On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 8:11:42 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 23 Oct 2019, at 09:38, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 8:41:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 1:42:20 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 12:18:45 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 9:25:11 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> That's such a silly argument. This only proves there are interactions >>>>> between consciousnesses. >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, 22 October 2019 14:25:04 UTC+3, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think Samuel Johnson had a good reply to Bishop Berkeley on >>>>>> refuting idealism, "If I kick this rock thusly," which Johnson did, "It >>>>>> then kicks back." This is not a complete proof, but it works well enough >>>>>> FAPP. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> It is not silly. It is empirical. If you are interested in some sort of >>>> firm "mathy" type of proof, then I would suggest the burden is more upon >>>> you to prove your case that idealism is true. I have no particular >>>> interest in the subject to begin with, so I put the ball in your court. >>>> Prove your case. >>>> >>>> LC >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Empiricism cannot say whether it's (all) matter, consciousness, or >>> numbers. >>> >>> What makes the latter two dismissible is they do not explain what we >>> know of our own consciousness - that it is finite in time and bounded in >>> space. >>> >>> @philipthrift >>> >> >> I am not saying "if I kick it it kicks back" means everything is matter. >> In fact the total mass-energy of the universe is zero. However, it does >> lend weight to the proposition there exists at least locally matter that is >> external to mind. Matter does not conform to what my mind might otherwise >> desire things to be. Statistical mechanics even shows that what we see as a >> desired order is just one rather small macrostate in the energy surface of >> phase space. Besides, our conscious lives are pretty fragile in the face of >> things. >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdf5EXo6I68 >> >> LC >> > > > Matter does not conform to what my mind might otherwise desire things to > be. > > > "How did we ever get the notion of the mind as something distinct from the > body? Why did this bad idea enter our culture?” > > > > We can be sure of the existence of our mind (and indeed explain it in term > of number relation, like in computer science). > > We can find the notion of matter very plausible and certainly very useful. > > But matter is not the same as the metaphysical notion of primary matter > used in physicalism (a metaphysical position which assume that some matter > exists whose appearance is not deducible from any theory which does not > assume it at the start). > > The real question is why does people keep a materialist metaphysics, > without any evidence for it, and a lot of evidence making this doubtful. > > Bruno > > > > > https://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/april13/rorty-041305.html > > @philipthrift > > - > >
As Strawson says: It’s not the physics picture of matter that’s the problem; it’s the ordinary everyday picture of matter. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html @phiipthrift -- 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/72afdee6-5012-4fbe-b877-3b2107169333%40googlegroups.com.
