On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 4:17:04 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 12 Aug 2019, at 00:16, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 1:07:02 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9 Aug 2019, at 22:27, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> *The Right Stuff*
>> Ned Markosian
>> https://markosiandotnet.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/right-stuff.pdf
>> from https://markosian.net/online-papers/
>>
>> *Things are also known as “objects” and “entities,” and stuff is also
>> known as*
>> *“matter” and “material.”*
>>
>> *This paper argues for including stuff in one’s ontology. The distinction*
>> *between things and stuff is first clarified, and then three different
>> ontologies*
>> *of the physical universe are spelled out: a pure thing ontology, a pure
>> stuff*
>> *ontology, and a mixed ontology of both things and stuff. (The paper
>> defends*
>> *the latter.) Eleven different reasons for including stuff (in addition
>> to things)*
>> *in one’s ontology are given (seven of which the author endorses and four
>> of*
>> *which would be sensible reasons for philosophers with certain
>> metaphysical*
>> *positions that the author does not happen to hold). Then five objections
>> to*
>> *positing stuff are considered and rejected.*
>>
>>
>> Honest and clear defence of stuff!. I appreciate his distinction between
>> things and stuff.
>>
>> So with mechanism, we can say: many things no stuff!
>> (Many things like numbers, machines, persons, physical objects, physical
>> experiences, etc.),
>>
>>
>> Feel free to defend any of the eleven reason he gave. Up to now (I read
>> slowly) I am not convinced.
>>
>> I am more sure that 2+2=4 than of the existence of plumb, .. not
>> mentioning the existence of a plumber !
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
> I don't know about a plumb, but of a plum, I am more sure of any of my
> experiences of eating a plum than 2+2=4.
>
>
> But the experience of eating a plum is not a proof that the plum is made
> of matter. I dreamed a lot eating things, for example. A first person
> experience never proves anything, except the existence of that experience
> for the one who remember it.
>
>
>
>
> 2+2=4 is a heuristic of mathematical language. Useful for us, but not
> "real" like a plum-eating experience.
>
>
> With mechanism, we do have an explanation of where such experience come
> from.
>
>
>
>
> Language bewilders us, and thus we talk and write and think of things, but
> it's the plum stuff that matters.
>
>
>
> Then mechanism is false. Maybe, but the evidences side with mechanism, not
> with materialism. Yes, language bewllders us in making us believe in stuff,
> but if digital mechanism is correct, all the argument you might find for
> better are find by your counterpart in arithmetic, and here we know that
> they are invalid, but that shows that your intuition is not well sustained,
> or that mechanism is false (and the “you” in arithmetic becomes p-zombies.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
This is the whole panpsychism (here the Galen Stawson, Philip Goff, Hedda
Hassel Mørch, ... materialist panpsychist kind, not the idealist version
of maybe a few) enterprise.
Either:
Mechanism is true.
or
Panpsychism is true.
@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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4308b5bd-ace8-4dd3-8a95-5f55538abe12%40googlegroups.com.
