Physicalism

[Juma]

I want to know if all properties themselves are composed of time, space and/or matter.

You have to specify what the phrase "all properties themselves" is supposed to mean.

An example is the property containment. Is a property such as containment composed of time, space and/or matter?

Do you mean the property or the containment?

I thought that containment is a property?

Yes it is.

 

[Juma]

And if someone else has the same idea, their electrochemical arrangement will be different. Which suggests that the idea is not the electrochemical arrangement.

What is that supposed to mean? Of course every brain is different. Environment and life events, and so on. How an individual brain interprets and envisions its information is governed by a multitude of factors.

It means that the physical storage of the concept of Hogwarts in my head is different to the physical storage of the concept of Hogwarts in your head, and thus that two are not in fact identical. If the two physical states are not identical with each other, they can not in any sense both be identical to the concept itself.

You can argue that the concept itself doesn't exist (elminativism), or that it doesn't matter (reductionism), but you can't argue that two physically different things are identical to a third thing.

Its about behaviourial/relational identity. Not instance identity.

Two different processes can realize the same concept. The concept is the same if the outcome (the behaviour) is the same.

Thus two very different processes can refer to "Paris, the capital of France" in very different ways, the only thing in common being the 5 letters of the answer to the question "what is the capital of France?".

That is "identity" between ideas. Not their physical realisation.

I have no particular objection to this formulation, but you do realise it's dualism, yes? You have mental concepts, and you have physical objects, and you have ideas about how these two different things interact.

It is not dualism. Dualism would be to actually say that awareness is something separate. I dont.

There are many forms of dualism that don't maintain that mental concepts are separate. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism

Yes. But I doesnt fancy any of these..

 

[ryan]

I want to know if all properties themselves are composed of time, space and/or matter.

You have to specify what the phrase "all properties themselves" is supposed to mean.

An example is the property containment. Is a property such as containment composed of time, space and/or matter?

Do you mean the property or the containment?

I thought that containment is a property?

Yes it is.

Okay, so is containment composed of space, time and/or matter?

 

[Underseer]

I want to know if all properties themselves are composed of time, space and/or matter.

You have to specify what the phrase "all properties themselves" is supposed to mean.

An example is the property containment. Is a property such as containment composed of time, space and/or matter?

Do you mean the property or the containment?

I thought that containment is a property?

Yes it is.

Okay, so is containment composed of space, time and/or matter?

What is the point of asking this absurd question? Pardon me for not reading the whole thread. Are you promoting Platonism as a way of "proving" substance dualism?

 

[ryan]

I want to know if all properties themselves are composed of time, space and/or matter.

You have to specify what the phrase "all properties themselves" is supposed to mean.

An example is the property containment. Is a property such as containment composed of time, space and/or matter?

Do you mean the property or the containment?

I thought that containment is a property?

Yes it is.

Okay, so is containment composed of space, time and/or matter?

What is the point of asking this absurd question? Pardon me for not reading the whole thread. Are you promoting Platonism as a way of "proving" substance dualism?

No, it is Juma's position that implies substance dualism or property dualism.

There is a problem that I see with Juma's position. It is physicalism that seems to need properties that are not composed of space, time and matter. I have given Juma an easy out simply by suggesting that properties do not need to exist, except for in the brain. If we can't detect these properties, then isn't it reasonable to say that they don't exist or that they exist as physical processes in the brain? Juma does not want to accept either, so I am trying to figure out what a third option can be.

I know that I usually play the contrarian to physicalism, but I will always the contrarian to any positive claims.

 

[Juma]

I want to know if all properties themselves are composed of time, space and/or matter.

You have to specify what the phrase "all properties themselves" is supposed to mean.

An example is the property containment. Is a property such as containment composed of time, space and/or matter?

Do you mean the property or the containment?

I thought that containment is a property?

Yes it is.

Okay, so is containment composed of space, time and/or matter?

What if I answered "yes", how would that be different than a "no"?

 

[Juma]

No, it is Juma's position that implies substance dualism or property dualism.

There is a problem that I see with Juma's position. It is physicalism that seems to need properties that are not composed of space, time and matter. I have given Juma an easy out simply by suggesting that properties do not need to exist, except for in the brain. If we can't detect these properties, then isn't it reasonable to say that they don't exist or that they exist as physical processes in the brain? Juma does not want to accept either, so I am trying to figure out what a third option can be.

Havent you read my answers?

 

[ryan]

Okay, so is containment composed of space, time and/or matter?

What if I answered "yes", how would that be different than a "no"?

"Yes" means that you believe properties are composed of space, time and/or matter, and "no" would mean that you believe properties are not composed of space, time and/or matter.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it is Juma's position that implies substance dualism or property dualism.

There is a problem that I see with Juma's position. It is physicalism that seems to need properties that are not composed of space, time and matter. I have given Juma an easy out simply by suggesting that properties do not need to exist, except for in the brain. If we can't detect these properties, then isn't it reasonable to say that they don't exist or that they exist as physical processes in the brain? Juma does not want to accept either, so I am trying to figure out what a third option can be.

Havent you read my answers?

You have not answered yet.

 

[Juma]

Okay, so is containment composed of space, time and/or matter?

What if I answered "yes", how would that be different than a "no"?

"Yes" means that you believe properties are composed of space, time and/or matter, and "no" would mean that you believe properties are not composed of space, time and/or matter.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it is Juma's position that implies substance dualism or property dualism.

There is a problem that I see with Juma's position. It is physicalism that seems to need properties that are not composed of space, time and matter. I have given Juma an easy out simply by suggesting that properties do not need to exist, except for in the brain. If we can't detect these properties, then isn't it reasonable to say that they don't exist or that they exist as physical processes in the brain? Juma does not want to accept either, so I am trying to figure out what a third option can be.

Havent you read my answers?

You have not answered yet.

I gave a lot of answers at the old site. You showed no sign of comprehension there. Why would you now?

 

[Juma]

Okay, so is containment composed of space, time and/or matter?

What if I answered "yes", how would that be different than a "no"?

"Yes" means that you believe properties are composed of space, time and/or matter, and "no" would mean that you believe properties are not composed of space, time and/or matter.

Of course. But what real difference is there?

 

[ryan]

Okay, so is containment composed of space, time and/or matter?

What if I answered "yes", how would that be different than a "no"?

"Yes" means that you believe properties are composed of space, time and/or matter, and "no" would mean that you believe properties are not composed of space, time and/or matter.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it is Juma's position that implies substance dualism or property dualism.

There is a problem that I see with Juma's position. It is physicalism that seems to need properties that are not composed of space, time and matter. I have given Juma an easy out simply by suggesting that properties do not need to exist, except for in the brain. If we can't detect these properties, then isn't it reasonable to say that they don't exist or that they exist as physical processes in the brain? Juma does not want to accept either, so I am trying to figure out what a third option can be.

Havent you read my answers?

You have not answered yet.

I gave a lot of answers at the old site. You showed no sign of comprehension there. Why would you now?

Yeah, please don't remind me. I have never seen someone dance so much. I was hoping by now that you could answer the question.

 

[ryan]

Okay, so is containment composed of space, time and/or matter?

What if I answered "yes", how would that be different than a "no"?

"Yes" means that you believe properties are composed of space, time and/or matter, and "no" would mean that you believe properties are not composed of space, time and/or matter.

Of course. But what real difference is there?

Well, if properties exist and are not composed of anything physical as you defined as space, time and matter, then physicalism is dead at least for you. If properties are composed of space, time and matter, then what wouldn't be a property; in other words, the term "property" is meaningless.

 

[Juma]

Yeah, please don't remind me. I have never seen someone dance so much. I was hoping by now that you could answer the question.

Then you better formulate a real question.

 

[Juma]

Well, if properties exist and are not composed of anything physical as you defined as space, time and matter, then physicalism is dead at least for you. If properties are composed of space, time and matter, then what wouldn't be a property; in other words, the term "property" is meaningless.

Have you ever considered what it means that a property "exists"?

 

[ryan]

Yeah, please don't remind me. I have never seen someone dance so much. I was hoping by now that you could answer the question.

Then you better formulate a real question.

You asked a question regarding my question, I answered clearly and now it isn't a "real" question, whatever that means.

 

[ryan]

Well, if properties exist and are not composed of anything physical as you defined as space, time and matter, then physicalism is dead at least for you. If properties are composed of space, time and matter, then what wouldn't be a property; in other words, the term "property" is meaningless.

Have you ever considered what it means that a property "exists"?

I am trying to. I am trying to understand how properties fit in with physicalism. These 3000 year old problems are not as obvious to me as they are to you.

 

[Juma]

Well, if properties exist and are not composed of anything physical as you defined as space, time and matter, then physicalism is dead at least for you. If properties are composed of space, time and matter, then what wouldn't be a property; in other words, the term "property" is meaningless.

Have you ever considered what it means that a property "exists"?

I am trying to. I am trying to understand how properties fit in with physicalism. These 3000 year old problems are not as obvious to me as they are to you.

The important point is that we are information processing machines that creates a model of the wotld around us from the data we get. Everything we do, speculate, feel, is from this model, created to make sense of our sensory data and to enable us to predict the near future to an amasing degree.

The thing we call properties is aspects of this model. It is tempting to assume that there really is something out there, something that our models model, and if so then these properties models some aspect of what is really out there.

Physics is a very detailed model of what is out there. And since we are out there, we are also modelled by physics.

Thus containment is physical, it is an aspect of the physical. But does that really mean it is "composed" of time, space and matter? Not really, but on the other hand is as much physicsl as any other aspect of physical stuff: mass, speed etc.

Bottom line is: "physical" does not mean "composed of time, space and matter". At least not in the simplistic meaning as in a lego car is "composed of lego bricks"

The physical world is much more complex than that.

 

[ryan]

Well, if properties exist and are not composed of anything physical as you defined as space, time and matter, then physicalism is dead at least for you. If properties are composed of space, time and matter, then what wouldn't be a property; in other words, the term "property" is meaningless.

Have you ever considered what it means that a property "exists"?

I am trying to. I am trying to understand how properties fit in with physicalism. These 3000 year old problems are not as obvious to me as they are to you.

The important point is that we are information processing machines that creates a model of the wotld around us from the data we get. Everything we do, speculate, feel, is from this model, created to make sense of our sensory data and to enable us to predict the near future to an amasing degree.

The thing we call properties is aspects of this model. It is tempting to assume that there really is something out there, something that our models model, and if so then these properties models some aspect of what is really out there.

Physics is a very detailed model of what is out there. And since we are out there, we are also modelled by physics.

Thus containment is physical, it is an aspect of the physical. But does that really mean it is "composed" of time, space and matter? Not really, but on the other hand is as much physicsl as any other aspect of physical stuff: mass, speed etc.

Bottom line is: "physical" does not mean "composed of time, space and matter". At least not in the simplistic meaning as in a lego car is "composed of lego bricks"

The physical world is much more complex than that.

Thanks for this answer. However, it is very unsettling. There should be a spatial and temporal account for anything that is said to exist i.e. what, when and where. The property containment is in our brains; what it symbolizes is unique and outside of our brains.

 

[boneyard bill]

DBT writes:

I am not 'reducing' anything. The available evidence supports the proposition that it is the brain that is the sole author of conscious experience. This is not reductionism. It is a broad outline of our current understanding.

Yes. You are not reducing anything. That means you are not reducing mind to material processes. You aren't because you can't. But, if you are to assert that mind is nothing but material processes, you MUST reduce it. And since you can't, there is no reason to assume that it must be true. I might be true, but we can not show that so far.

What is not supported is the proposition of non material elements at work within the brain, where the proposition of a non material element is not required as an explanation for brain function.

Mind is not material. You've admitted that you can't reduce it to material processes. So it is not material, or at least, it can't be proven to be.

Consciousness is not required to explain ANY human function. All of our behavior can be explained, in principle at least, through information processing. And when we're done explaining all of that, we still have consciousness left over. That's the "hard" problem.

And again: what exactly is the nature of this non material substance?

YOU are the nature of this non-material substance. Of course, your body is material but your psychology, your self-identity, your thoughts and your feelings are NOT material. Why is that so hard to understand?

Of course, maybe someday science will come up with the answer. But to make that claim is to argue from faith not science or reason. As I've already noted (several times, I think), the inability of science or even philosophy to come up with a solution to the problem, even in principle, is what has led theorists in the philosophy of mind to look to other alternatives which may prove to be more fruitful.

No, science may or may not crack the mechanism of consciousness, but meantime it is poor practice to propose a 'solution' - a non material entity - where non is required. As its been pointed out, this is another version of god of the gaps.

A non-material proposal IS required due to the failure of materialism. Gee, why did Lavoisier come up with his ridiculous notion of oxygen when it wasn't required. After all, we already knew all about phlogiston.

The real problem isn't explaining mind, it's explaining matter. That's what Descartes work was all about. Mind was a given. How do you know that matter exists? How do you know the external world isn't just a figment of your imagination? Matter is the metaphysical entity, not mind. Check out George Berkley on this one. I don't need matter to explain the universe. If some thing is hard, I know that hardness exists. Why do I need to invent a metaphysical entity that causes the hardness. What exists besides mental qualities? And how do you prove that existence?

You've got the cart before the horse. Why should we assume that it is physical? Only if you are committed to a materialist position in the first place, would you make that assumption. We have no evidence that consciousness is physical so the idea that it might be physical is only one option among many that we could consider.

We assume that it is physical because a brain is a complex physical structure that processes physical information through physical means, ion flow, chemical markers, modifiers, etc, and responds through physical means.

How do you know that? We know that the brain transmits various electrical pulses. What makes these pulses information? They only become information to a conscious observer. So you need the non-material conscious observer even to explain the brain in terms of information processing.

There is nothing that even suggests the presence of a non physical element.

See above.

Again: what is the nature of something non physical? What does it explain? What do we know about it?

There is your god of the gaps.

I've already answered this. YOU are that nature. Your mind is non-physical.

If we go where science and reason leads us, it does not, at the present state of our knowledge, leads us to the conclusion that consciousness is physical.

Please provide an argument for your proposition.

Are you kidding? What the hell has this entire discussion been about? You are so close-minded in your materialism that you are unable to find even yourself. You believe you are nothing but a robot. But take a minute to realize that you are not a robot, and what makes you not a robot is what you are failing to see.

You are what is left over after the robot is accounted for, and it is not material.

 

[Kharakov]

You asked a question regarding my question, I answered clearly and now it isn't a "real" question, whatever that means.

Obviously your question doesn't exist.