khaled

Point is, there is no use in talking about "the reason that orders the world". There will always be doubt about that. I remember Donald Hoffman claimi...

As long as this "embodied mind" is not a separate sort of thing, I don't think anyone would dispute this. Maybe MWI or other "epistimological quantum ...

Your use of the term idealism is weird then. So idealism for you does not include that minds are a different sort of "it" from matter? The mind is not...

So it makes no sense to believe there are no unicorns on earth? And "I had nothing for dinner yesterday" makes no sense either? Ok.

let me rephrase. A belief that Gods do not exist. Is it coherent to believe that there are no unicorns on earth?

It could also be defined as a belief in the non existence of Gods. It just depends on whether you think belief or disbelief is the “default position”....

Reply when you're actually interested in having a conversation. Don't waste people's time.

"Non-reductive physicalism is the view that mental properties form a separate ontological class to physical properties" They're not ontologically diff...

I never claimed it's possible to cover the "diverse physical basis" neurologically. I claimed that every instance of a mental event can be reduced to ...

My best guess is that you're trying to say we can't reduce something like "pain" to a single neurological state. Sure. But I never claimed we could. A...

I know what multiple realizability is. I know what neuroscience is. I know what reductionism is. But I don't know what the sentence means. Again, what...

Care to elaborate? What does "the neuroscience not work" mean?

The question is whether or not it's possible not whether or not you'd want to do it. It's probably a waste of time to do, agreed.

And which part of this is not supported by a reductive materialism? Right again, which part of this contradicts a reductive materialism? As long as co...

:up:

Is not proven. If anything there are plenty of situations where hiding useless information about the world is better for your survival instead of havi...

Eliminative materialism isn't the only materialism. A person can be funny and also be merely a bag of chemicals. IE reductionist materialism. :up: Or ...

If anyone's still interested: The original point of the thread was to ask what the consequences of the different metaphysics are. So far there's reall...

Yes I know it’s not the only interpretation. But I don’t understand epistemological interpretations. And I thought they were the minority with ontolog...

Yes that’s what I meant by “ontologically”. It is the most popular interpretation of QM, that the wave function somehow “collapses”. And “collapse” is...

Not assigned. In the thing in the first place. This one: These also do: You are pushing the idea that things have inherent purposes that we can be fac...

No. My goal was assigned to me by me. I decided to respond. No contradiction there either. If you see one point it out. If I'm to have an inherent pur...

Yes. There is no contradiction here. Quarks aren't at the level of complexity to be thinking about the purposes of things. We are. Now, where's the pr...

It isn't inherently. Some matter we assign purpose. Some matter we don't. Which is identical to saying that some matter has purpose and some doesn't, ...

"Goal oriented" is a human construct. Nothing is inherently goal oriented. Humans are what see purposes in things and people. I think we can agree so ...

B I guess is closest. When? Quote it. When did I say "goal directed behavior is impossible"?

Ah guess every monist is wrong. Riveting argumentation. Saying "you're too dumb" in 15 words instead of 3 doesn't make it smart. Or less of an ad hom....

No but that the biologist is a bunch of matter just like the lion. The quote says I disagree with observers and observed being different kinds of thin...

Yes and I don't like that. As long as the "subjective and objective poles" are made of the same stuff then I can live with that. But I have a problem ...

Even if that were the case. Now what. Ok the subject determines the ontology of the object. This isn't very revolutionary since QM. An electron isn't ...

Humans are also objects. You can pick them up for one. But yea if your argument for why there should be this subject object split is because "There sh...

This: No. Why this split? That's what I'm asking. The thing doing the knowing is not an ontologically different type of thing to the thing getting kno...

Not sure what you mean but we have different brains so I think so? No clue what this means though.

You haven't responded to my question. That's really the bit I care about. Even given this (which I agree with though, again MWI exists and is valid), ...

All of these are physical requirements. A brightly red room, a cup emitting a certain wavelength, and working eyes and visual systems. So the “experie...

QM can be seen as a refutation to that. It only refutes the “in themselves” part, it doesn’t refute the “things” part. There is things outside of us b...

That was the intent behind the thread. “What are the important consequences of both”. It turned into a generic materialism vs idealism debate though :...

I don’t see how this follows or why it would be necessary. I was with you until here: I may read the PDF tomorrow but it’s time for me to sign off tod...

Great. I think I know what that means now that it's in context. I'll take it. Agreed. As I said, I don't agree with the "episemic" interpretations of ...

Great. Fantastic. That's all I'm asking for. We agree then. I wonder where @"Wayfarer" is here.

There was something, which we then designated a world. And something we designated "rock" and another thing we designated "river" and so on. All we di...

False. I don't want to get into QM again but this is far from the only (or even popular) view. What's been found is 1 of 2 things. Either: 1- There is...

Agreed. But not "no world". The "base matter" of which we make the presentation in the first place stays.

If whatever form of idealism you subscribe to makes it impossible to imagine empty rooms existing I don't think I want to touch it. I have no clue wha...

Well not the universe, the moon. Because that's what was being asked. "Is the moon still there when no one is looking at it"? Yes. It's not a belief. ...

:up: I wouldn't call that idealism. It's not even talking about ontology, more so epistemology. I incidentally agree with everything you've said in th...

No it doesn’t because the Socratic paradox isn’t a Socrates exclusive idea just for having Socrates in the name. The Socratic paradox is not a part of...

Right. Where's the inconsistency here? No configuration that can be identified as Socrates remains. However a configuration that can be identified as ...

Right but you think if they're physical they shouldn't. What makes you think that?

Yes. I said "When did we add the purpose sauce" sarcastically to imply that there is no "purpose sauce". That there is no "guiding force" over and abo...