Materialism is a view that everything is made up of matter. If they say, even mind is made up of matter, then it is an incorrect view, because there are clear evidences that it is not.If materialism is a belief that even mind is matter, then it is an addlepated belief.
— Corvus
Okay, this is a start. What’s your next move? — ucarr
…if they say, mind is not made of matter, then it is a pointless view. Because, of course it is not. In that case, they would be saying only matter is made up of matter, which is a tautology.
If they say, even mind is made up of matter, then it is an incorrect view, because there are clear evidences that it is not.
Therefore it is either an incorrect view, or a tautology. — Corvus
…if they say, matter is not made of mind, then it is a pointless view. Because, of course it is not. In that case, they would be saying only mind is made up of mind, which is a tautology.
If they say, even matter is made up of mind, then it is an incorrect view, because there are clear evidences that it is not.
Therefore it is either an incorrect view, or a tautology. — ucarr
You misunderstand me (re: Spinoza's substance / being) by confusing "void" (that's metaphysical, not just "physical") with what I wrote about "spacetime" (i.e. a physical structure analogous to "an infinite mode of the extension attribute ...") — 180 Proof
That doesn't prove that materialism is correct. It is a poor logic (again :roll: ). It would be like saying eating loads of McDonald hamburgers everyday and watching TV all day for the rest of your life is easy, therefore good for your health.Materialism has the easier task because it’s monist. It doesn’t have to address the cosmic transition point: the structural handshake transitioning immaterial into material, or the reverse. — ucarr
Is it not time to commit the old materialism to flames? It has been around since the ancient Greek era even prior to Plato. It is has not progressed even an inch from where it was, since the time of Demorcritus.What’re we gonna do ‘bout this barnburner?” — ucarr
It would be like saying, one legged man runs faster because he has to move only one leg instead of two when running. Nonsense.Materialism has the easier task because it’s monist. — ucarr
Energy works by Potential-to-Actual transformation, as in E=MC^2. For example, Invisible causal Photons (lightning) convert into mathematical Mass, which our senses experience as tangible Matter*1. For scientists, such transformations are described in terms of Phase Transition, where the intervening steps (mechanisms) are unknown. On the quantum scale, there is a transformation that is ironically labeled : Magic*2. :nerd:Describe how immaterial energy connects with the material things it changes. For example, explain how, when lightning strikes a person and kills them, the lightning transforms into a material thing. — ucarr
Energy works by Potential-to-Actual transformation, as in E=MC^2. For example, Invisible causal Photons (lightning) convert intomathematicalMass, which our senses experience as tangible Matter*1. — Gnomon
*1. Energy Transfers and Transformations :
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transferred and transformed. There are a number of different ways energy can be changed, such as when potential energy becomes kinetic energy or when one object moves another object. — Gnomon
materialism, via absential materialism, offers an explanation how these supposed immaterial phenomena are really higher-order, emergent properties still grounded in lower-order, dynamical processes that are physical. — ucarr
More serious, however, is the way this [i.e. exclusion of purpose, meaning, value] has divided the natural sciences from the human sciences, and both from the humanities. In the process, it has also alienated the world of scientific knowledge from the world of human experience and values. If the most fundamental features of human experience are considered somehow illusory and irrelevant to the physical goings-on of the world, then we, along with our aspirations and values, are effectively rendered unreal as well. No wonder the all-pervasive success of the sciences in the last century has been paralleled by a rebirth of fundamentalist faith and a deep distrust of the secular determination of human values.
Mind causes matter to change, move and work. A simple evidence? I am typing this text with my hands caused by my mind. If my mind didn't cause the hands to type, then this text would have not been typed at all.Do you think mind holds causal force over material things? Is so, can you articulate the structure of the handshake linking immaterial to material? If not, can you justify your belief mind is immaterial? — ucarr
Mind works with in abstract domains such as abstractions, generalisations of tokens to types and computation as well as with the body it is residing in for all the movements and works it tells the body to carry out as it wants. The clue is in the operations and communications between mind and body. Without mind, body becomes matter with no sign of life, sentience and consciousness. Without body, the mind evaporates. Where the mind goes to is still a mystery. But one thing clear is that, mind is not body itself, and mind is not material.If you say mind operates in domains clearly not material, such as: abstractions, generalizations of tokens to types and computation, then materialism, via absential materialism, offers an explanation how these supposed immaterial phenomena are really higher-order, emergent properties still grounded in lower-order, dynamical processes that are physical. — ucarr
I am not familiar with the idea you tells, but I quickly scanned the internet search of the term. It sounds like teleodynamics of the ententional sounds like a type of evolutionary theory. I am not sure if evolutionary theory has strong grounds for its claims. It seems to have some interesting points but also many vague parts in the theory too. Anyhow, my standpoint for it is that matter alone, and evolution theory alone seem to have some problems in explaining fully on the mind / body problems.Can you counter this argument with one that debunks Deacon’s teleodynamics of the ententional, a category that includes: sentience, meaning and purpose. — ucarr
:cool:because there are clear evidences that it is not
— Corvus
What evidence is that? — Lionino
Mind causes matter to change, move and work. A simple evidence? I am typing this text with my hands caused by my mind. If my mind didn't cause the hands to type, then this text would have not been typed at all.
Mind is immaterial substance. Although I know it is in me, and works for me in being conscious and perceive, think, feel, intuit and imagine etc, I cannot see it, touch it, or measure it. The mind has no physical or material existence, but it works for all the actions of humans as they please or want their bodies to perform or act according to their wills. — Corvus
Mind causes matter to change, move and work. A simple evidence? I am typing this text with my hands caused by my mind. If my mind didn't cause the hands to type, then this text would have not been typed at all. — Corvus
I've not said this, just pushed back on your reductive implication which is contrary to the Democritean-Epicurean concept of void (or Spinoza's concept of substance): a metaphysical concept (i.e. an ontological presupposition of an empirical/observational supposition) for which there is a physical analogue or correlate (re: vacuum); I'm not "saying" the atomists' void is a "higher-order" anything (that somehow transcends the physical).In saying void is both physical and meta-physical... — ucarr
:up: :up:All of the above: energy, mass and matter are material_physical. Your job, as immaterialist, involves showing the structure of the immaterial making causal contact with the material. — ucarr
How do you/we know this? How does the "immaterial" interact with materiality, as "mind" apparently does, without violating material-physical laws of conversation?Mind is immaterial substance. — Corvus
That is what they call the "hard point", which has many explanations. If mind is matter, then where is it? What shape, size and weight is your mind?Mind is immaterial substance.
— Corvus
How do you/we know this? How does the "immaterial" interact with materiality, as "mind" apparently does, without violating material-physical laws of conversation? — 180 Proof
the puzzle intentionality poses for materialism can be summarized this way: Brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, the motion of water molecules, electrical current, and any other physical phenomenon you can think of, seem clearly devoid of any inherent meaning. By themselves they are simply meaningless patterns of electrochemical activity. Yet our thoughts do have inherent meaning – that’s how they are able to impart it to otherwise meaningless ink marks, sound waves, etc. In that case, though, it seems that our thoughts cannot possibly be identified with any physical processes in the brain. In short: Thoughts and the like possess inherent meaning or intentionality; brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, and the like, are utterly devoid of any inherent meaning or intentionality; so thoughts and the like cannot possibly be identified with brain processes. — Edward Feser
I'll wait ... :chin:Mind is immaterial substance.
— Corvus
How do you/we know this? How does the "immaterial" interact with materiality, as "mind" apparently does, without violating material-physical laws of conversation? — 180 Proof
Interesting point. Why do you think mind is same substance as matter? — Corvus
Purely physical processes do not inherently possess meaning or reference, and so can't account for the intentional nature of mental acts. — Wayfarer
Yeah, but if you could remember, that question was only possible to be thrown at you because you claimed that mind is matter. If you claimed that mind is not matter, I could not possibly have asked that awkward question. So your claim has invited the question you see?Mind is a process or activity like respiration or digestion and not a static thing. Mind-ing is what sufficiently complex brains (which are material-physical systems) do. To ask "where is mind?" is nonsensical like asking "where is breathing?" or "where is walking?" — 180 Proof
Yeup, this can be a long topic on its own. If you can come up with a totally conclusive answers to this, then you would be nominated to the Noble prize reckon. :DHow do you/we know this? How does the "immaterial" interact with materiality, as "mind" apparently does, without violating material-physical laws of conversation?
— 180 Proof
I'll wait ... :chin: — 180 Proof
For present, I reckon the dualist theory seems to be more plausible than materialism.I don't hold that position positively, I am just pointing out the interaction problem that arises with any dualistic philosophy.
This problem in fact arises with ANY non-physicalist philosophy, including matemathical platonism, or any kind of platonism. — Lionino
Makes sense to me. But, like a Phase Transition, the intermediate physical stages between material and non-material are not apparent to me. Sounds like Magic : presto change-o! Except of course, if "Absence" is defined as a metaphysical Potentiality Principle (Form) --- inherent in all physical things --- as proposed by Aristotle to explain why things are what they are, and behave as they do. :smile:So, surprisingly, this view of self shows it to be as non-material as Descartes might have imagined, and yet as physical, extended, and relevant to the causal scheme of things as is the hole at the hub of a wheel. — ucarr
Yes. Physical Self-reference (structural or logical loops or "tangled hierarchy") does seem to be a necessary precursor to Self-Consciousness. But is it sufficient? Perhaps, it's a Strange Loop*1 as postulated in Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach : "I am a strange loop". "And yet when I say "strange loop", I have something else in mind — a less concrete, more elusive notion. What I mean by "strange loop" is — here goes a first stab, anyway — not a physical circuit but an abstract loop". :nerd:The self-referential convolution of teleodynamics is the source of a special emergent form of self that not only continually creates its self-similarity and continuity, but also does so with respect to its alternative virtual forms. — ucarr
That the brain is able to invoke a meaning, a concept, from a symbol is trivial. In a deterministic universe, the symbol is the cause for the thought of the concept. — Lionino
Where the term 'cause' carries a completely different meaning to physical causation..... — Wayfarer
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.