On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:06:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > I am not sure I understand what you mean by “real matter”, nor which role > it can play for the minds and the souls once we bet on Mechanism. Any > evidence that there exists something like “primitive real matter” would > give a refutation of Mechanism. (Primitive means “has to be assume” or > “cannot be explained by some other things”). > > Bruno > >
My 'real matter' is just Stawson's "real" 'physical stuff', in Galen Strawson Realistic Monism http://www.sjsu.edu/people/anand.vaidya/courses/c2/s0/Realistic-Monism---Why-Physicalism-Entails-Panpsychism-Galen-Strawson.pdf This paper recasts and expands parts of ‘Agnostic materialism’ (Strawson, 1994, pp. 43–105, especially pp. 59–62, 72, 75–7) and ‘Real materialism’ (Strawson, 2003a) and inherits their debt to Nagel (1974). I have replaced the word ‘materialism’ by ‘physicalism’ and speak of ‘physical stuff’ instead of ‘matter’ because ‘matter’ is now specially associated with mass although energy is just as much in question, as indeed is anything else that can be said to be physical, e.g. spacetime — or whatever underlies the appearance of spacetime. Nothing more than that. It's a matter of considering matter in the way of the ancient materialists.(from Thales to Epicurus) rather than the way physicists think of it today. 'Matter' is also easier to refer to and use as a term than 'physical stuff' it seems to me. Who the hell walks around talking about 'physical stuff'? 'Matter' is just one word. @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/53d07313-9223-49fe-b263-18156ca8f1ff%40googlegroups.com.
