Physicalism

[Juma]

Information in the form of radiation, forces, chemicals, etc. how else can we know that something exists?

- - - Updated - - -

darn, I was so close.

What do you mean?

I thought I had a pen pal.

Was that one of your goals for being on here?

How do you think information "comes from" 2?

 

[ryan]

Information in the form of radiation, forces, chemicals, etc. how else can we know that something exists?

How do you think information "comes from" 2?

But what 2 are you referring to, the symbol or is it the "global process"?

Excuse me if I am off, but do you have any doubts as we plow through 3000 years of unsettled philosophical debates? I mean, are you just trying to figure this out as we go along, or is this territory so familiar that my struggle with it is of complete bewilderment to you?

Yes the paragraph above is a little facetious, but I will trust that your answer is genuine.

 

[Juma]

Information in the form of radiation, forces, chemicals, etc. how else can we know that something exists?

How do you think information "comes from" 2?

But what 2 are you referring to, the symbol or is it the "global process"?

You demonstrated very clearly thst you always assumes the reference and not the concept/symbol when not stated otherwise. So, not the symbol.

 

[ryan]

Information in the form of radiation, forces, chemicals, etc. how else can we know that something exists?

How do you think information "comes from" 2?

But what 2 are you referring to, the symbol or is it the "global process"?

You demonstrated very clearly thst you always assumes the reference and not the concept/symbol when not stated otherwise. So, not the symbol.

This is too much for me. I am going back to the books.

 

[none]

I need some advice.
I am at a point where I believe that the physical is the default position when it comes to understanding reality.
I say that without the physical being the default position nothing can be explained.
that meta-physics can't be explained without reference to the physical.
am I right? is there something I am missing?

 

[ryan]

I need some advice.
I am at a point where I believe that the physical is the default position when it comes to understanding reality.
I say that without the physical being the default position nothing can be explained.
that meta-physics can't be explained without reference to the physical.
am I right? is there something I am missing?

Here's my problem. How can random groups of particles discuss things that aren't particles such as cars, pain, 7, nothing, something, etc? I understand that it's all particles, but what is grouping particles into concepts, objects, perceptions, etc.

The last two sentences should just be particles. There shouldn't be anything that reads them, interprets them, considers them agrees or disagrees with them. The reader should just be particles too. The question that gets avoided around here like the plague is: how can those sentences be either particles or sentences. Something must only be one thing, and that thing is what it is. It can't be two different things in the same context if any sense is going to be made.

 

[none]

I need some advice.
I am at a point where I believe that the physical is the default position when it comes to understanding reality.
I say that without the physical being the default position nothing can be explained.
that meta-physics can't be explained without reference to the physical.
am I right? is there something I am missing?

Here's my problem. How can random groups of particles discuss things that aren't particles such as cars, pain, 7, nothing, something, etc? I understand that it's all particles, but what is grouping particles into concepts, objects, perceptions, etc.

to be simple, I would say the brain does the grouping.

The last two sentences should just be particles. There shouldn't be anything that reads them, interprets them, considers them agrees or disagrees with them. The reader should just be particles too. The question that gets avoided around here like the plague is: how can those sentences be either particles or sentences. Something must only be one thing, and that thing is what it is. It can't be two different things in the same context if any sense is going to be made.

what about spreadsheets? they calculate formulas, shouldn't there be no calculations because there are just spreadsheets... a collection of particles...
take a pet rock, is it a rock or pet?
human beings process information, if you can prove otherwise I would be interested.
AND you really didn't answer my question as to why physicalism shouldn't be the default position.

 

[ryan]

I need some advice.
I am at a point where I believe that the physical is the default position when it comes to understanding reality.
I say that without the physical being the default position nothing can be explained.
that meta-physics can't be explained without reference to the physical.
am I right? is there something I am missing?

Here's my problem. How can random groups of particles discuss things that aren't particles such as cars, pain, 7, nothing, something, etc? I understand that it's all particles, but what is grouping particles into concepts, objects, perceptions, etc.

to be simple, I would say the brain does the grouping.

But there are no such things as groups from the position of physical particulars. The group should not provide something beyond what is already accounted for as the parts, unless the brain has metaphysical capabilities.

The last two sentences should just be particles. There shouldn't be anything that reads them, interprets them, considers them agrees or disagrees with them. The reader should just be particles too. The question that gets avoided around here like the plague is: how can those sentences be either particles or sentences. Something must only be one thing, and that thing is what it is. It can't be two different things in the same context if any sense is going to be made.

what about spreadsheets? they calculate formulas, shouldn't there be no calculations because there are just spreadsheets... a collection of particles...
take a pet rock, is it a rock or pet?
human beings process information, if you can prove otherwise I would be interested.
AND you really didn't answer my question as to why physicalism shouldn't be the default position.

Hmmm, I am not sure that you understood what I was getting at. It is your position that reduces things down to particles; it is you who has to explain how something can be two different things if you want to stay consistent with physicalism.

It is my fault for the misunderstanding. I should have said something like, "if physicalismis true, then ... (the rest of the post)".

 

[none]

and you accuse me of throwing feces on the wall hoping something will stick?
how can stone be bigger than one stone smaller than another and be described as medium in size?
the stone is all 3, bigger, smaller, and medium...
it is our understanding, electrochemical processes, that ascribe the size reference.

 

[ryan]

and you accuse me of throwing feces on the wall hoping something will stick?

What fell off of the wall?

how can stone be bigger than one stone smaller than another and be described as medium in size?
the stone is all 3, bigger, smaller, and medium...
it is our understanding, electrochemical processes, that ascribe the size reference.

To keep perfectly consistent, you can't assign one object two different labels/symbols/references when trying to account for what exists.

If you can agree with the statement above, then there couldn't be multiple meanings of one thing. So a statement can only be a statement or particles in the brain; it can't be either.

 

[none]

What fell off of the wall?

how can stone be bigger than one stone smaller than another and be described as medium in size?
the stone is all 3, bigger, smaller, and medium...
it is our understanding, electrochemical processes, that ascribe the size reference.

To keep perfectly consistent, you can't assign one object two different labels/symbols/references when trying to account for what exists.

If you can agree with the statement above, then there couldn't be multiple meanings of one thing. So a statement can only be a statement or particles in the brain; it can't be either.

most everything fell off the way.
a human is autonomous and social. there two meanings one thing.
plus the stone, is it big, little, or medium in size?

 

[ryan]

What fell off of the wall?

how can stone be bigger than one stone smaller than another and be described as medium in size?
the stone is all 3, bigger, smaller, and medium...
it is our understanding, electrochemical processes, that ascribe the size reference.

To keep perfectly consistent, you can't assign one object two different labels/symbols/references when trying to account for what exists.

If you can agree with the statement above, then there couldn't be multiple meanings of one thing. So a statement can only be a statement or particles in the brain; it can't be either.

most everything fell off the way.
a human is autonomous and social. there two meanings one thing.
plus the stone, is it big, little, or medium in size?

Yes, I totally agree that one thing can mean two different things, but that is not consistent with physicalism. You cannot assign two meanings to one object in physicalism. My entire argument is based on the last sentence, so you must address it if you want to show how I am wrong.

 

[none]

...
Yes, I totally agree that one thing can mean two different things, but that is not consistent with physicalism. You cannot assign two meanings to one object in physicalism. My entire argument is based on the last sentence, so you must address it if you want to show how I am wrong.

what do you mean that a thing can mean two different things?

 

[ryan]

...
Yes, I totally agree that one thing can mean two different things, but that is not consistent with physicalism. You cannot assign two meanings to one object in physicalism. My entire argument is based on the last sentence, so you must address it if you want to show how I am wrong.

what do you mean that a thing can mean two different things?

Well if we go with the Oxford dictionary, to give meaning is to signify. So, I agree with you that one object can be signified as medium and/or small. But in a purely physical universe, there can only be unique objects. For example, the word "car" would only be a process in the brain, so for us, "car" and even its image as we see it right now couldn't exist, except for as a process in the brain.

In physicalism, everything becomes meaningless; there would be no images, symbols, experiences, etc. The symbols would just be random objects with no "special connection" or "dual meaning" to anything else. The images and experiences would just be processes in the brain.

 

[none]

...
In physicalism, everything becomes meaningless; there would be no images, symbols, experiences, etc. The symbols would just be random objects with no "special connection" or "dual meaning" to anything else. The images and experiences would just be processes in the brain.

what is there problem with that?
ink blots? are they symbols or nothing?
in what language are they nothing?

 

[ryan]

...
In physicalism, everything becomes meaningless; there would be no images, symbols, experiences, etc. The symbols would just be random objects with no "special connection" or "dual meaning" to anything else. The images and experiences would just be processes in the brain.

what is there problem with that?

Well, if there are no symbols, then there is no such thing as language or even internal language for that matter.

ink blots? are they symbols or nothing?

"Ink blots" would only be "ink blots". They wouldn't be words, and they wouldn't refer to anything or symbolize anything.

in what language are they nothing?

The image of the "ink blots" would not exist; the only thing that would exist is a chemical process in the brain.

 

[none]

language is the result of higher functioning observer, not the other way around.
is the symbolism associated with ink blots a result of something manifest from the ink blot or does symbolism come from an observer?
I don't want to get too off topic and maybe I shouldn't have started discussing ink blots, but I did.
it seems to me you think different descriptions of an object are somehow manifest from that object.
if there wasn't any perception how would we know anything existed? would perception be manifest from something that cannot perceive?
I would say the answer is no, that which doesn't perceive doesn't manifest a description.
I say we make mental images and communicate those images, we aren't actually communicating the objects for which we have a mental image.
And communication and perception are due to our higher functioning.

 

[ryan]

language is the result of higher functioning observer, not the other way around.

A "higher functioning observer" is just disguising the main issue.

is the symbolism associated with ink blots a result of something manifest from the ink blot or does symbolism come from an observer?

I am not sure, but I lean towards the idea that the observer has an automatic perception to the causal effects that the ink blot eventually has on the brain. Photons leave the ink blot and enter the eye. But we know that we can make simulations of the ink blot so that the same photons give us the same perception as an actual ink blot would. So my answer is tentatively no.

it seems to me you think different descriptions of an object are somehow manifest from that object.

Well, like you said, there can be an object that is both medium and small.

if there wasn't any perception how would he know anything existed? would perception be manifest from something that cannot perceive?

It is not my argument that implies your former question; it is physicalism that implies no perception. That is why pansychism is a common argument against physicalism; how can a large group of particles perceive while other groups of the same particles can't (rhetorical question).

I would say the answer is no, that which doesn't perceive doesn't manifest a description.
I say we make mental images and communicate those images, we aren't actually communicating the objects for which we have a mental image.
And communication and perception are due to our higher functioning.

What fuels my resistance to physicalism is when physicalists bring up terms like "higher functioning" or "emergent properties" to describe objects that are supposed to have unique identities. The emergent properties is such a contradiction to physicalism.

 

[none]

A "higher functioning observer" is just disguising the main issue.

what is the main issue?

is the symbolism associated with ink blots a result of something manifest from the ink blot or does symbolism come from an observer?

I am not sure, but I lean towards the idea that the observer has an automatic perception to the causal effects that the ink blot eventually has on the brain. Photons leave the ink blot and enter the eye. But we know that we can make simulations of the ink blot so that the same photons give us the same perception as an actual ink blot would. So my answer is tentatively no

you aren't making sense to me.
you didn't make the case that symbolism was coming from something other than the observer.
the source of stimulus was changed but the observer still perceives, nothing groundbreaking there.

it seems to me you think different descriptions of an object are somehow manifest from that object.

Well, like you said, there can be an object that is both medium and small.

and this assignment of small, medium, and large is not done by the object, the assignment is done by a high functioning observer.

if there wasn't any perception how would he know anything existed? would perception be manifest from something that cannot perceive?

It is not my argument that implies your former question; it is physicalism that implies no perception. That is why pansychism is a common argument against physicalism; how can a large group of particles perceive while other groups of the same particles can't (rhetorical question).

it has to do with the arrangement, we don't say the electrons in our brain perceive; perception requires an arrangement of particles.
take a portion of your brain out and you no longer perceive, that portion being a group of particles.

I would say the answer is no, that which doesn't perceive doesn't manifest a description.
I say we make mental images and communicate those images, we aren't actually communicating the objects for which we have a mental image.
And communication and perception are due to our higher functioning.

What fuels my resistance to physicalism is when physicalists bring up terms like "higher functioning" or "emergent properties" to describe objects that are supposed to have unique identities. The emergent properties is such a contradiction to physicalism.

sorry you don't like the terms, but higher functioning is a way to segregate from functioning that is not perceptive.
I am mostly fascinated by fellows like you don't like physcalism.

 

[ryan]

it has to do with the arrangement, we don't say the electrons in our brain perceive; perception requires an arrangement of particles.
take a portion of your brain out and you no longer perceive, that portion being a group of particles.

Is this "arrangement" something quantifiable of each particle ("yes" falsifies physicalism and "no" falsifies physicalism).

I would say the answer is no, that which doesn't perceive doesn't manifest a description.
I say we make mental images and communicate those images, we aren't actually communicating the objects for which we have a mental image.
And communication and perception are due to our higher functioning.

"Higher functioning" is not going to win me over. My car may have "higher functioning" over my garage, so what?

What fuels my resistance to physicalism is when physicalists bring up terms like "higher functioning" or "emergent properties" to describe objects that are supposed to have unique identities. The emergent properties is such a contradiction to physicalism.

sorry you don't like the terms, but higher functioning is a way to segregate from functioning that is not perceptive.
I am mostly fascinated by fellows like you don't like physcalism.

Help me understand how one thing can have two different descriptions in physicalism. Help me understand how a physicalist can use "higher functioning" and use another description to refer to the same thing in the same context (1 can't equal 2 or 3). In my opinion, you should only get to say particle A, particle C, space, space, space, particle A, space, particle B, particle B, space etc. Are you a physicalist, or are you a realist?