• TheMadFool
    6.6k
    yes, that's the point of my comment. You must first decide if something is able to be quantified before quantifying it, which you did not doep3265

    But I can safely infer that if something isn't mass quantifiable, it can't be material.
  • Asif
    208
    @TheMadFool Could something be non mass quantifiable but physical? Light is physical,the mass is?
  • ep3265
    64
    You're making an appeal to a false system then. My point is that you're using mathematics to prove a non-mathematical element is true. You're using the rules of the universe to prove something outside of the universe is real.
  • TheMadFool
    6.6k
    Could something be non mass quantifiable but physical? Light is physical,the mass is?Asif

    Interesting but don't forget that light has other measurable physical properties like wavelength, frequency, intensity, pressure, etc. but thoughts don't.

    My point is that you're using mathematics to prove a non-mathematical element is true.ep3265

    The fact that the mind lacks quantifiable (mathematical) properties is the proof of its immaterial nature. In other words the non-mathematical nature is the proof.
  • Asif
    208
    @TheMadFool Thoughts and feelings do have intensity and duration. Sound and pressure if you include speaking.
  • TheMadFool
    6.6k
    Thoughts and feelings do have intensity and duration. Sound and pressure if you include speaking.Asif

    I think you're confusing thoughts with feelings.
  • Asif
    208
    @TheMadFool No. I'm categorizing them as similiar.
    Thoughts do have duration and intensity.
    The separation of thoughts and feelings is similiar to the difference between slow running and fast running. Legit,but both still a type of movement running.
  • TheMadFool
    6.6k
    No. I'm categorizing them as similiar.
    Thoughts do have duration and intensity.
    The separation of thoughts and feelings is similiar to the difference between slow running and fast running. Legit,but both still a type of movement running.
    Asif

    Duration/time is not a legitimate physical property. Physical Properties
  • Asif
    208
    @TheMadFool I regard duration/time as movement/change. Movement and change are physical properties.
  • TheMadFool
    6.6k
    I regard duration/time as movement/change. Movement and change are physical properties.Asif

    Yes, but duration alone isn't a physical property.
  • Asif
    208
    @TheMadFool Duration alone? What is duration alone?
    All things have duration. And living beings perceive duration.
  • TheMadFool
    6.6k
    uration alone? What is duration alone?
    All things have duration. And living beings perceive duration.
    Asif

    Thoughts do have duration and intensity.Asif

    :chin:
  • whollyrolling
    445
    What is a mind? Your post certainly has no mass. Perhaps you could include some reasoning as to what a mind is and why it should have mass?
  • ep3265
    64
    @TheMadFool

    The fact that it can't be measured shows that it doesn't exist, not that it does.

    At this point, you've said there's no evidence for it existing outside of reality, so therefore it's an argument from assertion, and also an unfalsifiable claim.

    What's your definition of mind? It can't be the same as mine.

    You've said there's no physical representation of thought? Then what's neuroscience about? Why does the prefrontal cortex light up when people are figuring out what others think or feel?
  • Asif
    208
    @ep3265 Do i understand you are saying if it cant be measured it cant exist?
    What measuring tape are you using?
  • TheMadFool
    6.6k
    What is a mind? Your post certainly has no mass. Perhaps you could include some reasoning as to what a mind is and why it should have mass?whollyrolling

    First off, my post was a misstep. I thought physicalism implied that mind, itself, must be material. It doesn't actually - the mind is just the functional aspect of, as a physicalist would put it, the the brain. In this view, the mind is just the brain doing its thing and needn't have mass.

    However, it can be directly appreciated that thoughts are not physical, not even in the sense that light/energy is for thoughts are not measurable in the same way as light/energy is. At the very least, thoughts are, if you insist they're physical, are in a different category of physical than, say, a block of concrete or light or energy.

    It may be true that there are physical correlates to thoughts e.g. activity in neurons and synapses and whatnot, these being measurable with instruments but that doesn't diminish the fact that thoughts are, as evidenced by experiencing them, not the same as what are familiar to us as physical. Even if it were possible to exactly match each thought to something physical in the brain, it would still be true that what's directly perceivable in thinking/thoughts is, unquestionably, nonphysical.
  • TheMadFool
    6.6k
    The fact that it can't be measured shows that it doesn't exist, not that it does.ep3265

    Good point but that's presupposing physicalism.
  • whollyrolling
    445
    'Mind' is a label for something the existence of which is speculative. How we perceive thoughts is not necessarily how they occur, and we can only imagine them occurring without a brain, which is further speculation. Many things were not familiar to us as physical and now are just that--physical. I agree that correlation isn't solid evidence, so to say that thoughts are physical is speculation as well. I can't begin to say that I understand how or why we've become self-aware, which is really what's led to our notion of 'non-physical' things, although I have pondered it extensively.

    That being said, I don't 'believe' that anything exists or can be discussed which is not a direct result of some physical process, and physically linked, physically dependent in some way.
  • ep3265
    64


    Do i understand you are saying if it cant be measured it cant exist?
    What measuring tape are you using?
    Asif


    No, if it can't be measured using mathematics, then using mathematics to prove its existence isn't going to work. I get what you mean and I will retract my statement of lack of measurement being reason for nonexistence.

    Good point but that's presupposing physicalism.TheMadFool

    Good point.

    However, using mathematics to prove something non-mathematical isn't going to solve your problem.
  • TheMadFool
    6.6k
    However, using mathematics to prove something non-mathematical isn't going to solve your problem.ep3265

    The nonmathematical (unquantifiable) nature of mind is the proof.

    1. All physical things are quantifiable (mathematical) things

    Ergo,

    2. All non-quantifiable things are nonphysical things

    3. All minds are non-quantifiable things

    Ergo

    4. All minds are nonphysical things
123456Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment