Argument Against Physicalism

[brightlights]

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.

Exactly.

 

[brightlights]

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.

I'm arguing that if mental things like ideas are reducible to physical things like brain cells then it's not possible for them to be either true or false.

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.

It's called physicalism and this is an argument against it.

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.

It's fine with me to say that the mental is dependent on the physical, but then admitting that is admitting that the universe is more complicated than a purely material universe.

 

[quatona]

I'm arguing that if mental things like ideas are reducible to physical things like brain cells then it's not possible for them to be either true or false.

Yes - it all depends on what you mean by "reducible to". To me it doesn´t make sense to say "an idea is reducible to brain cells", just like it doesn´t make sense to say that "wind is reducible to molecules".

It's called physicalism and this is an argument against it.

Ok, I am waiting for a physicalist to argue for that position.
I will assist you when it comes to defending that ideas and thoughts aren´t physical objects.

It's fine with me to say that the mental is dependent on the physical, but then admitting that is admitting that the universe is more complicated than a purely material universe.

Yes sure, at least for persons whose minds try to make sense of it.

 

[badtim]

It's called physicalism and this is an argument against it.

what you're describing is called Reductionalist Physicalism, and it's not exactly much in the leading flavor of physicalism these days, though non-reductionalist critiques seem pretty strong in some cases.

though mind/body cartesian dualism (if you're working under that assumption) just doesn't work. it's pretty much dead, at least among anyone who studies the neurology and cognition.

 

[variant]

Is the Thymus true or false?

Lymphocytes are tested and rejected for their ability to function in the human immune system.

The dysfunctional are rejected and the functional are accepted, just as dysfunctional ideas are treated as false and functional ideas are treated as true.

Function/dysfunction is one of the main precursors to truth and falsity, and may even be better concepts for it.

Cincinnati is in the southern hemisphere is as much a dysfunctional concept as it is a false one.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It's fine with me to say that the mental is dependent on the physical, but then admitting that is admitting that the universe is more complicated than a purely material universe.

No, it's admitting that the universe is more complicated than an extremely reductionistic material universe. It doesn't mean that, e.g., substance dualism must be correct.

Anyway, I don't like reductive materialism either, so knock yourself out arguing against it.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

Exactly.

Funny, I would have thought an absurd conclusion (books have souls just like people) would have caused you to rethink the logic you were using. Instead, you're willing to accept that to hang on to the idea that there's some magic going on in the brain. Interesting.

 

[Chesterton]

Funny, I would have thought an absurd conclusion (books have souls just like people) would have caused you to rethink the logic you were using. Instead, you're willing to accept that to hang on to the idea that there's some magic going on in the brain. Interesting.

But words are just symbols for thoughts and ideas, so I don't think you really change much about his argument by substituting "books" for "thoughts".

 

[jayem]

I'm arguing that if mental things like ideas are reducible to physical things like brain cells then it's not possible for them to be either true or false.

Still not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying that mental phenomena like ideas and thoughts can exist without functioning neurons?

 

[brightlights]

Still not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying that mental phenomena like ideas and thoughts can exist without functioning neurons?

No I don't mean to say that -- at least not in humans. Being a Christian, I believe God has ideas and thoughts but I'm not sure that he has neurons. But as far as we know, mental phenomena depends on physical stuff. I'm trying to argue, though, that it's not identical to physical stuff. The point of this argument is to demonstrate that the universe is not homogeneous in essence. What I mean by this is that if you boil the universe down to the essential stuff it's made of, it will be more complicated than physical stuff. At least there is mental stuff as well. This doesn't mean that the mental doesn't depend on the physical, though.

 

[jayem]

But as far as we know, mental phenomena depends on physical stuff. I'm trying to argue, though, that it's not identical to physical stuff. The point of this argument is to demonstrate that the universe is not homogeneous in essence. What I mean by this is that if you boil the universe down to the essential stuff it's made of, it will be more complicated than physical stuff. At least there is mental stuff as well. This doesn't mean that the mental doesn't depend on the physical, though.

So if I understand, you're saying that "red" is not solely electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of 650 nm. I don't think anyone would claim that it is. I am a materialist. And I'd say that the color red is what we experience when light of that wavelength activates cone cells in our retinas, which then send nerve impulses to the visual cortex. Red is the conscious manifestation of neurons in the visual cortex and other parts of the brain firing in a certain pattern. We still don't understand exactly how neuronal circuits become a conscious perception. But if you turn off the right parts of the brain, there is no consciousness and no perception. And it is a completely natural process. Nothing supernatural is going on. Am I making myself clear?

 

[brightlights]

So if I understand, you're saying that "red" is not solely electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of 650 nm. I don't think anyone would claim that it is. I am a materialist. And I'd say that the color red is what we experience when light of that wavelength activates cone cells in our retinas, which then send nerve impulses to the visual cortex. Red is the conscious manifestation of neurons in the visual cortex and other parts of the brain firing in a certain pattern. We still don't understand exactly how neuronal circuits become a conscious perception. But if you turn off the right parts of the brain, there is no consciousness and no perception. And it is a completely natural process. Nothing supernatural is going on. Am I making myself clear?

Yes you are, but I'd like to ask you what you mean by "natural" and "supernatural". For a lot of materialists, "natural" seems to mean physical. What do you mean by natural?

 

[jayem]

Yes you are, but I'd like to ask you what you mean by "natural" and "supernatural". For a lot of materialists, "natural" seems to mean physical. What do you mean by natural?

When I say a phenomenon is natural, I mean that it is purely a function of matter, and energy, and the ordinary properties thereof. And when I say that there is nothing supernatural, I mean that there are no entities or forces outside the realm of matter and energy which can affect their behavior.

 

[KCfromNC]

But words are just symbols for thoughts and ideas, so I don't think you really change much about his argument by substituting "books" for "thoughts".

Yep - and the fact that the unchanged argument leads to the idea that books, newspapers and television commercials have immaterial supernatural souls should cause the original argument to be viewed with a bit of suspicion.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yep - and the fact that the unchanged argument leads to the idea that books, newspapers and television commercials have immaterial supernatural souls should cause the original argument to be viewed with a bit of suspicion.

One would think so.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chesterton]

Yep - and the fact that the unchanged argument leads to the idea that books, newspapers and television commercials have immaterial supernatural souls should cause the original argument to be viewed with a bit of suspicion.

That would only work if books caused themselves. But books, and the thoughts they contain, are caused by humans.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yep - and the fact that the unchanged argument leads to the idea that books, newspapers and television commercials have immaterial supernatural souls should cause the original argument to be viewed with a bit of suspicion.

That would only work if books caused themselves. But books, and the thoughts they contain, are caused by humans.

I think Chesterton is right that that would be the OP's stance. "We" are the entity standing outside the book inferring the verity of what is written and therefore "we" must have something standing 'outside' that physicality to analyze the truth of the belief ... presumably spirit, mind, or soul.

I think the problem is that our beliefs may be encoded in our neurons doesn't mean that the interpreting software (faulty or not) doesn't also reside in the same brain. sandwiches is fond of the computer analogy and I think it works here. Both the program and the memory are software resident encoded on the hardware. Yet, we find no 'paradox' that one can analyze the other acurately and even make new 'beliefs' based on self-analyses. Of the quality of software varies and this is what we see in humans.

The beliefs may be physical, but so is the analyzer.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That would only work if books caused themselves. But books, and the thoughts they contain, are caused by humans.

So, do all good books go to heaven?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chesterton]

So, do all good books go to heaven?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Um...all good books come from heaven.

 

[sandwiches]

No I don't mean to say that -- at least not in humans. Being a Christian, I believe God has ideas and thoughts but I'm not sure that he has neurons. But as far as we know, mental phenomena depends on physical stuff. I'm trying to argue, though, that it's not identical to physical stuff. The point of this argument is to demonstrate that the universe is not homogeneous in essence. What I mean by this is that if you boil the universe down to the essential stuff it's made of, it will be more complicated than physical stuff. At least there is mental stuff as well. This doesn't mean that the mental doesn't depend on the physical, though.

You say "more complicated than physical stuff." How are you using the word "physical?" I looked through the thread but couldn't find what you're comparing the physical against.