On 1 June 2018 at 19:41, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 don't like -- along with something else that is obviously outdated or 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.
Thanks for saying. > 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. I would say that you are alluding to ontological difficulties from within a Materialist position -- the idea that it is impossible to know, or that there is no ground reality from which one can build such an ontology. I have no antipathy for these positions, and I think I understand why they would arise. My antipathy is towards what I consider an authoritarian rejection of metaphysical questions -- that in fact such questions do not matter, and that one should stop asking them. That sounds like the ultimate hubris to me -- I don't have an answer, and the questions hint too much at the true dimensions of our ignorance, so I forbid the questions. I think you avoid a different discussion, that can be traced back to Plato's cave thought experiment. This question is about the ontological status of the entire concept of matter. Does it exist outside the experience of a conscious entity, or is it just the shadow of some other more fundamental reality, filtered through the conscious entity's perception? This doesn't change physics one iota, but it might change how physics' role is perceived in our culture. This latter issue, which has nothing to do with science and all to do with ego is, in my view, the true reason why many physicists so violently reject the discussion. To be clear, I am not trying to accuse physicists of nothing more than being human. > However, that's not a reason to > avoid trying to produce mind from matter, as in AI. I agree. > And one is free to try > to produce matter from mind. Well, Idealism is the hypothesis that this is what is going on all the time... In any case, clearly there are rules, that physics studies. I tried really hard to make a pink elephant show up in my living room but it just didn't happen. Telmo. > 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. -- 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.
