This is what I'm talking about, which should have been clear to you from the context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)uwot wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:32 pmAs I frequently point out, in my view any given word is pretty much meaningless without some context. Reification is different things in different fields, but the general theme is modelling. In science it is a fallacy to argue that because a model has instrumental value, it is therefore correct. The equivalent fallacy understood in philosophical terms is to argue that because a narrative is coherent, it is therefore true.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 4:56 pm?? Reification is a type of projection. It's positing something that only exists as a mental phenomenon--like meaning, or concepts, or desires--as something that exists in the external/objective world.
An argument against materialism
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: An argument against materialism
Re: An argument against materialism
Well, here's the context I was going by:Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:39 pmThis is what I'm talking about, which should have been clear to you from the context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
It is not always the maths that comes first. String theorists, for example, did not sort out the maths and conclude that fundamental particles are modes of vibration. Einstein assumed that space is a void before he worked out the maths of special relativity. He assumed that space is a material before he worked out the field equations. People have ideas and test them, empirically and mathematically. Anyway, you mean Reification_(fallacy). Now I know.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 12:13 pm...the notion that energy could occur "by itself," or like the idea that space and/or time are anything like substances or containers, or the many wacky ideas surrounding quantum mechanics and the fact that a lot of those ideas are due to mathematics reification, etc.)
Re: An argument against materialism
A fallacy in philosophy is a feature in science. Awkward.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:39 pm This is what I'm talking about, which should have been clear to you from the context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reificati ... r_science)
Re: An argument against materialism
In science "correctness" is a questionable notion so any argument that concludes "correctness" is dubious - irrespective of its premises.
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue May 11, 2021 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: An argument against materialism
Yeah, still pretty cool though.
Well, we do influence things, just not very much and probably to no long term effect.
I think that is probably correct. Still, we'll all find out sooner or later.
Re: An argument against materialism
Re: An argument against materialism
I am talking about mental properties rather than physical properties. Matter behaves according to the laws of physics. Mental phenomena are assumed to be emergent. They are not needed for the matter to act according to the laws of physics.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 2:29 amFrom where did you get that emergent properties and laws of physics run in different paths? If you get 2 atoms of hydrogen (a gas) and one of oxygen (another gas), and put them together, you get water (a liquid). That follows physical laws and creates emergent properties.
Re: An argument against materialism
No. In fact we will not find out. When you are dead you find nothing.
Re: An argument against materialism
I think you were on the money with this:
That is certainly true of consciousness. It's not my field and I don't have any idea how physical matter can generate thoughts or feelings, so I think David Chalmers has a point with 'the hard problem of consciousness'. But if, as you suggest
then I don't see why it should be assumed to be different from other physical fields which will propagate through the universe for as long as there is a universe.
Re: An argument against materialism
When a field moves through the universe if looses information. Light turns to dead heat.uwot wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 10:30 pmI think you were on the money with this:That is certainly true of consciousness. It's not my field and I don't have any idea how physical matter can generate thoughts or feelings, so I think David Chalmers has a point with 'the hard problem of consciousness'. But if, as you suggestthen I don't see why it should be assumed to be different from other physical fields which will propagate through the universe for as long as there is a universe.
All fields disipate and change; they fade. Brain energy is barely detectable outside the head, and cannot be read. What is important about it is how the connections in your neural matter are organised - that is the essnence of your learning and memory.
When I said "I can prove it". I mean I can remove your memories with an electric dill and vacuum cleaner. WIth care I could remove a part of your brain so that you could not recogise any person by sight - not even your mother.
Although I said everything in the universe is not perfectly understood, is not the same as saying that we know nothing.
-
- Posts: 373
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm
Re: An argument against materialism
Life energy can be seen as a mode for expressing consciousness through the enlivening of matter and the enabling of empirical consciousness. It can be considered intelligent but not conscious. Consciousness is an enigma that defies classification.
Re: An argument against materialism
Well, the cosmic microwave background radiation is the wavelength it is because space, the material through which it propagates is expanding, according to the most prevalent hypothesis. The information is still there, it's just stretched out a bit. The expansion of the universe is not generally thought to affect electromagnetic and gravitational fields in the same way. The redshift of distant galaxies is believed to be a simple example of the Doppler Effect, but the information carried in them is exactly the same as it has been for the perhaps billions of years they have been travelling through space, it's just spread out a bit.
Ok; so consciousness is not
Yeah, when you offered to prove it, I was fairly confident I would be inviting the 'I could blow your fucking brains out' line of argument, so I thought I'd pass.
-
- Posts: 373
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm
Re: An argument against materialism
If AI builds up enough memories will it become conscious?