[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If I ask “what is truth?”, physicalism tells me the question doesn’t exist.[/quote]
No, it doesn’t. At all.
Physicalism tells you that your asking “what is truth?” is, in all its particulars, a phenomenon which supervenes on the physical. That is what it tells you–and only that. Note that that has exactly nothing to do with your question “not existing.” On the contrary–physicalism assures you that your question exists, and in such a form as can be touched and tasted.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A belief or thought is by definition abstract. You are denying the abstract…[/quote]
I don’t know what this means, but if by “abstract” you mean “not supervienient on the physical,” you have just overstepped the boundaries of your argument by a leap and a bound
Either that, or you can prove that thought does not supervene in its entirety on the physical brain–in which case you have proved the obtainment of a duality of ontological classes, in which case you are going to be very, very famous.[/quote]
I’m talking definitions and usage in language, not proving anything. I’m talking about what the word means, not that any causation is true or false. Convention, not a proof.[/quote]
I don’t know what you’r talking about here.
It is pretty simple: You said that thoughts are abstract and that I am denying the abstract (never mind, for the moment, that I am not claiming the truth of physicalism).
I take from this that you are being sincere–that you mean to say that thoughts do not supervene on the physical.
From this claim, the rest follows, including the part about multiple ontological classes.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If I ask “what is truth?”, physicalism tells me the question doesn’t exist.[/quote]
No, it doesn’t. At all.
Physicalism tells you that your asking “what is truth?” is, in all its particulars, a phenomenon which supervenes on the physical. That is what it tells you–and only that. Note that that has exactly nothing to do with your question “not existing.” On the contrary–physicalism assures you that your question exists, and in such a form as can be touched and tasted.[/quote]
How can something supervene on the physical if there is only the physical? If something changes the physical than there is something other than physical.
It says that the question doesn’t exist, instead there is an arrangement of neurons in my brain that we could arbitrarily label as a question and gives rise to the false notion of the abstract.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It says that the question doesn’t exist, instead there is an arrangement of neurons in my brain that we could arbitrarily label as a question and gives rise to the false notion of the abstract.[/quote]
Can you explain what you mean by the “false notion of the abstract?” I don’t really understand why abstract thought requires supernatural intervention to exist, otherwise its is just a “false notion of the abstract.” Perhaps I am just getting lost here and not following your argument.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A belief or thought is by definition abstract. You are denying the abstract…[/quote]
I don’t know what this means, but if by “abstract” you mean “not supervienient on the physical,” you have just overstepped the boundaries of your argument by a leap and a bound
Either that, or you can prove that thought does not supervene in its entirety on the physical brain–in which case you have proved the obtainment of a duality of ontological classes, in which case you are going to be very, very famous.[/quote]
I’m talking definitions and usage in language, not proving anything. I’m talking about what the word means, not that any causation is true or false. Convention, not a proof.[/quote]
I don’t know what you’r talking about here.
It is pretty simple: You said that thoughts are abstract and that I am denying the abstract (never mind, for the moment, that I am not claiming the truth of physicalism).
I take from this that you are being sincere–that you mean to say that thoughts do not supervene on the physical.
From this claim, the rest follows, including the part about multiple ontological classes.[/quote]
No, I said thoughts are defined as abstract, not that they are proved so. If there is no abstract, then the word and the definition are invalid. And using the word as a proxy for their physical cause outside their definition is intellectually dishonest.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How can something supervene on the physical if there is only the physical? If something changes the physical than there is something other than physical.
[/quote]
You misunderstand the concept of supervenience. X’s supervenience on the physical entails no change made by X on the physical.
I am not intending to insult here: if you are interested in these things – and I have noted before that you have strong opinions on them – you should read up on them.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It says that the question doesn’t exist, instead there is an arrangement of neurons in my brain that we could arbitrarily label as a question and gives rise to the false notion of the abstract.[/quote]
Can you explain what you mean by the “false notion of the abstract?” I don’t really understand why abstract thought requires supernatural intervention to exist, otherwise its is just a “false notion of the abstract.” Perhaps I am just getting lost here and not following your argument.
[/quote]
Basically thinking things like thoughts are abstract when they aren’t (because there is no abstract because there is only the physical). It’s not physics taking over meaning, but causing them to be false.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, I said thoughts are defined as abstract, not that they are proved so. If there is no abstract, then the word and the definition are invalid.[/quote]
Whether thoughts are “defined as abstract” (part of an ontology of multiple classes) is what is at issue. That is, you are begging the question.
Again, that something supervenes on the physical does not entail that that thing does not exist. Exactly the opposite.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, I said thoughts are defined as abstract, not that they are proved so. If there is no abstract, then the word and the definition are invalid.[/quote]
Whether thoughts are “defined as abstract” (part of an ontology of multiple classes) is what is at issue. That is, you are begging the question.
Again, that something supervenes on the physical does not entail that that thing does not exist. Exactly the opposite.[/quote]
No, I’m talking about actual life and what is meant when someone says “I have an idea”. If physicalism is true, what everyone actually means in real life when they say that is wrong. I agree that it is just convention but most people don’t recognize what throwing out the convention means.
Um, unless I’m miss-reading you, the last part is exactly my point.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It says that the question doesn’t exist, instead there is an arrangement of neurons in my brain that we could arbitrarily label as a question and gives rise to the false notion of the abstract.[/quote]
Can you explain what you mean by the “false notion of the abstract?” I don’t really understand why abstract thought requires supernatural intervention to exist, otherwise its is just a “false notion of the abstract.” Perhaps I am just getting lost here and not following your argument.
[/quote]
Basically thinking things like thoughts are abstract when they aren’t (because there is no abstract because there is only the physical). It’s not physics taking over meaning, but causing them to be false.[/quote]
What ever “thoughts” are, it seems to me that they measurably end when the brain dies, electricity stops flowing, and the chemicals stop reacting.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It says that the question doesn’t exist, instead there is an arrangement of neurons in my brain that we could arbitrarily label as a question and gives rise to the false notion of the abstract.[/quote]
Can you explain what you mean by the “false notion of the abstract?” I don’t really understand why abstract thought requires supernatural intervention to exist, otherwise its is just a “false notion of the abstract.” Perhaps I am just getting lost here and not following your argument.
[/quote]
Basically thinking things like thoughts are abstract when they aren’t (because there is no abstract because there is only the physical). It’s not physics taking over meaning, but causing them to be false.[/quote]
What ever “thoughts” are, it seems to me that they measurably end when the brain dies, electricity stops flowing, and the chemicals stop reacting.
[/quote]
Truth is an idea. no brain = no truth?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, I said thoughts are defined as abstract, not that they are proved so. If there is no abstract, then the word and the definition are invalid.[/quote]
Whether thoughts are “defined as abstract” (part of an ontology of multiple classes) is what is at issue. That is, you are begging the question.
Again, that something supervenes on the physical does not entail that that thing does not exist. Exactly the opposite.[/quote]
No, I’m talking about actual life and what is meant when someone says “I have an idea”. If physicalism is true, what everyone actually means in real life when they say that is wrong.[/quote]
Sort of – though the same can be said in the case that any ontology obtains. Language gets us around the deep questions. If interactive dualism is true, I certainly mean the wrong thing when I say that I have a thought, and so does just about everybody else.
I emphatically agree. Most physicalists don’t actually know what their wordview entails. To that I add that neither do most other ists and ians.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, I said thoughts are defined as abstract, not that they are proved so. If there is no abstract, then the word and the definition are invalid.[/quote]
Whether thoughts are “defined as abstract” (part of an ontology of multiple classes) is what is at issue. That is, you are begging the question.
Again, that something supervenes on the physical does not entail that that thing does not exist. Exactly the opposite.[/quote]
No, I’m talking about actual life and what is meant when someone says “I have an idea”. If physicalism is true, what everyone actually means in real life when they say that is wrong.[/quote]
Sort of – though the same can be said in the case that any ontology obtains. Language gets us around the deep questions. If interactive dualism is true, I certainly mean the wrong thing when I say that I have a thought, and so does just about everybody else.
I emphatically agree. Most physicalists don’t actually know what their wordview entails. To that I add that neither do most other ists and ians.[/quote]
We can can agree on something. And I already pointed out earlier 1st that I believe in the supernatural and 2nd that I have no ability to comprehend what that really means.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It says that the question doesn’t exist, instead there is an arrangement of neurons in my brain that we could arbitrarily label as a question and gives rise to the false notion of the abstract.[/quote]
Can you explain what you mean by the “false notion of the abstract?” I don’t really understand why abstract thought requires supernatural intervention to exist, otherwise its is just a “false notion of the abstract.” Perhaps I am just getting lost here and not following your argument.
[/quote]
Basically thinking things like thoughts are abstract when they aren’t (because there is no abstract because there is only the physical). It’s not physics taking over meaning, but causing them to be false.[/quote]
What ever “thoughts” are, it seems to me that they measurably end when the brain dies, electricity stops flowing, and the chemicals stop reacting.
[/quote]
Which is of course the primary reason that belief in an afterlife is irrational, in my view.
In my personal (drugs, head injuries) and academic experience, the dysfunction of the physical brain corresponds with the dysfunction of “me-ness”–of my faculties, memories, perceptive processes, etc. To put it in current terminology, my conscious self supervenes on my physical brain in that changes to the latter entail changes to the former in every single case.
To think that this correspondence, the supervenience, somehow dissolves at the moment of the brain’s obliteration is a leap of great faith. Albeit an understandable one.
Edited
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I already pointed out earlier 1st that I believe in the supernatural and 2nd that I have no ability to comprehend what that really means.[/quote]
I commend that, and I would urge any physicalist to say the same sort of thing.
Really, it is the caveat that absolutely everyone needs to attach to themselves, no matter who they are and what they believe.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It says that the question doesn’t exist, instead there is an arrangement of neurons in my brain that we could arbitrarily label as a question and gives rise to the false notion of the abstract.[/quote]
Can you explain what you mean by the “false notion of the abstract?” I don’t really understand why abstract thought requires supernatural intervention to exist, otherwise its is just a “false notion of the abstract.” Perhaps I am just getting lost here and not following your argument.
[/quote]
Basically thinking things like thoughts are abstract when they aren’t (because there is no abstract because there is only the physical). It’s not physics taking over meaning, but causing them to be false.[/quote]
What ever “thoughts” are, it seems to me that they measurably end when the brain dies, electricity stops flowing, and the chemicals stop reacting.
[/quote]
Truth is an idea. no brain = no truth?[/quote]
I am not really sure how to respond to this; I probably don’t have the philosophical tools necessary to adequately respond to this.
That said, I don’t think of “truth” as an objective “thing” that has an existence outside of the physical world. It is a concept that is a function of language and the way humans view and organize the world. Without humans, the physical world, and language, I do not believe the there would be an objective thing called “truth.” So, short hand, no brain = no truth.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It says that the question doesn’t exist, instead there is an arrangement of neurons in my brain that we could arbitrarily label as a question and gives rise to the false notion of the abstract.[/quote]
Can you explain what you mean by the “false notion of the abstract?” I don’t really understand why abstract thought requires supernatural intervention to exist, otherwise its is just a “false notion of the abstract.” Perhaps I am just getting lost here and not following your argument.
[/quote]
Basically thinking things like thoughts are abstract when they aren’t (because there is no abstract because there is only the physical). It’s not physics taking over meaning, but causing them to be false.[/quote]
What ever “thoughts” are, it seems to me that they measurably end when the brain dies, electricity stops flowing, and the chemicals stop reacting.
[/quote]
Which is of course the primary reason that belief in an afterlife is irrational, in my view.
In my personal (drugs, head injuries) and academic experience, the dysfunction of the physical brain corresponds with the dysfunction of “me-ness”–of my faculties, memories, perceptive processes, etc. To put it in current terminology, my conscious self supervenes on my physical brain in that changes to the latter entail changes to the former in every single case.
To think that this correspondence, the supervenience, somehow dissolves at the moment of the brain’s obliteration is a leap of great faith. Albeit an understandable one.
Edited[/quote]
And now to attempt to entirely derail the thread. If then, there is no self apart from physical memory, if I wrong you, but then erase your memory of the crime, who did I wrong? Lets say I torture you. And I do it so harshly that your memories are permanently repressed. Without the continuance of memory and hence self-ness. Could I be said to have hurt you who has no memory of any pain?
And even more technically, since every input alters the physical brain, isnâ??t every input creating a new and different self? How can you define self in the physical if every physical system at every time is completely unique. What is your continuity to claim self at all?
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It says that the question doesn’t exist, instead there is an arrangement of neurons in my brain that we could arbitrarily label as a question and gives rise to the false notion of the abstract.[/quote]
Can you explain what you mean by the “false notion of the abstract?” I don’t really understand why abstract thought requires supernatural intervention to exist, otherwise its is just a “false notion of the abstract.” Perhaps I am just getting lost here and not following your argument.
[/quote]
Basically thinking things like thoughts are abstract when they aren’t (because there is no abstract because there is only the physical). It’s not physics taking over meaning, but causing them to be false.[/quote]
What ever “thoughts” are, it seems to me that they measurably end when the brain dies, electricity stops flowing, and the chemicals stop reacting.
[/quote]
Truth is an idea. no brain = no truth?[/quote]
I am not really sure how to respond to this; I probably don’t have the philosophical tools necessary to adequately respond to this.
That said, I don’t think of “truth” as an objective “thing” that has an existence outside of the physical world. It is a concept that is a function of language and the way humans view and organize the world. Without humans, the physical world, and language, I do not believe the there would be an objective thing called “truth.” So, short hand, no brain = no truth.
[/quote]
Interesting. I commend your open introspection and really have nothing to add. At that level we can’t prove or know things, at best people can be non-contradictory, and as far as I can tell you have that going for you.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It says that the question doesn’t exist, instead there is an arrangement of neurons in my brain that we could arbitrarily label as a question and gives rise to the false notion of the abstract.[/quote]
Can you explain what you mean by the “false notion of the abstract?” I don’t really understand why abstract thought requires supernatural intervention to exist, otherwise its is just a “false notion of the abstract.” Perhaps I am just getting lost here and not following your argument.
[/quote]
Basically thinking things like thoughts are abstract when they aren’t (because there is no abstract because there is only the physical). It’s not physics taking over meaning, but causing them to be false.[/quote]
What ever “thoughts” are, it seems to me that they measurably end when the brain dies, electricity stops flowing, and the chemicals stop reacting.
[/quote]
Which is of course the primary reason that belief in an afterlife is irrational, in my view.
In my personal (drugs, head injuries) and academic experience, the dysfunction of the physical brain corresponds with the dysfunction of “me-ness”–of my faculties, memories, perceptive processes, etc. To put it in current terminology, my conscious self supervenes on my physical brain in that changes to the latter entail changes to the former in every single case.
To think that this correspondence, the supervenience, somehow dissolves at the moment of the brain’s obliteration is a leap of great faith. Albeit an understandable one.
Edited[/quote]
And now to attempt to entirely derail the thread. If then, there is no self apart from physical memory, if I wrong you, but then erase your memory of the crime, who did I wrong? Lets say I torture you. And I do it so harshly that your memories are permanently repressed. Without the continuance of memory and hence self-ness. Could I be said to have hurt you who has no memory of any pain?
And even more technically, since every input alters the physical brain, isnâ??t every input creating a new and different self? How can you define self in the physical if every physical system at every time is completely unique. What is your continuity to claim self at all?
[/quote]
Where is the hypokeimenon, in other words.
If physicalism, there is none. Indeed, if physicalism, there is, in a way, no self. The thing I (the pronoun is unavoidable – this is a linguistic constraint) call “me” is not some precise brain-state, but rather a loose and fuzzy entity which I perceive to be the “experiencer” of various thoughts, memories, qualia, etc. Because this experiencer’s past is connected to the present by way of its ability to avail itself of memorial neural connections, I think of it as consisting, on some essential level, of a constant and unchanging material. If physicalism, this is not the case, unless the physical consists, on a plane as yet undiscovered, of some such hypokeimenon.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It says that the question doesn’t exist, instead there is an arrangement of neurons in my brain that we could arbitrarily label as a question and gives rise to the false notion of the abstract.[/quote]
Can you explain what you mean by the “false notion of the abstract?” I don’t really understand why abstract thought requires supernatural intervention to exist, otherwise its is just a “false notion of the abstract.” Perhaps I am just getting lost here and not following your argument.
[/quote]
Basically thinking things like thoughts are abstract when they aren’t (because there is no abstract because there is only the physical). It’s not physics taking over meaning, but causing them to be false.[/quote]
What ever “thoughts” are, it seems to me that they measurably end when the brain dies, electricity stops flowing, and the chemicals stop reacting.
[/quote]
Which is of course the primary reason that belief in an afterlife is irrational, in my view.
In my personal (drugs, head injuries) and academic experience, the dysfunction of the physical brain corresponds with the dysfunction of “me-ness”–of my faculties, memories, perceptive processes, etc. To put it in current terminology, my conscious self supervenes on my physical brain in that changes to the latter entail changes to the former in every single case.
To think that this correspondence, the supervenience, somehow dissolves at the moment of the brain’s obliteration is a leap of great faith. Albeit an understandable one.
Edited[/quote]
And now to attempt to entirely derail the thread. If then, there is no self apart from physical memory, if I wrong you, but then erase your memory of the crime, who did I wrong? Lets say I torture you. And I do it so harshly that your memories are permanently repressed. Without the continuance of memory and hence self-ness. Could I be said to have hurt you who has no memory of any pain?
And even more technically, since every input alters the physical brain, isn�¢??t every input creating a new and different self? How can you define self in the physical if every physical system at every time is completely unique. What is your continuity to claim self at all?
[/quote]
Where is the hypokeimenon, in other words.
If physicalism, there is none. Indeed, if physicalism, there is, in a way, no self. The thing I (the pronoun is unavoidable – this is a linguistic constraint) call “me” is not some precise brain-state, but rather a loose and fuzzy entity which I perceive to be the “experiencer” of various thoughts, memories, qualia, etc. Because this experiencer’s past is connected to the present by way of its ability to avail itself of memorial neural connections, I think of it as consisting, on some essential level, of a constant and unchanging material. If physicalism, this is not the case, unless the physical consists, on a plane as yet undiscovered, of some such hypokeimenon.
[/quote]
You mean that’s not really Kirk, Spock, and Bones coming out on the other end of the transporter?