Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 10:47 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 10:42 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 10:28 pm
Your task is to answer how matter can behave according to laws of physics IF (a) there are no people, and (b) laws of physics are ONLY in our minds.

No one knows what mass is for example. But a massive object behaves in a specific way because it has mass.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 10:28 pm What is the answer to how this works? The answer can't be that it behaves according to the laws of physics in that case if laws of physics are only in our minds.

It's amazing that you can't understand something so simple, by the way (or otherwise the uncharitable answer is that this is some sort of weird trolling)

And I cannot be more clear than that matter does not care whether it follows the laws of nature or not. The matter is unconscious when it comes to how it behaves.

Your comments have nothing to do with mine. You don't at all understand what I wrote. Are you not interested in understanding it?

Yes.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 9:31 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 10:47 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 10:42 pm
No one knows what mass is for example. But a massive object behaves in a specific way because it has mass.


And I cannot be more clear than that matter does not care whether it follows the laws of nature or not. The matter is unconscious when it comes to how it behaves.

Your comments have nothing to do with mine. You don't at all understand what I wrote. Are you not interested in understanding it?

Yes.

Sure. So the only way you'll possibly understand it is if you go step by step and stick to what I'm asking you, etc.

So again, let's say, as you did that laws of physics are only in minds.

If that's the case, and there are no creatures with minds, then there are no laws of physics.

Do you understand why that would be the case?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 9:58 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 9:31 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 10:47 pm

Your comments have nothing to do with mine. You don't at all understand what I wrote. Are you not interested in understanding it?

Yes.

Sure. So the only way you'll possibly understand it is if you go step by step and stick to what I'm asking you, etc.

So again, let's say, as you did that laws of physics are only in minds.

If that's the case, and there are no creatures with minds, then there are no laws of physics.

Do you understand why that would be the case?

Yes, in this case, the laws of physics do not exist subjectively.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 10:46 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 9:58 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 9:31 pm
Yes.

Sure. So the only way you'll possibly understand it is if you go step by step and stick to what I'm asking you, etc.

So again, let's say, as you did that laws of physics are only in minds.

If that's the case, and there are no creatures with minds, then there are no laws of physics.

Do you understand why that would be the case?

Yes, in this case, the laws of physics do not exist subjectively.

The whole point about the laws of physics is that they are supposed to be objective. A subject may not escape from those laws. "Existing subjectively" is not relavant. In other words things that exist objectively apply to everything.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 10:46 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 9:58 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 9:31 pm
Yes.

Sure. So the only way you'll possibly understand it is if you go step by step and stick to what I'm asking you, etc.

So again, let's say, as you did that laws of physics are only in minds.

If that's the case, and there are no creatures with minds, then there are no laws of physics.

Do you understand why that would be the case?

Yes, in this case, the laws of physics do not exist subjectively.

What? No. lol. That has nothing to do with it.

Let's try it this way.

Say that Fs have property x, and only Fs have property x.

If there are no Fs, then, there is no property x, right?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 11:19 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 10:46 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 9:58 pm

Sure. So the only way you'll possibly understand it is if you go step by step and stick to what I'm asking you, etc.

So again, let's say, as you did that laws of physics are only in minds.

If that's the case, and there are no creatures with minds, then there are no laws of physics.

Do you understand why that would be the case?

Yes, in this case, the laws of physics do not exist subjectively.

The whole point about the laws of physics is that they are supposed to be objective. A subject may not escape from those laws. "Existing subjectively" is not relavant. In other words things that exist objectively apply to everything.

What exists objectively are properties such as mass, charge, sping, etc. The is no such thing as objective laws of nature. The matter however behaves based on these properties and follows laws of nature.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 11:40 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 10:46 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 9:58 pm

Sure. So the only way you'll possibly understand it is if you go step by step and stick to what I'm asking you, etc.

So again, let's say, as you did that laws of physics are only in minds.

If that's the case, and there are no creatures with minds, then there are no laws of physics.

Do you understand why that would be the case?

Yes, in this case, the laws of physics do not exist subjectively.

What? No. lol. That has nothing to do with it.

Let's try it this way.

Say that Fs have property x, and only Fs have property x.

If there are no Fs, then, there is no property x, right?

Yes, that property does not exist.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 12:20 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 11:40 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 10:46 pm
Yes, in this case, the laws of physics do not exist subjectively.

What? No. lol. That has nothing to do with it.

Let's try it this way.

Say that Fs have property x, and only Fs have property x.

If there are no Fs, then, there is no property x, right?

Yes, that property does not exist.

When we plug data into our variables here, "F" is "minds" or "creatures with minds" and "x" is "laws of physics."

bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 12:20 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 11:19 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 10:46 pm
Yes, in this case, the laws of physics do not exist subjectively.

The whole point about the laws of physics is that they are supposed to be objective. A subject may not escape from those laws. "Existing subjectively" is not relavant. In other words things that exist objectively apply to everything.

What exists objectively are properties such as mass, charge, sping, etc. The is no such thing as objective laws of nature. The matter however behaves based on these properties and follows laws of nature.

Laws desribe these things and are objective.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 9:37 pm

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 4:40 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 8:57 pm I already discussed that. You cannot control the electrons in your brain. Therefore, your consciousness cannot affect reality. Therefore, consciousness is irrelevant.

Conscious process involves activities from the central nervous system, including the brain. These activities involve electrical synapsis, so electrons indeed are displaying behavior in relation to the conscious process. So the claim that conscious process does not affect matter can only be taken to mean that the outcome of mental activity can never be a change in the material structure of reality. It does not mean that material processes in the central nervous system are disentangled from cognized content.

It does mean.

But if you mean that, I just proved that claim to be false. Synapses implies that electrons indeed are displaying behavior in relation to the conscious process.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 9:37 pm

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 4:40 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 8:57 pm Physical properties at the macroscopic level are not anything more than a function of microscopic properties. For example, the temperature is the average energy of atoms, pressure is the average force exerted to a surface, the same for solidity which is nothing more than shear tension.

Temperature, pressure, gaseous and other states, etc., are parameters affecting isolated substances differently than when they compose another substance. So the physical properties of hydrogen and oxygen atoms are not the same as the physical properties of the molecules of hydrogen and oxygen that form water. In other words, they are not reducible, as you claim.

I already gave you the example and you are denying.

No, you gave one example of a microscopic property in one isolated substance (atoms of that substance). Then you talked about pressure in surfaces (macroscopic) and shear tension (macroscopic). You have not shown any indication whatsoever that the physical properties of the substances hydrogen and oxygen are just the same as the physical properties of the substance water.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:56 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 9:37 pm

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 4:40 pm
Conscious process involves activities from the central nervous system, including the brain. These activities involve electrical synapsis, so electrons indeed are displaying behavior in relation to the conscious process. So the claim that conscious process does not affect matter can only be taken to mean that the outcome of mental activity can never be a change in the material structure of reality. It does not mean that material processes in the central nervous system are disentangled from cognized content.

It does mean.

But if you mean that, I just proved that claim to be false. Synapses implies that electrons indeed are displaying behavior in relation to the conscious process.

Can you control your synapse? Does matter behave according to the laws of nature when you affect it?

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 4:40 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 9:37 pm

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 4:40 pm Temperature, pressure, gaseous and other states, etc., are parameters affecting isolated substances differently than when they compose another substance. So the physical properties of hydrogen and oxygen atoms are not the same as the physical properties of the molecules of hydrogen and oxygen that form water. In other words, they are not reducible, as you claim.

I already gave you the example and you are denying.

No, you gave one example of a microscopic property in one isolated substance (atoms of that substance). Then you talked about pressure in surfaces (macroscopic) and shear tension (macroscopic). You have not shown any indication whatsoever that the physical properties of the substances hydrogen and oxygen are just the same as the physical properties of the substance water.

I am saying that the properties of the substance water are a function of the properties of the electrons and the nucleus. You could even simulate the molecule of water these days.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 1:39 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 12:20 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 11:19 pm

The whole point about the laws of physics is that they are supposed to be objective. A subject may not escape from those laws. "Existing subjectively" is not relavant. In other words things that exist objectively apply to everything.

What exists objectively are properties such as mass, charge, sping, etc. The is no such thing as objective laws of nature. The matter however behaves based on these properties and follows laws of nature.

Laws desribe these things and are objective.

Laws are objective only in the mind.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 9:40 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 12:20 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 11:40 pm
What? No. lol. That has nothing to do with it.

Let's try it this way.

Say that Fs have property x, and only Fs have property x.

If there are no Fs, then, there is no property x, right?

Yes, that property does not exist.

When we plug data into our variables here, "F" is "minds" or "creatures with minds" and "x" is "laws of physics."

Yes.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 11:35 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 9:40 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 12:20 am
Yes, that property does not exist.

When we plug data into our variables here, "F" is "minds" or "creatures with minds" and "x" is "laws of physics."

Yes.

So 3.5 billion years ago, there were no creatures with minds, right?

bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 11:16 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 1:39 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 12:20 am
What exists objectively are properties such as mass, charge, sping, etc. The is no such thing as objective laws of nature. The matter however behaves based on these properties and follows laws of nature.

Laws desribe these things and are objective.

Laws are objective only in the mind.

No.
There is no mind.