• numberjohnny5
    132
    If everything is constantly changing, then there is no such thing as a state of affairs. To assume that everything is changing, and that there are states of affairs is contradictory. So in your claimed ontology, facts or truths cannot be expressed as states of affairs.Metaphysician Undercover

    Only if you parse that as a false dichotomy between "constant change" as not having a regularity to it, and "non-constant change" as being only or permanently static. It's more nuanced than that. Think of it as two dancers dancing together. One dancer represents a person/mind, and the other dancer represents what the mind refers to. Maybe the dancers are waltzing incredibly slowly, so you can't very easily perceive that they're moving/constantly changing. But at any time that one dancer refers to the other dancer re a truth-claim, the other dancer obtains and "makes" the truth-claim "true".
  • numberjohnny5
    132
    (1) Why you're deflecting the question back to me? — numberjohnny5


    I expected that you'd recognize that the question was a rhetorical question. You asked me how do non-physical things exist if they have no properties and my answer (by way of rhetorical question) is that properties are non-physical things. So it doesn't really make sense to ask about the properties of properties.
    Metaphysician Undercover

    I didn't realise, no. It's difficult for me to grasp how non-physical things exist (even if you say that properties are non-physical), and at the time, I was hoping you'd clarify that for me. That's why I asked you a direct (non-rhetorical) question.

    So, Ill now ask you the question. Do you or do you not apprehend properties as non-physical things? Take the property "large" for example. Many physical things are large, so it is impossible that large is any particular physical thing.Metaphysician Undercover

    It depends how we use "large" -- whether it's a mental property of our minds assigning things as "large" (the concept "large" is a thought) in terms of relative scales, or whether we're referring to non-mental properties of things that actually take up more space than other things, say. There are no "comparisons/measurements" that are non-mental though.

    It appears to me, like you do not adequately understand what "ontology" is. Ontology consists of the assumptions which we make about existence, and we always have our own reasons for the assumptions which we make. So my ontological assumption is that non-physical things have existence no less than physical things.Metaphysician Undercover

    That's how I use ontology too, except I'd add claims and commitments to that criteria as well as assumptions.

    Non-physical things are apprehended by the mind, they are called intelligible objects like universal ideas, concepts like "large", "red", etc..Metaphysician Undercover

    Sure, I guessed that you'd believe something like that. It just isn't coherent to me.

    How do you think that the numeral "2" stays the same, as the numeral "2", within my mind, if all there is in my mind is brain activity? How does the numeral "2" stay in my mind as a static object, if my "mind" is only accounted for by brain activity?Metaphysician Undercover

    The numeral "2" doesn't stay the same when I visualise it. If I visualise the number "2" now, I notice it isn't this stable image; it fluctuates and changes. It's relatively "stable" in that as long as I try to visualise it, it remains there in some form. But it's in no way an actually non-changing, static thing in my mind.

    So let's readdress this question. There is brain activity which corresponds to me thinking should I or should I not shut down my computer. Then I make a choice and proceed with the appropriate activity. What, other than the non-physical mind, causes the actual choice? It cannot be the brain activity which is the cause of the decision, because the brain activity is considering the options, weighing the possibilities, and the choice causes the end of this brain activity, to be replaced with a different activity, the movement of the body parts. The brain activity cannot cause the activity of the bodily parts directly, because a choice is required. Nor is it something external, which is the cause, because the choice comes from within me.Metaphysician Undercover

    It's not that it's not like a sequence of brain activity that involves perceiving the situation, weighing up possibilities, making a choice, and making sense of the consequences of that choice. That's all (conscious) brain activity; and it's constantly doing/juggling multiple things sequentially; and this is all happening while nonconscious brain activity is working too.

    Brain activity causes the actual choice. It's not like the brain activity only amounts to "considering the options, weighing the possibilities". Whatever gave you that idea? And I'd say "the choice is the end of that particular sequence of brain activities." The brain activity sends projections from the motor regions to the muscle sites in the body. So it is directly responsible (along with other nonconscious processes) for causing movement of body parts. Also, making choices is the mental aspect of brain activity, and it can only be mental activity if non-mental activity (autonomic processes) is functional.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.