Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 1:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 1:26 pm I can. It's unreasonable for you to say that proton-on-proton is a proper account of Physicalism.

Can you quote where I said anything even remotely resembling "proton on proton is a 'proper account of physicalism'"?

Sure. Page 33, top.

"Say that one is a physicalist. Let's consider just a proton..."

I ask again, for the third time, still not believing you'll answer: is this your version of Physicalism? Yes, or no?

It's your scenario, so it has nothing to do with what I believe. It's yours to account for.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:17 pm Sure. Page 33, top.

"Say that one is a physicalist. Let's consider just a proton..."

That says nothing like "This is all that physicalism amounts to." How are you reading that into it? That's really, really poor reading comprehension. So no, I'm not at all presenting "a version of physicalism."

Again, it's just like if I said, "Say that one is a fashion designer. Let's consider just a pair of jeans . . ."

If you read that, would you think that the person is saying that what a fashion designer amounts to is "someone who only makes jeans"? That's not a rhetorical question. Yes or no, would you think that?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 6:04 pm I'm not at all presenting "a version of physicalism."

Okay. So, then, you have no question about Physicalism for me.

You're not representing anything like it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 11:59 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 6:04 pm I'm not at all presenting "a version of physicalism."

Okay. So, then, you have no question about Physicalism for me.

You're not representing anything like it.

That I'm not presenting a version of physicalism--that is, I'm not presenting some complete description of what physicalism is, doesn't mean I'm not asking you something about your view of physicalism per a claim you made.

And this was a question that wasn't rhetorical that I'm not going to just bypass without you answering:

Again, it's just like if I said, "Say that one is a fashion designer. Let's consider just a pair of jeans . . ."

If you read that, would you think that the person is saying that what a fashion designer amounts to is "someone who only makes jeans"? That's not a rhetorical question. Yes or no, would you think that?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 11:59 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 6:04 pm I'm not at all presenting "a version of physicalism."

Okay. So, then, you have no question about Physicalism for me.

You're not representing anything like it.

Another question I asked earlier that you ignored was this: do you have some view that amounts to thinking that physicalists either likely wouldn't, or couldn't, believe that there are protons?

I can't believe, by the way, that we need to have such protracted, laborious, serious personality-disorder exchanges over the fact that you misread "let's consider x under context F" as saying "the totality of F is x," which you still won't let go of.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 10:15 am I'm...asking you something about your view of physicalism per a claim you made.

Which claim?

And with a view to which version of Physicalism would you like me to answer?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 1:22 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 10:15 am I'm...asking you something about your view of physicalism per a claim you made.

Which claim?

That physicalism entails determinism. That should have been clear from the scenario and the question in it.

And with a view to which version of Physicalism would you like me to answer?

A version that accepts that protons exist and that protons can interact.

However, you need to answer the questions I asked above.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 3:07 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 1:22 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 10:15 am I'm...asking you something about your view of physicalism per a claim you made.

Which claim?

That physicalism entails determinism. That should have been clear from the scenario and the question in it.

Well, let's see who's right.

Go back to page 6, item 4. As you can see there, you said that you are a Physicalist who is NOT a Determinist, and you said it to Henry before I even popped into the discussion. It was then that I said that is "seems to me" that Physicalism has to be Deterministic.

"Seems." I'm willing to be shown how I'm wrong, if you've got something new. And my question to you was how you manage to make sense of both Physicalism and Non-determinism.

The claim was yours. The question was mine. Let's not get the situation reversed.

Now, do you have an answer for that question, or are you just going to keep trying desperately to shift the burden of proof to me, as if the default is to believe Physicalism and Non-determinism can reconcile? Or do you actually have something new to offer?

That was my first question, and it's the only question I care about at this point. Got anything, or not?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 3:20 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 3:07 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 1:22 pm
Which claim?

That physicalism entails determinism. That should have been clear from the scenario and the question in it.

Well, let's see who's right.

Go back to page 6, item 4. As you can see there, you said that you are a Physicalist who is NOT a Determinist, and you said it to Henry before I even popped into the discussion. It was then that I said that is "seems to me" that Physicalism has to be Deterministic.

"Seems." I'm willing to be shown how I'm wrong, if you've got something new. And my question to you was how you manage to make sense of both Physicalism and Non-determinism.

The claim was yours. The question was mine. Let's not get the situation reversed.

Now, do you have an answer for that question, or are you just going to keep trying desperately to shift the burden of proof to me, as if the default is to believe Physicalism and Non-determinism can reconcile? Or do you actually have something new to offer?

That was my first question, and it's the only question I care about at this point. Got anything, or not?

Nope. You need to not ignore the questions I asked you above.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 3:20 pm

If you'd like to start over, effectively, where I'm explaining why physicalists do not have to be determinists, we can start over with the following. However I'm not going to start over and continue with anything where you ignore or don't clearly understand any question, point or explanation. I won't move on until every question is answered, every point acknowledged, etc. If there is confusion or disagreement about anything we'll sort that out then go back and answer questions, etc.

But here:

Say that one is a physicalist.

Let's consider just a proton, A, say, moving with velocity x.

The proton strikes another proton, B.

As a physicalist, one thinks that both protons are physical existents, obviously, and one thinks that the motion is physical, and so on.

Now, on your view, is it necessary that the physicalist believes (let's call this belief d) that when A strikes B, B can ONLY react with velocity y, and no other velocity is possible?

If that's your view, explain how that belief follows in this situation.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 3:56 pm If you'd like to start over, effectively, where I'm explaining why physicalists do not have to be determinists, we can start over with the following.

Well, we could start over with my original question, yes.

But if there's no answer to that particular question, then I'm content to move on.

I think, in that case, I have my answer anyway.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 4:05 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 3:56 pm If you'd like to start over, effectively, where I'm explaining why physicalists do not have to be determinists, we can start over with the following.

Well, we could start over with my original question, yes.

The above is the beginning of explaining my view to you.

So you need to consider it and answer the question I'm asking you.

If you don't understand something about the above scenario and question, I'll be happy to explain it to you. But you just need to be explicit about that so I know what to further explain.

Let's consider just a proton, A, say, moving with velocity x.

The proton strikes another proton, B.

As a physicalist, one thinks that both protons are physical existents, obviously, and one thinks that the motion is physical, and so on.

Now, on your view, is it necessary that the physicalist believes (let's call this belief d) that when A strikes B, B can ONLY react with velocity y, and no other velocity is possible?

Unless the physicalist wants to introduce some new factor to that barebones mix, I'd say he has no choice but to believe exactly that.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 4:22 pm The above is the beginning of explaining my view to you.

Well, it's not about my view, but about yours.

So please just continue.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 5:17 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 4:22 pm The above is the beginning of explaining my view to you.

Well, it's not about my view, but about yours.

So please just continue.

You understanding what I'm explaining is certainly about your views.

I'm explaining it to you via making sure you understand the explanation, especially in light of things you said earlier. You need to address the scenario I presented and answer the question I asked or we'll be unable to progress. If you don't understand the scenario or question just ask specific questions to clear it up.

You could maybe be a less cooperative discussant, but I don't know how.