3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 12:19 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 14th, 2021, 6:31 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 13th, 2021, 4:36 pm
You still haven't reconciled how physicalism/metal events explains metaphysically conscious phenomena, did you?. Has consciousness been objectively explained? Did Dennet explain it? Where's Dennet when you need him!!!
I'll do an "It's not explained" discussion on these grounds:
(1) You give detailed criteria you're using for counting as an explanation in general,
(2) You also tell us
why your criteria from (1) are going to be the demarcation criteria for explanations, and
(3) We examine whether the criteria given in (1) actually are your demarcation criteria by testing them with a number of mundane things (so, not consciousness) that you believe are explained versus not explained, and we make sure that you can present explanations for what you consider explained that meet your criteria, and we see whether some of the mundane stuff that you don't consider explained can't be explained per your criteria.
If we don't do the above three points systematically, I'll not entertain "it's not explained" discussions. Unfortunately, since I can't get you to even respond to the simplest of questions or requests, there's no way in hell that you'll be doing any of (1), (2) or (3) above.
Okay, let's see, if mathematics stumps you (which obviously it has, since it's clearly metaphysical), how about music?
Before I answer any more questions, is there any possibility that you'll answer even a single question I asked you above? If you won't, why should I answer any question you're asking? Don't conversations require both people answering questions?
Do you want me to start doing this:
2nd request:
"we'd have to clarify what that's supposed to be saying that's different than merely 'How does physicalism explain abstracts?'"
TS!
Happy Friday! I have an idea, where perhaps we can hit the re-set button (if you will accept the challenge). Obviously the discussion is not producing any kind of' 'universal truth', as it were. And so, how about we ferret-out your Physicalism? Let's have fun and try to
deconstruct yours and my arguments (I'll start with parsing some concepts including words you used that I think are metaphysical, and put them in a basic syllogism which may or may not be sound). Then, we can see whether the conclusion follows. I'll offer a few fig-leaf examples. And, I'll keep your definition on the subject line so we don't get distracted (I'll change it if you are not comfortable with the definition) thus:
RE: In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,[1] or that everything supervenes on the physical.[2] Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view. Both the definition of "physical" and the meaning of physicalism have been debated.
A few examples of a logical syllogism to parse:
Terrapin Station used the concept of "individuals" in his premises to argue for how all humans
perceive things-in-themselves vis a vis physicalism:
"Individuals" relate to human being
Consciousness relates to "individuals"
Therefore, consciousness relates to human being
And so:
Human beings listen to music
TS is a human being
Therefore, TS has listened to music
Music is perceived metaphysically
Humans perceive music
Therefore, humans perceive the metaphysical
All mathematics is perceived metaphysically
Humans perceive mathematics
Therefore, humans perceive the metaphysical
Similarly:
All humans have a Will
TS is a human
Therefore, TS has a Will
The Will is metaphysical
Sentience is the Will
Therefore, sentience is metaphysical
This one I need your help with:
TS has the capacity to perceive emotions
Physicalism does not explain how TS perceives things
Therefore,
Physicalism is not perceived as emotions
TS, which one's are false? If false, please rearrange the syllogisms to make 'the premise' sound so that the conclusion can follow properly.
If you get stumped, (which I'm hoping you won't) no worries, we can just post the definitions of each concept first (Metaphysics in this case is the first principles of Being/ontology) then rearrange accordingly.