On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 5:15:32 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 3 May 2019, at 08:26, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:03:52 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 5/2/2019 4:55 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:37:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5/2/2019 11:39 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> Apparently *matter* is not "reducible" to just the physics a couple of >>> particles. >>> >>> >>> Then you're not a materialist. You think there is matter plus something >>> else, that everyone calls "mind", but you're going to call it "matter" and >>> add it to everyone else's list of matter so you can still call yourself a >>> materialist. >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> >>> >> >> But everything reducing to the physics of particles is thought of as >> *physicalism* (not materialism): >> *Physicalism and materialism* >> >> Reductive physicalism >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductive_physicalism>...is normally >> assumed to be incompatible with panpsychism. Materialism >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism>, if held to be distinct from >> physicalism, is compatible with panpsychism insofar as mental properties >> >> >> What mental properties? intention? reflection? remembering? That's >> what I mean by saying attributing "experience" to matter is an unprincipled >> half-measure. >> >> Brent >> > > > Brains are matter, just as livers, legs, trees, tables, rocks, comets, > planets, stars, cockroaches, galaxies, bacteria .. are matter. > > Brains produce intentions, reflections, remembrances, ... . > > So (at least some) matter of the cosmos has psychical (mental) properties. > > The body+mind idea, the idea that mind is something separate from body, is > perhaps the worst idea ever invented. > > > At least we agree on this. That is dualism, and is easily shown insane. > > Now, what can be proved is that Mechanism is incompatible with weak > materialism (that is with both dualism and physicalism/materialism). I have > shown that we can test mechanism, and that up to now, thanks to Quantum > Mechanics which confirms Mechanism and its consequences. > > Materialisme/physicalism have problem of its own: > - what is it? > - why does it seem to obey mathematical laws > - why consciousness? How matter is related to consciousness? > > Materialist tends to either eliminate consciousness, or dismiss it as a > unimportant details, or introduce identity thesis which requires strong > ontological infinity axioms, or Oracle, for which we have no evidences > today. > > Bruno > > > I wrote this earlier today in response to a Philip Goff interview: https://twitter.com/philipthrift/status/1126415043959107584
I say (following Auden) "Matter is much / Odder than we thought". The scientists (physicists mainly) I have read have a peculiarly antiseptic idea of what matter is: It cannot have experiential properties. Thus science—and matter, as they present it—has a big blind spot in it. (There is a group today self-called "phenomenological materialists".) The problem is not materialism. The problem is that (for the most part) scientists have *the wrong idea *of what matter is. Ancient Greek materialists were better than today's scientists in this regard. @philipthrift -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a4d0726e-b315-4cdd-9b05-11e523900b2b%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
