For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
pronoun, nominative I,possessive my or mine,objective me;plural nominative we,possessive our or ours,objective us. the nominative singular pronoun, used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself.
So EDC is not part of you?Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 8:24 pmpronoun, nominative I,possessive my or mine,objective me;plural nominative we,possessive our or ours,objective us. the nominative singular pronoun, used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself.
the body who is speaking or writing, in this case writing
By that you mean "experiences, decisions, and causation ", that is all part of the "I"bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 8:26 pmSo EDC is not part of you?Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 8:24 pmpronoun, nominative I,possessive my or mine,objective me;plural nominative we,possessive our or ours,objective us. the nominative singular pronoun, used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself.
the body who is speaking or writing, in this case writing
So, can we agree that we have the matter that behaves on its own and EDC which is the byproduct of the matter process?Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 9:00 pmBy that you mean "experiences, decisions, and causation ", that is all part of the "I"bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 8:26 pmSo EDC is not part of you?Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 8:24 pm
pronoun, nominative I,possessive my or mine,objective me;plural nominative we,possessive our or ours,objective us. the nominative singular pronoun, used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself.
the body who is speaking or writing, in this case writing
Okay, but that doesn't tell us how it behaves according to laws if there are no real laws. If you're just saying that it behaves in a way that can be parsed/interpreted as laws, that's a different issue.bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 8:06 pmMatter behaves. This behavior is determinist. Therefore, the behavior can be understood abstractly.
I don't see why this would be an argument against materialism. It might be an argument against realism, but given that idealism must admit some form of realism in order to avoid arbitrariness, it could well be an argument against idealism.bahman] Let's assume all our experiences, decisions, and causation (EDC) are the buy product of the matter process. The question is why EDC is coherent always. Why things are the way they are like they are coherent and not incoherent.[/quote] [quote= wrote:I think we can agree that there are two components here: 1) Matter and 2) conscious phenomena so-called EDC. Matter does its job based on a set of laws so it is coherent. In reality, there is no need for consciousness since matter does its job blindly. But let accept that consciousness can emerge. The question is that why matter and EDC are always coherent. Let me give you an example: Supposed that you live in a universe that your conscious experience is any possible thing unrelated to what is going on under conscious reality, matter reality. Like when you experience chaos while you are doing any proper thing that a human being can properly do. Why EDC corresponds to the reality of matter?
DO you mean a rock?
The laws of physics are real in the sense that matter behaves according to them. They however are not similar to an object.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 10:52 pmOkay, but that doesn't tell us how it behaves according to laws if there are no real laws. If you're just saying that it behaves in a way that can be parsed/interpreted as laws, that's a different issue.
Do the laws exist or not in your view?bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 8:46 pmThe laws of physics are real in the sense that matter behaves according to them. They however are not similar to an object.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 10:52 pmOkay, but that doesn't tell us how it behaves according to laws if there are no real laws. If you're just saying that it behaves in a way that can be parsed/interpreted as laws, that's a different issue.
It is an argument against materialism since materialism claims that matter is fundamental and conscious phenomena emerge from matter activity. I am asking why EDC exists at all if anything including the human body governs the laws of physics. Why EDC is not arbitrary?Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 10:57 pmI don't see why this would be an argument against materialism. It might be an argument against realism, but given that idealism must admit some form of realism in order to avoid arbitrariness, it could well be an argument against idealism.bahman] Let's assume all our experiences, decisions, and causation (EDC) are the buy product of the matter process. The question is why EDC is coherent always. Why things are the way they are like they are coherent and not incoherent.[/quote] [quote= wrote:I think we can agree that there are two components here: 1) Matter and 2) conscious phenomena so-called EDC. Matter does its job based on a set of laws so it is coherent. In reality, there is no need for consciousness since matter does its job blindly. But let accept that consciousness can emerge. The question is that why matter and EDC are always coherent. Let me give you an example: Supposed that you live in a universe that your conscious experience is any possible thing unrelated to what is going on under conscious reality, matter reality. Like when you experience chaos while you are doing any proper thing that a human being can properly do. Why EDC corresponds to the reality of matter?
I am asking why EDC that is the by-product of the matter process is not arbitrary. Matter behaves according to the laws of nature and there is no consciousness needed for this.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 10:57 pm In any case, experiences and decisions necessarily involve the participation of sentient agents, and since in materialism sentient agents are products of matter, their sentience follows the rules by which matter operates. If consciousness is a process of matter, then it must correspond to the reality of matter.
So the difference between a rock and you is that you have a brain. The brain however is a material object. So if we believe in the emergence of consciousness in the brain, that is due to two things: The type of matter process and the type of matter. Could we agree on these?
The laws exist as an object, no. Exist as a subject, yes, our abstract ideas about them. They are real in the sense that matter follows them.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 8:49 pmDo the laws exist or not in your view?bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 8:46 pmThe laws of physics are real in the sense that matter behaves according to them. They however are not similar to an object.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 10:52 pm
Okay, but that doesn't tell us how it behaves according to laws if there are no real laws. If you're just saying that it behaves in a way that can be parsed/interpreted as laws, that's a different issue.