New Discovery

[Belinda]

University is not an abstraction imo. An abstraction can be said to have no physical referent, while a university is a collection of physical things.

The bricks and mortar buildings could have many uses such as growing mushrooms or illegal marijuana, or housing refugees. But the buildings would not be a university without people there seeking knowledge and education

Bad example.
Btw I'm not doing the reification fallacy on will: you or you two are doing the abstraction fallacy on it.

I can't force you to seek any further so be it.

[Atla]

The bricks and mortar buildings could have many uses such as growing mushrooms or illegal marijuana, or housing refugees. But the buildings would not be a university without people there seeking knowledge and education

Bad example.
Btw I'm not doing the reification fallacy on will: you or you two are doing the abstraction fallacy on it.

I can't force you to seek any further so be it.

You can, but not if you're not giving any pointers.

[Belinda]

The mind is literally a part of the head. And a part of the mind is the will which is literally a part of the head.
Or if you're a dualist then they are literally things in "mental space".

If it wouldn't exist then it wouldn't do anything and it would be insane to even talk about it.

We can speak of abstract things without them needing to exist per se, no? In the argument Belinda referenced, the visitor tours the colleges that form Oxford University such as Balliol and Merton and maybe a library or something, I dont remember the details. At the end of the tour he asks when he will see the university. The university is of course an abstraction laid over the colleges and libraries etc. Surely mind can be like that, and so can will?

University is not an abstraction imo. An abstraction can be said to have no physical referent, while a university is a collection of physical things.

As a matter of fact there is at least one university with no buildings at all.The physical referent of it is its people who are engaged in discovering and furthering kowledge and understanding.

[Belinda]

Bad example.
Btw I'm not doing the reification fallacy on will: you or you two are doing the abstraction fallacy on it.

I can't force you to seek any further so be it.

You can, but not if you're not giving any pointers.

I do my best.

[Atla]

Will is a psychological mechanism in the head (an object probably consisting of brain matter and EM fields etc.) that initiates, facilitates certain behaviors.

If it's entirely abstract then IT CAN'T DO ANYTHING, it can't initiate, facilitate any behaviours. It doesn't exist at all. It doesn't even make sense to talk about it.

I don't know how else to express it..

[peacegirl]

Belinda, you talk so much about correcting words yet you without a thought spew a response that is false by saying that this work is unsalable. How do you know this? Who are you to determine what is salable and what isn’t? What is wrong with your ridiculous estimation? Can you not see your hypocritical nature or do I have to embarrass you?

[FlashDangerpants]

LOL, policegirl is going to embarrass Belinda by proving her book has sold 7 copies so it isn't unsaleable.

[Belinda]

Will is a psychological mechanism in the head (an object probably consisting of brain matter and EM fields etc.) that facilitates certain behaviors.

If it's entirely abstract then IT CAN'T DO ANYTHING, it can't facilitate any behaviours. It doesn't exist at all. It doesn't even make sense to talk about it.

I don't know how else to express it..

I don't object to "psychological mechanism in the head (an object probably consisting of brain matter and EM fields etc.) that facilitates certain behaviors." What I object to is making a noun out of a process such as you describe. I really do urge you to ask ChatGPT to tell you the history of the reified usage of the word 'will' ,with reference to Augustine.

[peacegirl]

LOL, policegirl is going to embarrass Belinda by proving her book has sold 7 copies so it isn't unsaleable.

This is an example of protecting the group. You’re busted Flash even can’t own up to it. I know it’s hard. Srsly, who do you think you are to say this work is not salable? Are you a soothsayer?

[Atla]

Will is a psychological mechanism in the head (an object probably consisting of brain matter and EM fields etc.) that facilitates certain behaviors.

If it's entirely abstract then IT CAN'T DO ANYTHING, it can't facilitate any behaviours. It doesn't exist at all. It doesn't even make sense to talk about it.

I don't know how else to express it..

I don't object to "psychological mechanism in the head (an object probably consisting of brain matter and EM fields etc.) that facilitates certain behaviors." What I object to is making a noun out of a process such as you describe. I really do urge you to ask ChatGPT to tell you the history of the reified usage of the word 'will' ,with reference to Augustine.

'Processes' in the real world are also made of stuff. Please just tell me where the error is.

[Belinda]

Belinda, you talk so much about correcting words yet you without a thought spew a response that is false by saying that this work is unsalable. How do you know this? Who are you to determine what is salable and what isn’t? What is wrong with your ridiculous estimation? Can you not see your hypocritical nature or do I have to embarrass you?

If Lessans' book were commercially successful you would not be writing to this forum as publishers are so much better at publicity than you are.

[Atla]

Thought and emotion are also nouns.. so what??

[Belinda]

Will is a psychological mechanism in the head (an object probably consisting of brain matter and EM fields etc.) that facilitates certain behaviors.

If it's entirely abstract then IT CAN'T DO ANYTHING, it can't facilitate any behaviours. It doesn't exist at all. It doesn't even make sense to talk about it.

I don't know how else to express it..

I don't object to "psychological mechanism in the head (an object probably consisting of brain matter and EM fields etc.) that facilitates certain behaviors." What I object to is making a noun out of a process such as you describe. I really do urge you to ask ChatGPT to tell you the history of the reified usage of the word 'will' ,with reference to Augustine.

'Processes' in the real world are also made of stuff. Please just tell me where the error is.

The large language model of AI is better than I at explicit language.

ChatGPT

Reification is when we treat an abstract process as if it were a concrete thing. For example, “people love each other” (a process) becomes “Love” (a thing).

If you see the world mainly as entities, then processes get turned into “things” so we can talk about them easily. If you see it mainly as processes, then even “things” like a river are understood as ongoing activity.

Which is better depends on the goal: entities make talk clearer, processes capture reality’s constant change. A balanced view is that entities are stable patterns of process.

[peacegirl]

I don't object to "psychological mechanism in the head (an object probably consisting of brain matter and EM fields etc.) that facilitates certain behaviors." What I object to is making a noun out of a process such as you describe. I really do urge you to ask ChatGPT to tell you the history of the reified usage of the word 'will' ,with reference to Augustine.

'Processes' in the real world are also made of stuff. Please just tell me where the error is.

The large language model of AI is better than I at explicit language.

No it isn’t. It’s a machine. You are in love with an algorithm. YOU SAID THIS BOOK WAS UNSALABLE AND YOU SAID WITH SUCH AUTHORITY. NOW DEFEND IT OR YOU'RE THE PROBLEM.

[FlashDangerpants]

Will is a psychological mechanism in the head (an object probably consisting of brain matter and EM fields etc.) that initiates, facilitates certain behaviors.

If it's entirely abstract then IT CAN'T DO ANYTHING, it can't initiate, facilitate any behaviours. It doesn't exist at all. It doesn't even make sense to talk about it.

I don't know how else to express it..

Deterministically, the will doesn't initiate shit. It is a bottle neck that other causes pass through.

We can speak meaningfully of non-referring things, even when the term is a definite description. The second to last demon in Hell for instance, or the present King of France, who is of course bald.

Nonetheless there is a perfectly good set of philosophies that do away with folk-psychology and dismiss talk of psychological nouns altogether on much the same basis that you do there. Most obviously the eliminative materialists such as Paul Churchland.

My favourite youtubist has covered the topic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqOeNffek3g