Physicalism

[ryan]

It is not the "many tiny parts" we experience but the sensory data that reach our brain. the "wholeness" is an illusion, its just how the brain (re)presents an aspect (sweden) of all this data.

So if wholes are illusions, then how can it be true that "Sweden" is a whole word or H2O is a whole water molecule? Without wholeness much of everything that we presume in linguistics, science, philosophy etc. would be false or an illusion.

Paradoxically, if you are correct about wholeness being an illusion, then you are ultimately wrong because "truths or falsities" require wholeness.

But if the brain is only a different configuration of the same kinds of parts,

What you see as "only different configuration" is a wast, complicated dynamic interaction between billions of higly organiced and specialised of parts. (Neurons etc) neurons are well known of being able to react on data and produce logically processed output,.
Another example is computers: computers are just another "configuration of the same kind of parts" (atoms) but you wouldnt say that computers cannot recognize patterns and for example detect what is sweden and what is not sweden?

But now you are using your own agency for granted when you observe and determine how a computer functions.

 

[Juma]

So if wholes are illusions, then how can it be true that "Sweden" is a whole word or H2O is a whole water molecule?

If you are so interested in philosophy how come you shift goalposts all the time? Why not keep on discussing the same thing instead? Focus on what is central.

What you experience as the whole of "sweden" has nothing to do with that "sweden " is a whole word etc. Your post is only a way to escape without having to face the truth: a physical system is not only particles it is also time and interaction anåd thus dynamic processes. That is what builds references and meaning. As long as you keep ducking for that you will get nowehere.

 

[ryan]

So if wholes are illusions, then how can it be true that "Sweden" is a whole word or H2O is a whole water molecule?

If you are so interested in philosophy how come you shift goalposts all the time? Why not keep on discussing the same thing instead? Focus on what is central.

Juma, I think that this is the gray area between the mental and physical. Logic and meaning need more than just the parts of a process because there is something that understands that such a process can even exist.

What you experience as the whole of "sweden" has nothing to do with that "sweden " is a whole word etc.

What is wrong with saying that there is a whole molecule made up of electrons, protons and neutrons? If our brains are just bit-by-bit processors, then how can we know what a whole is? We need there to actually be wholes.

Your post is only a way to escape without having to face the truth: a physical system is not only particles it is also time and interaction anåd thus dynamic processes. That is what builds references and meaning. As long as you keep ducking for that you will get nowehere.

I agree that there is a physical process, but it seems to be running in tandem with something else.

 

[Juma]

I think

no, you dont. You assumes. You assumes a bloody lot of stuff. You havent once tried to understand what a dynamical system of interactive components are capable of and yet you are full of shit about what physical system cannot do.

You are stuck in your own beliefs. Sorry, you seems to be a thinking person but this is going nowhere. Bye. Again.

 

[ryan]

I think

no, you dont. You assumes. You assumes a bloody lot of stuff. You havent once tried to understand what a dynamical system of interactive components are capable of and yet you are full of shit about what physical system cannot do.

You are stuck in your own beliefs. Sorry, you seems to be a thinking person but this is going nowhere. Bye. Again.

Each part is separated by time and distance, so at any moment each part constantly gains basic information and loses basic information. What knows that all of this is happening?

 

[Juma]

I think

no, you dont. You assumes. You assumes a bloody lot of stuff. You havent once tried to understand what a dynamical system of interactive components are capable of and yet you are full of shit about what physical system cannot do.

You are stuck in your own beliefs. Sorry, you seems to be a thinking person but this is going nowhere. Bye. Again.

Each part is separated by time and distance, so at any moment each part constantly gains basic information and loses basic information. What knows that all of this is happening?

I give you one more chance:

No one. At each higher level information is lost. You can reference all of Sweden with one symbol but that symbol contains nothing about each stone, tree and house in Sweden. i have said so several times before. You never listen.

So. Bye.

 

[ryan]

I think

no, you dont. You assumes. You assumes a bloody lot of stuff. You havent once tried to understand what a dynamical system of interactive components are capable of and yet you are full of shit about what physical system cannot do.

You are stuck in your own beliefs. Sorry, you seems to be a thinking person but this is going nowhere. Bye. Again.

Each part is separated by time and distance, so at any moment each part constantly gains basic information and loses basic information. What knows that all of this is happening?

I give you one more chance:

No one. At each higher level information is lost.

What do you mean?! Cognitive science itself depends on "higher levels"/(scientists) using and knowing that information.

You can reference all of Sweden with one symbol but that symbol contains nothing about each stone, tree and house in Sweden. i have said so several times before. You never listen.

Actually, I said nothing about what Sweden is ontologically. I only meant the word as a whole. My point remains the same for any word.

 

[Juma]

Actually, I said nothing about what Sweden is ontologically. I only meant the word as a whole. My point remains the same for any word.

But you have no point.
Word is used as symbols for concepts but only as long we stay WITHIN the process we call our mind.

All you think, reference, intents, is WITHIN this process. Its like the water for the proverbal fish: invisible because it is everywhere.

You can think, reference and intent because this process started millions of years ago and has now reach a complexity way beyond what can grasp.

 

[ryan]

Actually, I said nothing about what Sweden is ontologically. I only meant the word as a whole. My point remains the same for any word.

But you have no point.
Word is used as symbols for concepts but only as long we stay WITHIN the process we call our mind.

All you think, reference, intents, is WITHIN this process. Its like the water for the proverbal fish: invisible because it is everywhere.

You can think, reference and intent because this process started millions of years ago and has now reach a complexity way beyond what can grasp.

Each particle in the brain provides information about the system; what is consolidating these bits of information?

 

[Juma]

Actually, I said nothing about what Sweden is ontologically. I only meant the word as a whole. My point remains the same for any word.

But you have no point.
Word is used as symbols for concepts but only as long we stay WITHIN the process we call our mind.

All you think, reference, intents, is WITHIN this process. Its like the water for the proverbal fish: invisible because it is everywhere.

You can think, reference and intent because this process started millions of years ago and has now reach a complexity way beyond what can grasp.

Each particle in the brain provides information about the system; what is consolidating these bits of information?

Ok one more but then its enough..

Each particle per se does not provide any information. It is better to look at them as parts of low level "information devices" that in their turn are parts in a "information machine".

As long as you doesnt shift perspective from particles to systems you will be lost.

 

[ryan]

Each particle per se does not provide any information. It is better to look at them as parts of low level "information devices" that in their turn are parts in a "information machine".

As long as you doesnt shift perspective from particles to systems you will be lost.

I don't understand the last sentence.

 

[Juma]

I don't understand the last sentence.

Exactly!

 

[ryan]

I don't understand the last sentence.

Exactly!

It's because of your bad grammar and lack of punctuation (I was trying to say it politely in the last post).

 

[Juma]

To ryan:

As long as you doesnt shift perspective from particles to systems, you will be lost.

 

[ryan]

To ryan:

As long as you doesnt shift perspective from particles to systems, you will be lost.

I am not trying to be picky, but the sentence only makes sense without "doesnt".

Does the sentence get your point across without "doesnt"?

 

[Juma]

To ryan:

As long as you doesnt shift perspective from particles to systems, you will be lost.

I am not trying to be picky, but the sentence only makes sense without "doesnt".

Does the sentence get your point across without "doesnt"?

No. That would be the exact opposite of what I try to communicate: you wont get anywhere until you shift perspective from particles to systems.

 

[ryan]

To ryan:

As long as you doesnt shift perspective from particles to systems, you will be lost.

I am not trying to be picky, but the sentence only makes sense without "doesnt".

Does the sentence get your point across without "doesnt"?

No. That would be the exact opposite of what I try to communicate: you wont get anywhere until you shift perspective from particles to systems.

Then I want to know the difference between particles relative to each other and systems. Is there a difference between an H2O molecule and the particles relative to each other that make up the H2O molecule?

 

[Juma]

Then I want to know the difference between particles relative to each other and systems. Is there a difference between an H2O molecule and the particles relative to each other that make up the H2O molecule?

Do your homework. Bye.

 

[Kharakov]

Do your homework. Bye.

Hey. In the following exchange, you confused Ryan by your incorrect usage of English (although I readily understood your point, some have problems understanding things when you do not use proper English).

To ryan:
As long as you doesnt shift perspective from particles to systems, you will be lost.

I am not trying to be picky, but the sentence only makes sense without "doesnt".
Does the sentence get your point across without "doesnt"?

No. That would be the exact opposite of what I try to communicate: you wont get anywhere until you shift perspective from particles to systems.

'Doesn't' should be 'don't' in the sentence.

As to ryan's question, that's a weird one. Is there a difference between my fingers and my hand?

 

[ryan]

Hey. In the following exchange, you confused Ryan by your incorrect usage of English (although I readily understood your point, some have problems understanding things when you do not use proper English).

To ryan:
As long as you doesnt shift perspective from particles to systems, you will be lost.

I am not trying to be picky, but the sentence only makes sense without "doesnt".
Does the sentence get your point across without "doesnt"?

No. That would be the exact opposite of what I try to communicate: you wont get anywhere until you shift perspective from particles to systems.

'Doesn't' should be 'don't' in the sentence.

No, Juma's point would not be made by using "don't". Juma rephrased it to mean, "Until you shift perspective from particles to systems, you will be lost.

As to ryan's question, that's a weird one. Is there a difference between my fingers and my hand?

Well, according to Juma, you can't get anywhere with perceiving your hand as fingers. Maybe we can't get anywhere by looking at the whole as its parts, but that does not seem compatible with physicalism. I actually believe the opposite; I think that it is necessary to understand the parts in order to understand the whole.