Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I'm going to add to the OP. Not only is mind immaterial, the brain is immaterial as well! There's no such thing as a solid. For those who skipped their science classes, we have the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as a cornerstone of QM. This means we can't pinpoint the location of any atom because they get scattered throughout the galaxy. So how can we talk about the mind being located inside the brain when we can't specify with 100% accuracy the location of the brain?

PhilX

It looks like you're the one who skipped science class.

Explain.

PhilX

Well, for one, you're claiming that you attended a science course where they taught you that whether there are solids has something to do with the HUP not obtaining?

Terrapin Station wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:It looks like you're the one who skipped science class.

Explain.

PhilX

Well, for one, you're claiming that you attended a science course where they taught you that whether there are solids has something to do with the HUP not obtaining?

You must have missed that class.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:You must have missed that class.

PhilX

So you are claiming that. But that's complete nonsense. No science course would teach that there are only solids just in case HUP doesn't obtain. Otherwise, give me a reference to one that would teach that idea.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
I trust the basic science DP.

PhilX

I trust where my brain is, Phil. Neuroscience backs me on this. As does basic anatomy.

And physics backs me up even more which is taught in both high school and college.

PhilX

Where does physics say your brain is located, Phil? Up your ass? (You knew that was coming. Don't say you didn't.)

Terrapin Station wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:You must have missed that class.

PhilX

So you are claiming that. But that's complete nonsense. No science course would teach that there are only solids just in case HUP doesn't obtain. Otherwise, give me a reference to one that would teach that idea.

Not what I said. The idea is that HUP says there are no solids. In the absence of HUP, no one knows about how solid an object is. But with it, we can be certain that nothing is solid.

PhilX

Dalek Prime wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:
I trust where my brain is, Phil. Neuroscience backs me on this. As does basic anatomy.

And physics backs me up even more which is taught in both high school and college.

PhilX

Where does physics day your brain is located, Phil? Up your ass? (You knew that was coming. Don't say you didn't.)

Physics day DP? New one on me. Physics says the brain isn't solid (which may especially apply to you. ) So if you prefer to think of the brain as being solid, that's fine with me, but I know the truth.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
And physics backs me up even more which is taught in both high school and college.

PhilX

Where does physics day your brain is located, Phil? Up your ass? (You knew that was coming. Don't say you didn't.)

Physics day DP? New one on me. Physics says the brain isn't solid (which may especially apply to you. ) So if you prefer to think of the brain as being solid, that's fine with me, but I know the truth.

PhilX

As opposed to a liquid, gas, or plasma? I don't care what its physical property is exactly, but I'm certain of its location. And as I've seen it sliced, I'll assume a solid, at.least at room temperature, until it starts liquifying.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:You must have missed that class.

PhilX

So you are claiming that. But that's complete nonsense. No science course would teach that there are only solids just in case HUP doesn't obtain. Otherwise, give me a reference to one that would teach that idea.

Not what I said. The idea is that HUP says there are no solids. In the absence of HUP, no one knows about how solid an object is. But with it, we can be certain that nothing is solid.

PhilX

Phil, my fist to your nose is reasonably solid. And water is 'solid enough' to break my bones on high impact.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Where does physics day your brain is located, Phil? Up your ass? (You knew that was coming. Don't say you didn't.)

Physics day DP? New one on me. Physics says the brain isn't solid (which may especially apply to you. ) So if you prefer to think of the brain as being solid, that's fine with me, but I know the truth.

PhilX

As opposed to a liquid, gas, or plasma? I don't care what its physical property is exactly, but I'm certain of its location. And as I've seen it sliced, I'll assume a solid, at.least at room temperature, until it starts liquifying.

If you want to delude yourself, be my guest.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Physics day DP? New one on me. Physics says the brain isn't solid (which may especially apply to you. ) So if you prefer to think of the brain as being solid, that's fine with me, but I know the truth.

PhilX

As opposed to a liquid, gas, or plasma? I don't care what its physical property is exactly, but I'm certain of its location. And as I've seen it sliced, I'll assume a solid, at.least at room temperature, until it starts liquifying.

If you want to delude yourself, be my guest.

PhilX

I do. Don't need your permission.

I know that ultimately it's not the physical state of my brain that matters, but the consciousness supported by it. In 'A Study in Scarlet' Holmes says whatever info doesn't matter to him, he discards until needed. I follow in that tradition. You, on the other hand, clutter your mind with so much, that you end up lost in the confusion.

I prioritise my info. You don't. And speaking of which, stop sending me links on sex robots. I don't care about them. Don't want one.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Not what I said. The idea is that HUP says there are no solids.

Where in the world are you getting that from? Give a reference that says anything even remotely like the HUP claiming or amounting to a claim that there are no solids.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Physics says the brain isn't solid

Reference? (Which I'm asking because you're completely full of shit on this and you'll find no references that say that.)

Terrapin Station wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Physics says the brain isn't solid

Reference? (Which I'm asking because you're completely full of shit on this and you'll find no references that say that.)

See this reference on quantum tunneling e.g.:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling

or the principle that nothing in nature can be measured exactly to determine its location and momentum (HUP). Plus there's no such thing as empty space because subatomic particles, per QM, scatter throughout space (but they do normally occupy certain sections of space). Google "Do solids exist?" and see what others say in response to my question on another website to see how "completely full of shit" I am on this.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Physics says the brain isn't solid

Reference? (Which I'm asking because you're completely full of shit on this and you'll find no references that say that.)

See this reference on quantum tunneling e.g.:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling

or the principle that nothing in nature can be measured exactly to determine its location and momentum (HUP). Plus there's no such thing as empty space because subatomic particles, per QM, scatter throughout space (but they do normally occupy certain sections of space). Google "Do solids exist?" and see what others say in response to my question on another website to see how "completely full of shit" I am on this.

PhilX

You realize that I was asking you for a reference for the claim that "Physics says the brain isn't solid," right?

Where in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling is there even a mention of brains?

And telling someone to Google something isn't a reference. If you don't even have any friggin idea what makes the claims that you're saying are made, then don't expect someone else to search for you. That's a pretty ridiculous sort of bs'ing. "Let me make some crap up and then tell folks to Google it."

At any rate, you claimed that physics says that the brain isn't solid. I asked for a reference for that. You didn't give one, and you can not. But if you want to try, it needs to be a physics reference that at least includes the word "brain" in the text, OR it needs to be a physics reference that explicitly claims that nothing is (a) solid.

This sort of bs'ing is really frustrating.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:Reference? (Which I'm asking because you're completely full of shit on this and you'll find no references that say that.)

See this reference on quantum tunneling e.g.:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling

or the principle that nothing in nature can be measured exactly to determine its location and momentum (HUP). Plus there's no such thing as empty space because subatomic particles, per QM, scatter throughout space (but they do normally occupy certain sections of space). Google "Do solids exist?" and see what others say in response to my question on another website to see how "completely full of shit" I am on this.

PhilX

You realize that I was asking you for a reference for the claim that "Physics says the brain isn't solid," right?

Where in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling is there even a mention of brains?

And telling someone to Google something isn't a reference. If you don't even have any friggin idea what makes the claims that you're saying are made, then don't expect someone else to search for you. That's a pretty ridiculous sort of bs'ing. "Let me make some crap up and then tell folks to Google it."

At any rate, you claimed that physics says that the brain isn't solid. I asked for a reference for that. You didn't give one, and you can not. But if you want to try, it needs to be a physics reference that at least includes the word "brain" in the text, OR it needs to be a physics reference that claims that nothing is (a) solid, explicitly so.

Since brains is made of subatomic particles, that meets your objection unless you want to put up silly nonargumentative arguments.

PhilX