Philosophy Now Forum

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 1:32 am

Dimebag wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 11:37 am I didn’t go into the nature of the self/perceiver, and it’s relationship to all of this, because it tends to make things more complicated, but since you asked, I will elucidate as best I can.

The organism has awareness. This is as close as we can get to the subject. Awareness is not an entity. It is more of a faculty, or even facilitator.

Awareness is the common thread between all elements, known and unknown, between felt intentions, perceptions, and resulting behaviours, and indeed thoughts.

Awareness does not produce thoughts, nor intentions. Awareness, could be analogous to a “public accessway” for all information. It allows the transfer of information relating to perceptions, to systems involved in setting up behaviours. Not all information must pass through it to be used, some information can easily pass between perception and behaviour, if the perceptual information is predictable enough, and the required behaviours are simple enough. But, awareness is there ready and waiting to accept anything which goes beyond this simple stimulus response system. As such, awareness is the common feed to the rest of the system, especially the conceptual, and thus, thought.

But, again, awareness is passive in this respect, it allows broad communication.

Of course, because there is a need to represent the organism, both to itself, and in relation to the world, and other possible organisms, there must be a representation of the organism itself, as producer of action, as sufferer of pains, and seeker of pleasures, as producer of thoughts etc. This is a representation, but, awareness essentially “wears” this “self system”, and thus, takes on the role of agent, yet, it is purely symbolic. But, the self system is still effective in producing and limiting behaviours depending on the situation. The self system is very much tied up to the conceptual side of things, and takes on certain conceptual patterns, which might be called beliefs. The self system is not wholly self contained nor self generated, it exists as part of the broader system, and thus, all the controlling factors and limitations it imposes are determined and caused.

The self system also entails the bodily perception, and thus is strongly tied to the organism. Thus the self system aims to ensure the organism remains in favourable conditions.

The true knower of all knowledge, is itself the knowledge. There is no knower separate from the known. But, the self system assumes the role of knower, again, for purposes of working as a social being, to communicate concepts to others and to itself, that is, to its own conceptual system.

I would say, when a series of concepts arises, and becomes translated into thought, and thus knowledge, the self system recognises this knowledge, and assumes the role of knower, but it is a false knower of something which itself is knowing. Again, I explained prior why this is necessary.

I do agree with a lot you say (eg that "There is no knower separate from the known"),

Although there is truth in this, there is still a LOT MORE to explain, and understand, in how this is ACTUALLY True. However, there is still a Knower, with a label, which VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY describes and explains this 'Thing', which KNOWS ALL, PERFECTLY.

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 1:32 am but your description seems very complicated...
It's a bit like someone asking you to describe a car - you can either simply state: "It has four wheels, seats, a motor and a steering wheel - one can use it to drive from A to B" - or you can go into all sorts of details about the technical makeup, its specific qualities and use cases etc etc... while the first explanation makes it clear what a car is good for, the second explanation might be interesting for a technician, but the average person might still have no clue what a car might even look like or what it can be used for...

Here is a good reminder of how to obtain a description, or clarity, of some thing. Description, and clarity, can only be given, more accurately, AFTER people ask 'you' a specific question.

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 1:32 am I think – especially when discussing topics of awareness/consciousness, perception and thought - we tend to get lost in complicated theories rather than stating it in all its simplicity. Simplicity comes from describing what is actually directly experienced:

Quite simply, WHY 'you', human beings, find it difficult and/or complicated to explain, describe, and/or understand topics of awareness/consciousness, perception and thought is because 'you' still do NOT YET FULLY KNOW who and what thee 'I' IS, which is what IS actually directly experiencing. Or, in other words, 'you' still do NOT YET KNOW who, and what, thee Awareness IS.

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 1:32 am I do not experience a “public accessway” for all information. I simply experience color, sound, smell, taste, touch and thought - that's all. While I do experience thought, I do not experience what conceptual thought might be "creating" (eg: any sort of object or thing - including a self or other; any sort of division, border or separation).

Until who and what thee 'I' ACTUALLY IS is known and understood, FULLY, who and/or what, do 'you' think, creates, or causes, the behavior of the human body?

If conceptual thought is NOT creating an illusioned, or a real, perception of 'self', division, border, or separation, then WHY do 'you', human beings, INSIST that these 'things' ACTUALLY exist? Or, for those who do NOT insist these 'things' ACTUALLY exist, then WHY is the 'I' word used, like 'It' is a separate self?

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 1:32 am But, yes, sure, a separate, personal self is something that seems necessary for social interaction - but when we look for this self in our own direct experience (or rather: when simply observing the flow of thought and perceptions)... it is nowhere to be found... (by the way: we could also call this silent witness: "awareness" - it "exists" (not as a thing) as long as there is experiencing happening)

If there is NOT 'experiencing happening', then does 'it' exist, (as a thing)?

Also, did 'you' notice 'you' have used the words 'we' and 'our own', which infers, or at least implies, there is a 'self'?

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 1:32 am Finding out that the separate self is actually not real

Does saying, "Finding out that the separate self is actually not real", really make sense?

Saying, "Finding out that 'the separate self' ...", infers that there was a 'separate self' to begin with, which, obviously, there never is.

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 1:32 am (at least not based on directly experienced "reality") the question arises: Is this self really necessary for social interaction or is it only something we believe in and that we could do without?

The reason 'you', human beings, believe there is a 'self', and separated ones at that, is because of, and due to, the exact same reason 'you' come to believe anything. 'you' were taught 'this', was true, during your past experiences.

And, when the word 'we' is used, like above, does that word refer to individual different and separate 'selves', thee One unified 'Self', or some thing 'else'?

By the way, once that 'self' has been gotten rid of, or let go of, then the sooner the better. 'We' can then move on progressively and sufficiently towards a much better existence.

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 1:32 am Something that is not more than a persistent thought stating "I like/dislike/love/hate/want..."?
What happens when we stop to believe? Will "we" die? Or will we actually live better once the belief is seen through...?

WHY do 'you', adult human beings, even bother believing ANY thing?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 4:20 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 9:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 2:31 pm
I can't reconcile these two claims, RC.

I'm sure you can't. That's because you assume the physical attributes of perceivable existence are all the possible natural attributes there are.

Dead wrong. I don't assume that at all.

You say, on the one hand, that consciousness is not supernatural, but a few sentences later, that there are consciousness properties that are not physical. How can you get both? It seems to me that if something is real-but-not-merely-physical, it's what we really mean definitionally by "super-natural." ...

I'm sorry I have no idea what you mean. If you say you don't assume at all that the physical attributes are all the possible natural attributes why couldn't anything that was, "not-merely-physical", (having non-physical attributes) not be perfectly natural?If you are not equating the meaning of the words, "natural," and, "physical," then I have no idea what your objection is.

All I'm saying is that the physical attributes are not the only attributes of the natural existence. What I mean is that there is a perfectly natural, ontological, or material existence independent of human knowledge or consciousness that has the attributes of the physical, life, and consciousness. The physical is all of that natural existence that can be directly consciously perceived and is studied by the physical sciences. Life and consciousness can only be known directly by those organisms with those attributes, but cannot be directly perceived or studied by the physical sciences. Thus, there is a hierarchy of ontological existence, physical entities (with all the physical properties), organisms (entities with all the physical properties and the additional property of life), and conscious organisms ( entities with all the physical and life properties, and the additional property of consciousness). All perfectly natural.

I cannot see how it can be insisted that either life or consciousness must be, "supernatural," unless it is insisted the only natural properties of existence are the physical properties; which, of course, is exactly what a physicalist insists. If you insist it, you are a physicalist as well--at least in half your dualistic view of reality.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 2:12 pm I'm sorry I have no idea what you mean. If you say you don't assume at all that the physical attributes are all the possible natural attributes why couldn't anything that was, "not-merely-physical", (having non-physical attributes) not be perfectly natural?

I see the problem. You're using the word "natural" to mean "real." But the word "supernatural" does not imply "super-real." It means, "not-physical-but-real." (Or at least, " not physical but believed/claimed to be real.")

For example, Cambridge defines it as "caused by forces that cannot be explained by science." Oxford says, "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." (Notice the use of the word "nature" in the latter.) And "Naturalism" is the belief that there is no real thing that exists beyond such understandings and laws.

It appears you and I agree that there are things that materials and science cannot explain, but are nevertheless real. That might sound necessarily spooky, at first, like belief in metaphysical beings; but not when we consider that it includes such things as rationality, choice, identity, consciousness, mind, logic, mathematical quantities, and abstractions....then we can understand your claim that such things are "natural," meaning no more than "they occur for everyone, automatically, as part of reality." And in that much, I would agree.

Age wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 5:01 am Is there ANY evidence that ANY thing is supernatural? Remembering the fact that 'we' have NOT agreed upon and accepted a definition for the word 'supernatural', YET.

What you agree to is irrelevant. If you choose to understand what I mean you will have to accept my definition of the words I use as I use them, however you choose to define them.

What I mean by, "supernatural," is any supposed thing (phenomenon) for which there is no evidence whatsoever, that must therefore just be, "assumed," or based on some supposed mystical source of knowledge requiring neither evidence or reason to learn.

All that is called supernatural is fiction. It exists only as imagined or invented things like centaurs, the phoenix, and Utopia. The supernatural is that which does not exist at all except as concepts for these imaginary unreal things. God's and spirits are the most common of these, "supernatural," fictions.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 2:13 pm how is that different from saying, "there is no evidence that consciousness is physical?"

That is different because 'we' KNOW what physical is, or refers to, while 'we' do NOT YET KNOW what is 'supernatural', nor what that word even refers to, to you.[/quote]
Speak for yourself. I've already told you exactly what the supernatural is. It is every fake, made up, imaginary, fictional thing human's choose to claim real ontological existence for.

So there is no difference, because there is no evidence that consciousness is, "physical." It has no physical properties whatsoever. It cannot be perceived (seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted) in any way, can never be examined or demonstrated as any physical phenomenon can. It can only be known by conscious organisms themselves, not by perceiving it, but by being conscious, just as one cannot see (or in any other way perceive) their seeing but know they see by seeing.

Other's consciousness cannot be known at all, although there is no reason to doubt the consciousness of anyone who claims to be conscious. Why would an entity that was not conscious lie about it or even know what there was to lie about? If someone claims they are not conscious, I take their word for it.

Age wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 5:01 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 2:13 pm I would certainly have no objection to the discovery of some aspect of physical existence that explained consciousness, but without such a discovery, there is simply no evidence that what are regarded as the principles that described the nature of physical existence can account for the phenomenon of consciousness.

The reason I regard physicalism as a form of superstition, is because it assumes, that the physical properties are all the properties reality can have, just as the mystic assume there must be a supernatural basis for consciousness. Essentially, physicalism, as I understand it, is the view that all that can be is what organisms with perception can perceive, while ignoring the fact that life and perception cannot be perceived and have no physical properties. It is essentially a truncated view of reality.

Although, those with a 'physicalism' view, hold a belief that mat well be proven False, so to the view and belief that life and perception cannot be perceived and has NO physical properties may well be proven False, as well.

WHY do you think or believe that life and perception cannot be perceived, especially considering the fact that some have ALREADY perceived life and perception?

I have no idea what kind of illusions or delusions one might have to make a claim like that, but I know it's nonsense. If something can be perceived, it must have some perceivable attribute or attributes, like color, or shape, or size, or odor, or taste, texture, or weight. Whatever such people are claiming to perceive and calling it consciousness is either a mistake in meaning or some kind of mental defect. One can see, hear, feel, smell and taste, but no one can see their seeing, hear their hearing, feel their feeling, smell their smelling or taste their tasting. Consciousness has no perceivable qualities.

Age wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 5:01 am Do you have actual proof that life and consciousness have no physical properties?

Yes!

Age wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 5:01 am Also, the way you have written here implies that you KNOW what the proper and correct view of reality is, is this correct?

I know what existence is, what reality is, and what the fundamental nature of ontological existence is, but, since I am certain what you and others mean by the terms, "existence," "reality," and, "ontology," will not be one I recognize as objectively rational, it is doubtful you could understand my view. If you are really interested I can point you to my articles on metaphysics and ontology that explain my view.

Age wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 5:01 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 2:13 pm There is nothing supernatural about life and consciousness.

Does ANY here in this forum think or believe that there is some 'thing', which is, so called, "supernatural" about life and/or consciousness?

Are you serious? Every mystic and theist believes that life and consciousness are supernatural.

Age wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 5:01 am If yes, then how do 'you' define the word 'supernatural', here?

Already have, above.

Age wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 5:01 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 2:13 pm They are perfectly natural attributes, like all the physical attributes, in addition to the physical attributes. Simply stated, consciouness and what conciousness is conscious of cannot be the same thing.

Some BELIEVE the EXACT OPPOSITE.

Lots of idiots believe lots of things that are not true. It's irrelevant.

Age wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 5:01 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 2:13 pm I'm not sure why physicalists are so afraid that there might actually be in this world any properties other than physical properties.

They are so afraid because if this is true, then that goes against their very beliefs, and in essence their very "self", as well.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 2:13 pm That life and consciousness are not physical properties certainly does no damage to any physical principles and are only manifest in a tiny fraction of physical entities. If those rare living conscious organisms did not exist, nothing would matter. Nothing matters to the mere physical.

As far as I'm concerned, from a physicalist point of view, nothing does matter. But, if that's your view, I'll not try to convince you otherwise.

Could 'you' be 'convinced' that life and consciousness is actually made of matter/ the physical?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I've already answered this question, but the question, as put here, is absurd. Consciousness is not, "made," of anything. It's not an entity or substance, it is a property or characteristic, a phenomenon that only exists as the property of living organisms.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 3:07 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 2:12 pm I'm sorry I have no idea what you mean. If you say you don't assume at all that the physical attributes are all the possible natural attributes why couldn't anything that was, "not-merely-physical", (having non-physical attributes) not be perfectly natural?

I see the problem. You're using the word "natural" to mean "real." But the word "supernatural" does not imply "super-real." It means, "not-physical-but-real." (Or at least, " not physical but believed/claimed to be real.")

For example, Cambridge defines it as "caused by forces that cannot be explained by science." Oxford says, "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." (Notice the use of the word "nature" in the latter.) And "Naturalism" is the belief that there is no real thing that exists beyond such understandings and laws.

It appears you and I agree that there are things that materials and science cannot explain, but are nevertheless real. That might sound necessarily spooky, at first, like belief in metaphysical beings; but not when we consider that it includes such things as rationality, choice, identity, consciousness, mind, logic, mathematical quantities, and abstractions....then we can understand your claim that such things are "natural," meaning no more than "they occur for everyone, automatically, as part of reality." And in that much, I would agree.

Well that is very gratifying. You seem to have understood my view exactly, and have illustraed my problem with trying to explain it to those who simply accept what they have been taught.

Even Cambridge is a little sloppy. It is not just, "forces," that cannot be explained by science, but any phenomenon that cannot be explained by the, "physical," sciences that are usually referred to as, "supernatural," and, scientific principles are referred to as, "laws of nature," which assumes that nature includes only what can be studied by the physical sciences. {I say, "physical," science because there is so much that is called science today that is not science at all.]

There is no principle that determines how words must be defined (except that they must identify what actually is], so if, the physical is equated with natural, if there is anything that exists that is not physical, what does one call it? Since I regard life, consciousness, and the human mind as existing in the same way as all physical existence, but not themselves physical, I must either use the word nature to include those aspects of existence I do not regard as physical, or invent a new word which includes the physical, life, consciousness, and mind, as existing ontologically--not just real, but not contingent on anything else. Generally, I use the word, "material," for that collective term, or simply ontological.

You have also pointed out another aspect of real existence that physicalists never seem to be able to understand--the whole universe of that which exists epistemologically, all knowledge methods (language, math, logic), all knowledge, all literature, history, geography, science, even the, "news," which all have no physical existence at all. The certainly exist, and are real, though not physical or ontological, because their existence IS contingent on human consciousness.

I know your understanding of some of these things includes a supernatural view, believing existence itself is contingent, which we'll never agree on, though I understand your view, and appreciate that you seem to understand my view, however much we disagree.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 4:14 pm There is no principle that determines how words must be defined...

“When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less. ' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things. ' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.” --Alice In Wonderland.

What makes that incident so wonderfully goofy is that what Dumpty says is flatly untrue. His words, being vehicles of communication to others, cannot possibly mean "just what I choose." If nobody else has the same definition, then nothing Dumpty says makes sense to anyone. Dumpty gets to be "master" of precisely nothing.

There actually are principles that determine how words must be defined. They're called "common usage," or "Standard English." (These can gradually morph, but only slowly and by common re-usage or re-definition, not at will). If one departs from them, one will have to use other words, in common usage or Standard English, to explain how one's own definition isn't the same as everybody else's. And there's no escape from that regression of necessities.

So, for example, if I suddenly decide the word "bathtub" is the same as "convertible," I'd better explain to you that I've made a departure from ordinary usage, or I'll cause you considerable confusion....and perhaps some embarrassment as well.

What this means is it's not exactly true to say there are NO such principles. In fact, even to tell me your definition of "nature," you're having to use words we BOTH understand. And if you don't, you end up not telling anybody anything, because nobody can receive it. What there are, are slowly-and-consensually-flexing principles. Any sudden and unannounced departure from these principles just produces nonsense.

...if, the physical is equated with natural,

It is, in much of the common usage. Your usage is not entirely outside the scope of possible definitions, but it somewhat unusual and requires further explanation to be understood in common parlance or Standard English. At least it requires to be explained as distinct from the definitions of Cambridge and Oxford.

It was our mutual failure to define what you meant by "nature" that caused the momentary apparent disagreement...now solved.

if there is anything that exists that is not physical, what does one call it?

Words like "supernatural" or "metaphysical" are often employed for that. Others say "spiritual" or "abstract," or something else. But "natural" is unfortunately ambiguous, so we'd be better to coin some term for that realm other than "the natural," I think.

You have also pointed out another aspect of real existence that physicalists never seem to be able to understand--the whole universe of that which exists epistemologically, all knowledge methods (language, math, logic), all knowledge, all literature, history, geography, science, even the, "news," which all have no physical existence at all. The certainly exist, and are real, though not physical or ontological, because their existence IS contingent on human consciousness.

Well, yes...but Physicalists or Naturalists often deny the real existence of consciousness as well...ironically, depending themselves on their own consciousness and ours, when they do. But you and I can see past that, I'm sure.

I understand your view, and appreciate that you seem to understand my view, however much we disagree.

I never set as a rule that I have to agree with somebody to like them. I'm fine with our somewhat combative but reasonable relationship. I don't dislike you at all.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 2:12 pm All I'm saying is that the physical attributes are not the only attributes of the natural existence. What I mean is that there is a perfectly natural, ontological, or material existence independent of human knowledge or consciousness that has the attributes of the physical, life, and consciousness. The physical is all of that natural existence that can be directly consciously perceived and is studied by the physical sciences. Life and consciousness can only be known directly by those organisms with those attributes, but cannot be directly perceived or studied by the physical sciences. Thus, there is a hierarchy of ontological existence, physical entities (with all the physical properties), organisms (entities with all the physical properties and the additional property of life), and conscious organisms ( entities with all the physical and life properties, and the additional property of consciousness). All perfectly natural.

"Physical" doesn't conventionally refer to "what can be directly perceived."

Neutrinos, gravity, heat transference, etc. are definitely physical, but they're not things that can be directly perceived.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 2:25 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 9:23 pm Can you move the electrons of your brain?

What are you asking? When you move your head you move all the electrons in every atom of your head, including those in your brain.

Perhaps you are asking how consciousness determines physical behavior, demanding some simple answer. There is an answer, but it is not simple, but I will point out you are making a baseless assumption. You have no idea how anything moves any electron.

So let me ask you a question. How does one electron repel another electron? No one knows. Science can only describe the phenomenon, in terms of, "fields," but what a field actually is, no one really knows. Since we don't know how electrons cause other electrons to move at the physical level, it's a bit of stretch to insist one explain how consciousness moves electrons, isn't it?

How does one mass cause another mass to move toward it? It is known masses attract one another and that behavior is called gravity, but what gravity is and how it works is not really known. we don't know how one mass makes another mass move. It is enough for science to simply accept it does what it does.

How does consciousness cause an electron, or atom, or anything else to move? Probably in some way analagous to gravity, electromagnetism, or electron charge, but like all of physics, it is enough to know it happens.

I was asking whether consciousness can affect electrons. For example, you need to send a signal from a part of your brain to your finger if you want to move your finger. The location in the brain is unique and you don't know where it is the exact location. How consciously you can affect the electrons of your brain in order to move one finger.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 4:34 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 4:14 pm There is no principle that determines how words must be defined...

“When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less. ' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things. ' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.” --Alice In Wonderland.

What makes that incident so wonderfully goofy is that what Dumpty says is flatly untrue. His words, being vehicles of communication to others, cannot possibly mean "just what I choose." If nobody else has the same definition, then nothing Dumpty says makes sense to anyone. Dumpty gets to be "master" of precisely nothing.

There actually are principles that determine how words must be defined. They're called "common usage," or "Standard English." (These can gradually morph, but only slowly and by common re-usage or re-definition, not at will). If one departs from them, one will have to use other words, in common usage or Standard English, to explain how one's own definition isn't the same as everybody else's. And there's no escape from that regression of necessities.

So, for example, if I suddenly decide the word "bathtub" is the same as "convertible," I'd better explain to you that I've made a departure from ordinary usage, or I'll cause you considerable confusion....and perhaps some embarrassment as well.

What this means is it's not exactly true to say there are NO such principles. In fact, even to tell me your definition of "nature," you're having to use words we BOTH understand. And if you don't, you end up not telling anybody anything, because nobody can receive it. What there are, are slowly-and-consensually-flexing principles. Any sudden and unannounced departure from these principles just produces nonsense.

I'm sorry you spent all that on a mistake, and a little disingenuousness, by leaving out the most significant part of what I wrote:

There is no principle that determines how words must be defined except that they must identify what actually is.

It was not a treatise on epistemology, only a reference to the fact that how what is identified by a concept is not determined by some external law, but by whatever will do the job. If one wants to define a concept for apples, there is no principle that says how it must be done (by naming the genus, "fruit," and specifying the differences of the particular fruit, "that grow on apple tree," or by means of taxonomy, or by means of a very good description, or even a photograph. It's exactly like measurement. To measure a length one must use a commensurate unit of measure, a length, but nothing determines what particular length must be used. It is totally arbitrary.

It's misunderstanding this that enabled idiots (in both philosophy and economics) to make the absurd assertion that the discovery of black birds similar to white birds called swans in some way proved nothing was certain. The definition of swans was large white aquatic birds with long graceful necks, etc. When black birds were discovered in Australia that were similar to swans, but black in color, it was assume the definition of swans was wrong. It wasn't. Swans were exactly what they were defined to be, white birds. When the black birds were discovered a choice was required: either form a new concept for the black birds (swannois, for example) or include the black birds under the category of swans as one of two subcategories, white swans and black swans. The validity of a concept is determined solely by how well it identifies some fact of reality, within the context of present knowledge.

How most people use or misuse words has nothing to do with how words ought to be defined (shades of Wittgenstein). Since the primary purpose of language is not communication, but knowledge, one only has to be certain the words they use to think and learn are correctly and unambiguously defined. It doesn't matter if anyone else even knows any of those words. (When scientists are recording their work they have to coin and define many terms no one has ever heard of before, until they choose to publish their work.) One must know something before they can communicate it. When someone decides to communicate with someone else and must use words that the rest of society has not yet learned or may misunderstand, they can explain them if they choose to.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 4:34 pm

...if, the physical is equated with natural,

It is, in much of the common usage. Your usage is not entirely outside the scope of possible definitions, but it somewhat unusual and requires further explanation to be understood in common parlance or Standard English. At least it requires to be explained as distinct from the definitions of Cambridge and Oxford.

It was our mutual failure to define what you meant by "nature" that caused the momentary apparent disagreement...now solved.

if there is anything that exists that is not physical, what does one call it?

Words like "supernatural" or "metaphysical" are often employed for that. Others say "spiritual" or "abstract," or something else. But "natural" is unfortunately ambiguous, so we'd be better to coin some term for that realm other than "the natural," I think.

I certainly wouldn't use either, "metaphysical," or, "abstract." Metaphysics is technically a branch of philosophy that deals with concepts like existence and reality mean. Unfortunately, some particular metaphysical hypotheses (like supernaturalism) have been substituted for the whole branch of philosophy, just as some ethical hypotheses (like alturism) have been substituted for the whole branch of philosophy ethics. Abstract has a very specific mean which always implies, "leaving something out," as in abstract drawings in which realism or some other kind of detail is left out. Abstract concept are almost always generalities that, "leave out," specifics or subsume them, thus, "abstracting," them.

I certainly would not use the word, "supernatural," because it identifies what does not exist, as I defined it for Age:

What I mean by, "supernatural," is any supposed thing (phenomenon) for which there is no evidence whatsoever, that must therefore just be, "assumed," or based on some supposed mystical source of knowledge requiring neither evidence or reason to learn.

All that is called supernatural is fiction. It exists only as imagined or invented things like centaurs, the phoenix, and Utopia. The supernatural is that which does not exist at all except as concepts for these imaginary unreal things. God's and spirits are the most common of these, "supernatural," fictions.

I understand your view, and appreciate that you seem to understand my view, however much we disagree.

I never set as a rule that I have to agree with somebody to like them. I'm fine with our somewhat combative but reasonable relationship. I don't dislike you at all.
[/quote]
Well, that's good, but I wasn't worried about it.

It's only ideas I'm interested in. When others hold views I know are wrong, it is nothing to me personally, except I would prefer for all people to be as happy as I am, and am sorry so many people believe and live by views that are self-destructive and certain to fail. But others' lives are their own and I will never interfere in another's life uninvited.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 4:59 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 2:12 pm All I'm saying is that the physical attributes are not the only attributes of the natural existence. What I mean is that there is a perfectly natural, ontological, or material existence independent of human knowledge or consciousness that has the attributes of the physical, life, and consciousness. Life and consciousness can only be known directly by those organisms with those attributes, but cannot be directly perceived or studied by the physical sciences. Thus, there is a hierarchy of ontological existence, physical entities (with all the physical properties), organisms (entities with all the physical properties and the additional property of life), and conscious organisms ( entities with all the physical and life properties, and the additional property of consciousness). All perfectly natural.

"Physical" doesn't conventionally refer to "what can be directly perceived."

Neutrinos, gravity, heat transference, etc. are definitely physical, but they're not things that can be directly perceived.

What I wrote was, "The physical is all of that natural existence that can be directly consciously perceived and is studied by the physical sciences." What do you think the physical sciences study if it is not what is seen, heard, felt, smelled, and tasted, and by studying that perceived existence discover the Neutrinos, gravity, heat transference, etc.? All of chemistry is the study of actual perceived substances, their perceived attributes and behavior being the means of discovering their atomic nature, for example. Take away the directly perceived and there is nothing for the sciences to study.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 9:44 pm I'm sorry you spent all that on a mistake, and a little disingenuousness, by leaving out the most significant part of what I wrote: There is no principle that determines how words must be defined except that they must identify what actually is.

Don't worry...the addition doesn't change the problem. One can misidentify a thing that "is." If people are not agreed on what the word actually refers to, the problem continues.

Since the primary purpose of language is not communication, but knowledge,

Well, that's dubious.

I would say that human beings don't learn language in order to think; they learn it in order to communicate. The two do develop together, but the thinking doesn't come first, developmentally. The incentive for children to learn communicating is that it changes the behaviour of their caretakers and produces desired sensations, not that they want to think inside their heads and need words to do it.

What I mean by, "supernatural," is any supposed thing (phenomenon) for which there is no evidence whatsoever, that must therefore just be, "assumed," or based on some supposed mystical source of knowledge requiring neither evidence or reason to learn.

I think the word you want for that is not "supernatural," but "imaginary" or "hallucinatory." But I think the phenomena you want to refer to are real ones; and in normal parlance, the term "supernatural" assumes the (alleged) real existence of the things designated thereby.

God's and spirits are the most common of these, "supernatural," fictions.

The assumption outlines above is merely an assumption...and since evidence is often adduced for the existence of God, the way you want to use the term "supernatural" doesn't apply at all. Theists are not alleging a "fiction": they assert the existence of God as a fact, and as one very capable of rational, empirical and experiential types of evidence.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 7:06 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 2:25 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 9:23 pm Can you move the electrons of your brain?

What are you asking? When you move your head you move all the electrons in every atom of your head, including those in your brain.

Perhaps you are asking how consciousness determines physical behavior, demanding some simple answer. There is an answer, but it is not simple, but I will point out you are making a baseless assumption. You have no idea how anything moves any electron.

So let me ask you a question. How does one electron repel another electron? No one knows. Science can only describe the phenomenon, in terms of, "fields," but what a field actually is, no one really knows. Since we don't know how electrons cause other electrons to move at the physical level, it's a bit of stretch to insist one explain how consciousness moves electrons, isn't it?

How does one mass cause another mass to move toward it? It is known masses attract one another and that behavior is called gravity, but what gravity is and how it works is not really known. we don't know how one mass makes another mass move. It is enough for science to simply accept it does what it does.

How does consciousness cause an electron, or atom, or anything else to move? Probably in some way analagous to gravity, electromagnetism, or electron charge, but like all of physics, it is enough to know it happens.

I was asking whether consciousness can affect electrons. For example, you need to send a signal from a part of your brain to your finger if you want to move your finger. The location in the brain is unique and you don't know where it is the exact location. How consciously you can affect the electrons of your brain in order to move one finger.

That scenario is simply made up. You're asking me how I consciously choose to move my finger within the context of an incorrect view of the relationship between consciousness and the neurological system. Consciousness is not a thing or a substance and has not physical properties, like shape, or size, or location. Furthermore, consciousness itself doesn't, "do," anything, it is only awareness of what there is to be conscious of.

There is a relationship, however, between consciousness and what the neurological system does, and in turn, what the body does. If you are conscious of something frightening or threatening your body reacts to the consciousness causing you that feeling you call fear or terror. The reaction is entirely biological, the, "feeling," is only our consciousness of that reaction (called interoception). So the question is not, "how does consciousness initiate a physical action?" but, "how does the body react physically to consciousness?"

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 9:59 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 9:44 pm I'm sorry you spent all that on a mistake, and a little disingenuousness, by leaving out the most significant part of what I wrote: There is no principle that determines how words must be defined except that they must identify what actually is.

Don't worry...the addition doesn't change the problem. One can misidentify a thing that "is." If people are not agreed on what the word actually refers to, the problem continues.

Since the primary purpose of language is not communication, but knowledge,

Well, that's dubious.

I would say that human beings don't learn language in order to think; they learn it in order to communicate. The two do develop together, but the thinking doesn't come first, developmentally. The incentive for children to learn communicating is that it changes the behaviour of their caretakers and produces desired sensations, not that they want to think inside their heads and need words to do it.

What I mean by, "supernatural," is any supposed thing (phenomenon) for which there is no evidence whatsoever, that must therefore just be, "assumed," or based on some supposed mystical source of knowledge requiring neither evidence or reason to learn.

I think the word you want for that is not "supernatural," but "imaginary" or "hallucinatory." But I think the phenomena you want to refer to are real ones; and in normal parlance, the term "supernatural" assumes the (alleged) real existence of the things designated thereby.

God's and spirits are the most common of these, "supernatural," fictions.

The assumption outlines above is merely an assumption...and since evidence is often adduced for the existence of God, the way you want to use the term "supernatural" doesn't apply at all. Theists are not alleging a "fiction": they assert the existence of God as a fact, and as one very capable of rational, empirical and experiential types of evidence.

You've explained your view, which you already know is not in agreement with mine. So be it.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 9:54 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 4:59 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 2:12 pm All I'm saying is that the physical attributes are not the only attributes of the natural existence. What I mean is that there is a perfectly natural, ontological, or material existence independent of human knowledge or consciousness that has the attributes of the physical, life, and consciousness. Life and consciousness can only be known directly by those organisms with those attributes, but cannot be directly perceived or studied by the physical sciences. Thus, there is a hierarchy of ontological existence, physical entities (with all the physical properties), organisms (entities with all the physical properties and the additional property of life), and conscious organisms ( entities with all the physical and life properties, and the additional property of consciousness). All perfectly natural.

"Physical" doesn't conventionally refer to "what can be directly perceived."

Neutrinos, gravity, heat transference, etc. are definitely physical, but they're not things that can be directly perceived.

What I wrote was, "The physical is all of that natural existence that can be directly consciously perceived and is studied by the physical sciences." What do you think the physical sciences study if it is not what is seen, heard, felt, smelled, and tasted, and by studying that perceived existence discover the Neutrinos, gravity, heat transference, etc.? All of chemistry is the study of actual perceived substances, their perceived attributes and behavior being the means of discovering their atomic nature, for example. Take away the directly perceived and there is nothing for the sciences to study.

We use things directly perceived, but very often we use them to tell us about things we can't directly perceive, and "physical" is not exhausted by things directly perceived.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 25, 2021 1:08 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 9:54 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 4:59 pm

"Physical" doesn't conventionally refer to "what can be directly perceived."

Neutrinos, gravity, heat transference, etc. are definitely physical, but they're not things that can be directly perceived.

What I wrote was, "The physical is all of that natural existence that can be directly consciously perceived and is studied by the physical sciences." What do you think the physical sciences study if it is not what is seen, heard, felt, smelled, and tasted, and by studying that perceived existence discover the Neutrinos, gravity, heat transference, etc.? All of chemistry is the study of actual perceived substances, their perceived attributes and behavior being the means of discovering their atomic nature, for example. Take away the directly perceived and there is nothing for the sciences to study.

We use things directly perceived, but very often we use them to tell us about things we can't directly perceive, and "physical" is not exhausted by things directly perceived.

Well of course, but who ever said or implied otherwise. Nothing, however can exist that is not manifest in any way whatsoever in existence that is perceived. If anything exists or is true about physical existence it must have some affect on some aspect of existence as it is perceived, else it could never be detected or discovered by any reason or calculation. Why do you think leptons, gluons, bosons, quarks, and neutrinos are so difficult to prove? It's because it is so difficult to discover actual perceivable effects produced by them, even by the most sensitive instruments.