Physicalism

[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.

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.

Your brain is a very complex process, 7+3=10 is just one of its behaviours.

 

[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?

For simplicity I'd say displacement is function.

Don't you think that many displacements of particles is very different from referencing?

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?

particles, molecules or whatever kind of component you decide to model the brain with.

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.

I misunderstood what you meant. My re-response to your question before is that I do believe that brain activity is involved.

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...

So we have the same problem again. You claim that referencing is the result of "ordered result of electrochemical interactions ..." So is it fair for me to simplify this with the equation "ordered result of electrochemical interactions ..." = referencing? If the equation is the general idea, then shouldn't it ultimately be "ordered result of electrochemical interactions ..." + referencing = "ordered result of electrochemical interactions ..." + referencing? But then what is referencing if the physical aspect is already accounted for?

So now let's try just to drop the "referencing" from both sides of the equation; that would just be "ordered result of electrochemical interactions ..." = "ordered result of electrochemical interactions ...". Now it seems as though something about "ordered result of electrochemical interactions ..." is gone; somehow the simply balanced equation does not give us the external meaning from the physical process - it's just gone.

Finally, referencing = referencing is obviously incomplete because we know that matter/energy is 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..

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.

This is going to be a sematic nightmare. There are so many ways that each of us could be misinterpreting the other.

I meant that I thought you agreed that the function of the brain that references is a process in the brain.

 

[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.

Your brain is a very complex process, 7+3=10 is just one of its behaviours.

But you would probably say that 7 + 3 = 10 is also a physical process in the brain. How can it be both?

 

[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.

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.

Your brain is a very complex process, 7+3=10 is just one of its behaviours.

But you would probably say that 7 + 3 = 10 is also a physical process in the brain. How can it be both?

How can the eiffel tower also be a construction made of steel?

 

[ryan]

How can the eiffel tower also be a construction made of steel?

By "be" do you mean that the "Eiffel Tower" is "construction made of steel", or do you mean that the "Eiffel Tower" and "construction made of steel" are symbols for the actual object in Paris?

 

[none]

Don't you think that many displacements of particles is very different from referencing?

The way I see it is that many displacements of particles is different than referencing but specific displacements of particles is referencing.

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?

particles, molecules or whatever kind of component you decide to model the brain with.

including the emergent property? What segregates the emergent property from the brain?
If the emergent property wasn't part of the brain would the brain be complete?

So we have the same problem again. You claim that referencing is the result of "ordered result of electrochemical interactions ..." So is it fair for me to simplify this with the equation "ordered result of electrochemical interactions ..." = referencing? If the equation is the general idea, then shouldn't it ultimately be "ordered result of electrochemical interactions ..." + referencing = "ordered result of electrochemical interactions ..." + referencing? But then what is referencing if the physical aspect is already accounted for?

So now let's try just to drop the "referencing" from both sides of the equation; that would just be "ordered result of electrochemical interactions ..." = "ordered result of electrochemical interactions ...". Now it seems as though something about "ordered result of electrochemical interactions ..." is gone; somehow the simply balanced equation does not give us the external meaning from the physical process - it's just gone.

Finally, referencing = referencing is obviously incomplete because we know that matter/energy is involved.

You are failing to recognize that referencing is electrochemical interactions.
Referencing = electrochemical interactions
referencing done = a result of electrochemical interactions
To me it seems the nature of the word referencing that is causing the confusion.
maybe we need to talk about memories rather than references...?

I meant that I thought you agreed that the function of the brain that references is a process in the brain.

I think referencing is a process of electrochemical interactions in the brain.
here is a smiley:

 

[Juma]

How can the eiffel tower also be a construction made of steel?

By "be" do you mean that the "Eiffel Tower" is "construction made of steel", or do you mean that the "Eiffel Tower" and "construction made of steel" are symbols for the actual object in Paris?

Yes. (Both are correct)

 

[ryan]

You are failing to recognize that referencing is electrochemical interactions.
Referencing = electrochemical interactions
referencing done = a result of electrochemical interactions
To me it seems the nature of the word referencing that is causing the confusion.
maybe we need to talk about memories rather than references...?

I have been very sloppy with my use of the term "refer". When I originally brought up "refer", I somehow sidetracked from what I meant.

How can there be a whole object [coherent understanding] about the following: one object [human] that refers an object [word] to another object [actual object/referent]? For example, how can the object [process/understanding/coherence] of: an object [me] that refers an object [the term: "my car"] to the object [car] outside?

In physicalism how can one object [the whole understanding] represent three separate objects?

 

[none]

You are failing to recognize that referencing is electrochemical interactions.
Referencing = electrochemical interactions
referencing done = a result of electrochemical interactions
To me it seems the nature of the word referencing that is causing the confusion.
maybe we need to talk about memories rather than references...?

I have been very sloppy with my use of the term "refer". When I originally brought up "refer", I somehow sidetracked from what I meant.

How can there be a whole object [coherent understanding] about the following: one object [human] that refers an object [word] to another object [actual object/referent]? For example, how can the object [process/understanding/coherence] of: an object [me] that refers an object [the term: "my car"] to the object [car] outside?

I don't understand what you are trying to say, especially the use of brackets... maybe try again without brackets.

In physicalism how can one object [the whole understanding] represent three separate objects?

like big, medium, and small...? I would say it is perception.

 

[ryan]

I am starting a new thread in metaphysics on this topic. I intend on explaining myself much better.

 

[none]

I am starting a new thread in metaphysics on this topic. I intend on explaining myself much better.

cool. i probably will check it out.

 

[Juma]

How can there be a whole object [coherent understanding] about the following: one object [human] that refers an object [word] to another object [actual object/referent]? For example, how can the object [process/understanding/coherence] of: an object [me] that refers an object [the term: "my car"] to the object [car] outside?

In physicalism how can one object [the whole understanding] represent three separate objects?

If you are starting a new thread then think of this:

1) where is the actual logical contradiction. You must first show that there really is a problem and the post above doesnt. It is just a statement. That a text starts with "how" and ends with "?" doesnt mean that there really is a problem.

2) if you really found something that is a problem with physicalism, how is that solved by other alternative views?

 

[ryan]

How can there be a whole object [coherent understanding] about the following: one object [human] that refers an object [word] to another object [actual object/referent]? For example, how can the object [process/understanding/coherence] of: an object [me] that refers an object [the term: "my car"] to the object [car] outside?

In physicalism how can one object [the whole understanding] represent three separate objects?

If you are starting a new thread then think of this:

1) where is the actual logical contradiction. You must first show that there really is a problem and the post above doesnt. It is just a statement. That a text starts with "how" and ends with "?" doesnt mean that there really is a problem.

2) if you really found something that is a problem with physicalism, how is that solved by other alternative views?

I know that I have not done a good enough job. I need time to put a better argument together.

 

[steve_bnk]

I am starting a new thread in metaphysics on this topic. I intend on explaining myself much better.

How many new treads on the same question going back to the old forum, and do you ever get a different response?

I have yet to see you define material vs non-material.

 

[ryan]

I am starting a new thread in metaphysics on this topic. I intend on explaining myself much better.

How many new treads on the same question going back to the old forum, and do you ever get a different response?

I have yet to see you define material vs non-material.

The easy thing is knowing what is known.

 

[steve_bnk]

I am starting a new thread in metaphysics on this topic. I intend on explaining myself much better.

How many new treads on the same question going back to the old forum, and do you ever get a different response?

I have yet to see you define material vs non-material.

The easy thing is knowing what is known.

It is easier to make things up thanactually learn what is known.


It us easier to invent an imaginaryreality than deal with reality as it appears.


A stitch in time saves nine.


The early bird gets the worm.


He who smelt it dealt it....etc etcetc.


If you can, explain what you mean bynon-material. Are photons that pass through objects material ornon-material?

 

[ryan]

How can there be a whole object [coherent understanding] about the following: one object [human] that refers an object [word] to another object [actual object/referent]? For example, how can the object [process/understanding/coherence] of: an object [me] that refers an object [the term: "my car"] to the object [car] outside?

In physicalism how can one object [the whole understanding] represent three separate objects?

If you are starting a new thread then think of this:

1) where is the actual logical contradiction. You must first show that there really is a problem and the post above doesnt. It is just a statement. That a text starts with "how" and ends with "?" doesnt mean that there really is a problem.

2) if you really found something that is a problem with physicalism, how is that solved by other alternative views?

Here's an example. Let's assume that something in the universe is infinite or continuous such as space, energy, time, fields, volume of a particle etc. Then mathematical logic about density becomes a physical model.

So the point is that an infinitesimal would have to exist, but it wouldn't exist the way other physical objects exist. It would be non-physical as far as the usual definition for physical goes.

But if the energy of the universe is just quantified parts, then the brain is just a random group of energies and particles that pop in and out of existence. How could the brain have an understanding of wholes; there would just be individual quantities that know what the next quantity is doing. Then no matter how complex the brain is, it is individual parts that affect other individual parts.

We know that the paragraph directly above is not true because if it were true, then something is true about the universe, and that goes beyond the basic particle interactions.

 

[none]

@ryan.. you mean like electrons, and photons, like every elementary particle?

 

[ryan]

like electrons?

Electrons at least follow the laws of conservation of mass, energy and momentum. It wouldn't even make sense to ask if an infinitesimal is conserved because it doesn't exist in a classically physical way.

 

[ryan]

@ryan.. you mean like electrons, and photons, like every elementary particle?

What is like electrons, photons ...? I don't know what you are asking.