I mean: alternatively you can treat information as concrete
really can't get used to the lack of an edit function sry
The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions and debates than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.
The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now
The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.
I mean: alternatively you can treat information as concrete
Right back at you.Atla wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 9:45 amNo, you are just making a similar reification fallacy with language, and then you draw a parallel with software.chewybrian wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 7:18 am
Is the English language a part of your physical being? Were you born with the English language inside you? I think, rather, you were born with an ability to understand ideas, and the English language is one way of encoding ideas, and encouraging you to have an idea in your head similar to the idea in the head of the speaker or writer. You could just as easily have learned French or some other language, just as the computer could run on different software. But the language, for you, and the software, for the computer, are not physical elements built in.
If the computer had its memory wiped out, windows would go away with it, though you might have windows stored separately on discs or something. Similarly, if all humans died today, the English language would die with them, though it may remain stored in dictionaries or other means. In either case, the hardware of the computer could still be present, and your 'hardware', your dead body, may still be present, but the software is not part of that hardware. Software is only information, which the hardware stores, just as language is information which we store.
Well I've been trying to make sense of QM since a decade or so, it's still a work in progress. I'm training my mind to think in at least one more dimension. I won't get into it that now, but suffice to say from what I gather, of course the only way forward is some heavily modified variation of the MWI or some relative state interpretation. And it has to be within the nondualist philosophical metaparadigm, so Western philosophy doesn't play.Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 10:51 amIf you haven't already seen it, you may enjoy this topic:
In the video which inspired the topic, the presenter of the lecture discusses this idea of theories that are predicatively accurate but which some might regard as philosophically unsatisfying.
Ideas are abstract, and made of matter too. Technically they are part of your head.chewybrian wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 10:53 amRight back at you.
You have attributed a material existence to the ideas that are the essence of the software, and wish to pretend those ideas exist only in that material form, in the atoms and molecules inside the computer. But, the software entered into the computer is nothing if not encoding of ideas that existed in the mind of the man who wrote them. No idea ever enters the computer, but a keystroke or a reading of a spot on a disc is the physical reflection of the non-physical ideas. Such ideas have no material existence, and I am the one who is here trying to say they do not. Yet, I do not deny their existence, and the impact of ideas upon material things. They are real, yet not material--spooky, huh?
Restricting everything to a material existence, if that is what you are doing, is a construct you are trying to impose upon reality, and not reality as I see and experience it. My belief that ideas are real is an extension of my belief in myself and my free will. I can't see the logic in any conclusion I might make which excludes my being there to make it. The computer is not aware of itself; I am. But, I am not so aware of myself that I can convince myself that I do not exist. I see and accept that I, and all others, are more than our physical presence, and more important than anything physical. There is a part of me which is not material, yet real. Ideas exist in the same way, and they impact the material world, as I can. I can write down my idea, but the slip of paper does not become the idea, and more than alterations in the circuits in a computer become the software.
You're not thinking that the standard model lists every single property of all matter, are you? For example, does it list the properties of how stereo systems produce music from vinyl albums?Atla wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 6:29 amI didn't know that that's your point. So in that case, where does the Standard model for example list mental properties as properties of matter?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 6:15 am
I wasn't saying that it's different than properties, I was just using the common language for this. Otherwise I almost always wind up having to explain the less common language, or folks just ignore it.
You're not addressing the point, though. Mental properties are simply properties of matter, just like all other properties.
Sure, the part of the inside of the human head called human mind is made of 'matter', and stereo systems are made of 'matter' etc., but then everything is a property of matter. I don't think that's a good definition for property.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 11:17 amYou're not thinking that the standard model lists every single property of all matter, are you? For example, does it list the properties of how stereo systems produce music from vinyl albums?
What are you replying to?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 11:31 amWait--stop at "sure" as an answer to my question. Give me a citation for any statement of the standard theory listing the properties of stereo systems.
I said "Wait--Let's discuss 'Sure' first."
Yes, I read the rest of the comment. But I wanted you to answer my question.
You are making pretty lame attempts at trolling, don't you think?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 12:25 pmYes, I read the rest of the comment. But I wanted you to answer my question.
So apparently you didn't answer my question, and I have no idea what "Sure" was in response to. Could you answer my question first?