Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:07 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:02 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 8:31 pm

So am I.

So you agree with the existence of something which dictates how reality should look like this, the so-called mind.

No, that is not what is meant by "mind" nor do I think that such a thing, call it what you will, could approach what anything "should" look like.
Reality is what it is. How could evolution produce a thing which could "dictate what a thing should"look like?vWho is to judge the should?

What do you mean with am I, a sequence of coherent events.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:20 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:07 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:02 pm
So you agree with the existence of something which dictates how reality should look like this, the so-called mind.

No, that is not what is meant by "mind" nor do I think that such a thing, call it what you will, could approach what anything "should" look like.
Reality is what it is. How could evolution produce a thing which could "dictate what a thing should"look like?vWho is to judge the should?

What do you mean with am I, a sequence of coherent events.

This does not parse very well.
Did you mean to say:

What do you mean with "am I, a sequence of coherent events."?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 10:57 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:20 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:07 pm

No, that is not what is meant by "mind" nor do I think that such a thing, call it what you will, could approach what anything "should" look like.
Reality is what it is. How could evolution produce a thing which could "dictate what a thing should"look like?vWho is to judge the should?

What do you mean with am I, a sequence of coherent events.

This does not parse very well.
Did you mean to say:

What do you mean with "am I, a sequence of coherent events."?

I mean what do you mean with "am I", a sequence of coherent events?

bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 11:39 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 10:57 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:20 pm
What do you mean with am I, a sequence of coherent events.

This does not parse very well.
Did you mean to say:

What do you mean with "am I, a sequence of coherent events."?

I mean what do you mean with "am I", a sequence of coherent events?

You are not very coherent.
If you want to challenge me on a quote, then find the exact place I am supposed have said it with the context in which it was written.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 7:08 pm Physical laws do not ontologically exist. It is how matter behaves which can be formulated.

So in what way does matter "do its job based on a set of laws"?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 12:41 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 11:39 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 10:57 pm

This does not parse very well.
Did you mean to say:

What do you mean with "am I, a sequence of coherent events."?

I mean what do you mean with "am I", a sequence of coherent events?

You are not very coherent.
If you want to challenge me on a quote, then find the exact place I am supposed have said it with the context in which it was written.

What do you mean with "am I"? Consciousness is not fundamental in materialism since it is the outcome of the matter process. Any instance of experience is an event. Therefore you are a sequence of coherent events in materialism.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 2:00 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 7:08 pm Physical laws do not ontologically exist. It is how matter behaves which can be formulated.

So in what way does matter "do its job based on a set of laws"?

By this, I mean that matter behaves according to the laws of physics.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 8:05 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 12:41 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 11:39 pm
I mean what do you mean with "am I", a sequence of coherent events?

You are not very coherent.
If you want to challenge me on a quote, then find the exact place I am supposed have said it with the context in which it was written.

What do you mean with "am I"? Consciousness is not fundamental in materialism since it is the outcome of the matter process. Any instance of experience is an event. Therefore you are a sequence of coherent events in materialism.

Can't you read?

If you want to challenge me on a quote, then find the exact place I am supposed have said it with the context in which it was written.
IN OTHER WORDS: Where exactly did I say "am I"? . where, and what is the context?

The next three sentences say Consciousness is not fundamental since you are a sequence of coherent events in materialism.
What do you think I am supposed to tak away from that?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 8:16 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 8:05 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 12:41 pm

You are not very coherent.
If you want to challenge me on a quote, then find the exact place I am supposed have said it with the context in which it was written.

What do you mean with "am I"? Consciousness is not fundamental in materialism since it is the outcome of the matter process. Any instance of experience is an event. Therefore you are a sequence of coherent events in materialism.

Can't you read?

If you want to challenge me on a quote, then find the exact place I am supposed have said it with the context in which it was written.
IN OTHER WORDS: Where exactly did I say "am I"? . where, and what is the context?

You said it in here.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 8:16 pm The next three sentences say Consciousness is not fundamental since you are a sequence of coherent events in materialism.
What do you think I am supposed to take away from that?

Take what I wrote. Your conscious experience is a sequence of coherent events.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 8:23 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 8:16 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 8:05 pm
What do you mean with "am I"? Consciousness is not fundamental in materialism since it is the outcome of the matter process. Any instance of experience is an event. Therefore you are a sequence of coherent events in materialism.

Can't you read?

If you want to challenge me on a quote, then find the exact place I am supposed have said it with the context in which it was written.
IN OTHER WORDS: Where exactly did I say "am I"? . where, and what is the context?

You said it in here.

No I did not.
WHat I said there is "Things are coherent since they are material."
Please get a grip!

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 9:35 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 8:23 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 8:16 pm

Can't you read?

If you want to challenge me on a quote, then find the exact place I am supposed have said it with the context in which it was written.
IN OTHER WORDS: Where exactly did I say "am I"? . where, and what is the context?

You said it in here.

No I did not.
WHat I said there is "Things are coherent since they are material."
Please get a grip!

Could you please read my comment before you said "So am I"?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 8:07 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 2:00 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 7:08 pm Physical laws do not ontologically exist. It is how matter behaves which can be formulated.

So in what way does matter "do its job based on a set of laws"?

By this, I mean that matter behaves according to the laws of physics.

How, if there are no real laws?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 11:41 pm How, if there are no real laws?

Idiot philosopher strikes again.

What would be the difference between a "real" laws of thermodynamics and a "non-real" laws of thermodynamics?

Just make this interesting for everyone and reject thermodynamics.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 10:53 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 9:35 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 8:23 pm
You said it in here.

No I did not.
WHat I said there is "Things are coherent since they are material."
Please get a grip!

Could you please read my comment before you said "So am I"?

I did - it changes nothing.
We are both talking about the same thing. The only difference is you are not satisfied with materialistic explanations.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 11:41 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 8:07 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 2:00 pm
So in what way does matter "do its job based on a set of laws"?

By this, I mean that matter behaves according to the laws of physics.

How, if there are no real laws?

Matter behaves. This behavior is determinist. Therefore, the behavior can be understood abstractly.