There's no bridge between the laws of physics and those of logic. They function independently of one another. — Wayfarer

So?

But there is a bridge between neurology and the laws of logic no?

None known to science.

Think about this: the simplest proposition can be written in any language, any medium, any material.

The material form is different in every case, but the meaning stays the same.

So how then could the meaning be something physical?

Guess physicalists can't explain sleep either :roll: — khaled

The brain shuts down for the night or the day, if you're napping. :chin:

Also note, an expression that has gained currency and traction in the fast-paced modern world of sensory overload, drugs, wild parties, overworked and underpaid people stressed to breaking point viz. "zone out" defined as "to stop paying attention and not hear or see what is around you for a short period of time." Zoning out is precisely what Mu is!

You might find it interesting that zoning out sounds very much like Petit Mal (Absence Seizures) but the latter has physical correlates which can be picked up by EEG I believe.

Anyway, zoning out definitely isn't a petit mal seizure.

That probably explains what my hovercraft is full of eels.

That probably explains what my hovercraft is full of eels. — Wayfarer

That's my Zen moment right there!

@Wayfarer

Absent-mindedness (Zoning out) & Philosophical Zombie

I don't know why and how but these two ideas seem connected at some level.

It was a reference to Monty Python. I was actually trying to support the OP with reference to Western philosophical rationalism and the argument from reason. So best to stop talking now, lest I mistake you for a philosophical zombie. :grimace:

↪TheMadFoolIt was a reference to Monty Python. I was actually trying to support the OP with reference to Western philosophical rationalism and the argument from reason. So best to stop talking now, lest I mistake you for a philosophical zombie. — Wayfarer

Indeed! Indeed!

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent — Ludwig Wittegenstein

Speech is silver, silence is golden — Proverb

Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know — Laozi

The brain shuts down for the night or the day, if you're napping. — TheMadFool

.......Sorry, are you serious?

What's the difference between someone who is dead and someone who is sleeping do you think? When the brain shuts down what keeps the heart going? Cmon mate you could figure this one out with a bit of thinking or a quick google search.

So how then could the meaning be something physical? — Wayfarer

As I said to fool:

If I have a sorted series of red and blue boxes, RRRBBRBRRB for example, is the series physical? As in is the pattern itself, the structure physical? I frankly don't care about the answer to that question because it's definitional. But since you want to define whether or not something is physical by whether or not it possesses mass and volume, then for you probably the pattern is not physical (since the pattern does not possess mass).

For the record, since the pattern is a pattern of physical stuff (boxes) I would call the pattern itself physical, which is maybe why a lot of people on the site think I'm disagreeing with them when I'm not. Maybe my use of physical is weird. Anyways. — khaled

TLDR: I don't particularly care whether or not you want to call the meaning physical, for me if someone is a pattern of physical things then that pattern I call physical. So long as to you the meaning is a structure of physical things not a new separate sort of thing. Not something that you add to the physical.

I don't particularly care — khaled

Many of the things you ‘don’t particularly care about’ are actually fundamental to the kinds of questions you’re asking. But then, you probably don’t particularly care about that, either.

My argument is that the ability to detect meaning and then to represent it in abstract terms via language, is something for which physicalism fails to account. The counter-argument is, ‘oh yes, physicalism does account for that. It does it by [x]’.

So - what is ‘x’?

Sigh. Can't you just read to the end and respond?

So long as to you the meaning is a structure of physical things not a new separate sort of thing. Not something that you add to the physical. — khaled

Do you agree? Because I think our disagreement may be more about which words we use rather than what we mean by them.

My argument is that the ability to detect meaning and then to represent it in abstract terms via language, is something for which physicalism fails to account. — Wayfarer

Right and I'm asking what "meaning" is for you. Is it a pattern of physical things, or a new sort of thing entirely? Do you have a bunch of ink and then you "add meaning" to it like a chef adds ingredients to a stew or is meaning simply the pattern of ink? Or something else? I think meaning is the pattern of ink.

We have to make sure we're talking about the same thing here in the first place. Then we can start to ask whether or not the thing we're talking about is physical.

Right and I'm asking what "meaning" is for you. Is it a pattern of physical things, or a new sort of thing entirely? — khaled

It’s not any kind of thing. There are patterns in nature - crystals, snowflakes and the like - but ‘meaning’ is not a pattern. Like, in language, the structure of grammar is not a pattern, because it’s irregular - different languages have different syntax, even English syntax is too irregular to define in terms of a pattern.

The ability to perceive and represent meaning is clearly basic to language use, generally. Humans alone can do that - birds and other animals communicate through sounds, but only humans can perceive the relationship between symbols.

The physicalist answer to all of that is simply that it is an evolved ability - which is true, in some respects, but it begs many questions regarding what ‘physical’ means, again.

So in answer to your question, yes, the ability to perceive meaning is an ability which emerged with h.sapiens, and in that sense is new or novel. It’s not something which can be explained in the terms which physical theories operate.

Don’t be surprised that this is a deep question, because it’s a deep question.

What's the difference between someone who is dead and someone who is sleeping do you think? When the brain shuts down what keeps the heart going? Cmon mate you could figure this one out with a bit of thinking or a quick google search. — khaled

Let me get this straight, what you're saying is the Mu state is identical to sleeping? Doesn't seem likely, Mu is a state of consciousness but sleep is a state of unconsciousness. When in Mu state, the EEG reads: conscisous. When asleep, the EEG reads: unconscious.

There are patterns in nature - crystals, snowflakes and the like - but ‘meaning’ is not a pattern. — Wayfarer

So it's not a structure of a thing.

It’s not any kind of thing. — Wayfarer

Nor any kind of thing.

So what the heck is it? Because I think that exhausts your options.

Like, in language, the structure of grammar is not a pattern, because it’s irregular — Wayfarer

"Irregular" =/= "Not a pattern".

Language and grammar aren't random either. The only difference between a grammatically correct sentence and a grammatically incorrect sentence is whether or not they conform to a pattern.

Like seriously, "the structure of grammar is not a pattern"? Really? "Pattern" and "Structure" are synonyms.

Humans alone can do that - birds and other animals communicate through sounds, but only humans can perceive the relationship between symbols. — Wayfarer

Where do you get this? There is mountains of experimental evidence of animals reasoning. Even solving puzzles.

The physicalist answer to all of that is simply that it is an evolved ability - which is true, in some respects, but it begs many questions regarding what ‘physical’ means, again. — Wayfarer

Let's just first get agree "meaning" means. What is meaning? Not a pattern and not a new sort of thing. So what? I just can't understand what you're getting it.

Let me get this straight, what you're saying is the Mu state is identical to sleeping? — TheMadFool

No I'm saying that your brain doesn't shut down when you're sleeping. Idk how you got that from what I said.

This is to imply that your idea about "mind off brain on" is not very difficult to a physicalist to deal with. Physicalism wouldn't have gotten off the ground if it couldn't explain what sleeping was. Even though in sleeping it's also "mind off brain on". Outside of dreams anyways.

I employed the best science I could muster. — TheMadFool

Physicalism is about the observable universe. This includes the states of massive and non-massive bodies, but also about the changes of those states. There is no requirement that when the state of the brain changes from A to B, the brain must change mass or volume, or have done work on something.

A fundamental part of the physics that physicalism endorses is entropy. Thermodynamics states that if a system such as the brain changes to a more ordered state, there must be an over-compensating increase of disorder in the environment. When you think of Aphrodite, assuming you were thinking of nothing else, your brain releases heat. Of course, your brain is *always* thinking about something, so it's always releasing heat: you cannot isolate a single thought and say "The brain changed from state A to state B and released energy C". But you can observe the physics of thinking generally.

This is to imply that your idea about "mind off brain on" is not very difficult to a physicalist to deal with. Physicalism wouldn't have gotten off the ground if it couldn't explain what sleeping was. Even though in sleeping it's also "mind off brain on". Outside of dreams anyways. — khaled

Oh! I see what you mean. You're taking sleep as a case of brain on but mind off. Sleep isn't some kind of uniform state that we can talk about it as a whole. Let's focus on REM and NREM sleep. The latter (NREM sleep) is not problematic because the brain is off and the mind is off. The former (REM sleep), oddly, isn't problematic either, the brain is on and the mind is on. :chin:

The latter (NREM sleep) is not problematic because the brain is off and the mind is off. — TheMadFool

The brain is very much on. Or you'd be dead. That's the point......

The brain is very much on. Or you'd be dead. That's the point...... — khaled

The brain is very much off. Or you'd be awake. That's the point...

Anyway, as @180 Proof likes to say, I'm paraphrasing, Death is the true religion and Sleep is her prophet.

Let's just first get agree "meaning" means. What is meaning? — khaled

The subject of various disciplines, including linguistics, languages, and semiotics. I can't see how you can define what meaning means without falling into obvious circularity.

Ok, what sort of thing is meaning? Is that better? Not material, not a structure of a material, and also not anything else. So what's left?

I would say it's a structure of a material. What's the issue with that? And what is it for you instead?

Do you actually think there is no brain activity while you sleep? If so I can't very much help you.

Well if can find some meaning, pack it in a carton and ship it to me. Although you seem to be having some trouble....

I would be having trouble packing meaning into a carton yes, because you can't pack patterns into cartons. Now, we can agree you can't pack meaning into cartons. But you also think meaning is not a pattern. And also not anything else. So, again, what's left?

If you want to argue against strawmen feel free, just declare you intentions from the outset so you don't waste people's time.

Another way of putting it is in terms of Lockean primary versus secondary qualities; Traditionally, the discipline of Physics charts only the primary qualities of objects, events and processes i.e. their mathematical interrelations, where the relationship of their primary qualities to their secondary qualities (i.e. qualia) is ignored and undetermined. The reason why the secondary qualities are classically ignored by physics is as a consequence of traditional physics treating it's subject matter to be independent of any particular observer, which is itself due partly to convenience and simplification, and due partly as a consequence of the objective of physics to model the causal relationships that hold between action and consequence irrespective of the contextual nuances and discrepancies of any given observer.

Strictly speaking, the propositions of physics are senseless, like an unexecuted computer program, until as and when the propositions are used by an agent and thereby become grounded in the agent's perceptual apparatus in a bespoke fashion, at which point Locke's secondary qualities become temporarily welded to the physical concepts.

Classical physical concepts are therefore by design irreducible to mental concepts; something has been a central feature of physics rather than a bug, at least up until the discovery of special relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which show that even the Lockean primary qualities of objects are relative to perspective.

Classical physical concepts are therefore by design irreducible to mental concepts; something has been a central feature of physics rather than a bug, at least up until the discovery of special relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which show that even the Lockean primary qualities of objects are relative to perspective. — sime

:100:

I can't seem to do any work with my thought about Aphrodite. I mean my thought about Aphrodite can't seem to deflect even a single air molecule off its path let alone do anything else physical. — TheMadFool

Then you typing this post about your thought of Aphrodite isnt a physical action? What about the statues and paintings of Aphrodite? Those were not produced by physical actions? How can one produce a statue or hit keys on a keyboard spelling out Aphrodite without first having the thought of Aphrodite?