> On 9 May 2019, at 12:49, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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.
Yes, that the idea. We can predict it, but we don’t attribute mind to matter to predict it. People talk of inert matter. Consciousness is attribute to people, person, living creature, but to attribute life or consciousness was common before Darwin and molecular biology. The reduction of the wave packet in QM has revived a bit the idea, but without success. > Thus science—and matter, as they present it—has a big blind spot in it. I agree, but it is not “science”. It is “science” with the Aristotelian metaphysical/theological assumption of a primary matter. It is a theology, that has been shown incompatible with the mechanist hypothesis. > > > (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. Actually you are right. Aristotle defines matter by what is indeterminate, like Plotinus, when he made a rather precise theory of God and intellect, and explains matter by where God loses control, and it makes a lot of sense with mechanism, where matter is also defined by a (first person plural) indetermination, (the statistic on our relative continuation) and of course QM introduces also an indetermination in Nature. Bruno > > @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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <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 > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a4d0726e-b315-4cdd-9b05-11e523900b2b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/B7196662-038D-472E-9B5A-B3806E4D87FE%40ulb.ac.be. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
