We agree that thinking exists. Is it physical? Interesting thought orn. Are there physically identifiable aspects of thought, like brain waves?
On Feb 5, 8:34 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh, yes dear Neil…I have always agreed with the appearance of > differing physical things. In fact, a deep metaphysical analysis will > result in clear differentiation here. We as human beings do know our > vital energy. We feel the heat of our metabolism. We feel our vitality > as urges to unite arise. > > We also do know how we are similar in our daily discourses and > analyses. We treat appearances as things. Yes, physical things. We > tacitly agree upon this, did you call it an approximation?…not sure. > But we do have agreements when it comes to the earth and stuff we can > touch. > > Now moving into more rarified areas, and those that our words only > point towards, we do feel love and have associated moralities. > Physical? Not in the more common meaning, yet another well known realm > of ours. > > And, of course we think! This forum is a great example of that. We > agree that thinking exists. Is it physical? Clearly not in the exact > same way that a tree is physical, or a rock is. In fact, we can even > be aware without thoughts! I know, for some this may not be in their > arsenal of being. Yet, it is in the same realm. > > Now, how do we know all of these realms and keep them straight and be > able to function? Without wishing to go into deep explanation, I will > posit a term…merely a word/concept, a spiritual realm. That which > unifies all. > > All of the 5 above can be found to manifest within our physical body. > All of them can be found to manifest within our living/being. And, > just what else is there?…when one is discussing physicality? For this > reason, I have purposely left out the absolute. > > On Feb 5, 5:12 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Understanding where science fits in – metaphysically, > > epistemologically, morally, aesthetically and otherwise – is our > > culture's characteristic philosophical problem; we’ve been working on > > it since Descartes. The hardest part is to reconcile a physicalistic > > ontology with the apparently ineliminable multiplicity of discourses > > that we require when we try to say how things are. Some hold we’re > > suffering from pluralism, nihilism, solipsism, relativism, idealism, > > deconstructionism and other symptoms of the "French disease". I plead > > not guilty. It seems to me that scientific Structural Realism is quite > > compatible with the view that events fall into revealing and reliable > > patterns not just at the level of micro structure but at many > > different orders of aggregation of matter. The heterogeneity of our > > discourse would then correspond to the heterogeneity of levels at > > which the world is organised, and both might well prove irreducible. > > We forget too easily that many of our techniques rely on > > approximation. > > Everything could be physical, but we hold there are many different > > kinds of physical things. Some are protons; some are constellations; > > some are trees or cats; and some are butchers, bakers or candlesticks. > > There are the proprietary generalisations we use to explain behaviour > > and each such generalisation has a proprietary vocabulary to express > > it. Nothing can happen except what the laws of physics permit; but > > much goes on that the laws of physics do not talk about. There may, > > as Orn asserts, be divine stuff and experience. I am crude enough to > > believe the world could do with some buckets of this and that better > > organisation of our material being could help in bringing about the > > conditions necessary. My friend might look at this the other way > > round, though I'm by no means sure he does. My contention is that > > science requires fellowship and a guard against the libidinal economy > > as surely as we need magnets to guard against out plasma touching > > anything outside the torus from which we hope to derive fusion power. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
