Physicalism

[ryan]

If I took away all of the particles, the orange would not be there. It can be described as both "particles" and "orange", but it can't be both

That's because oranges are made up of particles. If you take the bread away from a sandwich, it's just a slice of ham but when it has the bread it is a sandwich. Similarly, when a group of particles groups together in the form of an orange, it is an orange.

To be more specific, the words "orange" and "particles" are not the actual orange. There is only one unique orange. So if we are truly going to let a symbol stand for that unique orange, then we must have a unique symbol. No I am not playing semantic games; this is what it comes down to.

this sounds crazy...
aren't all oranges unique?

Yes, if you thought that I meant otherwise, I didn't.

saying this orange is unique seems to supplant a special symbol...

I don't understand what you mean.

 

[none]

hey ryan, thanks for that link.
I looked up an article on dualism, still don't get it.
if we say "this orange is unique" I don't see the need for a special symbol for one orange or all of them other than the label "unique orange" and "unique" seems a little formal for casual conversation.

 

[ryan]

If I took away all of the particles, the orange would not be there. It can be described as both "particles" and "orange", but it can't be both

That's because oranges are made up of particles. If you take the bread away from a sandwich, it's just a slice of ham but when it has the bread it is a sandwich. Similarly, when a group of particles groups together in the form of an orange, it is an orange.

To be more specific, the words "orange" and "particles" are not the actual orange. There is only one unique orange. So if we are truly going to let a symbol stand for that unique orange, then we must have a unique symbol. No I am not playing semantic games; this is what it comes down to.

The point is that one can describe an orange in terms of:

a) the component particles that make it up;
b) the physical object as a whole; and
c) both simultaneously

I only disagree with c. "orange" implies its particles, and the particles imply "orange". Everything that the object is is "the orange". It can be described by either, but it can't be both.

Compare this to, say, water - water can be described in a multitude of ways, from its "wetness" to the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that form the necessary bonds to produce it.

That's different. "wetness" is description of water, not a symbol for water.

EDIT: Since we're on the subject of language (specifically, words), I wish to bring up the following art installation - "One and Three Chairs," by John Kosuth.

The piece poses the fundamental question "how does one identify a chair?" Can we divorce the physical chair from the photograph and the definition and still have a "chair"? Definitions play an important part in our perceptions.

All of these kinds of problems go away when there is conservative representations and consistency for what exists.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If I took away all of the particles, the orange would not be there. It can be described as both "particles" and "orange", but it can't be both

That's because oranges are made up of particles. If you take the bread away from a sandwich, it's just a slice of ham but when it has the bread it is a sandwich. Similarly, when a group of particles groups together in the form of an orange, it is an orange.

To be more specific, the words "orange" and "particles" are not the actual orange. There is only one unique orange. So if we are truly going to let a symbol stand for that unique orange, then we must have a unique symbol. No I am not playing semantic games; this is what it comes down to.

Why do we need a unique symbol? If two different symbols both represent it correctly, why does it matter that there's more than one which does so?

 

[ryan]

hey ryan, thanks for that link.
I looked up an article on dualism, still don't get it.
if we say "this orange is unique" I don't see the need for a special symbol for one orange or all of them other than the label "unique orange" and "unique" seems a little formal for casual conversation.

But this discussion must be as explicit as possible; any ambiguity will screw everything up.

 

[ryan]

If I took away all of the particles, the orange would not be there. It can be described as both "particles" and "orange", but it can't be both

That's because oranges are made up of particles. If you take the bread away from a sandwich, it's just a slice of ham but when it has the bread it is a sandwich. Similarly, when a group of particles groups together in the form of an orange, it is an orange.

To be more specific, the words "orange" and "particles" are not the actual orange. There is only one unique orange. So if we are truly going to let a symbol stand for that unique orange, then we must have a unique symbol. No I am not playing semantic games; this is what it comes down to.

Why do we need a unique symbol? If two different symbols both represent it correctly, why does it matter that there's more than one which does so?

It doesn't matter which one you use; you just can't say that something is A, and in the same logical context say that it is B. It can only be one thing at a time because it is only one thing at a time.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It doesn't matter which one you use; you just can't say that something is A, and in the same logical context say that it is B. It can only be one thing at a time because it is only one thing at a time.

You can when it's the case that A = B, as is the case under discussion. They're both simply looking at the orange from different points of view and both of those points of view are a correct way of looking at the orange.

 

[ryan]

It doesn't matter which one you use; you just can't say that something is A, and in the same logical context say that it is B. It can only be one thing at a time because it is only one thing at a time.

You can when it's the case that A = B, as is the case under discussion. They're both simply looking at the orange from different points of view and both of those points of view are a correct way of looking at the orange.

That's fine as long as they don't agree with each other simultaneously that it is both representations. Notice in the scenario that there is only one unique orange.

A more practical example is with human representation. Imagine that you go to the Moon where there is no cellphone signal. Before you leave, you ask that your secretary represents you for basic decision making; she will act on your behalf. But because you were under so much stress anticipating the dangerous trip, you forget that you gave your decision making power to your secretary, and you ask your top foreman to make your decisions. Now, what if your foreman wants to make a bid on a project, but your secretary doesn't? Which decision represents you? It's a logical contradiction.

That is exactly what I am trying to explain with the orange. The orange can only be one thing because it is only one thing.

 

[Juma]

So is it one giant process or is it 2? It can't be both

So a wheel cannot both be a collection of atoms and a rolling device?

 

[ryan]

So is it one giant process or is it 2? It can't be both

So a wheel cannot both be a collection of atoms and a rolling device?

Is the rolling device also a collection of atoms?

 

[Juma]

So is it one giant process or is it 2? It can't be both

So a wheel cannot both be a collection of atoms and a rolling device?

Is the rolling device also a collection of atoms?

Of course.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

It doesn't matter which one you use; you just can't say that something is A, and in the same logical context say that it is B. It can only be one thing at a time because it is only one thing at a time.

You can when it's the case that A = B, as is the case under discussion. They're both simply looking at the orange from different points of view and both of those points of view are a correct way of looking at the orange.

That's fine as long as they don't agree with each other simultaneously that it is both representations. Notice in the scenario that there is only one unique orange.

A more practical example is with human representation. Imagine that you go to the Moon where there is no cellphone signal. Before you leave, you ask that your secretary represents you for basic decision making; she will act on your behalf. But because you were under so much stress anticipating the dangerous trip, you forget that you gave your decision making power to your secretary, and you ask your top foreman to make your decisions. Now, what if your foreman wants to make a bid on a project, but your secretary doesn't? Which decision represents you? It's a logical contradiction.

That is exactly what I am trying to explain with the orange. The orange can only be one thing because it is only one thing.

This reminds me of the old joke "When is a door not a door?" The answer, of course, is "when it's ajar" - maybe all this metaphysical rumination on the subject skirts about the idea of subject-object interaction. Returning to the orange, what it is depends on who you ask; is it a fruit, a member of the family Rutaceae, a collection of particles situated in such a manner? Now, as for your human hypothetical, the delegation of one aspect of authority (in this case, decision-making) happens to be the sticking point; who you are as an individual doesn't rest exclusively on one aspect, and one can be described in various ways.

 

[Juma]

To be more specific, the words "orange" and "particles" are not the actual orange. There is only one unique orange. So if we are truly going to let a symbol stand for that unique orange, then we must have a unique symbol.

No. We just needs symbols that are specific enough to have a unique reference. The symbol does not need to be unique.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It doesn't matter which one you use; you just can't say that something is A, and in the same logical context say that it is B. It can only be one thing at a time because it is only one thing at a time.

You can when it's the case that A = B, as is the case under discussion. They're both simply looking at the orange from different points of view and both of those points of view are a correct way of looking at the orange.

That's fine as long as they don't agree with each other simultaneously that it is both representations. Notice in the scenario that there is only one unique orange.

A more practical example is with human representation. Imagine that you go to the Moon where there is no cellphone signal. Before you leave, you ask that your secretary represents you for basic decision making; she will act on your behalf. But because you were under so much stress anticipating the dangerous trip, you forget that you gave your decision making power to your secretary, and you ask your top foreman to make your decisions. Now, what if your foreman wants to make a bid on a project, but your secretary doesn't? Which decision represents you? It's a logical contradiction.

That is exactly what I am trying to explain with the orange. The orange can only be one thing because it is only one thing.

Why can't they agree with each other simultaneously? That's what equals means. If A = B, then they agree with each other simultaneously. It's correct that it's a unique orange and it's correct that it's a unique collection of particles. Neither invalidates the other and both are correct at the same time.

 

[ryan]

So is it one giant process or is it 2? It can't be both

So a wheel cannot both be a collection of atoms and a rolling device?

Is the rolling device also a collection of atoms?

Of course.

Remember, we are saying what the wheel is, not what symbolizes it. The actual wheel is the wheel; it can only be one thing in one moment in one space in this logical framework.

 

[ryan]

It doesn't matter which one you use; you just can't say that something is A, and in the same logical context say that it is B. It can only be one thing at a time because it is only one thing at a time.

You can when it's the case that A = B, as is the case under discussion. They're both simply looking at the orange from different points of view and both of those points of view are a correct way of looking at the orange.

That's fine as long as they don't agree with each other simultaneously that it is both representations. Notice in the scenario that there is only one unique orange.

A more practical example is with human representation. Imagine that you go to the Moon where there is no cellphone signal. Before you leave, you ask that your secretary represents you for basic decision making; she will act on your behalf. But because you were under so much stress anticipating the dangerous trip, you forget that you gave your decision making power to your secretary, and you ask your top foreman to make your decisions. Now, what if your foreman wants to make a bid on a project, but your secretary doesn't? Which decision represents you? It's a logical contradiction.

That is exactly what I am trying to explain with the orange. The orange can only be one thing because it is only one thing.

This reminds me of the old joke "When is a door not a door?" The answer, of course, is "when it's ajar" - maybe all this metaphysical rumination on the subject skirts about the idea of subject-object interaction. Returning to the orange, what it is depends on who you ask; is it a fruit, a member of the family Rutaceae, a collection of particles situated in such a manner? Now, as for your human hypothetical, the delegation of one aspect of authority (in this case, decision-making) happens to be the sticking point; who you are as an individual doesn't rest exclusively on one aspect, and one can be described in various ways.

The analogy was only to try to get across the idea of uniqueness. There can be many definitions and labels of an object, but there can only be that one object.

 

[Juma]

Which decision represents you? It's a logical contradiction.

No it is not. It is a practical complication. And there is the big differences between us: you seem to beleive that logic is the base of the universe. I see pracricality as the base of the universe. Logic is a result of how our brains work. it is a tool,

And you are increasing the number of words that you have special meanings for. Now it is not just "and", but also "be" and "is". Why do you think that bolding them make your specific meaning of them somehow clearer? It doesnt.

So please explain: what is this specific meaning of those words that you require?

 

[ryan]

To be more specific, the words "orange" and "particles" are not the actual orange. There is only one unique orange. So if we are truly going to let a symbol stand for that unique orange, then we must have a unique symbol.

No. We just needs symbols that are specific enough to have a unique reference. The symbol does not need to be unique.

Object A means object B, where object A is the word "wheel" and object B is the wheel. However, object A is not object B. Do you agree with the latter statement?

 

[ryan]

It doesn't matter which one you use; you just can't say that something is A, and in the same logical context say that it is B. It can only be one thing at a time because it is only one thing at a time.

You can when it's the case that A = B, as is the case under discussion. They're both simply looking at the orange from different points of view and both of those points of view are a correct way of looking at the orange.

That's fine as long as they don't agree with each other simultaneously that it is both representations. Notice in the scenario that there is only one unique orange.

A more practical example is with human representation. Imagine that you go to the Moon where there is no cellphone signal. Before you leave, you ask that your secretary represents you for basic decision making; she will act on your behalf. But because you were under so much stress anticipating the dangerous trip, you forget that you gave your decision making power to your secretary, and you ask your top foreman to make your decisions. Now, what if your foreman wants to make a bid on a project, but your secretary doesn't? Which decision represents you? It's a logical contradiction.

That is exactly what I am trying to explain with the orange. The orange can only be one thing because it is only one thing.

Why can't they agree with each other simultaneously? That's what equals means. If A = B, then they agree with each other simultaneously. It's correct that it's a unique orange and it's correct that it's a unique collection of particles. Neither invalidates the other and both are correct at the same time.

"Equals" is not actually strong enough. I know this because the mass-energy equivalence does not mean that pure energy such as a photon has mass. I have been putting "be" and "is" in bold because that is more accurate for the purposes of my argument. So if I put equals, it was a mistake.

 

[ryan]

Which decision represents you? It's a logical contradiction.

No it is not. It is a practical complication. And there is the big differences between us: you seem to beleive that logic is the base of the universe. I see pracricality as the base of the universe. Logic is a result of how our brains work. it is a tool,

And you are increasing the number of words that you have special meanings for. Now it is not just "and", but also "be" and "is". Why do you think that bolding them make your specific meaning of them somehow clearer? It doesnt.

So please explain: what is this specific meaning of those words that you require?

Like I told Tom Sawyer, if I used "equals" in the past, and I think I did, I shouldn't have. What I should have put was "be" or "is".