Total Posts:79|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Physicalism, Idealism, or Dualism?

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:39:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:36:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which view of the mind do you hold, and why?

I think the mind is probable dependent on matter (eg the brain)

So what ever that fits into....
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:02:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:39:05 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:36:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which view of the mind do you hold, and why?

I think the mind is probable dependent on matter (eg the brain)

So what ever that fits into....

Could be a number of things, physicalism, property dualism etc...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:03:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:39:05 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:36:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which view of the mind do you hold, and why?

I think the mind is probable dependent on matter (eg the brain)

So what ever that fits into....

Sounds like property dualism to me. So you think that the mind is a property of physical matter, but that it's not physical matter per se?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:05:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:36:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which view of the mind do you hold, and why?

A sort of idealistic dualism I guess. I can see the interaction problem, so I think that the mind and brain are two separate entities which are both mental in nature.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:10:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 10:03:51 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:39:05 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:36:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which view of the mind do you hold, and why?

I think the mind is probable dependent on matter (eg the brain)

So what ever that fits into....

Sounds like property dualism to me. So you think that the mind is a property of physical matter, but that it's not physical matter per se?

I am on the fence on what exactly the mind is or is not. Is a form of matter ? a different form of matter ? non material ? a combination of both ? or some other option.

Regardless the evidence to me is what I would expect if the mind was dependent on the brain.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:13:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 10:10:34 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:03:51 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:39:05 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:36:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which view of the mind do you hold, and why?

I think the mind is probable dependent on matter (eg the brain)

So what ever that fits into....

Sounds like property dualism to me. So you think that the mind is a property of physical matter, but that it's not physical matter per se?

I am on the fence on what exactly the mind is or is not. Is a form of matter ? a different form of matter ? non material ? a combination of both ? or some other option.

Regardless the evidence to me is what I would expect if the mind was dependent on the brain.

Property dualism is the position that the mind is immaterial but it's a property of physical matter.

Personally I think neutral monism is the best atheistic position for philosophy of mind. I think Nagel is a neutral monist. It's that physical matter and immaterial minds are both properties of a third "stuff" which is neutral. Neither physical nor mental.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:14:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 10:10:34 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:03:51 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:39:05 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:36:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which view of the mind do you hold, and why?

I think the mind is probable dependent on matter (eg the brain)

So what ever that fits into....

Sounds like property dualism to me. So you think that the mind is a property of physical matter, but that it's not physical matter per se?

I am on the fence on what exactly the mind is or is not. Is a form of matter ? a different form of matter ? non material ? a combination of both ? or some other option.

Regardless the evidence to me is what I would expect if the mind was dependent on the brain.

I could be wrong. Ask n7 I think he's a neutral monist.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:30:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:36:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which view of the mind do you hold, and why?

Well according to RT.............?

In order for two fundamentally different types of properties to interact (such as mental properties, and material properties), they would need to share properties, as this is what allows them to interact. However, if they share properties, then they aren't fundamentally different types of properties.

Why do two fundamental properties have to share a property to interact ?

How has it been shown (not just asserted) that two things need to share a common property to interact ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:54:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 10:30:03 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:36:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which view of the mind do you hold, and why?

Well according to RT.............?

In order for two fundamentally different types of properties to interact (such as mental properties, and material properties), they would need to share properties, as this is what allows them to interact. However, if they share properties, then they aren't fundamentally different types of properties.

Why do two fundamental properties have to share a property to interact ?

How has it been shown (not just asserted) that two things need to share a common property to interact ?

It is basic philosophy and simple metaphysics. Shared properties are what allow for interaction, and are a necessary condition for them. Basically, if you have something that lacks anything physical, it is metaphysically disconnected from the physical. There is no possibility for any interaction with regards to it, because this thing lacks any property which could, even in principle, interact with it.

Here is an equation to make it easier for you to understand:

"Let's suppose your arm wiggles due to a neural impulse of half a volt, that was triggered by one bit of mental stuff M. So we set up an equation. M + whatever voltage was there before (B) = half a volt. Now just subtract B from both sides, and you have just established that because M caused the voltage, that therefore M must have a voltage too. It's very elementary." - Johanan Raatz
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:59:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Something ontologically physical, that doesn't reduce to mental properties, would have properties like "spatial location", "voltage", or "mass", but the mind doesn't seem to have any of these things:

"Souls (or minds) are thought of as purely non-physical, they can't be weighed, split in half, heated or cooled, they lack mass, electric charge and so on...but how could they possibly have a cause and effect relationship with bodies that are said to have these, and only these physical properties?" - Austin Dacey (Atheist)

He is asking it in the form of a question, but he is really stressing that it is impossible. Without shared properties, there aren't the sufficient necessary conditions for any causal interaction. However, our minds causally interact with the world, quite easily seemingly. So, the world must be mental. Or at least, there is no better explanation.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 11:03:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Basically, the interaction problem can be used as an argument against Dualism from both the Physicalist camp and the Idealistic camp. However, because I think the mind is non-physical, the Idealistic camp wins in my books. The funny thing is, it is almost all physicalists and Atheists who argue against Dualistic interaction in the literature.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 11:12:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 10:54:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:30:03 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:36:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which view of the mind do you hold, and why?

Well according to RT.............?

In order for two fundamentally different types of properties to interact (such as mental properties, and material properties), they would need to share properties, as this is what allows them to interact. However, if they share properties, then they aren't fundamentally different types of properties.

Why do two fundamental properties have to share a property to interact ?

How has it been shown (not just asserted) that two things need to share a common property to interact ?

It is basic philosophy and simple metaphysics. Shared properties are what allow for interaction, and are a necessary condition for them. Basically, if you have something that lacks anything physical, it is metaphysically disconnected from the physical. There is no possibility for any interaction with regards to it, because this thing lacks any property which could, even in principle, interact with it.

I don't really buy it.

It just seems your saying the same thing in different ways but not actually justify that thing.

Why does something need a shared property to interact ? well cause things can only interact if they have a shared property.


Here is an equation to make it easier for you to understand:

"Let's suppose your arm wiggles due to a neural impulse of half a volt, that was triggered by one bit of mental stuff M. So we set up an equation. M + whatever voltage was there before (B) = half a volt. Now just subtract B from both sides, and you have just established that because M caused the voltage, that therefore M must have a voltage too. It's very elementary." - Johanan Raatz

Nope don't get it.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 11:22:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 11:12:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:54:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:30:03 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:36:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which view of the mind do you hold, and why?

Well according to RT.............?

In order for two fundamentally different types of properties to interact (such as mental properties, and material properties), they would need to share properties, as this is what allows them to interact. However, if they share properties, then they aren't fundamentally different types of properties.

Why do two fundamental properties have to share a property to interact ?

How has it been shown (not just asserted) that two things need to share a common property to interact ?

It is basic philosophy and simple metaphysics. Shared properties are what allow for interaction, and are a necessary condition for them. Basically, if you have something that lacks anything physical, it is metaphysically disconnected from the physical. There is no possibility for any interaction with regards to it, because this thing lacks any property which could, even in principle, interact with it.

I don't really buy it.

It is still true regardless of whether you buy it or not.


It just seems your saying the same thing in different ways but not actually justify that thing.

Why does something need a shared property to interact ? well cause things can only interact if they have a shared property.

Well, it is hard to justify a seemingly self-evident premise without circular reasoning. I can try to explain it in a different way.... If you pull a slingshot back, that is only possible because my fingers are physical, pressure is physical, and these physical properties are what allow me to pull back a physical rubberband on a slingshot. However, something without 0 physical properties, would just "go through" it, as there are no causal interaction. Basically, if the slingshot gets pulled back, that means it must be caused by something which has "pressure" in order to pull it back. However, "pressure" is a physical property. You see?

It just seems obvious to me that shared properties are required for interaction, it is an a priori metaphysical principle like the notion that change requires time for example.



Here is an equation to make it easier for you to understand:

"Let's suppose your arm wiggles due to a neural impulse of half a volt, that was triggered by one bit of mental stuff M. So we set up an equation. M + whatever voltage was there before (B) = half a volt. Now just subtract B from both sides, and you have just established that because M caused the voltage, that therefore M must have a voltage too. It's very elementary." - Johanan Raatz

Nope don't get it.

You not getting it is a problem on your end, not mine. The equation speaks for itself regardless of whether you "get it" or not.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 11:40:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 11:22:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 11:12:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:54:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:30:03 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:36:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which view of the mind do you hold, and why?

Well according to RT.............?

In order for two fundamentally different types of properties to interact (such as mental properties, and material properties), they would need to share properties, as this is what allows them to interact. However, if they share properties, then they aren't fundamentally different types of properties.

Why do two fundamental properties have to share a property to interact ?

How has it been shown (not just asserted) that two things need to share a common property to interact ?

It is basic philosophy and simple metaphysics. Shared properties are what allow for interaction, and are a necessary condition for them. Basically, if you have something that lacks anything physical, it is metaphysically disconnected from the physical. There is no possibility for any interaction with regards to it, because this thing lacks any property which could, even in principle, interact with it.

I don't really buy it.

It is still true regardless of whether you buy it or not.


It just seems your saying the same thing in different ways but not actually justify that thing.

Why does something need a shared property to interact ? well cause things can only interact if they have a shared property.

Well, it is hard to justify a seemingly self-evident premise without circular reasoning. I can try to explain it in a different way.... If you pull a slingshot back, that is only possible because my fingers are physical, pressure is physical, and these physical properties are what allow me to pull back a physical rubberband on a slingshot. However, something without 0 physical properties, would just "go through" it, as there are no causal interaction. Basically, if the slingshot gets pulled back, that means it must be caused by something which has "pressure" in order to pull it back. However, "pressure" is a physical property. You see?

Here is something called A. Here is something called B. A and B do not share a property, can you prove that they can not interact without just first assuming they can't interact.

What determines if something is a physical property ? Can we just say the mind is a physical property ? after all you say pressure is.

I get the feeling there might be some wiggle room that people are using to claim what is or is not physical.


It just seems obvious to me that shared properties are required for interaction, it is an a priori metaphysical principle like the notion that change requires time for example.

The amount of claims I have heard well it just seems obvious, it's self evident......

Alot of times what is self evident and obvious isn't the claim but rather the person is just assuming that claim is true in the first place.






Here is an equation to make it easier for you to understand:

"Let's suppose your arm wiggles due to a neural impulse of half a volt, that was triggered by one bit of mental stuff M. So we set up an equation. M + whatever voltage was there before (B) = half a volt. Now just subtract B from both sides, and you have just established that because M caused the voltage, that therefore M must have a voltage too. It's very elementary." - Johanan Raatz

Nope don't get it.

You not getting it is a problem on your end, not mine. The equation speaks for itself regardless of whether you "get it" or not.

I understand basic algebra, maybe you need to rewrite the equation so it's more easily understandable.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 12:09:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 11:40:21 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 11:22:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 11:12:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:54:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:30:03 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:36:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which view of the mind do you hold, and why?

Well according to RT.............?

In order for two fundamentally different types of properties to interact (such as mental properties, and material properties), they would need to share properties, as this is what allows them to interact. However, if they share properties, then they aren't fundamentally different types of properties.

Why do two fundamental properties have to share a property to interact ?

How has it been shown (not just asserted) that two things need to share a common property to interact ?

It is basic philosophy and simple metaphysics. Shared properties are what allow for interaction, and are a necessary condition for them. Basically, if you have something that lacks anything physical, it is metaphysically disconnected from the physical. There is no possibility for any interaction with regards to it, because this thing lacks any property which could, even in principle, interact with it.

I don't really buy it.

It is still true regardless of whether you buy it or not.


It just seems your saying the same thing in different ways but not actually justify that thing.

Why does something need a shared property to interact ? well cause things can only interact if they have a shared property.

Well, it is hard to justify a seemingly self-evident premise without circular reasoning. I can try to explain it in a different way.... If you pull a slingshot back, that is only possible because my fingers are physical, pressure is physical, and these physical properties are what allow me to pull back a physical rubberband on a slingshot. However, something without 0 physical properties, would just "go through" it, as there are no causal interaction. Basically, if the slingshot gets pulled back, that means it must be caused by something which has "pressure" in order to pull it back. However, "pressure" is a physical property. You see?

Here is something called A. Here is something called B. A and B do not share a property, can you prove that they can not interact without just first assuming they can't interact.

I already did. If A has no properties that B has, then A is metaphysically disconnected from B (obviously, as they don't share properties). Metaphysically disconnected obviously cannot interact, because interaction requires some form of connection.


What determines if something is a physical property ?

You ask questions that have obvious answers. It is really getting annoying. Something like voltage, if it doesn't reduce to mental properties, ontologically, is a physical property.

Can we just say the mind is a physical property ? after all you say pressure is.

The mind isn't a physical property, as properties don't have causal influence on what they are properties of. "Being solid" is a property of my speaker for example, but solidness isn't going to push it to the side or move it. However, the mind has causal influence neurons [http://newsroom.ucla.edu...], ergo, the mind is not a property of anything physical, it is its own "thing" in its own right.


I get the feeling there might be some wiggle room that people are using to claim what is or is not physical.

It seems pretty straight forward to me.




It just seems obvious to me that shared properties are required for interaction, it is an a priori metaphysical principle like the notion that change requires time for example.

The amount of claims I have heard well it just seems obvious, it's self evident......

Alot of times what is self evident and obvious isn't the claim but rather the person is just assuming that claim is true in the first place.

But a lot of the time the thing actually is self-evident.







Here is an equation to make it easier for you to understand:

"Let's suppose your arm wiggles due to a neural impulse of half a volt, that was triggered by one bit of mental stuff M. So we set up an equation. M + whatever voltage was there before (B) = half a volt. Now just subtract B from both sides, and you have just established that because M caused the voltage, that therefore M must have a voltage too. It's very elementary." - Johanan Raatz

Nope don't get it.

You not getting it is a problem on your end, not mine. The equation speaks for itself regardless of whether you "get it" or not.

I understand basic algebra, maybe you need to rewrite the equation so it's more easily understandable.

It's a simple equation that demonstrates a fold-over of properties that are necessary for any causal influence.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 12:14:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 10:30:03 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:36:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which view of the mind do you hold, and why?

Well according to RT.............?

In order for two fundamentally different types of properties to interact (such as mental properties, and material properties), they would need to share properties, as this is what allows them to interact. However, if they share properties, then they aren't fundamentally different types of properties.

Why do two fundamental properties have to share a property to interact ?

How has it been shown (not just asserted) that two things need to share a common property to interact ?

There could also be an intermediary. Something that shares one or more but not all properties of Mental. And also shares one or more but not all properties of Physical. This way the 2 stay separate but can react to each other.

For instance I can think about rising my arm up. In my thoughts I almost imagine and feel what the sensation would be. That is purely mental. My arm is purely physical it will continue to stay there. But what is the switch in thinking when I go from thinking about moving my arm, and the "I am moving my arm right now" action. That action is mental and physical.

Maybe it is a question of the mental thought of moving was in the realm of possibilities and was operating in a kind of future tense. It took something in the present to combine the though and physical to make an action.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 12:16:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
To clarify the intermediary would have to share 1 but not all. because if it shared all then it would be identical to mental. Same goes for physical.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 12:31:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 12:14:38 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:30:03 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:36:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which view of the mind do you hold, and why?

Well according to RT.............?

In order for two fundamentally different types of properties to interact (such as mental properties, and material properties), they would need to share properties, as this is what allows them to interact. However, if they share properties, then they aren't fundamentally different types of properties.

Why do two fundamental properties have to share a property to interact ?

How has it been shown (not just asserted) that two things need to share a common property to interact ?

There could also be an intermediary. Something that shares one or more but not all properties of Mental. And also shares one or more but not all properties of Physical. This way the 2 stay separate but can react to each other.

The problem is that the purely physical properties (assuming they exist and don't really reduce to mental properties) clearly interact with the purely mental properties. So, the intermediate could only explain so much.


For instance I can think about rising my arm up. In my thoughts I almost imagine and feel what the sensation would be. That is purely mental. My arm is purely physical it will continue to stay there. But what is the switch in thinking when I go from thinking about moving my arm, and the "I am moving my arm right now" action. That action is mental and physical.

Well a switch in thinking is a purely mental action by definition. Regardless, You referred to two different actions: the action of thinking about moving your arm, and the action of actually moving your arm. One is mental, the other is physical (if we assume Idealism is false for argument's sake at least). What action is supposed to be both mental and physical?

Maybe it is a question of the mental thought of moving was in the realm of possibilities and was operating in a kind of future tense. It took something in the present to combine the though and physical to make an action.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 12:44:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well a switch in thinking is a purely mental action by definition. Regardless, You referred to two different actions: the action of thinking about moving your arm, and the action of actually moving your arm. One is mental, the other is physical (if we assume Idealism is false for argument's sake at least). What action is supposed to be both mental and physical?

Maybe it is a question of the mental thought of moving was in the realm of possibilities and was operating in a kind of future tense. It took something in the present to combine the though and physical to make an action.

I think moving my arm is both mental and physical. There was some abstract thought that I should raise my hand, and this produced a chemical pathway that exerted energy and moved my arm. Where did this Abstract thought come from. It is mind.

Is there mind or was this from a mess of chemical interactions in a brain. I think not. Because when I dream there is a completely different state that is unresponsive to the world around me. My dreams are remembered and sometimes relate to a task I had. So where is the instigator to these thoughts if not from the physical pathways that are set up to control the physical arm. So my dream is mental activity in a mental context.

The intermediary I admit would be a tough pill to swallow. But some research (http://www.theswartzfoundation.org...), This would be a connect between mental and physical in that if there is physical structures in the brain that react to quantum fluctuations then from the unknowable that is between the plank second and the plank length would be the realm of mental.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 12:54:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 12:44:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Well a switch in thinking is a purely mental action by definition. Regardless, You referred to two different actions: the action of thinking about moving your arm, and the action of actually moving your arm. One is mental, the other is physical (if we assume Idealism is false for argument's sake at least). What action is supposed to be both mental and physical?

Maybe it is a question of the mental thought of moving was in the realm of possibilities and was operating in a kind of future tense. It took something in the present to combine the though and physical to make an action.

I think moving my arm is both mental and physical.

How so? Your arm is just a bunch of particles and what not interacting if you believe in the physical right? And it moving up is "motion", which is physical. No mental.

There was some abstract thought that I should raise my hand, and this produced a chemical pathway that exerted energy and moved my arm.

So the mental thought is one action, which caused the physical action.That is one event causing another. There is no event that is both physical and mental. Either way, I already showed why something purely physical cannot interact with something purely mental.

Where did this Abstract thought come from. It is mind.

Is there mind or was this from a mess of chemical interactions in a brain. I think not. Because when I dream there is a completely different state that is unresponsive to the world around me. My dreams are remembered and sometimes relate to a task I had. So where is the instigator to these thoughts if not from the physical pathways that are set up to control the physical arm. So my dream is mental activity in a mental context.

But in my Idealistic view, everything is mental, and what we call the "physical" really reduces to the mental.


The intermediary I admit would be a tough pill to swallow. But some research (http://www.theswartzfoundation.org...), This would be a connect between mental and physical in that if there is physical structures in the brain that react to quantum fluctuations then from the unknowable that is between the plank second and the plank length would be the realm of mental.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 12:56:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
But in my Idealistic view, everything is mental, and what we call the "physical" really reduces to the mental.

Right and I would argue that that is a mental process that reduces the perception of the physical not the physical world.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 1:00:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 12:56:25 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
But in my Idealistic view, everything is mental, and what we call the "physical" really reduces to the mental.

Right and I would argue that that is a mental process that reduces the perception of the physical not the physical world.

But you can doubt the physical world, you cannot doubt the mind (that would be inconsistent, as doubting is a mental action in itself). Also, perceptions are mental, so what you just said was a contradiction.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 1:04:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 12:54:53 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Maybe I should make clear the intermediary would be a quantum fluctuation.

Matter is just quantum fluctuations [http://www.newscientist.com...]. However, if the mind is quantum as well, then that would imply reality was mental as well. After all, why would something as radically different as the mind (an ontologically real physical reality) emerge out of a quantum reality, or be composed of it, when the mind emerges out of it in the same way? That makes no sense. It is not like you can doubt your mind, so it makes more sense to say that mental substance is fundamental, and that everything we call the physical is a manifestation of that.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 1:04:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 1:00:02 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 12:56:25 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
But in my Idealistic view, everything is mental, and what we call the "physical" really reduces to the mental.

Right and I would argue that that is a mental process that reduces the perception of the physical not the physical world.

But you can doubt the physical world, you cannot doubt the mind (that would be inconsistent, as doubting is a mental action in itself). Also, perceptions are mental, so what you just said was a contradiction.

mmm how to explain this is tough. Yes. I would argue that idealism is a mental process in which you reduce the perceptions of the physical world to a metal state. It is all a mental activity and does not really describe the physical world.

Maybe the proof for this is the material have no thought as thought is a mental property. No material thing has idealism. and if physical things did think would they reduce everything down to physical.

Now I'll say it differently but in a not so funny haha way.

Your thoughts are inherently mental. Could idealism be a case of "If you are a hammer everything looks like a nail"
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 1:06:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 1:04:47 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:00:02 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 12:56:25 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
But in my Idealistic view, everything is mental, and what we call the "physical" really reduces to the mental.

Right and I would argue that that is a mental process that reduces the perception of the physical not the physical world.

But you can doubt the physical world, you cannot doubt the mind (that would be inconsistent, as doubting is a mental action in itself). Also, perceptions are mental, so what you just said was a contradiction.

mmm how to explain this is tough. Yes. I would argue that idealism is a mental process in which you reduce the perceptions of the physical world to a metal state. It is all a mental activity and does not really describe the physical world.

Maybe the proof for this is the material have no thought as thought is a mental property. No material thing has idealism. and if physical things did think would they reduce everything down to physical.

Now I'll say it differently but in a not so funny haha way.

Your thoughts are inherently mental. Could idealism be a case of "If you are a hammer everything looks like a nail"

Yes I agree, it does seem tough for you to explain it lol
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 1:11:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you are a hammer everything looks like a nail.. I really should expound I guess.

Idealism is a thought you have, Your thoughts are mental. So is this a case of your mental attributes seeing everything else as mental like the hammer looks at a window and sees a nail.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 1:19:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 1:11:11 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If you are a hammer everything looks like a nail.. I really should expound I guess.

Idealism is a thought you have, Your thoughts are mental. So is this a case of your mental attributes seeing everything else as mental like the hammer looks at a window and sees a nail.

Idealism is a philosophical position that all is mental based on deductive arguments with premises supported by metaphysical or certain scientific inquiry. The reason I see everything is mental is because I believe it is only reasonable to do so. But I suppose you would say being reasonable is another bias the mind has? lol