|
On July 01 2013 12:23 Moa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 12:12 Hilmar wrote:
The idea of an exclusively physical universe is an arbritrary philosophical construct.
There are "things" that are real and non-physical, those are called constructs of the mind.
Information is "real" in any relevant way of interpreting the word, and is by definition non-physical.
The same information can be stored in vastly different medias including mass, energy or both. Thus the physical attributes, of a book for instance, is not in itself the interesting part, but the "meaning" so to say of the information transmitted by the matter and energy.
Languages are real non-physical constructs of the mind, as are all social contracts non-physical, like a friendship or a marriage.
This isn't a question of an idea of a language stored in some physical part of the brain. The construct is not only not part of the body itself, it is also distinguishable for other people, or minds if you will. How is information non-physical. I don't see how these things aren't physical. Maybe the physical attributes of a book are not the interesting part but the way that the words impact the mind or their "meaning" can certainly be explained as something that is physical. We are able to track the way brain activity changes when someone is processing different kinds of information or when people feel different emotions. This suggests that all the things you've listed are physically grounded within the brain.
but the information doesn't have to be experienced to be there. the information is already in the book, by reading it you are simply assimilating the information. at that point sure, you can call it physical. however, when you close that book, the entire story is there, the information is there, it exists even if its not being experienced.
|
Actually if you read Descartes the only thing you can prove is that you have a mind
Look up "cartesian doubt" and welc0m3 2 matr1x
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 01 2013 12:24 Marshall_D wrote:
A better question would be why did the brain evolve into the way it did. Forget about finding out how.
Natural selection. Basically trial and error over the course of billions of years.
Turns out that being smart enough to pass knowledge down through generations has its benefits.
|
On July 01 2013 12:28 casuistry wrote:
If you program a calculator to only do addition, it doesn't make much impact to say it can't "experience" multiplication. So what if it can't?
Humans aren't calculators, the problematic phenomena is that of experience, something a calculator does not do.
|
On July 01 2013 12:30 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 12:23 Moa wrote:On July 01 2013 12:12 Hilmar wrote:
The idea of an exclusively physical universe is an arbritrary philosophical construct.
There are "things" that are real and non-physical, those are called constructs of the mind.
Information is "real" in any relevant way of interpreting the word, and is by definition non-physical.
The same information can be stored in vastly different medias including mass, energy or both. Thus the physical attributes, of a book for instance, is not in itself the interesting part, but the "meaning" so to say of the information transmitted by the matter and energy.
Languages are real non-physical constructs of the mind, as are all social contracts non-physical, like a friendship or a marriage.
This isn't a question of an idea of a language stored in some physical part of the brain. The construct is not only not part of the body itself, it is also distinguishable for other people, or minds if you will. How is information non-physical. I don't see how these things aren't physical. Maybe the physical attributes of a book are not the interesting part but the way that the words impact the mind or their "meaning" can certainly be explained as something that is physical. We are able to track the way brain activity changes when someone is processing different kinds of information or when people feel different emotions. This suggests that all the things you've listed are physically grounded within the brain. but the information doesn't have to be experienced to be there. the information is already in the book, by reading it you are simply assimilating the information. at that point sure, you can call it physical. however, when you close that book, the entire story is there, the information is there, it exists even if its not being experienced.
Ink on a page is physical. The story isn't physical. The impulses in the brain which result from converting ink into a story is physical.
|
On July 01 2013 12:30 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 12:23 Moa wrote:On July 01 2013 12:12 Hilmar wrote:
The idea of an exclusively physical universe is an arbritrary philosophical construct.
There are "things" that are real and non-physical, those are called constructs of the mind.
Information is "real" in any relevant way of interpreting the word, and is by definition non-physical.
The same information can be stored in vastly different medias including mass, energy or both. Thus the physical attributes, of a book for instance, is not in itself the interesting part, but the "meaning" so to say of the information transmitted by the matter and energy.
Languages are real non-physical constructs of the mind, as are all social contracts non-physical, like a friendship or a marriage.
This isn't a question of an idea of a language stored in some physical part of the brain. The construct is not only not part of the body itself, it is also distinguishable for other people, or minds if you will. How is information non-physical. I don't see how these things aren't physical. Maybe the physical attributes of a book are not the interesting part but the way that the words impact the mind or their "meaning" can certainly be explained as something that is physical. We are able to track the way brain activity changes when someone is processing different kinds of information or when people feel different emotions. This suggests that all the things you've listed are physically grounded within the brain. but the information doesn't have to be experienced to be there. the information is already in the book, by reading it you are simply assimilating the information. at that point sure, you can call it physical. however, when you close that book, the entire story is there, the information is there, it exists even if its not being experienced.
I'm saying that it always exists in the physical. That all ideas or information are always physical.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 01 2013 12:27 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 12:18 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 12:11 farvacola wrote:On July 01 2013 12:01 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 12:00 farvacola wrote:On July 01 2013 11:58 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 11:41 farvacola wrote:I'll just throw up this very interesting critique of physicalism a la a revised look at the Mary's Room argument (otherwise known as the knowledge argument). The long and short of it is that the contours of our conscious experience as we currently understand it not only implies a non-physical component of experience, it requires it. What RoboDennett Still Doesn’t Know If you throw a tennis ball, a dog will be able to run to where it lands and catch it before it lands. The trajectory of the ball is modeled by some not-so-simple calculus, but a dog knows well enough where it lands (with margin of error of maybe half a dog's mouth) intuitively. In the same sense, colors are a very useful shortcut that allows us to explain a complicated mess of facts. We take shortcuts because the world is a complicated mess and our processing power can't keep up. The experience of colors and the estimated trajectory of a ball are entirely different things. How so? I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this. No amount of previous training or earmark can prepare one for the experience of color; the only way for someone to experience blue is to experience it. See, I'm not sure this is true. It's certainly not feasible to train someone that way, but you can't assume that it can't be done with absolute certainty. The dog takes shortcuts. It doesn't calculate the influence of the Sun, or Jupiter, or Voyager II. It just makes an estimate akin to Euler's Formula. Eyes are a similar shortcut device for understanding color. it cannot be done, with absolute certainty. it can't. .2 percent of women have a 4th cone in their eyes, therefore they are able to perceive 100 million colors as opposed to the usual 1 million most of us can perceive with our only 3 cones. can you close your eyes right now, and imagine a different color? one you have never experienced and one that is not a combination of the colors you have experience, just a whole brand new color. try it, i have. and i couldn't come up with shit. now, just because those women have the extra cone doesnt mean our brains are different, in other words i SHOULD be able to at least imagine the color, but i can't, let alone 99 million more. this is why so many colorblind people don't even know theyre color blind. until one day they have an experience that allows them to suddenly understand that, holy shit there are more colors out there i just cant tell them apart. tell them to imagine the colors youre able to see, they can't do it.
Anecdotal evidence and thought experiments are not absolute certainty.
|
On July 01 2013 12:32 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 12:28 casuistry wrote:
If you program a calculator to only do addition, it doesn't make much impact to say it can't "experience" multiplication. So what if it can't? Humans aren't calculators, the problematic phenomena is that of experience, something a calculator does not do.
Experience as we've defined it is simply a manifestation of self awareness. So why are we not discussing that? Using the word experience is very misleading.
|
On July 01 2013 12:34 Moa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 12:30 HeavenS wrote:On July 01 2013 12:23 Moa wrote:On July 01 2013 12:12 Hilmar wrote:
The idea of an exclusively physical universe is an arbritrary philosophical construct.
There are "things" that are real and non-physical, those are called constructs of the mind.
Information is "real" in any relevant way of interpreting the word, and is by definition non-physical.
The same information can be stored in vastly different medias including mass, energy or both. Thus the physical attributes, of a book for instance, is not in itself the interesting part, but the "meaning" so to say of the information transmitted by the matter and energy.
Languages are real non-physical constructs of the mind, as are all social contracts non-physical, like a friendship or a marriage.
This isn't a question of an idea of a language stored in some physical part of the brain. The construct is not only not part of the body itself, it is also distinguishable for other people, or minds if you will. How is information non-physical. I don't see how these things aren't physical. Maybe the physical attributes of a book are not the interesting part but the way that the words impact the mind or their "meaning" can certainly be explained as something that is physical. We are able to track the way brain activity changes when someone is processing different kinds of information or when people feel different emotions. This suggests that all the things you've listed are physically grounded within the brain. but the information doesn't have to be experienced to be there. the information is already in the book, by reading it you are simply assimilating the information. at that point sure, you can call it physical. however, when you close that book, the entire story is there, the information is there, it exists even if its not being experienced. I'm saying that it always exists in the physical. That all ideas or information are always physical.
I don't think the idea itself is physical. But the configuration of neurons which represents my conception of the idea and governs my actions and thoughts based on that conception, is physical.
|
On July 01 2013 12:03 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:44 Djzapz wrote:On July 01 2013 11:41 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:24 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:18 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:13 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:10 Moa wrote:
[quote]
Is it impossible that there is something that cannot be detected through physicality because it doesn't interact with what is physical but is still manifested in another fashion?
I'm not saying that such a thing exists but to say that everything that exists must be physical shows that you are unwilling to consider the possibility of an alternative.
The true answer to the question seems to be that we likely cannot know. I'm inclined to believe that there is nothing beyond the physical but I can see no way of knowing. If something does not interact with the physical realm in any way that is detectable, then it doesn't exist. Because the null hypothesis has to be that X does not exist unless X is first detected. Any other null hypothesis is not science, but religion. Dude... you have got to stop mixing philosophy with science. Or at least be honest and say that you're discussing the philosophy of science. Philosophy can be useful in some areas. I only reject philosophical discussion of certain topics like free will. Philosophers are indispensable when it comes to logic or ethics. But you don't reject it because thus far you've provided a bunch of philosophical statements while pretending they are "scientific" conclusions... sure it might seem to to add weight to your argument to someone who isn't versed in either science or philosophy, but to anyone with even a basic knowledge of either subject, it just shows that you don't know how to argue effectively or correctly. But where exactly did I use any argument, philosophical or scientific, to state that free will does or does not exist? I have made philosophy of science arguments yes. But I haven't stated any conclusions on the question of whether free will exists or not. I think you need some reading comprehension. You said: "If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist." That is a philosophical statement. (I already pointed this out, maybe you didn't see it.) You're right. That was a careless statement. It should have been: "If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist as a physical phenomenon. Free will as a woowoo phenomenon might still exist if you ask certain philosophers and theologians." Free will is a purely human concept tho, it's not a secret that we're imprisoned in our bodies and all of their constraints, both physical and moral. Free will is terribly defined. Daniel Dennet's explanation of free will is only thing that makes sense to me, which is the compatiblist argument (basically The Third Option between free will and determinism). + Show Spoiler +
I really don't think this guy brought anything new to the table though. He didn't even create an argument, from what I can tell.
The future being the collection of all the specific events that will occur after this moment, the statement: "Determinism implies inevitability" is a true statement (under the current definitions of "true").
He makes the argument(?) that we avoid harm.... but that's a remarkable misunderstanding of the original statement. If the universe is determinist than the avoidance of said harm was inevitable. The harm is either entirely avoidable (cannot occur) or it is entirely unavoidable (nothing can stop it from occurring.) Any action taken to avoid or embrace the potential event/harm would simply be yet another inevitability. The string of inevitable events goes back to the beginning.
He uses natural selection as evidence of "evitability"... but that's just pretending that trying to avoid a thing is itself not an inevitability and that whether the effort is successful or not is already determined. He's saying that despite determinism being defined as all things being determined, they aren't determined. It's entirely contradictory.
He's just claiming that he can have his cake and eat it to without ever showing why.
|
Yes.
I've heard too many stroke experience stories to believe that our mind is anything but a product of our physical brain.
|
On July 01 2013 12:40 politik wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 12:34 Moa wrote:On July 01 2013 12:30 HeavenS wrote:On July 01 2013 12:23 Moa wrote:On July 01 2013 12:12 Hilmar wrote:
The idea of an exclusively physical universe is an arbritrary philosophical construct.
There are "things" that are real and non-physical, those are called constructs of the mind.
Information is "real" in any relevant way of interpreting the word, and is by definition non-physical.
The same information can be stored in vastly different medias including mass, energy or both. Thus the physical attributes, of a book for instance, is not in itself the interesting part, but the "meaning" so to say of the information transmitted by the matter and energy.
Languages are real non-physical constructs of the mind, as are all social contracts non-physical, like a friendship or a marriage.
This isn't a question of an idea of a language stored in some physical part of the brain. The construct is not only not part of the body itself, it is also distinguishable for other people, or minds if you will. How is information non-physical. I don't see how these things aren't physical. Maybe the physical attributes of a book are not the interesting part but the way that the words impact the mind or their "meaning" can certainly be explained as something that is physical. We are able to track the way brain activity changes when someone is processing different kinds of information or when people feel different emotions. This suggests that all the things you've listed are physically grounded within the brain. but the information doesn't have to be experienced to be there. the information is already in the book, by reading it you are simply assimilating the information. at that point sure, you can call it physical. however, when you close that book, the entire story is there, the information is there, it exists even if its not being experienced. I'm saying that it always exists in the physical. That all ideas or information are always physical. I don't think the idea itself is physical. But the configuration of neurons which represents my conception of the idea and governs my actions and thoughts based on that conception, is physical.
I mean maybe I'm stretching it now but it could also be argued that the "idea" is just our conception of a physical manifestation (in our brains) so while our concept of it is essentially an imperfect interpretation of something that happened in our brain, the actual roots of the idea are purely physical.
|
I've been listening to a lot of lectures dealing with this topic lately (extreme boredom) and it seems that in the world of science and philosophy most academics argue that it is all chemical reaction based - however some proposed that perhaps the brain functions like a receiver for the soul and that somehow on a quantum level all consciousness is external(almost as if we are the universe experiencing itself).
I think its prob chemical, but it would be cool if it was de-localized and we received it almost like wi-fi.
EDIT: i don't mean soul theologically just as a simple way to refer to whatever you call that voice in your head.
|
On July 01 2013 12:34 Moa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 12:30 HeavenS wrote:On July 01 2013 12:23 Moa wrote:On July 01 2013 12:12 Hilmar wrote:
The idea of an exclusively physical universe is an arbritrary philosophical construct.
There are "things" that are real and non-physical, those are called constructs of the mind.
Information is "real" in any relevant way of interpreting the word, and is by definition non-physical.
The same information can be stored in vastly different medias including mass, energy or both. Thus the physical attributes, of a book for instance, is not in itself the interesting part, but the "meaning" so to say of the information transmitted by the matter and energy.
Languages are real non-physical constructs of the mind, as are all social contracts non-physical, like a friendship or a marriage.
This isn't a question of an idea of a language stored in some physical part of the brain. The construct is not only not part of the body itself, it is also distinguishable for other people, or minds if you will. How is information non-physical. I don't see how these things aren't physical. Maybe the physical attributes of a book are not the interesting part but the way that the words impact the mind or their "meaning" can certainly be explained as something that is physical. We are able to track the way brain activity changes when someone is processing different kinds of information or when people feel different emotions. This suggests that all the things you've listed are physically grounded within the brain. but the information doesn't have to be experienced to be there. the information is already in the book, by reading it you are simply assimilating the information. at that point sure, you can call it physical. however, when you close that book, the entire story is there, the information is there, it exists even if its not being experienced. I'm saying that it always exists in the physical. That all ideas or information are always physical.
see idk about all that. i think this delves a little too much into the philosophical/metaphyisical but information isn't really defined until it is experienced. take the color blue for example, it exists right? in the physical according to you. if we wipe out all life on earth, does blue stop existing? why? because it stops being experienced by someone? i don't think so. i think blue still exists, the POSSIBILITY of blue still exists. it is just information waiting to be assimilated. IMO, if something CAN exist, it already does, even if it hasn't been assimilated. like i said, maybe a bit too philosophical and whatnot...but w.e
|
On July 01 2013 10:53 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote:
If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line. yes case closed thats a good way of thinking "i've decided it to be true and will examine it no further!"
more like, "there is nothing other than feelgood to show otherwise, so for the time being, I consider that to be true"
|
On July 01 2013 12:44 waxypants wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 10:53 travis wrote:On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote:
If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line. yes case closed thats a good way of thinking "i've decided it to be true and will examine it no further!" more like, "there is nothing other than feelgood to show otherwise, so for the time being, I consider that to be true"
There is nothing to show that it is true, other than feelgood of course...
You're basically saying: "You have nothing to show your side is true but Brand A FeelGood, and even though I have nothing to show for my side other than Brand B FeelGood, Brand B FeelGood is inherently superior. "
|
On July 01 2013 12:42 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 12:40 politik wrote:On July 01 2013 12:34 Moa wrote:On July 01 2013 12:30 HeavenS wrote:On July 01 2013 12:23 Moa wrote:On July 01 2013 12:12 Hilmar wrote:
The idea of an exclusively physical universe is an arbritrary philosophical construct.
There are "things" that are real and non-physical, those are called constructs of the mind.
Information is "real" in any relevant way of interpreting the word, and is by definition non-physical.
The same information can be stored in vastly different medias including mass, energy or both. Thus the physical attributes, of a book for instance, is not in itself the interesting part, but the "meaning" so to say of the information transmitted by the matter and energy.
Languages are real non-physical constructs of the mind, as are all social contracts non-physical, like a friendship or a marriage.
This isn't a question of an idea of a language stored in some physical part of the brain. The construct is not only not part of the body itself, it is also distinguishable for other people, or minds if you will. How is information non-physical. I don't see how these things aren't physical. Maybe the physical attributes of a book are not the interesting part but the way that the words impact the mind or their "meaning" can certainly be explained as something that is physical. We are able to track the way brain activity changes when someone is processing different kinds of information or when people feel different emotions. This suggests that all the things you've listed are physically grounded within the brain. but the information doesn't have to be experienced to be there. the information is already in the book, by reading it you are simply assimilating the information. at that point sure, you can call it physical. however, when you close that book, the entire story is there, the information is there, it exists even if its not being experienced. I'm saying that it always exists in the physical. That all ideas or information are always physical. I don't think the idea itself is physical. But the configuration of neurons which represents my conception of the idea and governs my actions and thoughts based on that conception, is physical. I mean maybe I'm stretching it now but it could also be argued that the "idea" is just our conception of a physical manifestation (in our brains) so while our concept of it is essentially an imperfect interpretation of something that happened in our brain, the actual roots of the idea are purely physical.
True. Really, it just depends on the exact definitions of "physical," "idea," etc.. Which themselves are imperfect human concepts, which is why this kind of discussion even exists. 
|
On July 01 2013 12:44 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 12:34 Moa wrote:On July 01 2013 12:30 HeavenS wrote:On July 01 2013 12:23 Moa wrote:On July 01 2013 12:12 Hilmar wrote:
The idea of an exclusively physical universe is an arbritrary philosophical construct.
There are "things" that are real and non-physical, those are called constructs of the mind.
Information is "real" in any relevant way of interpreting the word, and is by definition non-physical.
The same information can be stored in vastly different medias including mass, energy or both. Thus the physical attributes, of a book for instance, is not in itself the interesting part, but the "meaning" so to say of the information transmitted by the matter and energy.
Languages are real non-physical constructs of the mind, as are all social contracts non-physical, like a friendship or a marriage.
This isn't a question of an idea of a language stored in some physical part of the brain. The construct is not only not part of the body itself, it is also distinguishable for other people, or minds if you will. How is information non-physical. I don't see how these things aren't physical. Maybe the physical attributes of a book are not the interesting part but the way that the words impact the mind or their "meaning" can certainly be explained as something that is physical. We are able to track the way brain activity changes when someone is processing different kinds of information or when people feel different emotions. This suggests that all the things you've listed are physically grounded within the brain. but the information doesn't have to be experienced to be there. the information is already in the book, by reading it you are simply assimilating the information. at that point sure, you can call it physical. however, when you close that book, the entire story is there, the information is there, it exists even if its not being experienced. I'm saying that it always exists in the physical. That all ideas or information are always physical. see idk about all that. i think this delves a little too much into the philosophical/metaphyisical but information isn't really defined until it is experienced. take the color blue for example, it exists right? in the physical according to you. if we wipe out all life on earth, does blue stop existing? why? because it stops being experienced by someone? i don't think so. i think blue still exists, the POSSIBILITY of blue still exists. it is just information waiting to be assimilated. IMO, if something CAN exist, it already does, even if it hasn't been assimilated. like i said, maybe a bit too philosophical and whatnot...but w.e
Yeah I was speaking too certainly in the last post. More what I'm saying is that to say that information isn't physical without a substantial argument to support it is going a bit far.
|
We cant say for certain at this point, but unless we can discover things later on that prove otherwise, there certainly is more to the mind than simple chemicals and electrical charge.
|
On July 01 2013 13:12 D10 wrote:
We cant say for certain at this point, but unless we can discover things later on that prove otherwise, there certainly is more to the mind than simple chemicals and electrical charge.
You're saying that we should prove that there is nothing else. It's impossible to prove a negative. To support your viewpoint, you should bring evidence that there exists something external to the brain that plays a role... but there's no evidence of any such thing.
Essentially all you've got is our lack of a perfect understanding of the human brain through science, but that's thin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
