On 6/3/2018 3:40 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
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don't like -- along with something else that is obviously outdated or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.
You refer to authoritarian rejection of metaphysical questions. I don't
think I asserted any authoritarian privilege (do I have any?). I only
argued that some questions are meaningless and that whether the ur-stuff
of the world is mind or matter is one of them. We infer the existence
of matter from perceptions (which is mental) but we also infer that it's
existence and certain organization is necessary for perception. There
is need not be some principle of hierarchy; we should always keep in
mind the possiblity of virtuous circles of explanation.
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.
I don't think very many scientists have ever even heard of the
discussion. So they don't "violently reject" it. What they do is
dismiss it as irrelevant to their work. A few, like my late friend Vic
Stenger, have been motivated to write books to counter the
misinterpretation of scientific theories to support mystic woo-woo
exemplified by Depak Chopra and evangelical Christians like Hugh Ross
and William Lane Craig.
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.
That's one for physics. But I'll bet the right chemistry would do it.
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.
