Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Metaphysical naturalism or metaphysical woo-wooism?
-
Features
Metaphysics - Where is it?
- Thread starter steve_bank
- Start date
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Pataphysics. Metaphysics beyond metaphysics. Imaginary solutions to imaginary problems.
Tigers!
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 4,340
- Location
- On the wing, waiting for a kick.
- Basic Beliefs
- Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
If Mike Tyson hit me (or bit off my ear) then I think my abstract concepts would be affected and I would most probably get a lot more abstract concepts.Our brains contain our being and knowing. If Mike Tyson in his prime punched you hard enough you'd lose what we call being and knowing. Would he not be tangibly effecting being and knowing? Abstract concepts would continue unaffected by a punch from Mike Tyson. Just saying.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Messages
- 174
I presume you regard this as a true statement. Wherein does the truth of this statement reside? Can you touch it? Can you point to its truthness, please?
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
It is metaphysics that can be carried to a ridiculous silly extreme.
Before modern science metaphysics was the only tool to explain reality including how our minds work, thought processes.
Software exists as physical states in a computer.
Our thoughts exist as physical chemical processes in our brains. It as simple as that. Unless you argue for a mind body duality, mind exists separate from body.
Restating the OP, where do thoughts exist? Answer, physical states in our brains.
Before modern science metaphysics was the only tool to explain reality including how our minds work, thought processes.
Software exists as physical states in a computer.
Our thoughts exist as physical chemical processes in our brains. It as simple as that. Unless you argue for a mind body duality, mind exists separate from body.
Restating the OP, where do thoughts exist? Answer, physical states in our brains.
aupmanyav
Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2006
- Messages
- 301
- Location
- New Delhi, India
- Basic Beliefs
- atheist, Science, Advaita, Hindu
Metaphysics, IMHO, is the extension of physics, our guesses.
Silliness is a virus which afflicts more people that Covid-19 ever did.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
I take modern science to be the logical evolution of metaphysics and philosophy.
Animism would be a form of metphyuscs. Atrributing the physical properties of a substance like a rock to a spirit within the rock.
Without science and math it serves as a way to explain how things work. IOW metaphysics. Meta - Physics becomes physics.
Using thought abstractions to describe thought abstractions.
Animism would be a form of metphyuscs. Atrributing the physical properties of a substance like a rock to a spirit within the rock.
Without science and math it serves as a way to explain how things work. IOW metaphysics. Meta - Physics becomes physics.
Using thought abstractions to describe thought abstractions.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Classic metaphysics.
Truth is what you define tuth to be. Anything that matches the definition of truth is then truth.
The same for a tree. Define a tree and anything that fits the definition is a tree.
An old somewhat small offbeat grup called General Semntcs came up with the saying 'The map is not the countryside.'
It means we tend to take thoughts and the spoken written word for a chair as reality itself when the word chzir is a metaphysical abstraction.
When you see an object and think chair it is the result of physical vision neurons matching an inage stored in your physical brain. t is nowhere else.
As to scientific truth. If a claim the sun rises in the east and sets in the west the truth of it lies in repeated observation. Untill ex[erimnt shows a higher reality.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Messages
- 174
§1. Your words encapsulate the very essence of my argument. By enumerating a series of mental categories & concepts, we are reminded that all things are but derivatives of the mind. And this matter & physicality that we so often speak of, they are but mere extensions of mind itself, existing nowhere else but within the confines of mentation,—mind you, not this or that particulary mind, but mind as such, mind in general. Thus:—
‘Brain’—a concept of the mind.
‘Object’—a concept of the mind.
‘Physical’—a concept of the mind.
‘Neuron’—a concept of the mind.
‘Think’—a concept of the mind.
‘Vision’—a concept of the mind.
‘Is’—a concept of the mind.
You have just enumerated a series of mental categories & concepts, & posited not a single thing outside of mentation. Thus you have hit upon the crux of the matter. For I don’t see this ‘matter’ & ‘physicality’ of which you speak, except as an offshoot or derivative of mind itself. The brain, objects, physicality, neurons, & the very notion of ‘is,’—all of these are but concepts within the mind. The mind, it seems, is the sole repository of all things, & matter & physicality are but its offspring. I can’t conceive of anything existing outside of the mind, for all that I know & understand is but a creation of the mind. This so-called ‘matter’ & 'physicality' are but mere derivatives of the mind. The very concept of the physical brain is but a construct within the mind. We are left with nothing but a series of mental categories & concepts, with never a glimpse of anything outside of mentation.
§2. Where does your brain exist? Inside of your brain. If you don’t believe me, go ahead and try to conceive of your brain, right now, & I can assure you that all you will be left with is a concept in your mind. You never go beyond this. There is no reason to posit the independent existence of your physical brain as such, for the same reason there is no reason to posit the independent existence of matter in general. There is only mind, both subjective (thoughts, sensations) & objective (objective truth), and particular (your mind) & general (‘mind at large’).
§3. The truth of the proposition ‘1×1=1’ does not have its abode within the confines of the brain. Rather, it is a thought referring to that truth that exists within the brain. For if the truth of the proposition were to reside solely within the brain, then external reality would not conform to it. Yet, the world operates as though that proposition were indeed correct, implying that the truth of the proposition extends beyond the boundaries of the brain. And that truth does not have a physical position. It is not a material thing. You cannot point to it. Yet it is possible to make objective statements about it. Thus it is real, true. And it is more fundamental than physical matter, since it would be valid if nothing exists. If there was no one in existence to think upon it, and no one to make a statement, it would nonetheless be a correct statement, even in such a hyporthetical universe. Its truth is independent of the existence of this material universe.
§4. It seems that nothing in this fair world is not steeped in the quagmire of mental categorisation, & I can find no reason to posit the existence of aught beyond mind. Not the mind of this or that particular individual, but the mind in its very essence. The mind, not the matter, appears to be the fundamental, ubiquitous entity. It would seem that matter is but a mere offshoot of the mind, a form of mind, & not the other way round. I can’t think of a single thing that is not imbued with mental categories. If you break anything down to its constituent elements, you are inavriably left with a series of mental categories, & never any material thing in itself.
§2. Where does your brain exist? Inside of your brain. If you don’t believe me, go ahead and try to conceive of your brain, right now, & I can assure you that all you will be left with is a concept in your mind. You never go beyond this. There is no reason to posit the independent existence of your physical brain as such, for the same reason there is no reason to posit the independent existence of matter in general. There is only mind, both subjective (thoughts, sensations) & objective (objective truth), and particular (your mind) & general (‘mind at large’).
§3. The truth of the proposition ‘1×1=1’ does not have its abode within the confines of the brain. Rather, it is a thought referring to that truth that exists within the brain. For if the truth of the proposition were to reside solely within the brain, then external reality would not conform to it. Yet, the world operates as though that proposition were indeed correct, implying that the truth of the proposition extends beyond the boundaries of the brain. And that truth does not have a physical position. It is not a material thing. You cannot point to it. Yet it is possible to make objective statements about it. Thus it is real, true. And it is more fundamental than physical matter, since it would be valid if nothing exists. If there was no one in existence to think upon it, and no one to make a statement, it would nonetheless be a correct statement, even in such a hyporthetical universe. Its truth is independent of the existence of this material universe.
§4. It seems that nothing in this fair world is not steeped in the quagmire of mental categorisation, & I can find no reason to posit the existence of aught beyond mind. Not the mind of this or that particular individual, but the mind in its very essence. The mind, not the matter, appears to be the fundamental, ubiquitous entity. It would seem that matter is but a mere offshoot of the mind, a form of mind, & not the other way round. I can’t think of a single thing that is not imbued with mental categories. If you break anything down to its constituent elements, you are inavriably left with a series of mental categories, & never any material thing in itself.
Last edited:
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Substitute the physical brain for mind.
Mind is an abstraction. Metaphysics ends up being like a dog chasing its tail.
Mind is an abstraction. Metaphysics ends up being like a dog chasing its tail.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Silliness often results in Covid 19. Funny that!
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Mind is a process. Actually a collection of processes. There are material things and the processes that these material things give rise to.
pood
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 2,298
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
You are selling metaphysics short. Your whole position is called metaphysical naturalism — which itself is a philosophical idea, not provable from within the idea itself. It is an assumption, a starting axiom, that may or may not be true.
The standard rival assumption is metaphysical supernaturalism. But there is a third metaphysical assumption, metaphysical idealism. This is what Trebaxian Vir is talking about.
The idea here is that the world consists entirely of mental states. Rather than the mind supervening on the brain, as MN assumes, MI would have it that the brain supervenes on the mind.
There are a number of good reasons for thinking that MI might be true. Vir listed some of them. But like MN, MI cannot be proved by, or from within, its original assumption. The point, however, is that your own world view is entirely philosophical, and so you are practicing the very metaphysics that you dismiss as meaningless.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Messages
- 174
You have still just given me a series of mental constructs. Nothing else. So the entirety of my preceding response would be equally applicable to this respose. So long as you appeal to mental constructs, my argument is still applicable. An argument, by the way, that no one has ever been able to refute. I doubt you will be the first.
For instance, you say "Mind is an abstraction". Well, my dear chap, you just used the word "is" - a mental contruct.
You also posited that the physical brain exists - existence is a mental category, a concept.
And so on.
As long as you appeal to any concepts at all, my argument is, I believe, unassailable.
Speaking of my last response; I made a minor mistake :
For instance, you say "Mind is an abstraction". Well, my dear chap, you just used the word "is" - a mental contruct.
You also posited that the physical brain exists - existence is a mental category, a concept.
And so on.
As long as you appeal to any concepts at all, my argument is, I believe, unassailable.
Speaking of my last response; I made a minor mistake :
§2. Where does your brain exist? Inside of your brain mind. If you don’t believe me, go ahead and try to conceive of your brain, right now, & I can assure you that all you will be left with is a concept in your mind. You never go beyond this. There is no reason to posit the independent existence of your physical brain as such, for the same reason there is no reason to posit the independent existence of matter in general. There is only mind, both subjective (thoughts, sensations) & objective (objective truth), and particular (your mind) & general (‘mind at large’).
The crossed-out word should read 'mind' instead of 'brain'.
So down that rabbit hole far enough, and it takes you to solipsism
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Messages
- 174
No, it takes you to objective idealism, the reverse of solipsism, which is a form of subjective idealism. Objective idealism is where logic leads you to, in my judgment. It cannot lead to materialism, however. Materialism cannot get past the problems on which I expatiated thereinabove.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Messages
- 174
By Jove, old boy, I must say, I quite concur with you!
The affliction of silliness does befall at least one chap in any given cohort, and it is a matter of grave import that we remain ever observant of this most curious phenomenon.
I must say, your efforts in bringing this matter to our attention are most commendable.
May your day be as resplendent as the sun in its zenith!
The affliction of silliness does befall at least one chap in any given cohort, and it is a matter of grave import that we remain ever observant of this most curious phenomenon.
I must say, your efforts in bringing this matter to our attention are most commendable.
May your day be as resplendent as the sun in its zenith!
abaddon
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,322
Talking about the mind being something that the brain does leads to solipsism. Mind as an epiphenomenon of the brain means that each person's experienced world is a brain-generated hallucination. So, in that view, we are each inside our brains hallucinating our worlds.
The way people fail to notice the problem, probably, is they drag their simplistic commonsense realism ("I'm looking out of my eyeballs at a world that's 'out there'") into it and imagine it survives the notion that the brain generates consciousness. But it doesn't.
If the universe were a "mind-at-large", then that's a way OUT of solipsism. In this view your local mind is an aspect of the universal mind so the interface of self with reality (of mind with mind) is direct. Whereas if we're brain-generated minds then that's about as isolating as being brains in vats.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Messages
- 174
Very well said, thank you.abaddon said: