On 6/1/2018 12:15 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On 31 May 2018 at 19:57, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/31/2018 2:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
You're a bit naughty Brent. You sometimes use this maneuver of
nonchalantly listing something that is being discussed -- but that you
don't like -- along with something else that is obviously outdated or
silly.
It's not that I "don't like" primary matter, it's that I think it's an
invented term that nobody actually postulates.
>From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism#Overview :
"To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are
primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and
mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting
upon matter."
I concede the point. There are many who consider that matter can
explain mind, so in the Materialism vs Idealism debate they are taking
matter as prior, and one may infer, as primary. But the few who
actually think about the ontology of "matter", like Wheeler, Hawking,
Tegmark,...do not just postulate some "primary matter" and in fact ask
questions like, "What makes the equations fly." They do not even insist
that there is an ur-stuff that is matter. Which was my point that if
there is an ur-stuff then the ur-stuff makes both mind and matter and
whatever else so there's little point in calling is either matter or
mind. However, that's not a reason to avoid trying to produce mind from
matter, as in AI. And one is free to try to produce matter from mind.
Brent
Brent
I'd like to see Bruno
actually quote some well known philosophers or scientist using the term.
Materialism vs. Idealism is one of the oldest philosophical debates,
and I am 100% sure you know that. The uber-mainstream wikipedia
defines materialism as a belief in that matter is primary.
I
think he reads people like Dennett or Churchland who defend the possibility
of a physical explanation of consciousness and, since he thinks
consciousness is more fundamental than physics, he wants to accuse them of
believing in "primary matter".
Well, they do -- exactly on the terms described in the Wikipedia
article above. I refer to Wikipedia not because it is an authoritative
source (it is not, of course), but because it is so mainstream -- as
evidence against your claim that this is all something Bruno dreamed
up.
Telmo.
"Oh you think that quantum mechanics and consciousness might be
connected? How are those Deepak Chopra teachings working for you?"
etc...
So, forgetting the elan vitale, I would like you to make you position
more precise. Do you think that tax money should only be applied to
research that is obviously and immediately useful?
Of course not.
Or are you ok with
trusting tenured academics and peer-review to decide what gets funded?
In the second case, I guess we must all have some tolerance for ideas
that we don't agree with, right?
Right.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
