Since there is no evidence of a universal mind, then it is false.
— Philosophim
I don't think it's that simple. Most scientific evidence is partial or inconclusive or unconvincing. For the sake of argument, let's assume a universal mind that computes the universe continuously at the quantum level, and its product is the universe as it is. What sort of evidence could one have that it is convincingly so or that it is not so? Is philosophical argument ever possible to prove or disprove the assertion? — magritte
Vague references and a lack of evidence will convince no one. — Philosophim
Vague references and a lack of evidence will convince no one.
— Philosophim
Well, clearly that's inaccurate. The world is made up of beliefs without evidence. — Tom Storm
I replied that I did not expect empirical evidence against it (i.e. the existence of non-physical) — Philosophim
What would you consider evidence for the reality of the non-physical?
— Wayfarer
A very good question. First, it needs to be something falsifiable. By that, I mean that there needs to be some way of clearly defining what the non-physical is, and testing it. — Philosophim
Give me claims of something that exists that cannot be experienced. — Philosophim
Mathematical platonism has considerable philosophical significance. If the view is true, it will put great pressure on the physicalist idea that reality is exhausted by the physical. For platonism entails that reality extends far beyond the physical world and includes objects which aren’t part of the causal and spatiotemporal order studied by the physical sciences. Mathematical platonism, if true, will also put great pressure on many naturalistic theories of knowledge. For there is little doubt that we possess mathematical knowledge. The truth of mathematical platonism would therefore establish that we have knowledge of abstract (and thus causally inefficacious) objects. This would be an important discovery, which many naturalistic theories of knowledge would struggle to accommodate.
It is true that this indirectly equates 'the empirical' with 'the physical', but I think that is a fair assumption. What is generally accepted as empirical evidence, is something that can be detected physically. Is that not so? — Wayfarer
For the sake of argument, let's assume a universal mind that computes the universe continuously at the quantum level — magritte
How can materialism ever explain I see a world in colors while it looks like a dark world in which once in a while a ray of sunlight shows itself? A darkness due to a materialialistic outlook. — EugeneW
How is that computing done? — EugeneW
I've noted that physical reality is matter and energy. If you can show something beyond matter and energy as existent, than that would be evidence of of something non-physical. — Philosophim
So an example in terms of consciousness, lets say a person was thinking, and we found something that was obviously interacting with the matter/energy in the brain, but could not be classified as matter and energy. At that point, I believe it would be safe to call that non-physical. — Philosophim
I think we can all agree that every sense that we have is physical, and that we are made up of physical bodies. — Philosophim
Incorrect.
If A=B, then a=a is false. — Philosophim
Falsifiability does not mean, "It is necessary that it is false." It just means there can exist a condition in which it could potentially be false. An assertion must always allow the potential of its negation. — Philosophim
So I think you understand now. Physicalism is falsifiable by stating it could be the case that physicalism is false. — Philosophim
Now that you understand what falsifiability is, do you still have an objection to it? — Philosophim
You haven't addressed the argument concerning the sense in which mathematical objects, numbers, and by extension also, scientific laws and physical principles, are real, but are not material. You haven't responded to that at all. You might look at that again. — Wayfarer
I really can see why you're saying this, but again, what I'm trying to point out is that you're thinking of what the non-physical must be in terms of 'non-physical things'. You're saying if 'we found something that was obviously interacting...' You're trying to imagine a non-physical or immaterial thing, or substance, that acts as a cause. — Wayfarer
But we need to go back and examine what the basis is for those criteria. The fact that only what is measurable and objective is to be considered by scientific analysis is an assumption - the naturalist assumption. — Wayfarer
So, you're saying, if you want to show something non-material, you have to demonstrate its existence, like it's lava core, or a bitter apple, or some other sense-able object of experience that you've referred to in this discussion. Some thing. — Wayfarer
But the cause of these maladies is not physical but affective or emotional - you've interpreted something in a way that causes these effects. — Wayfarer
But as rational sentient beings, we're also constantly judging, reacting, supposing, surmising, and so on. The intellect, the seat of judgement, is constantly weighing up, judging, and reasoning. Those are the faculties that I say are not meaningfully physical. — Wayfarer
And I question whether anything is completely physical, because 'the physical' is not, as yet, fully defineable. — Wayfarer
From debating with you at some length my observation is that you're committed to the framework of physicalism or scientific materialism. — Wayfarer
But I'm arguing that the physicalist outlook is grounded in a methodological assumption about what ought to be considered as evidence in a scientific sense. But that methodological assumption is not really a metaphysic of what is and what is not real. — Wayfarer
Furthermore, there are real metaphysical debates, such as the nature of mathematical objects, or the nature of the wavefunction — Wayfarer
For example, 5=5 or 6=6 are still unfalsifiable truths. — Kuro
I recommend this introductory course on logic from Stanford. In supplement, I'll also link this article explaining mathematical equality. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with these on your own freetime going onward with this conversation so that we have an easier time communicating. — Kuro
I'm aware that falsifiability is not the same as impossibility, rather it is simply possible falsity. I'm not sure why you felt the need to tell me this. Clearly, some propositions like a=a or some mathematical formulae like 5=5 have no falsifiability conditions and simply cannot be impossible. — Kuro
So I think you understand now. Physicalism is falsifiable by stating it could be the case that physicalism is false.
— Philosophim
In the case of my example, the opponent of physicalism does not simply falsify physicalism but allow for its logical possibility, rather find an internal contradiction in physicalism. All contradictory sets of facts are logically impossible in any consistent modal logic, i.e. they simply could not be true. There isn't a world with square circles, or vice versa. — Kuro
I think falsifiability as a philosophical or mathematical requirement is an incoherent position because both philosophy and mathematics have some facts that are given the status of being necessarily true and also unfalsifiable, like a=a or 5+5 and what not. — Kuro
I noted earlier that stating, "We don't understand this, so I get to propose whatever I want" is not viable evidence. — Philosophim
I'm saying that to show that consciousness is non-physical, you need to show it interacting with the brain in some manner. It must not be matter or energy. You are proposing, that something that is not matter or energy exists. — Philosophim
Take a brain damaged patient Wayfarer, and their capacity to judge and reason diminishes substantially. That's a physical result from a physical change. — Philosophim
When the scientists compared the TMS data on the two groups--those who actually tickled the ivories and those who only imagined doing so--they glimpsed a revolutionary idea about the brain: the ability of mere thought to alter the physical structure and function of our gray matter. For what the TMS revealed was that the region of motor cortex that controls the piano-playing fingers also expanded in the brains of volunteers who imagined playing the music--just as it had in those who actually played it.
Metaphysical as a word basically means self reference to the physical. — Philosophim
Platonism, as mathematician Brian Davies has put it, “has more in common with mystical religions than it does with modern science.” The fear is that if mathematicians give Plato an inch, he’ll take a mile. If the truth of mathematical statements can be confirmed just by thinking about them, then why not ethical problems, or even religious questions? Why bother with empiricism at all?
What was it Nietzsche said - 'If you believe in grammar, you're a theist." The possibility of us making meaning and having reliable cognitive facilities may be just as 'miraculous' as the abstract, seemingly transcendental status of math. — Tom Storm
The evidence is high enough to bury a mountain. What does anyone have who believes we are somehow more than our brain and body? What? The silence of nothing is deafening. It is just our desire that we are more, nothing more; nothing less. — Philosophim
The silence of nothing is deafening. — Philosophim
I enjoy reading these debates. Philosophim is like a calmer Garrett Travers. — Tom Storm
I think you might have missed my point. If A is not A, then it can't equal A right? — Philosophim
"A" exists, and someone demonstrated to me that "A" did not exist, then A would be proven false. — Philosophim
"A = A" and someone made it impossible for ~A to be a consideration — Philosophim
"God exists and made the world" = A. If I said, "Could I attempt to show that something else created the world?" I would receive a response. If the person said, "Well yeah, I guess that's fine," I would then ask, "So what would be enough to show that God did not make the world? — Philosophim
If they say, "God is beyond our understanding and definition," then there's really nothing to falsify. There's no definition or understanding of God to claim, so there is nothing to refute either. In short, non-falsifiable." — Philosophim
No, they are very falsifiable. When would 6 not be 6? When 6=5 is one example. — Philosophim
. It turns out that ~6=6 isn't true, but a contradiction. Therefore while we have a means of falsifying, we cannot show that 6=6 is false. Therefore, it must be true. — Philosophim
Much appreciated, but we don't need it for what we're talking about as I think you can see from my examples above. — Philosophim
I felt the need to tell you this, because I felt you did not understand falsifiability. I didn't take offense to your recommendation to read up on logic, don't take offense on me telling you things I don't think you understand either. — Philosophim
Recall you just mentioned that you understood falsifiability was not the same as "impossibility" — Philosophim
Again, those are both falsifiable statements. But, we cannot meet the requirements to show they are false. Therefore they are proven to be true. — Philosophim
Not at all what I said. If you're going to paraphrase something, you need to understand it. The statement I made was supported with a reference to the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on Platonism in the Philosophy of Maths. The topic is 'the ontological status of math.' It is a debate with a long history, and you haven't shown the least evidence that you understand it. — Wayfarer
I'm saying that to show that consciousness is non-physical, you need to show it interacting with the brain in some manner. It must not be matter or energy. You are proposing, that something that is not matter or energy exists.
— Philosophim
Yes. That would be judgement. — Wayfarer
Metaphysical as a word basically means self reference to the physical.
— Philosophim
That's not the definition of metaphysical. You don't get to make it up. — Wayfarer
The silence of nothing is deafening.
— Philosophim
'Those who have ears, let them hear' — Wayfarer
You don't find some empirical evidence for why things aren't themselves. You're just forcing a proposition that's already taken to have no truth-conditions in FOL to somehow be true. It's incoherent. — Kuro
~A is considered in A=A. But A=A returns true even granting ~A. ~A is literally just a negative truth valuation for A. — Kuro
Like I've shown you earlier in the truth table, you can value A with any combination of truth and false and it'll always be equivalent to itself. There's no way out of it. — Kuro
"When" 6=5? There is no time where 6 is equal to 5. I'm actually appalled that we're debating such a simple notion. — Kuro
This is not the same as me taking offense. Generally, assume that I take no offense unless I indicate otherwise :). — Kuro
If a proposition is impossible, it is necessarily false, whereas if a proposition is false it is not necessarily impossible. — Kuro
So tautologies return true having exhausted all possible truth values of false or true to all the propositions embedded within it. So there are no conditions where they're false. — Kuro
We bury or burn the corpses of the same loved ones we nurture when alive, so clearly the fine details or the structure of brains/bodies is important to us. The structure the sound waves we bark at one another is also crucial. I suppose it's plausible to stop at these patterns and say (speculatively or economically) that we are only such patterns. And perhaps you include all this implicitly in your 'we are only bodies and brains' position. — lll
But there are also philosophical reasons to argue for 'something more' that do not include any such comforts and only seek a more comprehensive and consistent account. — lll
We're making clear points with each other. — Philosophim
We already know thoughts are composed of matter and energy. — Philosophim
We're making clear points with each other.
— Philosophim
You're not showing any sign of understanding any of the points that I've made, even in principle. — Wayfarer
We already know thoughts are composed of matter and energy.
— Philosophim
Your commitment to that falsehood colors everything you say about it. Thoughts are composed of the relationship between ideas, and ideas are not physical. — Wayfarer
:100:Idealism is (often) a continuation of religion through increased abstraction. The visceral stories of yesteryear become esoteric ciphertexts. Instead of demons and angels, one learns to be satisfied with the ghost in the machine and its wonderful qualities. — lll
Upon reviewing, I have — Philosophim
If thoughts aren't composed of matter and energy, what are they composed of Wayfarer? — Philosophim
You said nothing about mathematical platonism. — Wayfarer
You simply dismiss the idea of psychosomatic effects on the basis that thoughts are physical. — Wayfarer
If thoughts aren't composed of matter and energy, what are they composed of Wayfarer?
— Philosophim
They're composed of ideas. Your dogma is that ideas are brain-functions. — Wayfarer
I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar. — Twilight of the Idols
You said nothing about mathematical platonism.
— Wayfarer
I said plenty. — Philosophim
If numbers are real independent of people, then what is a number? Does it mean the symbol, "1"? Does it meant the concept of "an" identity versus "multiple identities? Can we demonstrate that numbers exist in a setting devoid of anything conscious but an observer? — Philosophim
I noted earlier that stating, "We don't understand this, so I get to propose whatever I want" is not viable evidence. Demonstrate to me these things are non-physical, and I will agree. You noted there are some suppositions and debates about this. This means there are people who think these things are material. That isn't evidence. That's just indicating what we don't understand. — Philosophim
Its not dogma for me to claim that thoughts and ideas are composed of matter and energy, its a conclusion based on the evidence I know. — Philosophim
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.