Refutation of physicalism

[Age]

Age expected other people to show him the curiosity he did not extend to others. Age was a sad, sad man, stuck in a future of his own imagining. He got so deeply stuck some days that he didn't even get up from his couch to take a shit. He just did his business wherever he was.

you do realize that this site is a 'philosophy forum', right?

you just pointed out to "mmarco" the Fact that you came the opposite conclusion, and I just agreed with you.

Where in your first reply to me did you "just agree with me"? I can't find anything that looks like that at all.

Where and when you said;
I came to the opposite conclusion

And, where and when I replied with;
these human beings, back then, would come to the exact opposite conclusion about things.

I am not sure how you can not find any thing here that looks like me agreeing with you.

To me I am fully and absolutely agreeing with you here. That is; 'you', one human being, came to the opposite conclusion of what "mmarco", another human being, did.

If absolutely any thing that I have said above here is Wrong or Incorrect, to you, then please feel absolutely free to Correct it.

Something being true doesn't mean it's not a useless and obnoxious thing to say.

Okay, if you say so.

Could what you just said here be an example, itself, of something being true, but which is just a useless and/or an obnoxious thing to say?

What you said was one of those useless, obnoxious things to say.

I, honestly, have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what you are even talking about, nor what you are even referring to, here.

What I said 'where', exactly, is, supposedly, one of those useless, obnoxious things to say?

[Flannel Jesus]

you do realize that this site is a 'philosophy forum', right?

you just pointed out to "mmarco" the Fact that you came the opposite conclusion, and I just agreed with you.

Where in your first reply to me did you "just agree with me"? I can't find anything that looks like that at all.

Where and when you said;
I came to the opposite conclusion

And, where and when I replied with;
these human beings, back then, would come to the exact opposite conclusion about things.

I am not sure how you can not find any thing here that looks like me agreeing with you.

Then you don't have a mastery of English, or anything close to it. Nothing in that comes close to implying agreement.

What I said 'where', exactly, is, supposedly, one of those useless, obnoxious things to say?

All of your first reply to me was one of those useless, obnoxious things to say. Every time someone disagrees with someone else on a philosophy forum, is not an invitation for some idiot from the future to say "The people back then would come to the opposite conclusions about things". That's useless and obnoxious.

[FlashDangerpants]

Poor old Marco. He's brand new, posts his first topic, and some bumhole goes and spills a load of Ken all over it.

[FlashDangerpants]

Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs - Why? Surely it can be composed of those things rather than being some unexperienced substrate upon which they somehow rest.

Obviously, it necessary to define the terms we use; with the word "consciousness" I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experience such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams. The most fundamental empirical piece of information we have is the existence of our mental experiences. Consciousness is what we experience, therefore we know exactly what consciousness is. Consciousness is what we know best because it is the only reality we directly know exactly as it is in itself, the only reality we directly experience because it is experience itself. We have then a direct empirical knowledge of consciousness and consciousness represents the necessary preliminary condition for all other knowledge, consciousness is the foundation of all knowledge.

It seems strange for it to be necessary to define the term consciousness but also for that to be the only concept that absolutely everybody must already understand.

"Conscisousness" can very easily be viewed as a broad concept describing perception and awareness without any ontological commitment to something that is made out of some elementary particle that awareness should be amde out of. In fact I would recommend doing so.... So why do we need to invoke some underlying substance that experiences are dependent upon? What is this compulsion to divide predicated upon?

the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set. I guess trivially this is so, and known to be so, the set of the Eiffel Tower and my nose being an example. But is the mereological nihilism you derive from this information quite so compelling as you hope? I say so what? Sets only exist as notional entities, but nobody expected them to exist more than that. Complexes exist as collections of simples.

The point is that complexes are only subjective cognitive constructs and do not exist as mind-independ entities. At a fundamental physical level, there is no brain, or heart, or higher level sets, but only fundamental quantum particles individually interacting with each other; the brain, as well as any other biological organ, is only a subjective mental construct that refers to a group of arbitrarily chosen quantum particles, considered as a whole.

That is only the case if you have chosen to restrict yourself conceptually to epic physicalist minimalism. As that very thing is what you are opposing, I find the choice strange.

Everything has levels of description that apply to it. The Mona Lisa is a work of art. It is also paint on wood, this is true of my garden fence also, but I do not assert that my garden fence and the Mona Lisa are fundamentally the same thing. Go down another level and Mona Lisa and my garden fence constitute a set of two items that are wood and paint. Drop another level, that set now contains two items componsed of carbon and magnesium and lithium or whatever at two discrete geolocated coordinates....

The game you are playing is to apply this maximalised division until you reach the point of indivisibility and then to assert that being indivisible is what makes something truly real? I don't see a good reason to join in that logic, I will simply say that there are contexts in which one sort of description is more useful than another sort.

You've likely overplayed the arbitrariness angle in my view. There is nothing remotely arbitrary about considering the brain to be a discrete object composed of brain cells. The explosion problem in set theory which permits infinitely many sets of unlrelated objects to be spawned with only membership of said set to join them is just a maths problem. I am not doing maths when say "that is my dog" and point at a dog (in that case I am commiting theft, I don't own a dog).

[mmarco]

The point is that complexes are only subjective cognitive constructs and do not exist as mind-independ entities. At a fundamental physical level, there is no brain, or heart, or higher level sets, but only fundamental quantum particles individually interacting with each other; the brain, as well as any other biological organ, is only a subjective mental construct that refers to a group of arbitrarily chosen quantum particles, considered as a whole.

That is only the case if you have chosen to restrict yourself conceptually to epic physicalist minimalism. As that very thing is what you are opposing, I find the choice strange.

Everything has levels of description that apply to it.

This is your fundamental mistake. The levels of descriptions are subjective cognitive constructs that require a conscious mind and exist only in a conscious mind, because consciousness is a precondition for the existence of both subjectivity and cognition. Therefore, the existence of consciousness cannot be explained as the consequence of a level of description. A logically coherent explanation (or at least justification) of the existence of consciousness requires a mind-independent reality and sets of elements are intrinsically mind-depedentent abstractions.

There is nothing remotely arbitrary about considering the brain to be a discrete object composed of brain cells.

You are wrong. The brain is a set of arbitrarily chosen particles; this is an indisputable fact. Try to give a definition of brain without introducing subjective criteria.

[/quote]

[mmarco]

Are you a theist?

I am a Christian. However, the arguments have provided against physicalism are independent of my religious beliefs.

[Age]

Where in your first reply to me did you "just agree with me"? I can't find anything that looks like that at all.

Where and when you said;
I came to the opposite conclusion

And, where and when I replied with;
these human beings, back then, would come to the exact opposite conclusion about things.

I am not sure how you can not find any thing here that looks like me agreeing with you.

Then you don't have a mastery of English, or anything close to it. Nothing in that comes close to implying agreement.

Could it be a possibility that you do not have a so-called 'mastery of comprehension'.

Look, you said that you came to the opposite conclusion, to another. And, I said that human beings come to opposite conclusions, to each other.

How you cannot comprehend that what I said and wrote IS in agreement with you here I am not sure.

What I said 'where', exactly, is, supposedly, one of those useless, obnoxious things to say?

All of your first reply to me was one of those useless, obnoxious things to say.

Okay, thank you for clarifying. It is quite refreshing.

Every time someone disagrees with someone else on a philosophy forum, is not an invitation for some idiot from the future to say "The people back then would come to the opposite conclusions about things". That's useless and obnoxious.

I do not do 'this' every time.

I was just agreeing with you, this time, in regards to you 'coming to the opposite conclusion, to another'.

Why do you find 'this' so hard and/or so complex to just comprehend and understand here?

Also, your absolutely Wrong presumption and claim here is, what you would call, useless, and obnoxious, as well. But, at least one of our claims is True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

[Flannel Jesus]

Where and when you said;
I came to the opposite conclusion

And, where and when I replied with;
these human beings, back then, would come to the exact opposite conclusion about things.

I am not sure how you can not find any thing here that looks like me agreeing with you.

Then you don't have a mastery of English, or anything close to it. Nothing in that comes close to implying agreement.

Could it be a possibility that you do not have a so-called 'mastery of comprehension'.

Look, you said that you came to the opposite conclusion, to another. And, I said that human beings come to opposite conclusions, to each other.

How you cannot comprehend that what I said and wrote IS in agreement with you here I am not sure.

What I said 'where', exactly, is, supposedly, one of those useless, obnoxious things to say?

All of your first reply to me was one of those useless, obnoxious things to say.

Okay, thank you for clarifying. It is quite refreshing.

Every time someone disagrees with someone else on a philosophy forum, is not an invitation for some idiot from the future to say "The people back then would come to the opposite conclusions about things". That's useless and obnoxious.

I do not do 'this' every time.

I was just agreeing with you, this time, in regards to you 'coming to the opposite conclusion, to another'.

Why do you find 'this' so hard and/or so complex to just comprehend and understand here?

Also, your absolutely Wrong presumption and claim here is, what you would call, useless, and obnoxious, as well. But, at least one of our claims is True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

If you think that is how to express agreement, you haven't completed enough English classes. Please take a hint from someone who has been speaking English his entire life, and accept that the words that you said are not how to express agreement in English. Present your words to your English tutor and ask them where you went wrong.

[FlashDangerpants]

The point is that complexes are only subjective cognitive constructs and do not exist as mind-independ entities. At a fundamental physical level, there is no brain, or heart, or higher level sets, but only fundamental quantum particles individually interacting with each other; the brain, as well as any other biological organ, is only a subjective mental construct that refers to a group of arbitrarily chosen quantum particles, considered as a whole.

That is only the case if you have chosen to restrict yourself conceptually to epic physicalist minimalism. As that very thing is what you are opposing, I find the choice strange.

Everything has levels of description that apply to it.

This is your fundamental mistake. The levels of descriptions are subjective cognitive constructs that require a conscious mind and exist only in a conscious mind, because consciousness is a precondition for the existence of both subjectivity and cognition. Therefore, the existence of consciousness cannot be explained as the consequence of a level of description. A logically coherent explanation (or at least justification) of the existence of consciousness requires a mind-independent reality and sets of elements are intrinsically mind-depedentent abstractions.

I was disputing your assertion that "consciousness is a precondition for the existence of both subjectivity and cognition" when it could alternatively just be the result of such things. It is circular to use that matter as a foundation of its own defence.

There is nothing remotely arbitrary about considering the brain to be a discrete object composed of brain cells.

You are wrong. The brain is a set of arbitrarily chosen particles; this is an indisputable fact. Try to give a definition of brain without introducing subjective criteria.

Noun: an organ of soft nervous tissue contained in the skull of vertebrates, functioning as the coordinating centre of sensation and intellectual and nervous activity.

You are abusing the word "arbitrary" and would not be able to furnish a definition of it that supports your assertion that the brain is an arbitrary collection.

[Age]

Then you don't have a mastery of English, or anything close to it. Nothing in that comes close to implying agreement.

Could it be a possibility that you do not have a so-called 'mastery of comprehension'.

Look, you said that you came to the opposite conclusion, to another. And, I said that human beings come to opposite conclusions, to each other.

How you cannot comprehend that what I said and wrote IS in agreement with you here I am not sure.

All of your first reply to me was one of those useless, obnoxious things to say.

Okay, thank you for clarifying. It is quite refreshing.

Every time someone disagrees with someone else on a philosophy forum, is not an invitation for some idiot from the future to say "The people back then would come to the opposite conclusions about things". That's useless and obnoxious.

I do not do 'this' every time.

I was just agreeing with you, this time, in regards to you 'coming to the opposite conclusion, to another'.

Why do you find 'this' so hard and/or so complex to just comprehend and understand here?

Also, your absolutely Wrong presumption and claim here is, what you would call, useless, and obnoxious, as well. But, at least one of our claims is True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

If you think that is how to express agreement, you haven't completed enough English classes.

Or, if it it takes you this long to just comprehend and understand agreement here, then, just maybe, you have not completed enough "english" classes, "yourself".

Please take a hint from someone who has been speaking English his entire life, and accept that the words that you said are not how to express agreement in English. Present your words to your English tutor and ask them where you went wrong.

Why? Are you not capable of writing, in "english" here, where I went wrong.

Also, and once again, your presumption here is absolutely Wrong, as well.

Have you considered seeking out 'clarity', first, before you make your assumptions?

[mmarco]

That is only the case if you have chosen to restrict yourself conceptually to epic physicalist minimalism. As that very thing is what you are opposing, I find the choice strange.

Everything has levels of description that apply to it.

This is your fundamental mistake. The levels of descriptions are subjective cognitive constructs that require a conscious mind and exist only in a conscious mind, because consciousness is a precondition for the existence of both subjectivity and cognition. Therefore, the existence of consciousness cannot be explained as the consequence of a level of description. A logically coherent explanation (or at least justification) of the existence of consciousness requires a mind-independent reality and sets of elements are intrinsically mind-depedentent abstractions.

I was disputing your assertion that "consciousness is a precondition for the existence of both subjectivity and cognition" when it could alternatively just be the result of such things. It is circular to use that matter as a foundation of its own defence.

There is nothing circular in my arguments. In fact I defined consciousness as the property of being conscious= having a mental experience. According to such definition, subjectivity and cognition implies the existence of consciousness, therefore, the existence of consciousness cannot be explained as the consequence of a level of description. A logically coherent explanation (or at least justification) of the existence of consciousness requires a mind-independent reality and sets of elements are intrinsically mind-depedentent abstractions.

There is nothing remotely arbitrary about considering the brain to be a discrete object composed of brain cells.

You are wrong. The brain is a set of arbitrarily chosen particles; this is an indisputable fact. Try to give a definition of brain without introducing subjective criteria.

Noun: an organ of soft nervous tissue contained in the skull of vertebrates, functioning as the coordinating centre of sensation and intellectual and nervous activity.

Your definition confirms my point; for example the words "nervous", "tissue", "vertebrates" are subjective/arbitrary classifications of arrangements of quantum particles. Furthemore the definiton of "centre of sensation" is self contradictory since you should first define what is the cause of the existence of a sensation, which is equivalent to explain the existence of consciousness, which is the current issue.

The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else and by considering such group as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics. It cannot be said that mental experience is a physical property of the brain if the very definition of brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, but depends on subjective criteria, generally based on mind-dependent macroscopic properties. Indeed, the laws of physics only describe interactions between fundamental particles, and not between groups of fundamental particles as a whole and the total interaction is simply the sum of the interactions between pairs of fundamental particles. Whenever we describe an interaction between groups of particles, we are using an abstraction to simplify and approximately describe the underlying physical processes. The laws of physics describe in principle all the physical processes of which brain processes consist, without defining the system "brain". The definition of the "brain" is not only unnecessary, but also inappropriate, since the "brain" is not an isolated system and there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood; when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily, without reference to the laws of physics. The brain is in fact only a subjective abstraction and therefore, any function or property ascribed to the brain does not correspond to a mind-independent property of physical reality itself, but is a mind-dependent property of the subjective conceptual model used to approximately describe the underlying microscopic physical processes.

[Flannel Jesus]

Could it be a possibility that you do not have a so-called 'mastery of comprehension'.

Look, you said that you came to the opposite conclusion, to another. And, I said that human beings come to opposite conclusions, to each other.

How you cannot comprehend that what I said and wrote IS in agreement with you here I am not sure.


Okay, thank you for clarifying. It is quite refreshing.



I do not do 'this' every time.

I was just agreeing with you, this time, in regards to you 'coming to the opposite conclusion, to another'.

Why do you find 'this' so hard and/or so complex to just comprehend and understand here?

Also, your absolutely Wrong presumption and claim here is, what you would call, useless, and obnoxious, as well. But, at least one of our claims is True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

If you think that is how to express agreement, you haven't completed enough English classes.

Or, if it it takes you this long to just comprehend and understand agreement here, then, just maybe, you have not completed enough "english" classes, "yourself".

Please take a hint from someone who has been speaking English his entire life, and accept that the words that you said are not how to express agreement in English. Present your words to your English tutor and ask them where you went wrong.

Why? Are you not capable of writing, in "english" here, where I went wrong.

Also, and once again, your presumption here is absolutely Wrong, as well.

Have you considered seeking out 'clarity', first, before you make your assumptions?

You went wrong in writing the words you wrote, instead of just saying you agree with my position. But I'm not trained to help non-English writers write English better, so you should seek assistance from a tutor who is.

[FlashDangerpants]

The brain is a set of arbitrarily chosen particles; this is an indisputable fact.

I dispute this nonsense on the basis that you abuse the word "arbitrary".

[mmarco]

The brain is a set of arbitrarily chosen particles; this is an indisputable fact.

I dispute this nonsense on the basis that you abuse the word "arbitrary".

I do not abuse the word "arbitrary"; arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible, for example more than one possible classification or description.
I think our conversation has become repetitive and I see no reason to continue. You should read my initial post more carefully and try to understand it.

Best regards.

[FlashDangerpants]

I also think you should probably just discuss your theory with Age.