But even if Qualia only depended on the physical configuration, you have absolutely no way of finding the significant variables. Maybe people born after 3 pm on Wednesdays actually enjoy torture (though they’ll act like the rest of us and scream). — khaled

I assume that the "Qualia law" (matter->Qualia) is a law of nature similar to the other laws of nature, thus steady and time-independent.
Like Newton's law of universal gravitation, it has no jumps and is not different on Wednesdays than on Tuesdays.

If everything would be arbitrary, do you then go in the evening on the street and beat up people, because it can be that they are sad, if you do NOT do it?

I assume that the "Qualia law" (matter->Qualia) is a law of nature similar to the other laws of nature, thus steady and time-independent. — SolarWind

Right. You assume. For no reason. Yet you claim you have a reason for doing so.

Anyways we've been going around in circles for a while now. I'll leave it here.

Anyways we've been going around in circles for a while now. — khaled

That is in the nature of things, that is philosophy.

Yes, I'm just making assumptions. I assume that an animal feels pain when you hit it. You have to decide what you believe. That is life.

Let's get right down to business.

Physicalism claims everything is matter and/or energy.

Matter is anything that has mass and volume.

Energy is the capacity to do work.

Here's me, observing a wheel spinning.

The wheel neither gains mass nor increases in volume. Ergo, the spinning wheel isn't matter!

Conclusion: The phenomena of a wheel spinning is neither matter nor energy.

In other words, the spin of a wheel is nonphysical.
----------

1. The brain is made up of matter.
2. The mind is the name we give the core function of the brain.
3. A thought is an atomized unit of "mind".

Matter is anything that has mass and volume.

...

The wheel neither gains mass nor increases in volume. Ergo, the spinning wheel isn't matter! — avalon

Something is wrong.

the spin of the wheel has no mass, the wheel does (forgive the earlier typo) but otherwise my point stands

the spin of the wheel has no mass, the wheel does (forgive the earlier typo) but otherwise my point stands — avalon

So the wheel is matter, and the spin of the wheel is energy. So far, so physicalist.

I agree. I’m claiming this analogy mirrors the OP.

I agree. I’m claiming this analogy mirrors the OP. — avalon

Ah! Sorry, the typo threw me. Keep it up, comrade!!! :rofl:

Let's get right down to business.

Physicalism claims everything is matter and/or energy.

Matter is anything that has mass and volume.

Energy is the capacity to do work.

Here's me, observing a wheel spinning.

The wheel neither gains mass nor increases in volume. Ergo, the spinning wheel isn't matter!

Conclusion: The phenomena of a wheel spinning is neither matter nor energy.

In other words, the spin of a wheel is nonphysical.
----------

1. The brain is made up of matter.
2. The mind is the name we give the core function of the brain.
3. A thought is an atomized unit of "mind". — avalon

You can do work with the spinning wheel i.e. the spinning (of the wheel) is energy - it's physical (matter & energy).

A thought on the other hand can't hasn't been observed doing any work i.e. thoughts aren't energy. Thoughts aren't matter too because the brain doesn't increase either in mass or in volume when thinking.

Ergo, thoughts are nonphysical.

You might find psychokinesis relevant. Thoughts doing work! Woo-woo! Pseudoscience!

Here's me, I'm thinking about Aphrodite (goddess of beauty).

My brain neither gains mass nor increases in volume. Ergo, my thought about Aphrodite isn't matter! — TheMadFool

Question: Is mind also nonphysical? — TheMadFool

Question: does a length of copper cable increase in weight when you pass electrical
current through it? Or does a piece of steel increase in weight when you heat it up?

I disagree.

The wheel is physical yes, but the “spin” of the wheel is a process that the physical object undergoes. The process itself is not physical. Similarly, the brain is physical, yet a thought it not.

Both the spin of a wheel and a thought in the brain are supported by energy, one through the force that set the spin in motion, the other by the energy it takes to fire the neurons that in sum create your thoughts.

The wheel is physical yes, but the “spin” of the wheel is a process that the physical object undergoes. The process itself is not physical. Similarly, the brain is physical, yet a thought it not. — avalon

If I drop a tiny piece of paper on the spinning wheel, will the paper not fly off at a tangent? Yes, it will. What causes the paper to fly off like that? Energy! Ergo, the spin of the wheel is energy.

Question: does a length of copper cable increase in weight when you pass electrical
current through it? Or does a piece of steel increase in weight when you heat it up? — Janus

In both cases, physical work is done. You can't do any work with thoughts, at least I haven't heard of such an event having occurred. Something smells fishy though. Mind if you take a look at what I'm saying.

You can't do any work with thoughts, at least I haven't heard of such an event having occurred. — TheMadFool

Considering thoughts aren't physical, how are you ever going to detect that this event has occurred? What do you expect to see when a thought does something?

Considering thoughts aren't physical, how are you ever going to detect that this event has occurred? What do you expect to see when a thought does something? — khaled

That's one of the vexing problems in ontology. There's no difference at all between perceivable (sensorily and/or instrumentally) and physical.

That's one of the vexing problems in ontology. — TheMadFool

Vexing problems in dualist ontology*

Vexing problems in dualist ontology* — khaled

Physicalism is literally hogging all the space - leaving no room for nonphysicalism. The instant a thing is perceived, it's automatically physical. You do see the problem with such a schema don't you. Existence is defined in terms of that which is perceivable and that which is perceivable is physical. How the hell can we claim anything nonphysical exists?

Existence takes precedence over physical/nonphysical i.e. first existence needs to be established and only then can we go about determining the physical/nonphysical nature of that which is claimed to exist. Unfortunately or not, to exist means to be perceived and to be perceived is to be physical. Ergo, nonphysical implies imperceivable and imperceivable means nonexistent! To cut to the chase, by virtue of how existence & physical are defined (both perceivable), nonphysical = nonexistence.

When you speak of the non physical, which you do fairly frequently, I often wonder if what you mean is the invisible. For example, so cannot be seen, including processes underlying life, including the transmission of ideas electronically on this site. We can see our devices and the words on the screen, but cannot see the way it all happens. It involves signals, which have a physical basis but it does involve transmission which is invisible, and I believe that this applies to thoughts. They involve the physical brain and chemicals, but what takes place involves processes which are not visible. It also makes me think of Hegel's specific phenomenology.

I often wonder if what you mean is the invisible — Jack Cummins

Air has weight but air is invisible! So, no I don't mean invisible. Glass, the plain kind, too is invisible but definitely not nonphysical.

Air has particles and, glass is not invisible, but is merely transparent, or we would walk through it accidentally, and knock over any empty glasses. I am talking more about the way in which at the present time, neuroscience can detect the underlying basis of brain processes but cannot see the specific images and ideas within our consciousness, because they are invisible to other minds.

I am talking more about the way in which at the present time, neuroscience can detect the underlying basis of brain processes but cannot see the specific images and ideas within our consciousness, because they are invisible to other minds. — Jack Cummins

There's nothing particularly special about this though. If you have a particular neuron wired into your brain, you'll get different information out of it firing than if you're staring at it through a scanner. Nobody speaks of an image/flavour barrier about grapes: we're quite happy that the same object made up of the same chemicals can look one way and taste another. Same works for neurons: they can appear one way in a scanner, another way under a microscope, taste a different way on a cracker. It's all down to different bits of the information about the neuron (or grape) connected to different systems designed to convert that information into different representations.

Exactly!

But no, the schema is not problematic. To define physical by being detectable seems like a decent definition even in vacuum. If you want to propose a “mind substance” like a thought, being more than just a physical structure, then that’s a testable hypothesis.

You claim thoughts are non physical yes? That means they can’t be perceived. However one would also like to claim that thoughts do something (I got a drink because I was thirsty). So if thoughts do something without getting perceived, we’d know exactly what that looks like: A magical unexplained movement. Somewhere along the causal chain of you getting a drink, you’d expect to see a neurological event that was uncaused by anything physical, that was instead caused by the thought.

Once that’s detected (though it directly violates the conservation laws) you can begin to deal with the whole slew of other problems that come with it. How do we know that this seemingly uncaused movement was caused by YOUR mind? If your mind has these telekinetic powers, why can’t you cause movement outside your body in the same way you cause movement inside your body? Etc.

But most likely we won’t detect such a thing at all. I recommend you check Enrique’s explanation of quantum consciousness if you insist on having minds and thoughts be substances with their own existence, rather than just structures of matter.

Or maybe it’s doubtful that thoughts exist independently as a substance in the first place. Though I’d like to make that work, I see no good way to do so.

You seem to be simply assuming that thoughts are not in any way examples of physical work. But if they are correlated with neural activity then they are examples of energy exchange, of physical work.

Anyway your argument seemed to be that if thoughts are physical activity when I think a thought I should weigh more. I presented the examples of electricity flow and heating of objects to show that I think this reasoning is fallacious.

You seem to be simply assuming that thoughts are not in any way examples of physical work. But if they are correlated with neural activity then they are examples of energy exchange, of physical work.

Anyway your argument seemed to be that if thoughts are physical activity when I think a thought I should weigh more. I presented the examples of electricity flow and heating of objects to show that I think this reasoning is fallacious. — Janus

But no, the schema is not problematic. To define physical by being detectable seems like a decent definition even in vacuum. If you want to propose a “mind substance” like a thought, being more than just a physical structure, then that’s a testable hypothesis. — khaled

To the above to esteemed forum members.

The argument from physics is closely related to the argument from causal interaction. Many physicists and consciousness researchers have argued that any action of a nonphysical mind on the brain would entail the violation of physical laws, such as the conservation of energy. — Wikipedia

I'm a bit confused here. What's the relationship between the nonphysical and physical laws? 4 possibilities arise:

1. If x is nonphysical then x violates physical laws

2. If x violates physical laws then x is nonphysical

3. If x doesn't violate physical laws then x is physical [from 1]

4. If x is physical then x doesn't violate physical laws [from 2]

The argument from physics (above) seems to be about relationship 1 and 3 between the nonphysical and physical laws.

Dark Energy & Conservation Laws

If the trio are ultimately proved right, it would not mean physicists having to throw their long-established conservation principles completely out of the window — From The Article Above

What dark energy and its implication on the conservation physical laws does is it makes statement 2 above false i.e. it's true that that x violates physical laws & x is physical. Then we get the following statement,

5. If x violates physical laws then either x is physical or x is nonphysical.

Then,

6. If x is nonphysical then either x is physical or x is nonphysical [1, 5 HS]

7. x is nonphysical [assume for conditional proof]

8. x is physical or x is nonphysical [6, 7 MP]

9. x doesn't violate physical laws or x violates physical laws [1, 4, 7 CD]

10. If x is nonphysical then either x doesn't violate physical laws or x violates physical laws [7 - 9 conditional proof]

In other words, according to physicalists who make the argument from physics, playing by their rules, their hypothesis about the nonphysical as compatible with both violation and nonviolation of physical laws (10 above) is utterly unscientific as it can't be falsified.

Either that or accept everything is nonphysical.

In other words, according to physicalists who make the argument from physics, playing by their rules, their hypothesis about the nonphysical as compatible with both violation and nonviolation of physical laws (10 above) is utterly unscientific as it can't be falsified. — TheMadFool

It's a logical statement, not a prediction of outcomes. If X can act on (e.g. move, torque, annihilate) Y then X has a property of being able to supervene on Y and Y has the property of being supervened upon by X. This is precisely what physical properties are.

Mass is a physical property that dictates how a gravitational field (physical) will act on the body, how the body will act on the mass, for instance. Charge is a physical property that dictates how the electromagnetic field (physical) will supervene on and be supervened upon by the body.

One possible out is that X supervenes upon Y but Y does not supervene on X. This would be apparent as uncaused changes in Y and breaches of conservation laws (energy, momentum, etc.). However, if one saw such a thing, such as the strange angular momentum of galaxies or the accelerating expansion of the universe), one would probably and rightly predict an undetected physical cause over an invisible non-physical one. Such a prediction is scientific insofar as, should we detect the cause, we would predict effects of it being supervened upon also.

It's a logical statement, not a prediction of outcomes. — Kenosha Kid

Unfortunately or not, this is false.

The argument from physics clearly states that if the mind were nonphysical then physical laws would be violated.

Read on, Fool.

One possible out is that X supervenes upon Y but Y does not supervene on X. This would be apparent as uncaused changes in Y and breaches of conservation laws (energy, momentum, etc.). However, if one saw such a thing, such as the strange angular momentum of galaxies or the accelerating expansion of the universe), one would probably and rightly predict an undetected physical cause over an invisible non-physical one. Such a prediction is scientific insofar as, should we detect the cause, we would predict effects of it being supervened upon also. — Kenosha Kid

I get what you mean. It's better to posit a physical cause rather than a nonphysical cause if something inexplicable is observed.

That's the whole point of my argument. First, scientists and physicalists always maintain something physical is going on whether physical laws are being violated or not. Then they define the nonphysical as that which violates physical laws. You see the problem with this don't you:

1. Physical laws violated -> Physical (your recommendatiom)
2. Physical laws vioated -> Nonphysical (definition of nonphysical according to physicalists/scientists)
3. Physical laws violated (observed)
4. Physical (1, 3 MP)
5. Nonphysical (2, 3 MP)
6. Physical & Nonphysical (contradiction!)

Acknowledging the fact that 1 is a better option still, you can't have it both ways, eat the cake and have it too, right? What's the difference between physical and nonphysical in terms of physical laws if both can violate physical laws?

It's better to posit a physical cause rather than a nonphysical cause if something inexplicable is observed. — TheMadFool

It's scientific to do so. I'll leave whether it's "better" to the eyes of the beholder.

Then they define the nonphysical as that which violates physical laws. — TheMadFool

No, they don't define non-physical at all. It's not on their radar; if it is, they're not doing so as physicists but as metaphysicists.

First, scientists and physicalists always maintain something physical is going on whether physical laws are being violated or not. — TheMadFool

Whether physical laws are apparently violated, yes. They see a physical effect, they seek a physical cause. Why so narrow-minded? Because it's proven a successful strategy for 500 years or so, no other reason. When undetected physical causes are hypothesised, they are then sought and typically found (neutrino, antimatter, Higgs boson, etc.) No more unreasonable than supposing every nail is amenable to a hammer (which is what physics is: a tool). It would be so rare to not find a physical cause that one would be justified in concluding that it's difficult to find rather than that an entirely new, entirely different, non-physical thing is at play, a pointless conjecture that cannot hope to be verified or falsified.