For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
I think you need to flesh this argument out a bit more. There seems to be a background assumption that you're not sharing regarding what the connection between coherence and materialism would be, for one.
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?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 8:41 pmI think you need to flesh this argument out a bit more. There seems to be a background assumption that you're not sharing regarding what the connection between coherence and materialism would be, for one.
So first, do you realize that there are people who are not realists on physical laws (yet who still believe that there's an external world of matter, etc.)?
I am an anti-realist on physical laws when it comes to mind but a realist one when it comes to matter. Matter always does the same job (an apple in the same initial situation always falls the same way). We couldn't depend on the matter if that was not the case.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 9:25 pmSo first, do you realize that there are people who are not realists on physical laws (yet who still believe that there's an external world of matter, etc.)?
You're not really addressing what I asked you. I didn't ask your personal view. I asked if you're aware that there are people who are not realists on physical laws. Are you?bahman wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:27 pmI am an anti-realist on physical laws when it comes to mind but a realist one when it comes to matter. Matter always does the same job (an apple in the same initial situation always falls the same way). We couldn't depend on the matter if that was not the case.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 9:25 pmSo first, do you realize that there are people who are not realists on physical laws (yet who still believe that there's an external world of matter, etc.)?
Yes, they are. They are however wrong to the best of our knowledge.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 12:30 amYou're not really addressing what I asked you. I didn't ask your personal view. I asked if you're aware that there are people who are not realists on physical laws. Are you?bahman wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:27 pmI am an anti-realist on physical laws when it comes to mind but a realist one when it comes to matter. Matter always does the same job (an apple in the same initial situation always falls the same way). We couldn't depend on the matter if that was not the case.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 9:25 pm
So first, do you realize that there are people who are not realists on physical laws (yet who still believe that there's an external world of matter, etc.)?
On your view, what are physical laws ontologically? Are they real abstracts that somehow arch over or that are that are somehow identically instantiated in particulars? Or something else (and what else, specifically)?bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 12:56 amYes, they are. They are however wrong to the best of our knowledge.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 12:30 amYou're not really addressing what I asked you. I didn't ask your personal view. I asked if you're aware that there are people who are not realists on physical laws. Are you?bahman wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:27 pm
I am an anti-realist on physical laws when it comes to mind but a realist one when it comes to matter. Matter always does the same job (an apple in the same initial situation always falls the same way). We couldn't depend on the matter if that was not the case.
Physical laws do not ontologically exist. It is how matter behaves which can be formulated.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 8:40 amOn your view, what are physical laws ontologically?bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 12:56 amYes, they are. They are however wrong to the best of our knowledge.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 12:30 am
You're not really addressing what I asked you. I didn't ask your personal view. I asked if you're aware that there are people who are not realists on physical laws. Are you?
The laws of physics understood abstractly.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 8:40 am Are they real abstracts that somehow arch over or that are that are somehow identically instantiated in particulars?
I hope that things are clear.
Things are coherent since they are material.
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.
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.