Argument Against Physicalism

[brightlights]

Here's an argument I've been thinking about that is rooted in CS Lewis, though he never makes it explicit. I should give credit where credit is due. I am arguing that physical stuff is not the only sort of stuff that exists. Tell me what you think:

Look down at your keyboard. Is your keyboard true or false? This question should strike you as odd because it's not answerable. Your keyboard, along with every other object in the universe, is unable to be true or false. It simply exists.

Consider the belief: "Cincinnati is in the southern hemisphere." Is this belief true or false? It seems that this is the kind of thing that can rightly be given one of these descriptions. What is this belief made of? At the end of the day, this belief is just another object in the universe not fundamentally different in essence than your keyboard. What I mean by this is that it's an object made of atoms and has a specific weight and is located in a specific point in space -- namely, it's made of neurons and is located in your brain. This set of neurons is unable to be either true or false, as it just simply exists. Yet, the belief can be rightly said to be false.

Therefore, the mind is not reducible to the brain because the mind contains things that can be either true or false, whereas the brain does not. If the mind were identical to the brain, then it would follow that your beliefs can be neither true nor false.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think you are confusing the process of thinking (believing) with being an object. A belief is not an object, I think.

If mind is the process of the brain, then it is not separate. It doesn't have existence apart from the brain. Belief is the process of the brain that something it knows corresponds to reality.

The process is not an object.

 

[brightlights]

I think you are confusing the process of thinking (believing) with being an object. A belief is not an object, I think.

If mind is the process of the brain, then it is not separate. It doesn't have existence apart from the brain. Belief is the process of the brain that something it knows corresponds to reality.

The process is not an object.

Yet the process is made of something, isn't it?

 

[Chesterton]

A process is an object, in that every object is an event in spacetime; every thing is an event. A belief, a keyboard and Cincinnati are all events in spacetime.

 

[variant]

Here's an argument I've been thinking about that is rooted in CS Lewis, though he never makes it explicit. I should give credit where credit is due. I am arguing that physical stuff is not the only sort of stuff that exists. Tell me what you think:

Look down at your keyboard. Is your keyboard true or false? This question should strike you as odd because it's not answerable. Your keyboard, along with every other object in the universe, is unable to be true or false. It simply exists.

Consider the belief: "Cincinnati is in the southern hemisphere." Is this belief true or false? It seems that this is the kind of thing that can rightly be given one of these descriptions. What is this belief made of? At the end of the day, this belief is just another object in the universe not fundamentally different in essence than your keyboard. What I mean by this is that it's an object made of atoms and has a specific weight and is located in a specific point in space -- namely, it's made of neurons and is located in your brain. This set of neurons is unable to be either true or false, as it just simply exists. Yet, the belief can be rightly said to be false.

Therefore, the mind is not reducible to the brain because the mind contains things that can be either true or false, whereas the brain does not. If the mind were identical to the brain, then it would follow that your beliefs can be neither true nor false.

Abstract concepts, relationships and ideas can be physical things so your argument breaks down.

DNA codes abstractly in process to a protein for instance but it is an entirely physical system.

Similarly the mind could be an entirely physical system where abstraction is an effect of that system, so your argument boils down to an assertion that it is not.

 

[Chesterton]

He's arguing as if ideas are physical things. In which case they can't be true or false.

 

[variant]

He's arguing as if ideas are physical things. In which case they can't be true or false.

The argument seems confuseing to me.

Therefore, the mind is not reducible to the brain because the mind contains things that can be either true or false, whereas the brain does not. If the mind were identical to the brain, then it would follow that your beliefs can be neither true nor false.

The premise that that entirely physical systems can not be said to be true or false is incorrect.

Consider the thymus that grows cells and tests them before releasing them into the body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thymus

Phases of thymocyte maturation</SPAN>

The generation of T-cells expressing distinct T-cell receptors occurs within the thymus, and can be conceptually divided into three phases:

1. A rare population of hematopoietic progenitor cells enter the thymus from the blood, and expands by cell division to generate a large population of immature thymocytes.[15]
2. Immature thymocytes each make distinct T-cell receptors by a process of gene rearrangement. This process is error-prone, and some thymocytes fail to make functional T-cell receptors, whereas other thymocytes make T-cell receptors that are autoreactive.[16]
3. Immature thymocytes undergo a process of selection, based on the specificity of their T-cell receptors. This involves selection of T-cells that are functional (positive selection), and elimination of T-cells that are autoreactive (negative selection).

So, the T-cell selection process purges functional from non-functional, much the same way as we purge false ideas like “Cincinnati is in the southern hemisphere”.

Further, If definitions, abstractions, information and language interrelationships come from the process of neurons acting within a physical environment then they can indeed both be false/true, and be entirely physical.

What is to stop them? Our lack of imagination?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Here's an argument I've been thinking about that is rooted in CS Lewis, though he never makes it explicit. I should give credit where credit is due. I am arguing that physical stuff is not the only sort of stuff that exists. Tell me what you think:

Ok, since you asked. It seems very tortured. I have little to no idea as to what you are arguing about or against. And it seems neither do you.

In addition to that, I find it odd that you offload the reasoning to the reader. For instance you ask the reader to look at their keyboard, you ask the reader to consider, you ask the reader all kinds of things. I find this odd because it is you who is making an argument. It is not as if the reader needed to make your argument for you, you need to.

That said, I am not a physicalist, materialist, idealist or something; I am a simple monist. And so I guess I doubly don't see what you are on about.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Abstract concepts relationships and ideas can be physical things so your argument breaks down.

There is just a comma missing, right?

Abstract concepts, relationships and ideas can be physical things​

I ask, because it confused the heck out of me the first few times I read that sentence.

 

[Bushido216]

A process is an object, in that every object is an event in spacetime; every thing is an event. A belief, a keyboard and Cincinnati are all events in spacetime.

A process isn't an event. A process is a serialized ordering of events that I agree do occur in space time.

 

[variant]

There is just a comma missing, right?

Abstract concepts, relationships and ideas can be physical things
​

I ask, because it confused the heck out of me the first few times I read that sentence.

Indeed. Apologies

Everything always looks so clear to me since I already understand what the sentences mean. I wish I had my own set of fresh eyes.

 

[quatona]

Here's an argument I've been thinking about that is rooted in CS Lewis, though he never makes it explicit. I should give credit where credit is due. I am arguing that physical stuff is not the only sort of stuff that exists. Tell me what you think:

Look down at your keyboard. Is your keyboard true or false? This question should strike you as odd because it's not answerable. Your keyboard, along with every other object in the universe, is unable to be true or false. It simply exists.

Consider the belief: "Cincinnati is in the southern hemisphere." Is this belief true or false? It seems that this is the kind of thing that can rightly be given one of these descriptions. What is this belief made of? At the end of the day, this belief is just another object in the universe not fundamentally different in essence than your keyboard. What I mean by this is that it's an object made of atoms and has a specific weight and is located in a specific point in space -- namely, it's made of neurons and is located in your brain. This set of neurons is unable to be either true or false, as it just simply exists. Yet, the belief can be rightly said to be false.

Therefore, the mind is not reducible to the brain because the mind contains things that can be either true or false, whereas the brain does not. If the mind were identical to the brain, then it would follow that your beliefs can be neither true nor false.

I´m not really sure I even understand what you are arguing for or against, but it seems like you are trying to establish that thoughts, ideas etc. aren´t physical objects.
Now, I may not have seen every splinter philosophy that´s out there, but I know of no philosophy that postulates that ideas and thoughts are physical objects. However, I know of several philosophies that state that ideas and thoughts are dependent on existing physical objects and a result of physical processes. As far as I can see, your argument does not address nor affect these philosophies.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am arguing that physical stuff is not the only sort of stuff that exists.

Are true and false "stuff" of any sort? I wouldn't think so. These seem to fall into a different category, most likely "relationships".

True and false appear to refer to cognitive relationships between an individual's understanding and that which is understood. When that understanding is in conformity with the object of understanding, then the relationship is called "true", and called "false" otherwise.

What is this belief made of? At the end of the day, this belief is just another object in the universe not fundamentally different in essence than your keyboard. What I mean by this is that it's an object made of atoms and has a specific weight and is located in a specific point in space -- namely, it's made of neurons and is located in your brain. This set of neurons is unable to be either true or false, as it just simply exists.

And so this would be beside the point. Neurons don't have to be true or false. They have to either successfully pattern themselves after reality (for true), or fail to do so (for false).


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chesterton]

A process isn't an event. A process is a serialized ordering of events that I agree do occur in space time.

But by that thinking, you could say WWII wasn't an event just because it was a series of events.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But by that thinking, you could say WWII wasn't an event just because it was a series of events.

How long is an "event"? Is it instantaneous? Can an event take place over a short stretch of time? How about a long stretch of time?

An event seems to be as long or short as you want, just as an entity is as big or small according to your interest.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chesterton]

How long is an "event"? Is it instantaneous? Can an event take place over a short stretch of time? How about a long stretch of time?

An event seems to be as long or short as you want, just as an entity is as big or small according to your interest.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Even a rock sitting on the ground is an event, right? It's atoms are moving and active, plus it's eroding and changing, albeit very slowly. Like a party, there was a time before the rock existed and there will be a time when the rock has stopped existing.

 

[KCfromNC]

Consider the belief: "Cincinnati is in the southern hemisphere." Is this belief true or false? It seems that this is the kind of thing that can rightly be given one of these descriptions. What is this belief made of? At the end of the day, this belief is just another object in the universe not fundamentally different in essence than your keyboard. What I mean by this is that it's an object made of atoms and has a specific weight and is located in a specific point in space -- namely, it's made of neurons and is located in your brain. This set of neurons is unable to be either true or false, as it just simply exists. Yet, the belief can be rightly said to be false.

Therefore, the mind is not reducible to the brain because the mind contains things that can be either true or false, whereas the brain does not. If the mind were identical to the brain, then it would follow that your beliefs can be neither true nor false.

I think you've just proven that the content of books is supernatural. After all, ink and paper aren't true or false, they just are. So are various letters. Is "A" true or false? Neither, it just is. Therefore by your argument any truth value the written words have must come from something entirely different which is not reducible to the words written on the page - instead books have a separate non-physical thingy which just coincidentally goes everywhere the physical book does. Also coincidentally, changing the physical makeup of the book changes this non-physical thingy in a way that correlates perfectly with the physical changes. But don't be confused by that correlation - they're totally separate things and one can't be reduced to the other.

If it seems strange to think that books have a non-material soul, you'll understand why strict materialists will find your argument a bit tough to swallow as well.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Even a rock sitting on the ground is an event, right?

Yes, just as one might describe it as an entity.

Perhaps my reply should have been aimed at Bushido216, but my point is simply that we mentally designate the boundaries of both entities and events. It's really more of an epistemological matter than a metaphysical one.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Beechwell]

Therefore, the mind is not reducible to the brain because the mind contains things that can be either true or false, whereas the brain does not. If the mind were identical to the brain, then it would follow that your beliefs can be neither true nor false.

No, the mind is not identical to the brain. It is an emergent property of the neural processes of the brain (see Langton's ant for a simple example of emergent properties of a simple system). I don't know wnat you mean by "physicalism", but I don't know of any naturalistic/materialistic philosophies that the physical world can't produce emergent phenomenons that go beyond its pure physical building blocks.

Things like "true" or "false" a concepts developed by the mind; they do not need to have any phyical equvalent to exist for us - for a stone on the other hand, "true" and "false" have no meaning, and can be seen as non-existant.

Of course it is possible that "true" corresponds to certain physical states of the brain, and on a physical level is nothing but a group of such states (with certain propeties that the mind interprets as "true").
That however has nothing to do with our experience of "true" and "false" and is therefore irrelevant to us (and to how we percieve the world).

 

[brightlights]

The argument seems confuseing to me.



The premise that that entirely physical systems can not be said to be true or false is incorrect.

Consider the thymus that grows cells and tests them before releasing them into the body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thymus



So, the T-cell selection process purges functional from non-functional, much the same way as we purge false ideas like “Cincinnati is in the southern hemisphere”.

Further, If definitions, abstractions, information and language interrelationships come from the process of neurons acting within a physical environment then they can indeed both be false/true, and be entirely physical.

What is to stop them? Our lack of imagination?

Is the Thymus true or false?