cell. That makes your objection invalid.
- Conde Lucanor
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am
Re: An argument against materialism
Isn't matter behavior decided from the past into the future?Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:18 amWhat is the point you want to discuss? All of these are consistent with materialism and natural laws.
- Conde Lucanor
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am
Re: An argument against materialism
"Decided" does not seem to be the right word. I hope you don't think the first Ice Age was "decided".bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:54 pmIsn't matter behavior decided from the past into the future?Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:18 amWhat is the point you want to discuss? All of these are consistent with materialism and natural laws.
Re: An argument against materialism
How about determined.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:25 am"Decided" does not seem to be the right word. I hope you don't think the first Ice Age was "decided".bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:54 pmIsn't matter behavior decided from the past into the future?Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:18 am
What is the point you want to discuss? All of these are consistent with materialism and natural laws.
- Conde Lucanor
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am
Re: An argument against materialism
So OK, matter behavior determined from the past into the future? What's the issue with that?bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:05 pmHow about determined.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:25 am"Decided" does not seem to be the right word. I hope you don't think the first Ice Age was "decided".
Re: An argument against materialism
The issue is that how could your thoughts intervene if matter behavior is already determined?Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:12 amSo OK, matter behavior determined from the past into the future? What's the issue with that?bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:05 pmHow about determined.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:25 am
"Decided" does not seem to be the right word. I hope you don't think the first Ice Age was "decided".
- Conde Lucanor
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am
Re: An argument against materialism
What makes you think thoughts are not already matter (that is, a process in matter)? There's no issue with the behavior of organic matter determined from the past into the future by means of regulated processes in complex systems.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 3:33 pmThe issue is that how could your thoughts intervene if matter behavior is already determined?Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:12 amSo OK, matter behavior determined from the past into the future? What's the issue with that?
Re: An argument against materialism
I have nothing against thought being a process. My problem is that thoughts are different processes than the physical processes which are determined by the laws of physics.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 2:20 amWhat makes you think thoughts are not already matter (that is, a process in matter)? There's no issue with the behavior of organic matter determined from the past into the future by means of regulated processes in complex systems.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 3:33 pmThe issue is that how could your thoughts intervene if matter behavior is already determined?Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:12 am
So OK, matter behavior determined from the past into the future? What's the issue with that?
- Conde Lucanor
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am
Re: An argument against materialism
In what sense "thoughts are different processes than the physical processes"? What justifies such a proposition?bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 6:29 pmI have nothing against thought being a process. My problem is that thoughts are different processes than the physical processes which are determined by the laws of physics.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 2:20 amWhat makes you think thoughts are not already matter (that is, a process in matter)? There's no issue with the behavior of organic matter determined from the past into the future by means of regulated processes in complex systems.
Re: An argument against materialism
Physical processes are processes that follow a very specific pattern, given a state of affair one can always say what would be the next state of affair. Can you know where your thought may go in advance? It might lead to a dead-end or might lead to a solution. It would be nice to know where your thought would go, you would be omniscient though since you would know the answer to any proper question, therefore, you don't need thinking.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 1:08 amIn what sense "thoughts are different processes than the physical processes"?bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 6:29 pmI have nothing against thought being a process. My problem is that thoughts are different processes than the physical processes which are determined by the laws of physics.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 2:20 am
What makes you think thoughts are not already matter (that is, a process in matter)? There's no issue with the behavior of organic matter determined from the past into the future by means of regulated processes in complex systems.
We formulate the physical processes using thoughts. You cannot formulate thoughts though since thoughts themselves are attempts to formulate the subject matter.
- Conde Lucanor
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am
Re: An argument against materialism
Your obviously unaware of indeterminism and stochasticity in nature, especially in complex systems, where randomness makes it impossible to predict the results and our best approximations are based on probability. And that's what's more common in nature.