Thanks for your replies to the "fundamentality of Causation" and the "ambiguity of Energy" questions. So, now what do you think about the "many degree...
Well put! And I agree. Your fluent expression reminds me of Richard Feynman's counterintuitive notion that "light doesn't flow"*1. :smile: *1. Based o...
Since this is a philosophical forum, I'm more interested in the the metaphysical way philosophers use the term "Energy" than the physical way scientis...
I'm addressing this to you, because is not available to clarify a puzzling point*1 he made in response to my proposed definition : that Physical Energ...
Personally, I don't think digital computers are actually, or fully, sentient, but proving it one way or the other, would be difficult, and would depen...
Spiritual & mystical experiences used to be long-hard work --- prayer, meditation, mortification --- for those who wanted to "experience" God directly...
"Ineffable experiences"*1 used to be attributed to visitations from God or Holy Spirit, in a specific religious context : e.g. Catholic, Protestant, I...
I just came across another reference to the Consciousness transmitter/receiver notion of Noetics*1. Since I don't have a subscription, I couldn't read...
That claim seems to be based on a misapplication of Popper's Principle (or rule of thumb) of Falsifiability*1. Karl Popper concluded that humans --- b...
Biological brains "suck" at computing mathematical-logical answers (deterministically). But they are pretty good at creating tools to go beyond biolog...
Yes, the notion that human ideas are received from the Ether*1, instead of generated by the brain, is an interesting (strange) concept. But what philo...
That's a question you'll have to ask of the Programmer of the cosmic system*1. How is "success" defined? A.N. Whitehead's Process Philosophy emphasize...
Even though I'm an untrained amateur philosopher, I disagree to-some-degree with Chalmers about Consciousness being fundamental. God-like omniscience ...
Yes. As I said in the OP, I have difficulty making sense of the concept of the human brain as a receiver of consciousness. Even so, I'm currently read...
Post-Planck scale Cosmology : Since has temporarily retired from the philosophical wrestling arena of this forum, I'll address this post to you. That'...
I was an early untrained amateur adopter of desktop computers back in the late 1980s and early 90s. The brand name was Micron, a chip manufacturer, an...
Ironically, I originally got the idea, from your screenname Boundless, that our philosophical positions might be somewhat compatible, but then we seem...
The Planck scale was computed to establish the universe's minimum physical limit, beyond which material things can no longer be measured (i.e. informa...
"Scientific facts change because science is a dynamic process of discovery, not a static collection of absolute truths" 180woowoo is getting an ego-bo...
My point is not that potential EnFormAction (EFA) is thermodynamic Energy, but that Energy is merely one form of Universal Causation*1. which is an ab...
My definition of Energy : A. not a tangible material substance B. postulated immaterial causal force C. that can have detectable (actual) effects in t...
I apologize for double-posting, but 's critique of my analogous comparison of scientific physical Energy with philosophical metaphysical Causation, an...
What "re-defined facts" are you referring to? Boundless is quibbling about the equation of Energy and Information*1, which is not my redefinition, but...
So, you think a Philosophy Forum is not a "proper context" for discussing Scientific terms? Or, to put it differently, that Science and Philosophy are...
Do I need to remind you that this is a Philosophy Forum, not a Physics Seminar? Philosophy deals with Meaning & Metaphor, while Physics is supposed to...
Yes. Physicalists are aware that material bodies have immaterial functions (processes), such as Life & Mind. But they view the real Matter as fundamen...
When I said that Mind is what the Brain does, thinking & feeling, I was taking a Functionalist stance instead of a Substance position on the Hard Prob...
Yes. That something added back-in, on top of what actually is (from a divine objective perspective), is the seeming of human inference. Steven Hawking...
Maybe the difference, between your concept of Time, and Wayfarer's, can be demonstrated in a poster's screen-name : Esse quam videri*1 (to be rather t...
So you do distinguish between the material (plastic) and it's function (bottle). Materialism does try to "reduce" mind (function) to brain (matter). B...
This will be an interesting thread, but I doubt that it will lead to a true or false conclusion. That's because human language is intrinsically materi...
So you don't distinguish between the living and thinking aspects of your being? Do you think you are all Mind, or all Body? The all-body view, with Mi...
The hardware/software metaphor --- figure of speech --- for the human brain/mind is intended to evoke similarity, not sameness or identity. I did not ...
In a technical "scientistic" context, computer software does not work like the human mind. But in a philosophical (metaphorical) context, the human mi...
Nor am I. But the 17th century Enlightenment revolution (Age of Reason) tried to draw a hard line between rational Science & emotional Religion, betwe...
Again, you seem to be afraid of crossing the Enlightenment line between Science and Religion. But Philosophy is similar to Religion only in its focus ...
Have you ever looked at the concept of Energy from a philosophical perspective? You ought to try it sometimes. It might broaden your understanding of ...
As you say, I'm "reading" Energy" in a "Metaphysical way" instead of a Physical way. If this was a Physics forum, that interpretation --- as a non-phy...
This is a philosophy forum, not a physics seminar. So why not reify that which is invisible & intangible? Energy is a non-thing concept, it's a knowab...
According to the Buddha, my Reality is an Illusion based on a misinterpretation. Presumably, the Reductionism of modern Science constructs an illusory...
Yes. Energy is the cause of physical change, while material particles are the things that are in flux. Change >>> Time ; Matter >>> Space. The initial...
misinterpreted my reference to Energy as a "postulated force"*1, analogous to "spiritual energy"*2. That was not intended as a religious assertion, bu...
My point was that Energy is logically inferred, not physically observed. I was not implying that it is not a real phenomenon. But over many centuries,...
My comment was a response to your post about philosophical notions on the Reality vs Ideality of Potential vs Actual*1. I was simply referring to a co...
No. It doesn't make sense to me. That's why I posted the reference to Noetics (study of sentience & intellect) in the OP. I was hoping that someone el...
Yes. I suppose it's accounting for physical changes that would otherwise seem like magic. Give it a mundane name, and it sounds more technical, and se...
Yes. In modern physics, Energy is considered a real thing even though it's knowable only in its effects, not in its material substance. Energy as pote...
I'll have to admit that Aristotle's definition of a Soul is not clear to me. But it reminds me of similar definitions of Energy as the capacity or abi...
Most of the posts on this thread seem to be various philosophical opinions favoring either traditional Idealism (transcendentalism) or Realism (immane...
Aristotle distinguished between Soul & Body, just as he made a distinction between abstract Form & concrete Matter. The quote doesn't say this specifi...
Comments