The brain is made of matter, not pixie dust. — Garrett Travers

Matter is just a concept. Unless you can clearly define your concept of "matter" you might just as well be saying that the brain is made of pixie dust. Try it, exchange "pixie dust" for "matter" in some of your statements and you'll see that the meaning of your statement doesn't change a bit.

"The brain is made of [pixie dust, not matter]. Highly functional, highly systemmatized, genetically coded, [pixie dust] of unrivaled sophistication."

See, "matter" is just a stand in term, for something you haven't got a clue as to what it is, just like "pixie dust", so the two serve the exact same purpose in your statements. The real issue here is the question of how some instances of the assumed "matter" can be highly functional, and highly systematized, while other instances of matter are not. What gives your pixie dust ("matter") such magical powers, that it can come in all these different forms?

As Berkeley demonstrated there is no need even to assume that there is any matter there. Each existing thing is a just a form, each thing having its own unique type of of sophistication, as a particular, and there is no need to say that there is any "matter" underlying that form.

You are anthropomorphizing the universe. Whenever you realize that such givings are a miscalculation between your nature and the universe, you will understand completely. — Garrett Travers

You are making the exact mistake you are accusing Wayfarer of, except we might say that you are materializing the universe, rather than anthropomorphizing it. You are invoking a magical substance, naming it "matter" instead of "pixie dust", and claiming that this magical dust is responsible for all existence. This given, which you take for granted as "matter", is actually your miscalculation. "Matter" is just a human concept, therefore it cannot make up the independent universe.

Besides, the only way for us to master reality and learn its secrets, is to first obey its inviolable laws. — Garrett Travers

Now you're being hypocritical. You tell Wayfarer that laws such as "f=ma" are simply human conceptions. Then in the very same paragraph you proceed to say that we must obey the laws of reality. Please be consistent Garrett. If "laws" are human conceptions, then there are no independent laws of reality which we must obey. And if you assume that there is some sort of "laws" which are independent from human existence, then please explain who is writing and enforcing those laws. That's why Berkeley had to assume God. If every unique, individual, particular thing is reducible to a unique formula, its very own specific law which determines its exact existence, then someone must be creating these laws.

It's weird to see so many people on here, just like you on the mystic bandwagon, who never can give an argument about their beliefs in extra mundane phenomena that doesn't included insult, obfuscation, conflation, appeal to ignorance, or some other negation technique that, I guess normally works on the untrained minds with whom you regularly make contact with and present this trash to. — Garrett Travers

If you knew anything about the history of the concept of "matter", you would see that it is a central concept of western mysticism. So it is actually the materialist who is on the mystical bandwagon, summoning up a magical substance with mystical powers, named "matter", and insisting that this synonym to "pixie dust" is the cause of all reality.

The relevance is that the problem of many versions of physicalism being definitionally indistinct, at times to the level of being vacuous, is not a problem of my making.

It's a "problem" of your own making, Count, because non-reductive physicalism is not "an ontological position" but a methodological paradigm (i.e. an epistemological criterion / paradigm)

It's a problem of soundness for the arguments and systems generally associated with physicalism. Obviously, it is a problem for not all such systems. I specified non-reductive physicalism because reductive versions tend to be better at avoiding this, on average at least (e.g., old claims that nucleons represented fundemental universals, while effectively killed by future particle physics, is an explicit claim.)

I can't tell you if your idiosyncratic version of the word has problems because I don't know what it entails.

I can tell you that when I've run across "methodological" physicalism before some have been sound (generally pragmatist), others have essentially been a bait and switch for ontological physicalism, and still others have been sound, but have nothing "physical" about them, which makes me suspicious that they were actually put forth as a means of arguing for ontological physicalism without being forced to actually defend it. As far as their strengths as epistemological systems, it depends on how expansive the claim is. Are the physical sciences a way of knowing things, of the only way of knowing things.

Wittgenstein was saying that the laws of nature are not logically necessary - that they are contingent. Look at the context. — Banno

That's not why it was quoted, Banno. Anti-reality man was trying to pull a gotcha.

Matter is just a concept. Unless you can clearly define your concept of "matter" you might just as well be saying that the brain is made of pixie dust. Try it, exchange "pixie dust" for "matter" in some of your statements and you'll see that the meaning of your statement doesn't change a bit. — Metaphysician Undercover

Shouldn't be an issue, here's google: physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy.

The brain is made of [pixie dust, not matter]. Highly functional, highly systemmatized, genetically coded, [pixie dust] of unrivaled sophistication — Metaphysician Undercover

No, matter actually exists and is comprised of elements in the universe that have been identified and sourced. Pixie dust is something fabricated by the human mind.

See, "matter" is just a stand in term, for something you haven't got a clue as to what it is, just like "pixie dust", so the two serve the exact same purpose in your statements. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, they don't. One is real and interacted with by every human every day until death, in a variety of forms. And the other is make believe.

The real issue here is the question of how some instances of the assumed "matter" can be highly functional, and highly systematized, while other instances of matter are not. What gives your pixie dust ("matter") such magical powers, that it can come in all these different forms? — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not actually the real issue here. The issue here is, whether or not we understand all of the mysteries of matter is irrelevent to the fact that matter does in fact come in that form. Chemical reactions explain how they form into functional systems and evolve over time, explanations that cover numerous years of lesson material that cannot be covered here in a forum. Magic is a word of the mystics, not of chemistry and matter.

You are making the exact mistake you are accusing Wayfarer of, except we might say that you are materializing the universe, rather than anthropomorphizing it. You are invoking a magical substance, naming it "matter" instead of "pixie dust", and claiming that this magical dust is responsible for all existence. This given, which you take for granted as "matter", is actually your miscalculation. "Matter" is just a human concept, therefore it cannot make up the independent universe. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is unintelligible. Matter is a human concept that maps to reality, that's called correspondence. For you to be in any way correct, you will have to provide an instance of non-material substance that has existed. I am observing reality, not anthropomorphizing it, no matter how much you want to believe as much.

Now you're being hypocritical. You tell Wayfarer that laws such as "f=ma" are simply human conceptions. — Metaphysician Undercover

You misunderstood what I was saying, and what non-reality man was saying. He was wanting to know the why of things. The only thing humans can determine is the how. F=ma is the how, formulated as a concept, then used to map to reality. Read harder.

If "laws" are human conceptions, then there are no independent laws of reality which we must obey. — Metaphysician Undercover

Laws of reality don't ask your opinion. Humans map those laws through conceptual framework, nothing else to it.

And if you assume that there is some sort of "laws" which are independent from human existence, then please explain who is writing and enforcing those laws. — Metaphysician Undercover

No such explanation is required to know the patterns that govern reality.

That's why Berkeley had to assume God. If every unique, individual, particular thing is reducible to a unique formula, its very own specific law which determines its exact existence, then someone must be creating these laws. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, the mystical inclination to invoke something for which there is no evidence that has been plaguing philosophy for 2000 years, I am aware. The probalem you have there is the word "assumption," which implies zero correspondence. As it stands, every single scintilla of data that can be used to draw conclusions indiciates a material world of chemicals, elements, energy, time, and space all operating in unison in a vast array of reactionary states that give rise to life, planets, and all manner of other systems on their own.

If you knew anything about the history of the concept of "matter", you would see that it is a central concept of western mysticism. — Metaphysician Undercover

Mysticism is a central concept to Western philosophy. And philosophy is a central concept to Western science. Newton himself was considered the last of the Magi. You've got it a little backwards, your history. Materialism is the slow and sure departure from mysticism in the history of philosophy and science.

So it is actually the materialist who is on the mystical bandwagon, summoning up a magical substance with mystical powers, named "matter", and insisting that this synonym to "pixie dust" is the cause of all reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

This attempt to lie one's way out of the mystic bandwagon you are all on is not something that works on the informed. The magical substance you interact with to send these messages stands as a clear and overwhelming refutation of the position that the exposure to pixie dust has left in your brain regarding reality.

It's a problem of soundness for the arguments and systems generally associated with physicalism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You've not demonstrated that any arguments I HAVE MADE with respect to "physicalism" are unsound or that my distinction of "methodological" & "philosophical" is inoperable or unwarranted, and this is why I find your comments irrevelant with respect to what I've posted on this thread. That said, Count, we clearly disagree (and many, if not most, philosophically-inclined practicioners of modern physical sciences disagree with you too).

... whether or not we understand all of the mysteries of matter is irrelevent... — Garrett Travers

The only thing humans can determine is the how. — Garrett Travers

The mysteries of matter include the 'how'. The concept of matter is not fixed. As the concept develops the explanation of the how changes. Is matter "alive" or does it simply give rise to life under certain conditions at a sufficient level of complexity? If the latter, then how? Does it organize itself? How? Is it intelligent or does it simply give rise to intelligence under certain conditions at a sufficient level of complexity? Is the distinction between what is and is not alive clearly delimited?

These and many other questions are not meant to indicate that there must be something outside the natural world that acts on it. It is, rather, that at this stage of the game "matter" is not an explanation for how things are as they are. We simply do not understand what it is.

The mysteries of matter include the 'how'. The concept of matter is not fixed. — Fooloso4

Nobody said it was. The how is open for discovery. The "why" is not. Why is itself a human concept, that was my point. Not that matter is a concluded concept.

Is matter "alive" or does it simply give rise to life under certain conditions at a sufficient level of complexity? — Fooloso4

The evidence points to the the latter, and no evidence points to anything else at this point in our development.

If the latter, then how? Does it organize itself? How? — Fooloso4

Through chemical interactions, forces of mass and gravity.

Is it intelligent or does it simply give rise to intelligence under certain conditions at a sufficient level of complexity? — Fooloso4

No evidence suggests it is intelligent. All evidence suggests the latter.

Is the distinction between what is and is not alive clearly delimited? — Fooloso4

Yes. Life: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

It is, rather, that at this stage of the game "matter" is not an explanation for how things are as they are. — Fooloso4

That's not what materialism posits. Materialism posits that the universe is a material one, that all understandings of it can only come from that base position. And there is nothing, no evidence whatsoever, of any kind, that suggests that such a perspective is not accurate. The ENTIRE body of all evidence across all domains of science suggest a material universe. That does not mean there are not mysteries. But, a mystery is not validation of an anti-materialist perspective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

The how is open for discovery. The "why" is not. — Garrett Travers

The 'how'/'why' distinction is problematic. Using your example of chemistry we can ask why the combination of one element with another produce something that has properties that neither of the elements do. And why does it only occur under certain conditions?

Why is itself a human concept, that was my point. Not that matter is a concluded concept. — Garrett Travers

How too is a human concept that is addressed in terms of another human concept - matter. That is my point.

The evidence points to the the latter ... — Garrett Travers

And yet we cannot combine matter to get life. One problem is that a living thing is living matter but you are claiming that the evidence is that matter is not living. Another is we do not have an agreed upon concept of life. Here is a non-technical discussion of some of the issues: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2019/03/27/what-is-life/?sh=1e3018291c77

No evidence suggests it is intelligent. All evidence suggests the latter. — Garrett Travers

The challenge is explaining self-organizing systems at various levels. How does something without intelligence organize itself?

Materialism posits that the universe is a material one, that all understandings of it can only come from that base position. — Garrett Travers

A base position without a solid base.

But, a mystery is not validation of an anti-materialist perspective. — Garrett Travers

I am not arguing for an anti-materialist perspective but rather for a recognition that what the materialist perspective at any given time in the past is not what it is now and not what it is likely to be in the future. We do not know what matter is. We should be no more confident that what we proclaim today to be true than those chemists who proclaimed the phlogiston theory should have been. It was, after all, based on matter.

The 'how'/'why' distinction is problematic. Using your example of chemistry we can ask why the combination of one element with another produce something that has properties that neither of the elements do. And why does it only occur under certain conditions? — Fooloso4

There's no point in asking why in the sense of meaning. The manner in which you just employed why, is actually to say "how is this happening?" A linguistic mishap that everybody falls into, of course. But, there is a clear distinction. It's just very hard for humans because we want the why of things, because we self-generate 'whys' at all times. Part of concept generation.

How too is a human concept that is addressed in terms of another human concept - matter. That is my point. — Fooloso4

A concept with a clear distinction that, much like f=ma, has correspondent value. Why, on the other hand, does not. That is exclusively a human concept that does not apply to the universe. Just like literature is a human concept, just like how is, but they operate in different domains of correspondence. How can be mapped to reality. Literature, and why, cannot.

The challenge is explaining self-organizing systems at various levels. How does something without intelligence organize itself? — Fooloso4

Through chemical interactions, mass, time, and gravity. Nothing more to it. Don't confuse naturally emergent structuralization with how humans organize things. That's mixing how's and why's again. One maps to reality, the other doesn't. Same goes for the difference between alchemy and chemistry; one maps to reality, the other doesn't.

A base position without a solid base. — Fooloso4

There's nothing more solid. It is the definition of solid. It is the foundation every scrap of science and what it has achieved is predicated upon. You simply asserting some weak attempt at simple negation is not an argument against the material reality within which you just attempted to do so. Asserting a position in accordance with points of ignorance in one's mind regarding certain mysterious of the universe, is the weakest possible argument one can muster, and has no place in philosophy any longer. And, I'm honored to be among the ones to be tasked with dispensing with such tripe.

I am not arguing for an anti-materialist perspective but rather for a recognition that what the materialist perspective at any given time in the past — Fooloso4

I give zero shits about what mysticism it used to be associated with, or whatever other influence was acting upon it that did not allow its proponents to see what was placed before them inviolably.

We do not know what matter is. — Fooloso4

This is anti-scientific, feelings based, assertion flinging without base. We know exactly what matter is. We do not understand all of its characteristics and dynamics, but that is not tantamount to having no knowledge of the subject. Matter is the substances that constitute the observable universe.

We should be no more confident that what we proclaim today to be true than those chemists who proclaimed the phlogiston theory should have been. — Fooloso4

Phlogiston theory was woo. Material laws have been tested and experimented with now for years. It was materialist science that relegated phlogiston theory to the dustbin of mystic history. So, in other words, I beg to differ, kindly of course.

It was, after all, based on matter. — Fooloso4

Yes, indeed.... Before we understood matter.

Another anti-realityist down the tubes. And here I thought this was a philosophy forum... — Garrett Travers

Wayfarer is good at complaining about "materialism" and parroting the same handful of quotes over and over. Actually arguing anything, otoh... that's not really what he does here. But that's more of a personal issue, there are anti-realists here and elsewhere who can (and do) actually argue their position.

The manner in which you just employed why, is actually to say "how is this happening?" — Garrett Travers

More like, what is happening. I take it you are arguing against some notion of meaning and purpose as the reason for things. If so, I agree.

A linguistic mishap that everybody falls into, of course. — Garrett Travers

It is not a linguistic mishap. There are various senses in which we ask why something happens. If someone borrows a tool and it comes back rusty and I ask why, I am not looking for an explanation of the process of oxidation.

How can be mapped to reality. Literature, and why, cannot. — Garrett Travers

It depends on what you are asking about. The how of human motivation is murky but the why might be clear. An understanding of the world is not limited to the physical sciences.

Through chemical interactions, mass, time, and gravity. Nothing more to it. — Garrett Travers

A non-answer posing as science. These do not explain self-organization.

That's mixing how's and why's again. — Garrett Travers

I am asking precisely how matter organizes itself. There can be no chemical interactions without the organization of matter. It seems that you are not familiar with the scientific concept and mistake it for something else.

There's nothing more solid. It is the definition of solid. It is the foundation every scrap of science and what it has achieved is predicated upon. — Garrett Travers

There is a problem with attempting to explain the whole of science in terms of something that is not adequately understood. We cannot explain quantum physics or gravity or time by saying: well, its all just matter". The behavior of matter remains a mystery.

There is much more at issue here than you seem to be aware of. Again, I am not arguing against materialism in favor of supernatural forces. It is just that you are saying much less than you imagine you are.

I'm honored to be among the ones to be tasked with dispensing with such tripe. — Garrett Travers

To be blunt, you are sorely ill-equipped to do so.

This is anti-scientific ... — Garrett Travers

Evidence in support of what I just said.

We know exactly what matter is. We do not understand all of its characteristics and dynamics, — Garrett Travers

Which is it, we know exactly what it is or we do not understand all its characteristics and dynamics? It can't be both!

Matter is the substances that constitute the observable universe. — Garrett Travers

Is that singular or plural? Substance or substances?

Before we understood matter. — Garrett Travers

What you don't understand is that we still don't understand matter. We understand some things, although that understanding is subject to change, but there is a whole lot, perhaps an endless amount that we do not.

Wayfarer is good at complaining about "materialism" and parroting the same handful of quotes over and over. Actually arguing anything, otoh... that's not really what he does here. But that's more of a personal issue, there are anti-realists here and elsewhere who can (and do) actually argue their position. — Seppo

Oh, I've stumbled across them. I don't know if argue is the proper teminology to use. However, I have a good deal of fun dumping this particular, viral, deleterious mutation on philosophical thought down the drain. Thus, I'm not worried. What's fun about the anti-realityists is that you never really know what they're gonna say next, but there are some common themes they like, such as appeals to ignorance and irrelevant conclusions. Lots of fun, really.

More like, what is happening. I take it you are arguing against some notion of meaning and purpose as the reason for things. — Fooloso4

"What is happening," is the proper understanding of how, instead of why. So, yes, precisely.

It is not a linguistic mishap. There are various senses in which we ask why something happens. If someone borrows a tool and it comes back rusty and I ask why, — Fooloso4

That's right, you already know how. You're asking why of the human, not of reality. Which is what I already said. You're agreeing with me in this instance.

It depends on what you are asking about. The how of human motivation is murky but the why might be clear. An understanding of the world is not limited to the physical sciences. — Fooloso4

This is a completely incoherent statement. I have no idea what you're saying. Motivation is the why. Understanding of the world only comes from he refined arts of induction, and the products thereof. Name even a single other way that is not encompassed by that, and I will agree with you.

A non-answer posing as science. These do not explain self-organization. — Fooloso4

Literally what science demostrates to be the case. You will never, as hard as you try, please be my guest, try to prove me wrong here, go find a SINGLE piece of evidence that shows that what is enumerated above is not the case. I will wait for as long as you need. You have been formally challenged.

I am asking precisely how matter organizes itself. There can be no chemical interactions without the organization of matter. — Fooloso4

Again, mass, time, and gravity. This is basic physics.

There is a problem with attempting to explain the whole of science in terms of something that is not adequately understood. — Fooloso4

No, there's a problem with trying to negate science because there are mysteries, not the other way around.

We cannot explain quantum physics or gravity or time by saying: well, its all just matter". The behavior of matter remains a mystery. — Fooloso4

Yes, quantum behavior remains a mystery. Again, I already said as much. An argument from ignorance is not a fallacy that lends credence to the negation of material reality.

It is just that you are saying much less than you imagine you are. — Fooloso4

And you are quite literally saying nothing other than "there's stuff we don't know yet."

Which is it, we know exactly what it is or we do not understand all its characteristics and dynamics? It can't be both! — Fooloso4

It is both, precisely. That which is know is definitive. That which is not, is not. This is called a false dichotmay fallacy. It seems your steeped in the stuff. Everybod that argues against materialism is. It's the only way to argue against it.

Is that singular or plural? Substance or substances? — Fooloso4

Plural, that needs no explanation.

What you don't understand is that we still don't understand matter. We understand some things, although that understanding is subject to change, but there is a whole lot, perhaps an endless amount that we do not. — Fooloso4

I already stated as much. This is becoming nonsense. If you aren't going to read what I say, don't respond. Again, ignorance of certain domains is not an argument for ignorance in others. Matter is understood extrodinarily well, and that which is understood is definitive.

You're agreeing with me in this instance. — Garrett Travers

It may seem that way if you do not grasp what is at issue. When someone asks "why does metal rust or tarnish" they are not asking for a metaphysical explanation, but for the physical cause. You set up a false dichotomy with the distinction between how and why.

This is a completely incoherent statement. I have no idea what you're saying. — Garrett Travers

The fault is your own.

No, there's a problem with trying to negate science — Garrett Travers

I am not trying to negate science! There is a problem with your lack of understanding of what is at issue here. You are so intent on honoring yourself with the task of setting the world straight that you cannot see what the issues are.

An argument from ignorance is not a fallacy that lends credence to the negation of material reality. — Garrett Travers

That is something you can take up with someone who has offered such an argument. I have not. You are barking up the wrong tree. But you seem to be so enamored with hearing yourself bark that nothing else matters. I am not arguing against "material reality" I am saying we know far less about it than you seem to imagine we do.

That which is know is definitive. — Garrett Travers

You would do well to spend more time reading about the history of science.

Everybod that argues against materialism is. — Garrett Travers

Once again, I am not arguing against materialism. I make no metaphysical claims, but have argued here and elsewhere that our best bet is to commit to some form of materialism.

Plural, that needs no explanation. — Garrett Travers

But it does. If there are multiple metaphysical substances how to they function to form a coherent whole?

I already stated as much. — Garrett Travers

That is that:

We understand some things, although that understanding is subject to change, but there is a whole lot, perhaps an endless amount that we do not. — Fooloso4

And yet:

Matter is understood extrodinarily well, and that which is understood is definitive. — Garrett Travers

That TLP reference is to the passage I already quoted. The very next sentence is 'Thus people today stop at the laws of nature, treating them as something inviolable, just as God and Fate were treated in past ages.' Whitehead likewise said in Science and the Modern World that today the 'laws of physics' occupy the role previously assigned to the inexorable decrees of fate.

Incidentally I've become interested in the relation between logical neceessity and physical causation. I opened a thread on Stack Exchange about it, but I am going to try and work up a substantial OP on it sometime soon.

It's part of the discussion of 6.37. I think you may have miss-used it. Wittgenstein is saying that physical laws are not logically necessary, contrary to what it appears you are saying.

they are not asking for a metaphysical explanation, but for the physical cause. — Fooloso4

That's what the word "how" means. When people use why in its plave, they are garmmatically incorrect.

You set up a false dichotomy with the distinction between how and why. — Fooloso4

That's not a false dichotamy, that's literally the language we're using:
How: in what way or manner; by what means.
Why: for what cause or reason.
Not a false dichotamy, that's nonsense.

The fault is your own. — Fooloso4

No, what you said was self-contradictory and indicated no coherence.

You are so intent on honoring yourself with the task of setting the world straight that you cannot see what the issues are. — Fooloso4

Okay. Then clearly state the issue, and I will address it. As it stands, what you are trying to argue is not something that is apparent.

I am saying we know far less about it than you seem to imagine we do. — Fooloso4

No, that cannot be what you're point is, because I already stated as much. I already said there are mysteries regarding matter. If this is your point, then you have gone around in circles for no reason.

You would do well to spend more time reading about the history of science. — Fooloso4

And you would do well spending more time reading about science.

But it does. If there are multiple metaphysical substances how to they function to form a coherent whole? — Fooloso4

By means of the inviolable laws of the nature of the universe.

Once again, I am not arguing against materialism. I make no metaphysical claims, but have argued here and elsewhere that our best bet is to commit to some form of materialism. — Fooloso4

Very well. I take it a step further: there is no such thing as another option. Everything else is make believe. That's what I argue.

Matter is understood extrodinarily well, and that which is understood is definitive — Garrett Travers

Not even something that is a question.

A concept with a clear distinction that, much like f=ma, has correspondent value. "Why", on the other hand, does not. That is exclusively a human concept that does not apply to the universe. — Garrett Travers

That is an interesting bifurcation of experience.

When shown how to complete the square in algebra, I can learn a set of rules that will work each time I use it. The method does not tell me why the rules work. The rules to calculate are arbitrary until grounded by a reliable principle that makes them valid. In the realm of scientific inquiry, the dissatisfaction with mere plausibility is why the models keep changing. The validity is hard fought over and easily lost.

It seems like much of your use of the word 'material' is a version of Mind/Brain Identity Theory. A common objective amongst these many versions of the theory is to dispense with mind/body duality in explaining and investigating the phenomena. I don't see anywhere in this group of theories any kind of appeal for the duality between 'how' and 'why' that you propose.

It seems like much of your use of the word 'material' is a version of Mind/Brain Identity Theory. A common objective amongst these many versions of the theory is to dispense with mind/body duality in explaining and investigating the phenomena. I don't see anywhere in this group of theories any kind of appeal for the duality between 'how' and 'why' that you propose. — Paine

No, I'm more in-touch with modern neurophilosophy. Much of that earlier stuff, identity theory and the like, was led to apologize years after being established for being anti-science. However, yes, the mind/body distinction is, quite literally, not a thing. The mind and body are all one. The brain produces consciousness and controls the body. Nothing in modern neuroscience suggests otherwise. The duality between how and why is a linguistic one. Nothing more. How is operative, and why is to do with causes and reasons.

Why is what you ask when you think f=ma means something beyond it being described within its operant nature. I listed the definitions above.

Much of that earlier stuff, identity theory and the like, was led to apologize years after being established for being anti-science. — Garrett Travers

Citation, please.

Why is what you ask when you think f=ma means something beyond it being described within its operant nature. — Garrett Travers

That is not how the word is used. Your definition sounds more like a premise to a model, not something found to be true by one means or another.

sed it. Wittgenstein is saying that physical laws are not logically necessary, — Banno

I think that's a very interesting line of enquiry. I suspect that this is a major disconnect in modern philosophy, owing to the abandonment of the notion of formal and final causation.

At any rate, in the context of the discussion, I believe that aphorism is entirely appropriate.

Citation, please. — Paine

Yeah, the whole history is on Stanford: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neuroscience/

That is not how the word is used. Your definition sounds more like a premise to a model, not something found to be true by one means or another. — Paine

Okay, we'll try just defining the word, so that you can understand what I'm saying to you and move on from this completely nonsense topic:

How: in what way or manner; by what means. This explains that f=ma.
Why: for what reason or purpose. This asks for what reason or purpose f=ma. That's not a thing...

Now that we understand how the "word is used," as I had already described its usage accurately and that it didn't apply here, we can move on now.

But the expression "F=MA" did not magically appear to you as self-evident fact. It came from years of people asking why things happen the way they did.

Edit to Add:
I scanned the article. I did not spot the "anti-science" part you spoke of in relation to identity theorists.

At any rate, in the context of the discussion, I believe that aphorism is entirely appropriate. — Wayfarer

In other words, you're completely disregarding Banno's explanation of the context from which the quote was taken, and how it differs from the one in which you attempted to use it (a good and correct explanation, I should add).

The mind and body are all one. The brain produces consciousness and controls the body. — Garrett Travers

Nevertheless, if I write something that gives you the shits, your pulse will accelerate slightly, your adrenals will uptick a little. But nothing physical would have passed between us. If, on the other hand, I beat you on the head with a stick - not that I would - then something physical would have taken place.

The brain produces consciousness... — Garrett Travers

In what sense does it 'produce' consciousness? Like a snail produces slime? Like a producer produces a film? Like a magician produces a rabbit? Like a computer produces an output on a screen? Like a radio produces sound? Or some other sense?

But the expression "F=MA" did not magically appear to you as self-evident fact. It came from years of people asking why things happen the way they did. — Paine

This statement bears no relevance to what we're discussing. Asking why isn't what led them to the discovery. Figuring out how is what led to the discovery. f=ma does not need to be self evident, some things in nature need a conceptual framework to notice, see Wittgenstein, Frege et al. Now that we see it, we also notice that it is self-evident, as in, doesn't require an outside source to provide it with truth-value. Again, its time to move on from this, you staying stuck on this terminology bit is only going to make your points stranger and stranger. You see the difference in usage, that's all there is to it. How and Why are different, period.

In what sense does it 'produce' consciousness? Like a snail produces slime? Like a producer produces a film? Like a magician produces a rabbit? Like a computer produces an output on a screen? Like a radio produces sound? Or some other sense? — bert1

As in the exact same way it produces sight, smell, taste, heart beat, blood circulation, etc. Literally just like that. That's why when your brain stops working, you stop being conscious. Very straight forward, mainstream neuroscience.

Again, its time to move on from this, you staying stuck on this terminology bit is only going to make your points stranger and stranger. — Garrett Travers

You are arrogant. That is a self-evident fact.
I will not hinder your progress with any other observations.

You are arrogant. — Paine

I am, indeed. Any other arguments in there? I swear you people on this website only know how to insult when your position is defeated.

That is a self-evident fact. — Paine

How do you know? Did you define it correctly?

I will not hinder your progress with any other observations. — Paine

Feel free to, just don't continue trying to beat an argument over the head with a stick that's been thrown out in like two seconds flat.