Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 9:54 pm I already have been through this question. I think that there are the laws of physics . . .

Right, and you don't believe that they're just a way that people think about how physical phenomena "behave." Thus, you're a realist on the laws of physics--you believe that laws of physics exist, and that they're independent of persons' minds.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 11:08 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 9:54 pm I already have been through this question. I think that there are the laws of physics . . .

Right, and you don't believe that they're just a way that people think about how physical phenomena "behave."

Matter behaves. Matter has properties. The behaviour of matter can be formulated in terms of the properties of matter. This could be understood abstractly by an inteligent agent.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 11:08 pm Thus, you're a realist on the laws of physics--you believe that laws of physics exist, and that they're independent of persons' minds.

There are at least two minds. I don't have any argument for more minds.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 9:48 pm I think you didn't understand my comment. Again, could you (conscious phenomena) possibly affect the motions of electrons in your brain?

The point is that, consistent with materialism, matter affects conscious processes, while conscious processes have no effect on matter. So, matter is quite relevant for conscious processes.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 9:48 pm Again, could you affect the electrons of your brain? If yes, how?

I already refuted your argument that there's no direct relation between our material brain and the conscious processes of that brain. Your argument is that conscious processes cannot alter matter, therefore it is irrelevant to matter, but to show a relation between matter and consciousness all that is needed is that matter affects consciousness, which is what actually happens. And one example of this is when the biological organism that carries the conscious brain ceases to operate, dies, immediately turning off consciousness as well. No one has seen consciousness in a dead organism.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 9:48 pm I am talking about single water only. You are adding the consciousness and sensory system of an agent to the equation.

I am talking about simple materials: water and salt. No mention whatsoever of consciousness and sensory systems of an agent.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 11:14 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 11:08 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 9:54 pm I already have been through this question. I think that there are the laws of physics . . .

Right, and you don't believe that they're just a way that people think about how physical phenomena "behave."

Matter behaves. Matter has properties. The behaviour of matter can be formulated in terms of the properties of matter. This could be understood abstractly by an inteligent agent.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 11:08 pm Thus, you're a realist on the laws of physics--you believe that laws of physics exist, and that they're independent of persons' minds.

There are at least two minds. I don't have any argument for more minds.

So as a realist on the laws of physics, what do you believe that the laws are, exactly?

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 2:48 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 9:48 pm I think you didn't understand my comment. Again, could you (conscious phenomena) possibly affect the motions of electrons in your brain?

The point is that, consistent with materialism, matter affects conscious processes, while conscious processes have no effect on matter. So, matter is quite relevant for conscious processes.

The point I am making is the conscious phenomena do not affect matter. Therefore it is irrelevant.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 2:48 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 9:48 pm Again, could you affect the electrons of your brain? If yes, how?

I already refuted your argument that there's no direct relation between our material brain and the conscious processes of that brain. Your argument is that conscious processes cannot alter matter, therefore it is irrelevant to matter, but to show a relation between matter and consciousness all that is needed is that matter affects consciousness, which is what actually happens. And one example of this is when the biological organism that carries the conscious brain ceases to operate, dies, immediately turning off consciousness as well. No one has seen consciousness in a dead organism.

I am not talking about whether consciousness is an emergent property of the matter process here. I am arguing that consciousness is irrelevant.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 2:48 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 9:48 pm I am talking about single water only. You are adding the consciousness and sensory system of an agent to the equation.

I am talking about simple materials: water and salt. No mention whatsoever of consciousness and sensory systems of an agent.

If you are talking about water then you should know that the properties of water, mass, spin, and charge distribution are a function of the properties of hydrogen and oxygen.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 11:00 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 11:14 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 11:08 pm
Right, and you don't believe that they're just a way that people think about how physical phenomena "behave."

Matter behaves. Matter has properties. The behaviour of matter can be formulated in terms of the properties of matter. This could be understood abstractly by an inteligent agent.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 11:08 pm Thus, you're a realist on the laws of physics--you believe that laws of physics exist, and that they're independent of persons' minds.

There are at least two minds. I don't have any argument for more minds.

So as a realist on the laws of physics, what do you believe that the laws are, exactly?

I already mention that. Matter behaves. The matter has properties. The behavior of matter can be formulated in terms of the properties of matter, the so-called laws of nature.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:20 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 11:00 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 11:14 pm
Matter behaves. Matter has properties. The behaviour of matter can be formulated in terms of the properties of matter. This could be understood abstractly by an inteligent agent.


There are at least two minds. I don't have any argument for more minds.

So as a realist on the laws of physics, what do you believe that the laws are, exactly?

I already mention that. Matter behaves. The matter has properties. The behavior of matter can be formulated in terms of the properties of matter, the so-called laws of nature.

Sure. So do you see the laws as existing uniquely in each bit of matter?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:46 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:20 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 11:00 am
So as a realist on the laws of physics, what do you believe that the laws are, exactly?

I already mention that. Matter behaves. The matter has properties. The behavior of matter can be formulated in terms of the properties of matter, the so-called laws of nature.

Sure. So do you see the laws as existing uniquely in each bit of matter?

True.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 9:03 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:46 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:20 pm
I already mention that. Matter behaves. The matter has properties. The behavior of matter can be formulated in terms of the properties of matter, the so-called laws of nature.

Sure. So do you see the laws as existing uniquely in each bit of matter?

True.

Great. So no two laws would be identical then? Each bit of matter would essentially have a non-identical law to other bits of matter, no?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 10:00 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 9:03 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:46 pm
Sure. So do you see the laws as existing uniquely in each bit of matter?

True.

Great. So no two laws would be identical then? Each bit of matter would essentially have a non-identical law to other bits of matter, no?

By each law of physics, I mean a formula that puts partial constrain on the motion of an object. You however need a set of laws in order to properly constrain the motion of the object to be deterministic.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 10:58 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 10:00 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 9:03 pm
True.

Great. So no two laws would be identical then? Each bit of matter would essentially have a non-identical law to other bits of matter, no?

By each law of physics, I mean a formula that puts partial constrain on the motion of an object. You however need a set of laws in order to properly constrain the motion of the object to be deterministic.

Okay, but a formula that's a property of each bit of matter, right?--where each bit of matter would have a non-identical formula to other bits of matter?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 12:03 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 10:58 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 10:00 pm

Great. So no two laws would be identical then? Each bit of matter would essentially have a non-identical law to other bits of matter, no?

By each law of physics, I mean a formula that puts partial constrain on the motion of an object. You however need a set of laws in order to properly constrain the motion of the object to be deterministic.

Okay, but a formula that's a property of each bit of matter, right?

Matter behaves according to a set of formulas, so-called the laws of physics.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 10:00 pm --where each bit of matter would have a non-identical formula to other bits of matter?

Matter just behaves deterministically. It does not have any formula. What do you mean by non-identical formula?

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:18 pm The point I am making is the conscious phenomena do not affect matter. Therefore it is irrelevant.

I agree is irrelevant to your point. And your point, nothing to do with materialism.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:18 pm I am not talking about whether consciousness is an emergent property of the matter process here. I am arguing that consciousness is irrelevant.

Again, irrelevant to your point.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:18 pmIf you are talking about water then you should know that the properties of water, mass, spin, and charge distribution are a function of the properties of hydrogen and oxygen.

The physical properties of water are not the same as the physical properties of hydrogen and the physical properties of oxygen. For a clear, basic understanding of what "physical property" refers to, check the references provided before.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 1:19 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:18 pm The point I am making is the conscious phenomena do not affect matter. Therefore it is irrelevant.

I agree is irrelevant to your point. And your point, nothing to do with materialism.

It has. Something like consciousness is irrelevant in materialism. How does possibly matter process leads to consciousness which corresponds to reality to such fantastic precision.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 1:19 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:18 pm I am not talking about whether consciousness is an emergent property of the matter process here. I am arguing that consciousness is irrelevant.

Again, irrelevant to your point.

It is relevant.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 1:19 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:18 pmIf you are talking about water then you should know that the properties of water, mass, spin, and charge distribution are a function of the properties of hydrogen and oxygen.

The physical properties of water are not the same as the physical properties of hydrogen and the physical properties of oxygen. For a clear, basic understanding of what "physical property" refers to, check the references provided before.

Can you name a property of water where it is not reducible to the properties of hydrogen and oxygen?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 12:53 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 12:03 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 10:58 pm
By each law of physics, I mean a formula that puts partial constrain on the motion of an object. You however need a set of laws in order to properly constrain the motion of the object to be deterministic.

Okay, but a formula that's a property of each bit of matter, right?

Matter behaves according to a set of formulas, so-called the laws of physics.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 10:00 pm --where each bit of matter would have a non-identical formula to other bits of matter?

Matter just behaves deterministically. It does not have any formula. What do you mean by non-identical formula?

You seem to be losing your thread of thought already. Above, in trying to clarify (for both of us it seems) just what your ontological view is about this stuff, I asked:

"So do you see the laws as existing uniquely in each bit of matter?"

And you answered "true."

But now it seems like you're backing away from that.