Physicalism

[none]

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

I don't understand the 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.

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

I don't know how to help you there.

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?

I don't understand the problem with using different delimiters. why should the delimiter used to discuss anything be particle?

 

[ryan]

I don't understand the question

How can you refer to something? More specifically, how can particles that can't individually refer to something refer to something if there are enough of them in a certain arrangement? In physics their individual characteristics simply add to the system; in physicalism nothing different should come of them.

 

[Juma]

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.

You seem to totally misunderstand physicalism.

Physicalism says that a description of the particles and their interaction is all that is needed to describe the system.

That is not incompatible with higher level functions.

Think of particles with their interactions as building bricks. As for example Lego. From some simple bricks you can build very complicated things.

 

[none]

I don't understand the question

How can you refer to something? More specifically, how can particles that can't individually refer to something refer to something if there are enough of them in a certain arrangement? In physics their individual characteristics simply add to the system; in physicalism nothing different should come of them.

If Juma's post #343 is true this^post seems to be a strawman...

 

[ryan]

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.

Physicalism says that a description of the particles and their interaction is all that is needed to describe the system.

Is 7 + 3 = 10 a chemical process in the brain or a true mathematical equation? I think that we can both agree that it's both.

My point is that the chemical process in the brain is the physical aspect of 7 + 3 = 10, but it also must be a true mathematical equation for language to exist.

So how can one unique object [7 + 3 = 10] be two very different things?

That is not incompatible with higher level functions.

Yes, I understand that there are different types of physicalism that are non-reductive. I am on the side of the philosophers who argue that a physicalist must be a reductionist or reductive physicalist.

Think of particles with their interactions as building bricks. As for example Lego. From some simple bricks you can build very complicated things.

Okay, can we define physicalism once and for all as the belief that only elementary particles and space exist in the universe?

 

[ryan]

I don't understand the question

How can you refer to something? More specifically, how can particles that can't individually refer to something refer to something if there are enough of them in a certain arrangement? In physics their individual characteristics simply add to the system; in physicalism nothing different should come of them.

If Juma's post #343 is true this^post seems to be a strawman...

It is hardly a straw man. We both must agree that referencing exists. So does it make sense to you that something else such as referencing can come from particles that do not reference? Referencing would seem to come from nowhere. It's like saying that if one has enough orange juice, and the orange juice is in the right arrangement, then it will become apple juice or snow or a tree. You can rearrange orange juice molecules all you want, but it will never become water.

 

[none]

I don't understand the question

How can you refer to something? More specifically, how can particles that can't individually refer to something refer to something if there are enough of them in a certain arrangement? In physics their individual characteristics simply add to the system; in physicalism nothing different should come of them.

If Juma's post #343 is true this^post seems to be a strawman...

It is hardly a straw man. We both must agree that referencing exists.

as a result of brain function...

So does it make sense to you that something else such as referencing can come from particles that do not reference?

a brain can perform that function.

Referencing would seem to come from nowhere.

if that is what you believe.

It's like saying that if one has enough orange juice, and the orange juice is in the right arrangement, then it will become apple juice or snow or a tree. You can rearrange orange juice molecules all you want, but it will never become water.

the particles of oranges could change so that the collection as a whole wouldn't be an orange. I could be wrong though...
I think you are just talking out your ass changing the delimiter from particles to molecules.

 

[ryan]

So does it make sense to you that something else such as referencing can come from particles that do not reference?

a brain can perform that function.

Does referencing exist at the same time as the function?

It's like saying that if one has enough orange juice, and the orange juice is in the right arrangement, then it will become apple juice or snow or a tree. You can rearrange orange juice molecules all you want, but it will never become water.

the particles of oranges could change so that the collection as a whole wouldn't be an orange. I could be wrong though...
I think you are just talking out your ass changing the delimiter from particles to molecules.

Think about it with particles then. Particles (in arrangement A) = particles + reference. But, particles (in other arrangements) = particles. Doesn't the first equation just seem wrong?

 

[none]

So does it make sense to you that something else such as referencing can come from particles that do not reference?

a brain can perform that function.

Does referencing exist at the same time as the function?

does referencing exist without a brain? for the sake of this conversation I am not interested in the implications of hormonal sentience.
I am not a neurologist so I can't get into specifics.

...
Think about it with particles then. Particles (in arrangement A) = particles + reference. But, particles (in other arrangements) = particles. Doesn't the first equation just seem wrong?

doesn't seem wrong if I am perceiving the arrangement. but hey that is just me... and particles in other arrangements are particles in other arrangements.
I am not a learned as you are on the subject, at least that is my perception.
maybe you could explain your equations better.

 

[ryan]

So does it make sense to you that something else such as referencing can come from particles that do not reference?

a brain can perform that function.

Does referencing exist at the same time as the function?

does referencing exist without a brain? for the sake of this conversation I am not interested in the implications of hormonal sentience.
I am not a neurologist so I can't get into specifics.

I am essentially asking if you think that function A (in the brain) is referencing.

...
Think about it with particles then. Particles (in arrangement A) = particles + reference. But, particles (in other arrangements) = particles. Doesn't the first equation just seem wrong?

doesn't seem wrong if I am perceiving the arrangement. but hey that is just me... and particles in other arrangements are particles in other arrangements.
I am not a learned as you are on the subject, at least that is my perception.
maybe you could explain your equations better.

I don't know anything about it either; I am just trying to make sense out of this.

I believe that Particles (in arrangement A) = particles + reference. But I don't see how a physicalist can believe it. It seems very unintuitive that a physicalist could think that something else exists with the particles; in this case, referencing seems to be added to the group of particles. But how could anything else be there when all we can account for in the brain are particles?

 

[none]

good reply ryan, I am going to watch the Spurs smash down the Thunder... maybe give myself some time to ponder your questions..

 

[ryan]

good reply ryan, I am going to watch the Spurs smash down the Thunder... maybe give myself some time to ponder your questions..

Yes, the Spurs need to win so that the old farts can be well rested for their loss to Miami.

 

[Juma]

Is 7 + 3 = 10 a chemical process in the brain or a true mathematical equation? I think that we can both agree that it's both.

My point is that the chemical process in the brain is the physical aspect of 7 + 3 = 10, but it also must be a true mathematical equation for language to exist.

So how can one unique object [7 + 3 = 10] be two very different things?

i have told you a myriad times: behaviour.

How can a collection of lego bricks be a house? Because the "house" is the behaviour of the constellation of bricks. It is how the constellation "interact" with what is around them, (this is easier to see in dynamic constellation but harder to build in lego)

Okay, can we define physicalism once and for all as the belief that only elementary particles and space exist in the universe?

It is telling that you forgot time since time is exatly what you need to get behaviour.

And I gave a much better definition in my post.

And stop using the word "exist". It only fools you into believing that you have said something.

 

[ryan]

i have told you a myriad times: behaviour.

"Behavior" does not solve the mystery of 7 + 3 = 10 having a seemingly dual existence. Here's my problem put differently: if we were to somehow isolate the function in the brain that is responsible for the thought of 7 + 3 = 10, surely we would see something completely different from 7 + 3 = 10, and surely the function in the brain is not the same thing as 7 + 3 = 10.

How can a collection of lego bricks be a house? Because the "house" is the behaviour of the constellation of bricks. It is how the constellation "interact" with what is around them, (this is easier to see in dynamic constellation but harder to build in lego)

Here's a different kind of question from what I usually ask you. How is the word "house" and the real house related? Are they only related by a much larger physical process that involves the brain, the environment (atmosphere, gravity etc.) and the house?

 

[Juma]

"Behavior" does not solve the mystery of 7 + 3 = 10 having a seemingly dual existence. Here's my problem put differently: if we were to somehow isolate the function in the brain that is responsible for the thought of 7 + 3 = 10, surely we would see something completely different from 7 + 3 = 10, and surely the function in the brain is not the same thing as 7 + 3 = 10.

7+3=10 is the behaviour.

 

[ryan]

"Behavior" does not solve the mystery of 7 + 3 = 10 having a seemingly dual existence. Here's my problem put differently: if we were to somehow isolate the function in the brain that is responsible for the thought of 7 + 3 = 10, surely we would see something completely different from 7 + 3 = 10, and surely the function in the brain is not the same thing as 7 + 3 = 10.

7+3=10 is the behaviour.

Okay, then can you explain how 7 + 3 = 10 can have two behaviors? One behavior is 7 + 3 = 10, and the other would be a process in the brain.

 

[none]

I am essentially asking if you think that function A (in the brain) is referencing.

not sure I fully understand what you are saying but from my understanding so far I would say yes.

...
Think about it with particles then. Particles (in arrangement A) = particles + reference. But, particles (in other arrangements) = particles. Doesn't the first equation just seem wrong?

doesn't seem wrong if I am perceiving the arrangement. but hey that is just me... and particles in other arrangements are particles in other arrangements.
I am not a learned as you are on the subject, at least that is my perception.
maybe you could explain your equations better.

I don't know anything about it either; I am just trying to make sense out of this.

I believe that Particles (in arrangement A) = particles + reference. But I don't see how a physicalist can believe it.

so you don't think that referencing is done by the brain of that which is perceiving.
so what is the reference if there is no brain activity involved?

It seems very unintuitive that a physicalist could think that something else exists with the particles; in this case, referencing seems to be added to the group of particles. But how could anything else be there when all we can account for in the brain are particles?

I am not saying there is anything else "there", and the "there" part is brain activity... which appears to be reduced to particle activity.. from what I have seen.
damn spurs lost. lebron plays in a few minutes..

 

[ryan]

I am essentially asking if you think that function A (in the brain) is referencing.

not sure I fully understand what you are saying but from my understanding so far I would say yes.

Okay, now is the function in the brain also particles in motion and the spaces between them?

I believe that Particles (in arrangement A) = particles + reference. But I don't see how a physicalist can believe it.

so you don't think that referencing is done by the brain of that which is perceiving.

I guess that it is a synergy or an emergent property of the parts.

so what is the reference if there is no brain activity involved?

That's the problem. My very unsettling and inconvenient solution is that it is non-physical because that is exactly what an example of something non-physical would be. It seems to be very closely related to our physical explanations of the universe, but things like referencing alone is like a ghost in the machine, or in a human's case a ghost that is confined and dependent on a machine.

It seems very unintuitive that a physicalist could think that something else exists with the particles; in this case, referencing seems to be added to the group of particles. But how could anything else be there when all we can account for in the brain are particles?

I am not saying there is anything else "there", and the "there" part is brain activity... which appears to be reduced to particle activity.. from what I have seen.
damn spurs lost. lebron plays in a few minutes..

Above, you said that referencing is there.

 

[none]

thanks for keeping me honest. i'll post a reply when i have some time to review our conversation.

 

[none]

I am essentially asking if you think that function A (in the brain) is referencing.

not sure I fully understand what you are saying but from my understanding so far I would say yes.

Okay, now is the function in the brain also particles in motion and the spaces between them?

For simplicity I'd say displacement is function.

I believe that Particles (in arrangement A) = particles + reference. But I don't see how a physicalist can believe it.

so you don't think that referencing is done by the brain of that which is perceiving.

I guess that it is a synergy or an emergent property of the parts.

what parts?

so what is the reference if there is no brain activity involved?

That's the problem. My very unsettling and inconvenient solution is that it is non-physical because that is exactly what an example of something non-physical would be.

what meaning are you giving to the word "it"?
do you mean reference? care to define it, because I think we are using two different definitions.

It seems to be very closely related to our physical explanations of the universe, but things like referencing alone is like a ghost in the machine, or in a human's case a ghost that is confined and dependent on a machine.

I think "referencing" is done by the brain, reference being an ordered result of electrochemical interactions which is a displacement of particles; and this resolves the issue. ( both the chemical reactions and reference being a displacement of particles ). of course I Could be wrong...

It seems very unintuitive that a physicalist could think that something else exists with the particles; in this case, referencing seems to be added to the group of particles. But how could anything else be there when all we can account for in the brain are particles?

I am not saying there is anything else "there", and the "there" part is brain activity... which appears to be reduced to particle activity.. from what I have seen.
damn spurs lost. lebron plays in a few minutes..

Above, you said that referencing is there.

I looked back through my posts, I saw that I used the word once.
maybe you can provide an example or use that post as a element to explain what you think I wrote, because to me I wasn't making some type of argument that weighted something other than the brain's activity.
miami won, good thing too.