What could make morality objective?

[RCSaunders]

That's why you post links trying to change people's mind, ...

It may be difficult for you to understand, but some, as I do, just like intellectual exercise, and, knowing they have a unique product, enjoy offering it in a free market of ideas where anyone is free to consider it and either, buy (agree with) or reject (disagree with) it. I do not offer my ideas with either any expectation or desire for others to agree with what I say (and in fact am pleasantly surprise when anyone does). If you don't understand that, it's OK. No one has to agree with me, and, of course I don't have to agree with them, but, be assured of one thing, I'm no one's enemy and have no desire to change or interfere in anyone else's life.

If you don't agree with anything I write, either ignore it or write whatever you think about it. It will be no skin off my teeth. It's all only words, my friend.

[Atla]

That's why you post links trying to change people's mind, ...

It may be difficult for you to understand, but some, as I do, just like intellectual exercise, and, knowing they have a unique product, enjoy offering it in a free market of ideas where anyone is free to consider it and either, buy (agree with) or reject (disagree with) it. I do not offer my ideas with either any expectation or desire for others to agree with what I say (and in fact am pleasantly surprise when anyone does). If you don't understand that, it's OK. No one has to agree with me, and, of course I don't have to agree with them, but, be assured of one thing, I'm no one's enemy and have no desire to change or interfere in anyone else's life.

If you don't agree with anything I write, either ignore it or write whatever you think about it. It will be no skin off my teeth. It's all only words, my friend.

There's a difference between an intellectual exercise and a desperate need to be heard. People must have ignored you so much in the past, it must have been tough. Maybe it's because you have not much to say beyond your convictions.

[Peter Holmes]

Lot's of people believe lots of things that are not true. Physicalism (or materialism) is just another form of superstitious nonsense put over as, "scientific," but it is entirely baseless.

I don't care if you or anyone else believes it and I'm not interested in changing your mind. I know it's not true. I certainly don't care if you think I'm wrong.

Not Everything Is Physical

Physicalist Superstition

Now I'm puzzled and intrigued. If physicalism/materialism/naturalism is just the claim that only physical (etc) things exist, why is that a baseless superstition? Do you think any non-physical things exist? Any examples, and evidence for their existence?

The problem is partly semantic. The word, "exist," is so often used in place of, "real," and, "real," is usually confused with, "exist physically." So:

By exist I mean anything that actually is, without regard to the nature of that which exists, or the context in which it exists.

By physical I mean anything that can be directly perceived (seen, heard, felt, tasted, smelled, or perceived by interoception) and has attributes that can be known indirectly from evidence that can be perceived (all the physical sciences) and has those physical attributes thus discovered (mass, size, energy, temperature, charge, momentum, etc.).

By real I mean anything that exists in any mode or context (from the physical to the fictional, and from ontological to the epistemological), so long as its actual mode of existense is specified, and it truly has that nature. For example apples exist physically because they have physical attributes that can be perceived or studied scientifically, but botany certainly exists as a discipline but has no physical attributes though it is itself a physical science. The knowledge that is botany has no physical attributes that can be perceived or scientifically studied. Botany does not exist at all except epistemologically.

Everything that exists epistemologically: language, logic, mathematics, all science, geography, history, literature, does not exist at all physically (as defined above) but all exist, even every fictional character, place, and event in literature exist epistemologically, but not physically, and fictions do not exist, ''really," unless the fact they exist as fictions is specified. Independent of human consciousness, however, there are no epistemological existents, but to deny they exist, because they are not physical, is just nonsense.

The consciousness which makes epistemological existence possible is not physical. It has no physical attributes that can be perceived or detected and studied by any physical means. I know a thorough-going physicalist will claim they are studying consciousness when examining the neurological system. I've studied all such claims (because I seriously believed there might be a physical explanation of the nature of consciousness), but of course was disappointed in that search, because all the physical sciences can study is that which has physical attributes, and consciousness has none: no color to see, sound to hear, no substance to feel, and no flavor or scent to taste or smell and of course it has no mass, size, energy, temperature, charge, or momentum.

When a neurologists studies the brain and neurological system, only the physical, chemical, electrical events can be detected, studied, or described. There is no physical means to study consciousness itself, the actual conscious experience of seeing colors, hearing sounds, feeling substance, tasting flavors or smelling odors. When a neurologist describes the physical events (such as those that occur in the optic nerve and "visual centers" of the brain, all that can be detected are physical events, but actual "seeing," cannot be detected. Those events are no doubt related to vision, but certainly are not vision itself. To just say vision somehow happens (or emerges) as a result of those physical events is hardly science and for anyone who wants knowledge, not guesses and hypotheses, such assertions are not satisfactory.

If nothing else, I know I am conscious with absolute certainty. I do not know with certainty that anyone else is, but I think it is unreasonable to think they are not. The only consciousness I can know, however is my own, because there is no way to be conscious of anyone else's consciousness. (That's why it's pointless to argue with anyone who denies consciousness. Perhaps they really aren't, or at least limited in that capacity.) And of course anyone claiming they are studying consciousness, like the entire pseudo-science of psychology, is a lying.

My consciousness, however, is nothing unnatural and would not be possible without the physical because it is an attribute only possible to living physical organisms, a perfectly natural attribute that life makes possible. Consciousness is not a thing, or substance, or entity. It is an integral attribute or property of some organisms. It is something an organism does (not has), it is the action of being aware, apprehending what the neurological system makes available to the organism to perceive.

There is nothing mystical or supernatural about consciousness. To deny it, because one wishes to evade any hint of superstition, however, is itself an unfounded superstition that reality somehow excludes in some mysterious inexplicable way any possible attributes except those that can be directly perceived of discovered by the physical sciences. It is a flat out denial of one's own undeniable consciousness.

But, Peter, I'm not trying to convince you, only explaining why I cannot accept either the physicalist's or supernaturalist's premises, which I regard as a false dichotomy.

Thanks for this. You seem to be saying that there's a subset of what you call real things, which is non-physical real things. And you categorise what we call consciousness as a real, non-physical thing - a thing that can't be physically sensed, observed, studied or described.

I think the problem with this is the mistake of blurring the distinction between the way things are and what we say about them. In this case, we use nouns to name things, so we conclude the abstract noun 'consciousness' must be the name of something. Then, since that thing is not physical, like a brain, we conclude it must be non-physical. And, hey presto, the fantasy of non-physical things seems to make sense.

I think this is the superstition or delusion that has motivated philosophy since we began philosophising. The stuff of philosophy is supposed non-physical or abstract things: truth, knowledge, causation, identity, mind, consciousness, and so on. You say there's nothing mysterious or unnatural about them. And I agree - but that's because they aren't things of any kind, physical or non-physical. We just use these words (some of them very important, such as 'justice' and 'freedom') in various completely explicable ways.

But we obviously disagree, and even if we're stuck with our positions, perhaps others following this discussion have been entertained. Thanks again.

[Age]

It's a fact that now even materialism considers indirect realism to be the case.

Lot's of people believe lots of things that are not true. Physicalism (or materialism) is just another form of superstitious nonsense put over as, "scientific," but it is entirely baseless.

I don't care if you or anyone else believes it and I'm not interested in changing your mind. I know it's not true. I certainly don't care if you think I'm wrong.

Not Everything Is Physical

Physicalist Superstition

Now I'm puzzled and intrigued. If physicalism/materialism/naturalism is just the claim that only physical (etc) things exist, why is that a baseless superstition? Do you think any non-physical things exist? Any examples, and evidence for their existence?

To you, do 'photons' exist?

If yes, then, to you, are they physical things?

[Age]

I just wanted to nail my point about the neuro-scientist Penfield's conclusion that what we call the mind is not a metaphor, but rather a 'real' but non-physical thing somehow different from the brain. And the issue boils down to a causal explanation.

A physical effect can never be linked back to a non-physical cause, so it can never be evidence for a non-physical cause.

That is a pretty big CLAIM you make here.

There is no causal mechanism, which is why it can never be more than an appeal to magic. Which is a childish superstition.

Talk about just EXPRESSING a BELIEF one ALREADY HAS, BEFORE providing ANY ACTUAL PROOF for it.

We obviously strayed from the OP topic - but I expect there's a route back to it from the recognition that an appeal to supposed non-physical or abstract things is irrational.

[Age]

Age, or anyone else. Please.

Is the claim 'a fact is a matter of opinion' a fact, or a matter of opinion?

You do NOT answer questions posed to you, BUT, you EXPECT others to answer your questions.

WHEN, and IF, you EVER UNDERSTAND what 'facts' are FUNDAMENTALLY BASED UPON, which you WOULD, IF, and WHEN, you answer my questions posed to you Honestly, then you will ALSO SEE and UNDERSTAND what a 'fact' ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY IS.

Which, WHEN DONE, PROVES IRREFUTABLY True what I have SAID and CLAIMED from the beginning here.

Also, did I SAY or CLAIM 'a fact is a matter of opinion'?

If yes, then COPY and PASTE my ACTUAL WORDS here, and also provide us with the ACTUAL POST, then we CAN LOOK AT and SEE in what CONTEXT I wrote that, and then, if ANY one is Truly INTERESTED I CAN and WILL SHOW EXACTLY what I MEAN.

[Peter Holmes]

Age, or anyone else. Please.

Is the claim 'a fact is a matter of opinion' a fact, or a matter of opinion?

You do NOT answer questions posed to you, BUT, you EXPECT others to answer your questions.

WHEN, and IF, you EVER UNDERSTAND what 'facts' are FUNDAMENTALLY BASED UPON, which you WOULD, IF, and WHEN, you answer my questions posed to you Honestly, then you will ALSO SEE and UNDERSTAND what a 'fact' ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY IS.

Which, WHEN DONE, PROVES IRREFUTABLY True what I have SAID and CLAIMED from the beginning here.

Also, did I SAY or CLAIM 'a fact is a matter of opinion'?

If yes, then COPY and PASTE my ACTUAL WORDS here, and also provide us with the ACTUAL POST, then we CAN LOOK AT and SEE in what CONTEXT I wrote that, and then, if ANY one is Truly INTERESTED I CAN and WILL SHOW EXACTLY what I MEAN.

1 I've answered all of your questions, either explicitly or implicitly, many times.
2 I've explained how I use the words 'fact', 'truth' and 'objectivity' many times.
3 If you don't think a fact is an opinion, I agree.
4 I say there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

[RCSaunders]

That's why you post links trying to change people's mind, ...

It may be difficult for you to understand, but some, as I do, just like intellectual exercise, and, knowing they have a unique product, enjoy offering it in a free market of ideas where anyone is free to consider it and either, buy (agree with) or reject (disagree with) it. I do not offer my ideas with either any expectation or desire for others to agree with what I say (and in fact am pleasantly surprise when anyone does). If you don't understand that, it's OK. No one has to agree with me, and, of course I don't have to agree with them, but, be assured of one thing, I'm no one's enemy and have no desire to change or interfere in anyone else's life.

If you don't agree with anything I write, either ignore it or write whatever you think about it. It will be no skin off my teeth. It's all only words, my friend.

There's a difference between an intellectual exercise and a desperate need to be heard. People must have ignored you so much in the past, it must have been tough. Maybe it's because you have not much to say beyond your convictions.

My problem has always been too much company. I've always had to go to great lengths to extract myself from those who, though well-intentioned, would not leave me alone and insist on providing me company and sharing my views. I value privacy almost as highly as I value my freedom and they are inextricably interrelated.

For example, you seem to think I need your interest and enlightening advice. I don't. I'd be delighted if you just didn't read anything I wrote and never commented at all, especially if you cannot restrict your comments to ideas, and not personalities.

[RCSaunders]

Now I'm puzzled and intrigued. If physicalism/materialism/naturalism is just the claim that only physical (etc) things exist, why is that a baseless superstition? Do you think any non-physical things exist? Any examples, and evidence for their existence?

The problem is partly semantic. The word, "exist," is so often used in place of, "real," and, "real," is usually confused with, "exist physically." So:

By exist I mean anything that actually is, without regard to the nature of that which exists, or the context in which it exists.

By physical I mean anything that can be directly perceived (seen, heard, felt, tasted, smelled, or perceived by interoception) and has attributes that can be known indirectly from evidence that can be perceived (all the physical sciences) and has those physical attributes thus discovered (mass, size, energy, temperature, charge, momentum, etc.).

By real I mean anything that exists in any mode or context (from the physical to the fictional, and from ontological to the epistemological), so long as its actual mode of existense is specified, and it truly has that nature. For example apples exist physically because they have physical attributes that can be perceived or studied scientifically, but botany certainly exists as a discipline but has no physical attributes though it is itself a physical science. The knowledge that is botany has no physical attributes that can be perceived or scientifically studied. Botany does not exist at all except epistemologically.

Everything that exists epistemologically: language, logic, mathematics, all science, geography, history, literature, does not exist at all physically (as defined above) but all exist, even every fictional character, place, and event in literature exist epistemologically, but not physically, and fictions do not exist, ''really," unless the fact they exist as fictions is specified. Independent of human consciousness, however, there are no epistemological existents, but to deny they exist, because they are not physical, is just nonsense.

The consciousness which makes epistemological existence possible is not physical. It has no physical attributes that can be perceived or detected and studied by any physical means. I know a thorough-going physicalist will claim they are studying consciousness when examining the neurological system. I've studied all such claims (because I seriously believed there might be a physical explanation of the nature of consciousness), but of course was disappointed in that search, because all the physical sciences can study is that which has physical attributes, and consciousness has none: no color to see, sound to hear, no substance to feel, and no flavor or scent to taste or smell and of course it has no mass, size, energy, temperature, charge, or momentum.

When a neurologists studies the brain and neurological system, only the physical, chemical, electrical events can be detected, studied, or described. There is no physical means to study consciousness itself, the actual conscious experience of seeing colors, hearing sounds, feeling substance, tasting flavors or smelling odors. When a neurologist describes the physical events (such as those that occur in the optic nerve and "visual centers" of the brain, all that can be detected are physical events, but actual "seeing," cannot be detected. Those events are no doubt related to vision, but certainly are not vision itself. To just say vision somehow happens (or emerges) as a result of those physical events is hardly science and for anyone who wants knowledge, not guesses and hypotheses, such assertions are not satisfactory.

If nothing else, I know I am conscious with absolute certainty. I do not know with certainty that anyone else is, but I think it is unreasonable to think they are not. The only consciousness I can know, however is my own, because there is no way to be conscious of anyone else's consciousness. (That's why it's pointless to argue with anyone who denies consciousness. Perhaps they really aren't, or at least limited in that capacity.) And of course anyone claiming they are studying consciousness, like the entire pseudo-science of psychology, is a lying.

My consciousness, however, is nothing unnatural and would not be possible without the physical because it is an attribute only possible to living physical organisms, a perfectly natural attribute that life makes possible. Consciousness is not a thing, or substance, or entity. It is an integral attribute or property of some organisms. It is something an organism does (not has), it is the action of being aware, apprehending what the neurological system makes available to the organism to perceive.

There is nothing mystical or supernatural about consciousness. To deny it, because one wishes to evade any hint of superstition, however, is itself an unfounded superstition that reality somehow excludes in some mysterious inexplicable way any possible attributes except those that can be directly perceived of discovered by the physical sciences. It is a flat out denial of one's own undeniable consciousness.

But, Peter, I'm not trying to convince you, only explaining why I cannot accept either the physicalist's or supernaturalist's premises, which I regard as a false dichotomy.

Thanks for this. You seem to be saying that there's a subset of what you call real things, which is non-physical real things. And you categorise what we call consciousness as a real, non-physical thing - a thing that can't be physically sensed, observed, studied or described.

I think the problem with this is the mistake of blurring the distinction between the way things are and what we say about them. In this case, we use nouns to name things, so we conclude the abstract noun 'consciousness' must be the name of something. Then, since that thing is not physical, like a brain, we conclude it must be non-physical. And, hey presto, the fantasy of non-physical things seems to make sense.

I think this is the superstition or delusion that has motivated philosophy since we began philosophising. The stuff of philosophy is supposed non-physical or abstract things: truth, knowledge, causation, identity, mind, consciousness, and so on. You say there's nothing mysterious or unnatural about them. And I agree - but that's because they aren't things of any kind, physical or non-physical. We just use these words (some of them very important, such as 'justice' and 'freedom') in various completely explicable ways.

But we obviously disagree, and even if we're stuck with our positions, perhaps others following this discussion have been entertained. Thanks again.

I'm afraid you have confused me. On the one hand you say, "non-physical or abstract things: truth, knowledge, causation, identity, mind, consciousness, and so on ,,, aren't things of any kind, physical or non-physical.

It appears to me that you have used the word, "thing," with two very different definitions: in the first instance a kind of generic meaning identifying "whatever is," or, "just anythig." In the second instance you seem to meam, "entity," implying that anything that is not an entity does really exists. I agree that only entities exist as independent existents, but attributes, relationships, and events (the action of entities) certainly exist, though cannot exist except as the attributes of, relationships between, and behavior of entities. I only that which is an entity exists, there are no attributes, relationships, or events--you would have to say force, charge, velocity, acceleration, temperature, polarity, momentum and mass, "aren't things of any kind, physical or non-physical," which of course they aren't if, "thing," means entity, but they certainly are not nothing, are they.

You're going to have to tell me what you mean by, "thing," before I can make head or tail of what you are saying. Just for the record, I do not say life, consciousness, or mind are things, as independently existing entities. An entity is whatever its attributes are, but its attributes are not things (entities or substances) and do not exist independently of the entities they are the attributes of. Life, consciousness, and mind are not entities, they are the attributes of some entities called organisms.

[Peter Holmes]

The problem is partly semantic. The word, "exist," is so often used in place of, "real," and, "real," is usually confused with, "exist physically." So:

By exist I mean anything that actually is, without regard to the nature of that which exists, or the context in which it exists.

By physical I mean anything that can be directly perceived (seen, heard, felt, tasted, smelled, or perceived by interoception) and has attributes that can be known indirectly from evidence that can be perceived (all the physical sciences) and has those physical attributes thus discovered (mass, size, energy, temperature, charge, momentum, etc.).

By real I mean anything that exists in any mode or context (from the physical to the fictional, and from ontological to the epistemological), so long as its actual mode of existense is specified, and it truly has that nature. For example apples exist physically because they have physical attributes that can be perceived or studied scientifically, but botany certainly exists as a discipline but has no physical attributes though it is itself a physical science. The knowledge that is botany has no physical attributes that can be perceived or scientifically studied. Botany does not exist at all except epistemologically.

Everything that exists epistemologically: language, logic, mathematics, all science, geography, history, literature, does not exist at all physically (as defined above) but all exist, even every fictional character, place, and event in literature exist epistemologically, but not physically, and fictions do not exist, ''really," unless the fact they exist as fictions is specified. Independent of human consciousness, however, there are no epistemological existents, but to deny they exist, because they are not physical, is just nonsense.

The consciousness which makes epistemological existence possible is not physical. It has no physical attributes that can be perceived or detected and studied by any physical means. I know a thorough-going physicalist will claim they are studying consciousness when examining the neurological system. I've studied all such claims (because I seriously believed there might be a physical explanation of the nature of consciousness), but of course was disappointed in that search, because all the physical sciences can study is that which has physical attributes, and consciousness has none: no color to see, sound to hear, no substance to feel, and no flavor or scent to taste or smell and of course it has no mass, size, energy, temperature, charge, or momentum.

When a neurologists studies the brain and neurological system, only the physical, chemical, electrical events can be detected, studied, or described. There is no physical means to study consciousness itself, the actual conscious experience of seeing colors, hearing sounds, feeling substance, tasting flavors or smelling odors. When a neurologist describes the physical events (such as those that occur in the optic nerve and "visual centers" of the brain, all that can be detected are physical events, but actual "seeing," cannot be detected. Those events are no doubt related to vision, but certainly are not vision itself. To just say vision somehow happens (or emerges) as a result of those physical events is hardly science and for anyone who wants knowledge, not guesses and hypotheses, such assertions are not satisfactory.

If nothing else, I know I am conscious with absolute certainty. I do not know with certainty that anyone else is, but I think it is unreasonable to think they are not. The only consciousness I can know, however is my own, because there is no way to be conscious of anyone else's consciousness. (That's why it's pointless to argue with anyone who denies consciousness. Perhaps they really aren't, or at least limited in that capacity.) And of course anyone claiming they are studying consciousness, like the entire pseudo-science of psychology, is a lying.

My consciousness, however, is nothing unnatural and would not be possible without the physical because it is an attribute only possible to living physical organisms, a perfectly natural attribute that life makes possible. Consciousness is not a thing, or substance, or entity. It is an integral attribute or property of some organisms. It is something an organism does (not has), it is the action of being aware, apprehending what the neurological system makes available to the organism to perceive.

There is nothing mystical or supernatural about consciousness. To deny it, because one wishes to evade any hint of superstition, however, is itself an unfounded superstition that reality somehow excludes in some mysterious inexplicable way any possible attributes except those that can be directly perceived of discovered by the physical sciences. It is a flat out denial of one's own undeniable consciousness.

But, Peter, I'm not trying to convince you, only explaining why I cannot accept either the physicalist's or supernaturalist's premises, which I regard as a false dichotomy.

Thanks for this. You seem to be saying that there's a subset of what you call real things, which is non-physical real things. And you categorise what we call consciousness as a real, non-physical thing - a thing that can't be physically sensed, observed, studied or described.

I think the problem with this is the mistake of blurring the distinction between the way things are and what we say about them. In this case, we use nouns to name things, so we conclude the abstract noun 'consciousness' must be the name of something. Then, since that thing is not physical, like a brain, we conclude it must be non-physical. And, hey presto, the fantasy of non-physical things seems to make sense.

I think this is the superstition or delusion that has motivated philosophy since we began philosophising. The stuff of philosophy is supposed non-physical or abstract things: truth, knowledge, causation, identity, mind, consciousness, and so on. You say there's nothing mysterious or unnatural about them. And I agree - but that's because they aren't things of any kind, physical or non-physical. We just use these words (some of them very important, such as 'justice' and 'freedom') in various completely explicable ways.

But we obviously disagree, and even if we're stuck with our positions, perhaps others following this discussion have been entertained. Thanks again.

I'm afraid you have confused me. On the one hand you say, "non-physical or abstract things: truth, knowledge, causation, identity, mind, consciousness, and so on ,,, aren't things of any kind, physical or non-physical.

It appears to me that you have used the word, "thing," with two very different definitions: in the first instance a kind of generic meaning identifying "whatever is," or, "just anythig." In the second instance you seem to meam, "entity," implying that anything that is not an entity does really exists. I agree that only entities exist as independent existents, but attributes, relationships, and events (the action of entities) certainly exist, though cannot exist except as the attributes of, relationships between, and behavior of entities. I only that which is an entity exists, there are no attributes, relationships, or events--you would have to say force, charge, velocity, acceleration, temperature, polarity, momentum and mass, "aren't things of any kind, physical or non-physical," which of course they aren't if, "thing," means entity, but they certainly are not nothing, are they.

You're going to have to tell me what you mean by, "thing," before I can make head or tail of what you are saying. Just for the record, I do not say life, consciousness, or mind are things, as independently existing entities. An entity is whatever its attributes are, but its attributes are not things (entities or substances) and do not exist independently of the entities they are the attributes of. Life, consciousness, and mind are not entities, they are the attributes of some entities called organisms.

1 My apologies. When I use the modifier 'non-physical', I should always add 'supposed'. So non-physical things are supposed non-physical things.

2 I think the word 'entity' is just a posh word for 'thing'. (The word 'object' is fondly imagined to be similarly up-market.)

3 I maintain that the attributes, relationships and actions of physical things (what we call events) are physical things, which can therefore be sensed.

For example, the relationship 'taller than' is what we call a relationship between two physical things. That relationship isn't a supposed non-physical thing - what used to be called a universal. (That's a Platonist or neo-Platonist delusion.)

And what we call an event occurs in space-time, which is a sine qua non for physicalism. (I think the claim that supposed non-physical things or events exist entails belief in non-space-time existence, which is irrational.)

For some time, my standing question has been: what and where are supposed non-physical (or abstract) things, and in what way do they exist? And I'm looking for an answer that doesn't equivocate on the words 'thing' and 'exist'. Just calling them 'real' doesn't answer the question.

Of course, my aim is to expose a deep and persistent delusion which, as I say, comes from our mistaking what we say for the way things are.

[Atla]

It may be difficult for you to understand, but some, as I do, just like intellectual exercise, and, knowing they have a unique product, enjoy offering it in a free market of ideas where anyone is free to consider it and either, buy (agree with) or reject (disagree with) it. I do not offer my ideas with either any expectation or desire for others to agree with what I say (and in fact am pleasantly surprise when anyone does). If you don't understand that, it's OK. No one has to agree with me, and, of course I don't have to agree with them, but, be assured of one thing, I'm no one's enemy and have no desire to change or interfere in anyone else's life.

If you don't agree with anything I write, either ignore it or write whatever you think about it. It will be no skin off my teeth. It's all only words, my friend.

There's a difference between an intellectual exercise and a desperate need to be heard. People must have ignored you so much in the past, it must have been tough. Maybe it's because you have not much to say beyond your convictions.

My problem has always been too much company. I've always had to go to great lengths to extract myself from those who, though well-intentioned, would not leave me alone and insist on providing me company and sharing my views. I value privacy almost as highly as I value my freedom and they are inextricably interrelated.

For example, you seem to think I need your interest and enlightening advice. I don't. I'd be delighted if you just didn't read anything I wrote and never commented at all, especially if you cannot restrict your comments to ideas, and not personalities.

If you really wanted to ignore someone here and be ignored, you simply wouldn't reply

[RCSaunders]

There's a difference between an intellectual exercise and a desperate need to be heard. People must have ignored you so much in the past, it must have been tough. Maybe it's because you have not much to say beyond your convictions.

My problem has always been too much company. I've always had to go to great lengths to extract myself from those who, though well-intentioned, would not leave me alone and insist on providing me company and sharing my views. I value privacy almost as highly as I value my freedom and they are inextricably interrelated.

For example, you seem to think I need your interest and enlightening advice. I don't. I'd be delighted if you just didn't read anything I wrote and never commented at all, especially if you cannot restrict your comments to ideas, and not personalities.

If you really wanted to ignore someone here and be ignored, you simply wouldn't reply

When did I say I wanted to be ignored? I just don't want to be bothered by those who are not interested in ideas and are only interested in judging other people.

[Atla]

My problem has always been too much company. I've always had to go to great lengths to extract myself from those who, though well-intentioned, would not leave me alone and insist on providing me company and sharing my views. I value privacy almost as highly as I value my freedom and they are inextricably interrelated.

For example, you seem to think I need your interest and enlightening advice. I don't. I'd be delighted if you just didn't read anything I wrote and never commented at all, especially if you cannot restrict your comments to ideas, and not personalities.

If you really wanted to ignore someone here and be ignored, you simply wouldn't reply

When did I say I wanted to be ignored? I just don't want to be bothered by those who are not interested in ideas and are only interested in judging other people.

So you don't like people who act like you?

[RCSaunders]

Thanks for this. You seem to be saying that there's a subset of what you call real things, which is non-physical real things. And you categorise what we call consciousness as a real, non-physical thing - a thing that can't be physically sensed, observed, studied or described.

I think the problem with this is the mistake of blurring the distinction between the way things are and what we say about them. In this case, we use nouns to name things, so we conclude the abstract noun 'consciousness' must be the name of something. Then, since that thing is not physical, like a brain, we conclude it must be non-physical. And, hey presto, the fantasy of non-physical things seems to make sense.

I think this is the superstition or delusion that has motivated philosophy since we began philosophising. The stuff of philosophy is supposed non-physical or abstract things: truth, knowledge, causation, identity, mind, consciousness, and so on. You say there's nothing mysterious or unnatural about them. And I agree - but that's because they aren't things of any kind, physical or non-physical. We just use these words (some of them very important, such as 'justice' and 'freedom') in various completely explicable ways.

But we obviously disagree, and even if we're stuck with our positions, perhaps others following this discussion have been entertained. Thanks again.

I'm afraid you have confused me. On the one hand you say, "non-physical or abstract things: truth, knowledge, causation, identity, mind, consciousness, and so on ,,, aren't things of any kind, physical or non-physical.

It appears to me that you have used the word, "thing," with two very different definitions: in the first instance a kind of generic meaning identifying "whatever is," or, "just anythig." In the second instance you seem to meam, "entity," implying that anything that is not an entity does really exists. I agree that only entities exist as independent existents, but attributes, relationships, and events (the action of entities) certainly exist, though cannot exist except as the attributes of, relationships between, and behavior of entities. I only that which is an entity exists, there are no attributes, relationships, or events--you would have to say force, charge, velocity, acceleration, temperature, polarity, momentum and mass, "aren't things of any kind, physical or non-physical," which of course they aren't if, "thing," means entity, but they certainly are not nothing, are they.

You're going to have to tell me what you mean by, "thing," before I can make head or tail of what you are saying. Just for the record, I do not say life, consciousness, or mind are things, as independently existing entities. An entity is whatever its attributes are, but its attributes are not things (entities or substances) and do not exist independently of the entities they are the attributes of. Life, consciousness, and mind are not entities, they are the attributes of some entities called organisms.

1 My apologies. When I use the modifier 'non-physical', I should always add 'supposed'. So non-physical things are supposed non-physical things.

2 I think the word 'entity' is just a posh word for 'thing'. (The word 'object' is fondly imagined to be similarly up-market.)

3 I maintain that the attributes, relationships and actions of physical things (what we call events) are physical things, which can therefore be sensed.

For example, the relationship 'taller than' is what we call a relationship between two physical things. That relationship isn't a supposed non-physical thing - what used to be called a universal. (That's a Platonist or neo-Platonist delusion.)

And what we call an event occurs in space-time, which is a sine qua non for physicalism. (I think the claim that supposed non-physical things or events exist entails belief in non-space-time existence, which is irrational.)

For some time, my standing question has been: what and where are supposed non-physical (or abstract) things, and in what way do they exist? And I'm looking for an answer that doesn't equivocate on the words 'thing' and 'exist'. Just calling them 'real' doesn't answer the question.

Of course, my aim is to expose a deep and persistent delusion which, as I say, comes from our mistaking what we say for the way things are.

You have no idea how much I'm tempted to respond to your last sentence with--"Unless, of course, if you say it," because you have just described how you think things are. But I'm not saying that, because our real difference is epistemological and what we mean by concepts.

In spite of the fact you correctly repudiate the absurd, "realism," of plato, you do seem to have a view of universals that is some kind of nominalism [I'm guessing, based on your assertion that, "attributes, relationships and actions ... are physical things."] The immediate problem with that view to me is it makes those things exist independently, as though there were free, "heaviness," "tallness," or "spinning," floating around without any heavy, tall, or spinning things. A physical entity can be what it is without contingency, but a relationship, attribiute, or an action cannot. There cannot just be tallness, a thing can only be tall relative to another thing, and there cannot just be heaviness, there must be a heavy thing, and there cannot just be action, there must be something that acts. Of course these relationships, attributes, and actions are physical, but to think of them as physical things in the same sense as apples, planets, stars, and galaxies are physical things is exactly the kind of platonic realism you deplore. They have no independent physical existence.

Now I'm going to say something you will really disagree with. There is no such thing as, "space-time," except as a concept. I agree with Einstein that space-time is just a way of picturing relationships between actual physical things, their positions, motions, and accelerations. There is no, "stuff," "space-time," but it is an excellent way of picturing the true properties and behavior of physical entities, and it may be the best possible, but it certainly is not the only one.

And that also answers the question: "what and where are supposed non-physical (or abstract) things, and in what way do they exist?" Ask that about your supposed, "space-time?" What are its physical attributes ("what," and, "how," does it exist) and were does it exist (everywhere)? There is certainly a concept for, "space-time," and as the identification of certain physical relations and behavior it works very well, but it only exists as a concept, a mental identification of a collection of propositions describing some phenomena in a conscious mind, but sans a conscious mind does not exist at all.

Not looking for agreement, just enjoying exploring the conflicts in our views, and your always reasonable and interesting discussion. As Robert Heinlein said, "I have never learned anything from anyone who agrees with me."

[RCSaunders]

If you really wanted to ignore someone here and be ignored, you simply wouldn't reply

When did I say I wanted to be ignored? I just don't want to be bothered by those who are not interested in ideas and are only interested in judging other people.

So you don't like people who act like you?

Oh Atla!

The fact is, I would absolutely detest having to spend my time with anyone exactly like me. I cannot imagine anything more tedious or boring.

I love people with different views and different lives and life styles. Examine the recent exchange between Peter Holmes and me on this thread. We very much disagree which is what makes the conversation interesting. This is something else you will not understand. It is our differences that make our conversation interesting, not our agreements. Disagreement does not mean confrontation and nothing is at stake but each individual's own knowledge and understanding.