Your language use doesn't match your position. It seems that you are questioning a moral agent's volition rather than their physical ability to actually move their arm. Two entirely different things, and you seemed to conflate them in your previous post.
Volition is physical. The brain is a physical object.
You're not a god-damned dualist, are you?
Physicalism is retarded, dude.
As opposed to what? What else is there that you can use to underpin a "philosophy"?
Your language use doesn't match your position. It seems that you are questioning a moral agent's volition rather than their physical ability to actually move their arm. Two entirely different things, and you seemed to conflate them in your previous post.
Volition is physical. The brain is a physical object.
You're not a god-damned dualist, are you?
Physicalism is retarded, dude.
As opposed to what? What else is there that you can use to underpin a "philosophy"?
Idealism.
Ok, but what separates Idealism from the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion? Idealism solves a lot of problems with Physicalism, but where do you go when dealing with real world problems?
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Your language use doesn't match your position. It seems that you are questioning a moral agent's volition rather than their physical ability to actually move their arm. Two entirely different things, and you seemed to conflate them in your previous post.
Volition is physical. The brain is a physical object.
You're not a god-damned dualist, are you?
Physicalism is retarded, dude.
As opposed to what? What else is there that you can use to underpin a "philosophy"?
Idealism.
Ok, but what separates Idealism from the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion? Idealism solves a lot of problems with Physicalism, but where do you go when dealing with real world problems?
You don't turn to metaphysics to solve real-world problems.
EDIT: Also, idealism is not a position one takes on faith. It is a position one takes because it is the only sensible and coherent option.
You don't turn to metaphysics to solve real-world problems.
I think we agree. But where does this leave idealism? Physicalism gains ground every time we discover something new. Idealism is stuck in ancient Greece.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
You don't turn to metaphysics to solve real-world problems.
Then what value does it have?
EDIT: Also, idealism is not a position one takes on faith. It is a position one takes because it is the only sensible and coherent option.
And who determines this? Other idealists?
According to idealism, an object is a pattern abstracted from subjective experience. According to physicalism, an object is... what, exactly?
Metaphysics has no utility unless you have regard for truth for it's own sake.
I think we agree. But where does this leave idealism? Physicalism gains ground every time we discover something new. Idealism is stuck in ancient Greece.
I can't think of any discoveries that would gain ground for physicalism, unless all you mean by physicalism is weak supervenience. On the other hand, pretty much all the great discoveries of QM make hash of physicalism. The problem is that philosophers are generally very poorly educated in physics, and physicists are likewise poorly educated on metaphysics.
zakkiel on
Account not recoverable. So long.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
According to idealism, an object is a pattern abstracted from subjective experience.
Sounds like a bunch of nonsense.
According to physicalism, an object is... what, exactly?
Something that would have a series of properties based on texture, shape, density etc (you know, tangible physical properties that all objects have, unless you want to argue about the physicality of things like the invisible pink unicorn).
You don't turn to metaphysics to solve real-world problems.
Then what value does it have?
EDIT: Also, idealism is not a position one takes on faith. It is a position one takes because it is the only sensible and coherent option.
And who determines this? Other idealists?
According to idealism, an object is a pattern abstracted from subjective experience. According to physicalism, an object is... what, exactly?
Metaphysics has no utility unless you have regard for truth for it's own sake.
Ok now I must confess a lack of understanding of the nuances of the various isms. I think of Plato when I think of idealism. You are absolutely correct that an object is a pattern abstracted from subjective experience but I have many subjective experiences I can relate to the subjective experiences of others. I may not ever be able to know what is down there, but there is something down there that affects me and you and a spider and Britney Spears pretty much the same way.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
According to idealism, an object is a pattern abstracted from subjective experience.
Sounds like a bunch of nonsense.
Ok, the fact that this sounds like nonsense to you is not actually a persuasive argument against anything except your intelligence. If you just don't understand the sentence, say so. If you understand and disagree, say why.
According to physicalism, an object is... what, exactly?
Something that would have a series of properties based on texture, shape, density etc (you know, tangible physical properties that all objects have, unless you want to argue about the physicality of things like the invisible pink unicorn).
I'll try and skip about three exchanges here, and say that physics acknowledges only a very small number of fundamental properties, and none of these properties could be said to mean anything except for the observations that they produce.
You don't turn to metaphysics to solve real-world problems.
Then what value does it have?
EDIT: Also, idealism is not a position one takes on faith. It is a position one takes because it is the only sensible and coherent option.
And who determines this? Other idealists?
According to idealism, an object is a pattern abstracted from subjective experience. According to physicalism, an object is... what, exactly?
Metaphysics has no utility unless you have regard for truth for it's own sake.
Ok now I must confess a lack of understanding of the nuances of the various isms. I think of Plato when I think of idealism. You are absolutely correct that an object is a pattern abstracted from subjective experience but I have many subjective experiences I can relate to the subjective experiences of others. I may not ever be able to know what is down there, but there is something down there that affects me and you and a spider and Britney Spears pretty much the same way.
Plato's is a kind of idealism, as is Kant's Whitehead's, Berkley's (sp?), etc. Yours sounds like Kant's. The problem I have with this is the idea that there must be something "down there." Why? We don't imagine there is something "out there" that is the basis of physical laws. What makes objects different? And what would this unknown something, of which we can neither conceive nor have evidence, contribute to our understanding?
zakkiel on
Account not recoverable. So long.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
According to idealism, an object is a pattern abstracted from subjective experience.
Sounds like a bunch of nonsense.
Ok, the fact that this sounds like nonsense to you is not actually a persuasive argument against anything except your intelligence. If you just don't understand the sentence, say so. If you understand and disagree, say why.
I understand, it's just a bunch of nonsense what you're spouting. You might as well be arguing for invisible pink unicorns and spaghetti monsters at this point. Does Pirate Regalia REALLY reduce global warming?
According to physicalism, an object is... what, exactly?
Something that would have a series of properties based on texture, shape, density etc (you know, tangible physical properties that all objects have, unless you want to argue about the physicality of things like the invisible pink unicorn).
I'll try and skip about three exchanges here, and say that physics acknowledges only a very small number of fundamental properties, and none of these properties could be said to mean anything except for the observations that they produce.
What are some properties of objects that physics cannot adequately describe, that idealism can in a useful manner.
I dunno, the observation that there is a car coming towards you at 90mph doesn't require much subjective thought to realise for the average person that it's probably going to hurt if it collides with you.
Plato's is a kind of idealism, as is Kant's Whitehead's, Berkley's (sp?), etc. Yours sounds like Kant's. The problem I have with this is the idea that there must be something "down there." Why? We don't imagine there is something "out there" that is the basis of physical laws. What makes objects different? And what would this unknown something, of which we can neither conceive nor have evidence, contribute to our understanding?
There doesn't need to be something down there and actually there probably isn't something down there that we could ever really get a grip on. This doesn't kill physicalism off. There is what there is. I suppose I am a pragmatic empiricist. But the only way I can interact with the world in a meaningful way is to deal with its physical reality. A physical reality that I share with you. Or so I believe. I guess faith is something all ismists are stuck with.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
understand, it's just a bunch of nonsense what you're spouting. You might as well be arguing for invisible pink unicorns and spaghetti monsters at this point. Does Pirate Regalia REALLY reduce global warming?
I'm sorry, you don't. That's all right. You can lead a rich and fulfilling life without understanding metaphysical debates. It may even be easier to do so.
What are some properties of objects that physics cannot adequately describe, that idealism can in a useful manner.
And again, you completely misunderstood what I said. I did not say that physics did not adequately describe any properties whatsoever. I said that physical properties have no meaning, i.e. no non-mathematical content, except in the observations they produce.
Plato's is a kind of idealism, as is Kant's Whitehead's, Berkley's (sp?), etc. Yours sounds like Kant's. The problem I have with this is the idea that there must be something "down there." Why? We don't imagine there is something "out there" that is the basis of physical laws. What makes objects different? And what would this unknown something, of which we can neither conceive nor have evidence, contribute to our understanding?
There doesn't need to be something down there and actually there probably isn't something down there that we could ever really get a grip on. This doesn't kill physicalism off. There is what there is. I suppose I am a pragmatic empiricist. But the only way I can interact with the world in a meaningful way is to deal with its physical reality. A physical reality that I share with you. Or so I believe. I guess faith is something all ismists are stuck with.
You're mistaking what physicalism is now. You can believe that we share a physical reality as an idealist - in fact, every idealist who isn't also a solipsist believes this. A physicalist believes that a description of all the physical states of the world completely describes the world, while an idealist believes such a description is only a list of the rules which govern mental events.
zakkiel on
Account not recoverable. So long.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I'm sorry, you don't. That's all right. You can lead a rich and fulfilling life without understanding metaphysical debates. It may even be easier to do so.
Oh I do, I've just never seen anyone propose any useful way of actually using these things that would make statements like what you've said actually valid.
And again, you completely misunderstood what I said.
So in other words, you admit that there isn't actually anything you can use idealism to describe, that would actually be tangibly more useful than a physical explanation?
I did not say that physics did not adequately describe any properties whatsoever. I said that physical properties have no meaning, i.e. no non-mathematical content, except in the observations they produce.
I disagree. I think that there is meaning to a car careering forwards towards you at 90mph, in the complete threat to that persons immediate life, that requires nothing other than physical explanations to describe in its entirety. Being afraid for ones life due to such a situation emerges solely from the physical circumstances that one sees.
You're mistaking what physicalism is now. You can believe that we share a physical reality as an idealist - in fact, every idealist who isn't also a solipsist believes this. A physicalist believes that a description of all the physical states of the world completely describes the world, while an idealist believes such a description is only a list of the rules which govern mental events.
But this just exemplifies the uselessness of tags. It may be turtles all the way down but I'm going to take very seriously the turtles I run into, and it seems to me we all run into the same turtles.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
You're mistaking what physicalism is now. You can believe that we share a physical reality as an idealist - in fact, every idealist who isn't also a solipsist believes this. A physicalist believes that a description of all the physical states of the world completely describes the world, while an idealist believes such a description is only a list of the rules which govern mental events.
But this just exemplifies the uselessness of tags. It may be turtles all the way down but I'm going to take very seriously the turtles I run into, and it seems to me we all run into the same turtles.
Quantum mechanics, our best effort at understanding the world, is only intelligible to an idealist.
zakkiel on
Account not recoverable. So long.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
You're mistaking what physicalism is now. You can believe that we share a physical reality as an idealist - in fact, every idealist who isn't also a solipsist believes this. A physicalist believes that a description of all the physical states of the world completely describes the world, while an idealist believes such a description is only a list of the rules which govern mental events.
But this just exemplifies the uselessness of tags. It may be turtles all the way down but I'm going to take very seriously the turtles I run into, and it seems to me we all run into the same turtles.
Quantum mechanics, our best effort at understanding the world, is only intelligible to an idealist.
Um, no. While particles are found to be acting 'randomly' at quantum levels, they are still able to be predicted within a certain set of physical boundaries and guidlines (including statistics).
Edit: Also, Quantum Mechanics are understood because they can be empirically demonstrated using experimentation. That is, uhhh, a little different than what you've been claiming from Idealism.
So in other words, you admit that there isn't actually anything you can use idealism to describe, that would actually be tangibly more useful than a physical explanation?
This quote has persuaded me that you really are, in all honesty, incapable of understanding this conversation at all, and any further address to you is pointless.
zakkiel on
Account not recoverable. So long.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
So in other words, you admit that there isn't actually anything you can use idealism to describe, that would actually be tangibly more useful than a physical explanation?
This quote has persuaded me that you really are, in all honesty, incapable of understanding this conversation at all, and any further address to you is pointless.
Oh I do follow the conversation, I'm merely challenging you to actually support what you've said, which thus far you haven't. For example, when you babble off on QM next time, I suggest you actually realise that QM is so widely accepted because we can empirically demonstrate how QM work reliably through experimentation, because it reliably works through known and understood physics.
Edit: Do you understand the concept of someone understanding something and someone challenging you to prove how it is useful.
Back to the OP. Only appears to me to be an interesting question. I'd say yes. Hives "think" and Data "think's". Are they conscious? That is a question that will never be answered in whole since consciousness is such a subjective experience. Can some future robot appear as conscious as you? That is an empirical question and time will tell.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
According to physicalism, an object is... what, exactly?
Something that would have a series of properties based on texture, shape, density etc (you know, tangible physical properties that all objects have, unless you want to argue about the physicality of things like the invisible pink unicorn).
So now we want to talk about Locke's metaphysics? Because that is exactly what your short little post resembles, to a very surprising degree.
There are numerous problems with this concept of object, not the least of which is physical identity. If we take objects to be made up of textures, shapes, and densities, how do we tell one object apart from another? What if Object A has properties x - but then their properties change over time to properties y? Would it still be considered the same object? By the admittedly short post you have made, it doesn't seem like it could be considered the same.
The other objection that I would like to bring up has to do with objects themselves. They are problematic as a philosophical concept. Due to something which is often overlooked by all modern philosophy up until the 20th century (Time), I find it incredibly difficult to say that objects exist.
saggio on
3DS: 0232-9436-6893
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
According to physicalism, an object is... what, exactly?
Something that would have a series of properties based on texture, shape, density etc (you know, tangible physical properties that all objects have, unless you want to argue about the physicality of things like the invisible pink unicorn).
So now we want to talk about Locke's metaphysics? Because that is exactly what your short little post resembles, to a very surprising degree.
There are numerous problems with this concept of object, not the least of which is physical identity. If we take objects to be made up of textures, shapes, and densities, how do we tell one object apart from another? What if Object A has properties x - but then their properties change over time to properties y? Would it still be considered the same object? By the admittedly short post you have made, it doesn't seem like it could be considered the same.
The other objection that I would like to bring up has to do with objects themselves. They are problematic as a philosophical concept. Due to something which is often overlooked by all modern philosophy up until the 20th century (Time), I find it incredibly difficult to say that objects exist.
Indeed. I was just going to bring this up. Heidegger does an excellent deconstruction of Descartes in this manner. How do we, exactly, interact with an object. The ONLY way that you can do it from your manner is from a purely neurological standpoint, in which Language and Sensory communication determine objects. (In which case they are not actually PURE objects at all.)
Back to the OP. Only appears to me to be an interesting question. I'd say yes. Hives "think" and Data "think's". Are they conscious? That is a question that will never be answered in whole since consciousness is such a subjective experience. Can some future robot appear as conscious as you? That is an empirical question and time will tell.
What's a thought without consciousness? Behavior of an arbitrary complexity?
Posts
Idealism.
Ok, but what separates Idealism from the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion? Idealism solves a lot of problems with Physicalism, but where do you go when dealing with real world problems?
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
You don't turn to metaphysics to solve real-world problems.
EDIT: Also, idealism is not a position one takes on faith. It is a position one takes because it is the only sensible and coherent option.
I think we agree. But where does this leave idealism? Physicalism gains ground every time we discover something new. Idealism is stuck in ancient Greece.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Then what value does it have?
And who determines this? Other idealists?
According to idealism, an object is a pattern abstracted from subjective experience. According to physicalism, an object is... what, exactly?
Metaphysics has no utility unless you have regard for truth for it's own sake.
I can't think of any discoveries that would gain ground for physicalism, unless all you mean by physicalism is weak supervenience. On the other hand, pretty much all the great discoveries of QM make hash of physicalism. The problem is that philosophers are generally very poorly educated in physics, and physicists are likewise poorly educated on metaphysics.
Sounds like a bunch of nonsense.
Something that would have a series of properties based on texture, shape, density etc (you know, tangible physical properties that all objects have, unless you want to argue about the physicality of things like the invisible pink unicorn).
Ok now I must confess a lack of understanding of the nuances of the various isms. I think of Plato when I think of idealism. You are absolutely correct that an object is a pattern abstracted from subjective experience but I have many subjective experiences I can relate to the subjective experiences of others. I may not ever be able to know what is down there, but there is something down there that affects me and you and a spider and Britney Spears pretty much the same way.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Ok, the fact that this sounds like nonsense to you is not actually a persuasive argument against anything except your intelligence. If you just don't understand the sentence, say so. If you understand and disagree, say why.
I'll try and skip about three exchanges here, and say that physics acknowledges only a very small number of fundamental properties, and none of these properties could be said to mean anything except for the observations that they produce.
Plato's is a kind of idealism, as is Kant's Whitehead's, Berkley's (sp?), etc. Yours sounds like Kant's. The problem I have with this is the idea that there must be something "down there." Why? We don't imagine there is something "out there" that is the basis of physical laws. What makes objects different? And what would this unknown something, of which we can neither conceive nor have evidence, contribute to our understanding?
I understand, it's just a bunch of nonsense what you're spouting. You might as well be arguing for invisible pink unicorns and spaghetti monsters at this point. Does Pirate Regalia REALLY reduce global warming?
What are some properties of objects that physics cannot adequately describe, that idealism can in a useful manner.
I dunno, the observation that there is a car coming towards you at 90mph doesn't require much subjective thought to realise for the average person that it's probably going to hurt if it collides with you.
There doesn't need to be something down there and actually there probably isn't something down there that we could ever really get a grip on. This doesn't kill physicalism off. There is what there is. I suppose I am a pragmatic empiricist. But the only way I can interact with the world in a meaningful way is to deal with its physical reality. A physical reality that I share with you. Or so I believe. I guess faith is something all ismists are stuck with.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
And again, you completely misunderstood what I said. I did not say that physics did not adequately describe any properties whatsoever. I said that physical properties have no meaning, i.e. no non-mathematical content, except in the observations they produce.
You're mistaking what physicalism is now. You can believe that we share a physical reality as an idealist - in fact, every idealist who isn't also a solipsist believes this. A physicalist believes that a description of all the physical states of the world completely describes the world, while an idealist believes such a description is only a list of the rules which govern mental events.
Oh I do, I've just never seen anyone propose any useful way of actually using these things that would make statements like what you've said actually valid.
So in other words, you admit that there isn't actually anything you can use idealism to describe, that would actually be tangibly more useful than a physical explanation?
I disagree. I think that there is meaning to a car careering forwards towards you at 90mph, in the complete threat to that persons immediate life, that requires nothing other than physical explanations to describe in its entirety. Being afraid for ones life due to such a situation emerges solely from the physical circumstances that one sees.
But this just exemplifies the uselessness of tags. It may be turtles all the way down but I'm going to take very seriously the turtles I run into, and it seems to me we all run into the same turtles.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Quantum mechanics, our best effort at understanding the world, is only intelligible to an idealist.
Um, no. While particles are found to be acting 'randomly' at quantum levels, they are still able to be predicted within a certain set of physical boundaries and guidlines (including statistics).
Edit: Also, Quantum Mechanics are understood because they can be empirically demonstrated using experimentation. That is, uhhh, a little different than what you've been claiming from Idealism.
Oh I do follow the conversation, I'm merely challenging you to actually support what you've said, which thus far you haven't. For example, when you babble off on QM next time, I suggest you actually realise that QM is so widely accepted because we can empirically demonstrate how QM work reliably through experimentation, because it reliably works through known and understood physics.
Edit: Do you understand the concept of someone understanding something and someone challenging you to prove how it is useful.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
So now we want to talk about Locke's metaphysics? Because that is exactly what your short little post resembles, to a very surprising degree.
There are numerous problems with this concept of object, not the least of which is physical identity. If we take objects to be made up of textures, shapes, and densities, how do we tell one object apart from another? What if Object A has properties x - but then their properties change over time to properties y? Would it still be considered the same object? By the admittedly short post you have made, it doesn't seem like it could be considered the same.
The other objection that I would like to bring up has to do with objects themselves. They are problematic as a philosophical concept. Due to something which is often overlooked by all modern philosophy up until the 20th century (Time), I find it incredibly difficult to say that objects exist.
Indeed. I was just going to bring this up. Heidegger does an excellent deconstruction of Descartes in this manner. How do we, exactly, interact with an object. The ONLY way that you can do it from your manner is from a purely neurological standpoint, in which Language and Sensory communication determine objects. (In which case they are not actually PURE objects at all.)
What's a thought without consciousness? Behavior of an arbitrary complexity?