Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Physicalism disproved?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,964
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 4:18:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?

Color = Information processing
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 4:38:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 4:18:27 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?

Color = Information processing

Establishing a correspondence between color and other perceived phenomena does not prove (or even suggest) that color is physical.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 4:41:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 4:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:18:27 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?

Color = Information processing

Establishing a correspondence between color and other perceived phenomena does not prove (or even suggest) that color is physical.

I'm not basing my argument on correspondence.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 4:42:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 4:41:12 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:18:27 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?

Color = Information processing

Establishing a correspondence between color and other perceived phenomena does not prove (or even suggest) that color is physical.

I'm not basing my argument on correspondence.

Nor am I trying to prove that color is physical.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 4:44:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 4:41:12 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:18:27 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?

Color = Information processing

Establishing a correspondence between color and other perceived phenomena does not prove (or even suggest) that color is physical.

I'm not basing my argument on correspondence.

I find that highly unlikely.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 4:44:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 4:44:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:41:12 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:18:27 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?

Color = Information processing

Establishing a correspondence between color and other perceived phenomena does not prove (or even suggest) that color is physical.

I'm not basing my argument on correspondence.

I find that highly unlikely.

At the very least it's an argument of supervenience.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 4:46:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 4:42:13 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:41:12 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:18:27 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?

Color = Information processing

Establishing a correspondence between color and other perceived phenomena does not prove (or even suggest) that color is physical.

I'm not basing my argument on correspondence.

Nor am I trying to prove that color is physical.

Oh, never mind then. A number of people in the past have brought up the idea that color is information processing in order to defend physicalism, so I assumed you were too.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 4:47:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 4:46:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:42:13 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:41:12 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:18:27 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?

Color = Information processing

Establishing a correspondence between color and other perceived phenomena does not prove (or even suggest) that color is physical.

I'm not basing my argument on correspondence.

Nor am I trying to prove that color is physical.

Oh, never mind then. A number of people in the past have brought up the idea that color is information processing in order to defend physicalism, so I assumed you were too.

I am making such an argument. I just don't feel the need to prove that color is physical directly. I'd rather prove that color is a process that is physical in nature, entailing the physical-ness of color.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 4:56:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 4:47:51 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:46:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:42:13 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:41:12 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:18:27 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?

Color = Information processing

Establishing a correspondence between color and other perceived phenomena does not prove (or even suggest) that color is physical.

I'm not basing my argument on correspondence.

Nor am I trying to prove that color is physical.

Oh, never mind then. A number of people in the past have brought up the idea that color is information processing in order to defend physicalism, so I assumed you were too.

I am making such an argument. I just don't feel the need to prove that color is physical directly. I'd rather prove that color is a process that is physical in nature, entailing the physical-ness of color.

I don't see how that can be done if "color" describes the subjective experience itself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 4:58:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 4:47:51 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:46:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:42:13 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:41:12 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:18:27 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?

Color = Information processing

Establishing a correspondence between color and other perceived phenomena does not prove (or even suggest) that color is physical.

I'm not basing my argument on correspondence.

Nor am I trying to prove that color is physical.

Oh, never mind then. A number of people in the past have brought up the idea that color is information processing in order to defend physicalism, so I assumed you were too.

I am making such an argument. I just don't feel the need to prove that color is physical directly. I'd rather prove that color is a process that is physical in nature, entailing the physical-ness of color.

In other words, although the conditions for experiencing a given color have basis in "objective" reality, the color itself has no basis.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 4:59:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 4:56:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:47:51 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:46:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:42:13 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:41:12 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:18:27 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?

Color = Information processing

Establishing a correspondence between color and other perceived phenomena does not prove (or even suggest) that color is physical.

I'm not basing my argument on correspondence.

Nor am I trying to prove that color is physical.

Oh, never mind then. A number of people in the past have brought up the idea that color is information processing in order to defend physicalism, so I assumed you were too.

I am making such an argument. I just don't feel the need to prove that color is physical directly. I'd rather prove that color is a process that is physical in nature, entailing the physical-ness of color.

I don't see how that can be done if "color" describes the subjective experience itself.

The subjective experience of color is just the brain organizing objective stimuli. It's called a gestalt.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 5:01:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 4:59:00 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:56:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:47:51 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:46:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:42:13 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:41:12 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:18:27 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?

Color = Information processing

Establishing a correspondence between color and other perceived phenomena does not prove (or even suggest) that color is physical.

I'm not basing my argument on correspondence.

Nor am I trying to prove that color is physical.

Oh, never mind then. A number of people in the past have brought up the idea that color is information processing in order to defend physicalism, so I assumed you were too.

I am making such an argument. I just don't feel the need to prove that color is physical directly. I'd rather prove that color is a process that is physical in nature, entailing the physical-ness of color.

I don't see how that can be done if "color" describes the subjective experience itself.

The subjective experience of color is just the brain organizing objective stimuli. It's called a gestalt.

I agree, but that doesn't mean it's physical or objective. It's simply elicited by the physical and objective.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 5:04:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 5:01:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:59:00 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:56:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:47:51 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:46:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:42:13 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:41:12 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:18:27 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?

Color = Information processing

Establishing a correspondence between color and other perceived phenomena does not prove (or even suggest) that color is physical.

I'm not basing my argument on correspondence.

Nor am I trying to prove that color is physical.

Oh, never mind then. A number of people in the past have brought up the idea that color is information processing in order to defend physicalism, so I assumed you were too.

I am making such an argument. I just don't feel the need to prove that color is physical directly. I'd rather prove that color is a process that is physical in nature, entailing the physical-ness of color.

I don't see how that can be done if "color" describes the subjective experience itself.

The subjective experience of color is just the brain organizing objective stimuli. It's called a gestalt.

I agree, but that doesn't mean it's physical or objective. It's simply elicited by the physical and objective.

Science offers us an explanation of color and our experience of color in physical terms and processes. As long as we have that, I see no need to go any further and suggest that there's more to color than our body processing external stimuli and our brain forming color according to holistic Gestalt rules.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 5:20:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 5:04:44 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:01:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:59:00 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:56:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:47:51 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:46:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:42:13 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:41:12 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:18:27 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?

Color = Information processing

Establishing a correspondence between color and other perceived phenomena does not prove (or even suggest) that color is physical.

I'm not basing my argument on correspondence.

Nor am I trying to prove that color is physical.

Oh, never mind then. A number of people in the past have brought up the idea that color is information processing in order to defend physicalism, so I assumed you were too.

I am making such an argument. I just don't feel the need to prove that color is physical directly. I'd rather prove that color is a process that is physical in nature, entailing the physical-ness of color.

I don't see how that can be done if "color" describes the subjective experience itself.

The subjective experience of color is just the brain organizing objective stimuli. It's called a gestalt.

I agree, but that doesn't mean it's physical or objective. It's simply elicited by the physical and objective.

Science offers us an explanation of color and our experience of color in physical terms and processes. As long as we have that, I see no need to go any further and suggest that there's more to color than our body processing external stimuli and our brain forming color according to holistic Gestalt rules.

But that amounts to letting science get away with not explaining the subjective side of qualia. According to physicalism, everything is physical. So why shouldn't it be held accountable for explaining qualia, which obviously exists, and appears to escape physical reduction?
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 5:24:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 5:20:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:04:44 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:01:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:59:00 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:56:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:47:51 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:46:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:42:13 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:41:12 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:18:27 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?

Color = Information processing

Establishing a correspondence between color and other perceived phenomena does not prove (or even suggest) that color is physical.

I'm not basing my argument on correspondence.

Nor am I trying to prove that color is physical.

Oh, never mind then. A number of people in the past have brought up the idea that color is information processing in order to defend physicalism, so I assumed you were too.

I am making such an argument. I just don't feel the need to prove that color is physical directly. I'd rather prove that color is a process that is physical in nature, entailing the physical-ness of color.

I don't see how that can be done if "color" describes the subjective experience itself.

The subjective experience of color is just the brain organizing objective stimuli. It's called a gestalt.

I agree, but that doesn't mean it's physical or objective. It's simply elicited by the physical and objective.

Science offers us an explanation of color and our experience of color in physical terms and processes. As long as we have that, I see no need to go any further and suggest that there's more to color than our body processing external stimuli and our brain forming color according to holistic Gestalt rules.

But that amounts to letting science get away with not explaining the subjective side of qualia. According to physicalism, everything is physical. So why shouldn't it be held accountable for explaining qualia, which obviously exists, and appears to escape physical reduction?

Physicalism is an ontological thesis.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,964
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 5:24:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 5:04:44 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:01:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:59:00 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:56:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:47:51 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:46:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:42:13 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:41:12 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:18:27 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?

Color = Information processing

Establishing a correspondence between color and other perceived phenomena does not prove (or even suggest) that color is physical.

I'm not basing my argument on correspondence.

Nor am I trying to prove that color is physical.

Oh, never mind then. A number of people in the past have brought up the idea that color is information processing in order to defend physicalism, so I assumed you were too.

I am making such an argument. I just don't feel the need to prove that color is physical directly. I'd rather prove that color is a process that is physical in nature, entailing the physical-ness of color.

I don't see how that can be done if "color" describes the subjective experience itself.

The subjective experience of color is just the brain organizing objective stimuli. It's called a gestalt.

I agree, but that doesn't mean it's physical or objective. It's simply elicited by the physical and objective.

Science offers us an explanation of color and our experience of color in physical terms and processes. As long as we have that, I see no need to go any further and suggest that there's more to color than our body processing external stimuli and our brain forming color according to holistic Gestalt rules.

Physical structures are necessary for receiving colors but colors themselves are not physical. So in a universe devoid of all consciousness, non-physical properties do not exist (color included). It shows that objective reality (reality as we know it) is dependent on conscious beings to actualize. Objective reality, the reality that we know, simply does not exist independently of consciousness.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 5:26:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 5:24:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physical structures are necessary for receiving colors but colors themselves are not physical.

Color isn't an entity. It's a process. This process is decidedly physical in every regard.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,964
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 5:27:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 5:26:35 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:24:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physical structures are necessary for receiving colors but colors themselves are not physical.

Color isn't an entity. It's a process. This process is decidedly physical in every regard.

Answer this: do colors exist without any consciousness?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 5:30:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 5:24:09 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:20:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:04:44 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:01:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:59:00 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:56:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:47:51 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:46:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:42:13 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:41:12 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:18:27 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?

Color = Information processing

Establishing a correspondence between color and other perceived phenomena does not prove (or even suggest) that color is physical.

I'm not basing my argument on correspondence.

Nor am I trying to prove that color is physical.

Oh, never mind then. A number of people in the past have brought up the idea that color is information processing in order to defend physicalism, so I assumed you were too.

I am making such an argument. I just don't feel the need to prove that color is physical directly. I'd rather prove that color is a process that is physical in nature, entailing the physical-ness of color.

I don't see how that can be done if "color" describes the subjective experience itself.

The subjective experience of color is just the brain organizing objective stimuli. It's called a gestalt.

I agree, but that doesn't mean it's physical or objective. It's simply elicited by the physical and objective.

Science offers us an explanation of color and our experience of color in physical terms and processes. As long as we have that, I see no need to go any further and suggest that there's more to color than our body processing external stimuli and our brain forming color according to holistic Gestalt rules.

But that amounts to letting science get away with not explaining the subjective side of qualia. According to physicalism, everything is physical. So why shouldn't it be held accountable for explaining qualia, which obviously exists, and appears to escape physical reduction?

Physicalism is an ontological thesis.

But you're defending it on a scientific basis. You're basically saying "qualia is scientifically useless, and therefore physicalism doesn't have to account for it". It's profoundly circular.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 5:34:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 5:30:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:24:09 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:20:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:04:44 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:01:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:59:00 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:56:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:47:51 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:46:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:42:13 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:41:12 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:18:27 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?

Color = Information processing

Establishing a correspondence between color and other perceived phenomena does not prove (or even suggest) that color is physical.

I'm not basing my argument on correspondence.

Nor am I trying to prove that color is physical.

Oh, never mind then. A number of people in the past have brought up the idea that color is information processing in order to defend physicalism, so I assumed you were too.

I am making such an argument. I just don't feel the need to prove that color is physical directly. I'd rather prove that color is a process that is physical in nature, entailing the physical-ness of color.

I don't see how that can be done if "color" describes the subjective experience itself.

The subjective experience of color is just the brain organizing objective stimuli. It's called a gestalt.

I agree, but that doesn't mean it's physical or objective. It's simply elicited by the physical and objective.

Science offers us an explanation of color and our experience of color in physical terms and processes. As long as we have that, I see no need to go any further and suggest that there's more to color than our body processing external stimuli and our brain forming color according to holistic Gestalt rules.

But that amounts to letting science get away with not explaining the subjective side of qualia. According to physicalism, everything is physical. So why shouldn't it be held accountable for explaining qualia, which obviously exists, and appears to escape physical reduction?

Physicalism is an ontological thesis.

But you're defending it on a scientific basis. You're basically saying "qualia is scientifically useless, and therefore physicalism doesn't have to account for it". It's profoundly circular.

You're not characterizing my point properly. The point is that physicalism doesn't amount to the statement that everything we see can be explained in physical terms. That's an epistemological proposition. Physicalism amounts to the assertion that everything is physical, whether or not we have the epistemological tools to work out the physical mechanisms behind it.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 5:34:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 5:26:35 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:24:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physical structures are necessary for receiving colors but colors themselves are not physical.

Color isn't an entity. It's a process. This process is decidedly physical in every regard.

You're once again failing to distinguish between color and its corresponding objective basis.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 5:35:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 5:27:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:26:35 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:24:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physical structures are necessary for receiving colors but colors themselves are not physical.

Color isn't an entity. It's a process. This process is decidedly physical in every regard.

Answer this: do colors exist without any consciousness?

Not its holistic properties.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 5:36:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 5:34:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:26:35 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:24:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physical structures are necessary for receiving colors but colors themselves are not physical.

Color isn't an entity. It's a process. This process is decidedly physical in every regard.

You're once again failing to distinguish between color and its corresponding objective basis.

As a snarky forum user would write, "You're once again failing to characterize my arguments correctly".
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 5:37:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 5:36:05 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:34:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:26:35 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:24:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physical structures are necessary for receiving colors but colors themselves are not physical.

Color isn't an entity. It's a process. This process is decidedly physical in every regard.

You're once again failing to distinguish between color and its corresponding objective basis.

As a snarky forum user would write, "You're once again failing to characterize my arguments correctly".

You don't get to say that and not be a snark. I won't let you get away with it.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,964
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 5:38:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 5:35:21 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:27:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:26:35 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:24:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physical structures are necessary for receiving colors but colors themselves are not physical.

Color isn't an entity. It's a process. This process is decidedly physical in every regard.

Answer this: do colors exist without any consciousness?

Not its holistic properties.

So basically, the necessary components of color for interpretation by conscious beings to perceive them may be present, but colors themselves do not exist. Do you accept that objective reality as we know it does not exist without conscious perception?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 5:39:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 5:34:36 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:30:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:24:09 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:20:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:04:44 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:01:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:59:00 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:56:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:47:51 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:46:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:42:13 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:41:12 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:18:27 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?

Color = Information processing

Establishing a correspondence between color and other perceived phenomena does not prove (or even suggest) that color is physical.

I'm not basing my argument on correspondence.

Nor am I trying to prove that color is physical.

Oh, never mind then. A number of people in the past have brought up the idea that color is information processing in order to defend physicalism, so I assumed you were too.

I am making such an argument. I just don't feel the need to prove that color is physical directly. I'd rather prove that color is a process that is physical in nature, entailing the physical-ness of color.

I don't see how that can be done if "color" describes the subjective experience itself.

The subjective experience of color is just the brain organizing objective stimuli. It's called a gestalt.

I agree, but that doesn't mean it's physical or objective. It's simply elicited by the physical and objective.

Science offers us an explanation of color and our experience of color in physical terms and processes. As long as we have that, I see no need to go any further and suggest that there's more to color than our body processing external stimuli and our brain forming color according to holistic Gestalt rules.

But that amounts to letting science get away with not explaining the subjective side of qualia. According to physicalism, everything is physical. So why shouldn't it be held accountable for explaining qualia, which obviously exists, and appears to escape physical reduction?

Physicalism is an ontological thesis.

But you're defending it on a scientific basis. You're basically saying "qualia is scientifically useless, and therefore physicalism doesn't have to account for it". It's profoundly circular.

You're not characterizing my point properly. The point is that physicalism doesn't amount to the statement that everything we see can be explained in physical terms. That's an epistemological proposition. Physicalism amounts to the assertion that everything is physical, whether or not we have the epistemological tools to work out the physical mechanisms behind it.

Okay, then either your position is without scientific support, or my previous post applies.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 5:41:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 5:39:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:34:36 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:30:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:24:09 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:20:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:04:44 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:01:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:59:00 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:56:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:47:51 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:46:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:42:13 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:41:12 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:18:27 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?

Color = Information processing

Establishing a correspondence between color and other perceived phenomena does not prove (or even suggest) that color is physical.

I'm not basing my argument on correspondence.

Nor am I trying to prove that color is physical.

Oh, never mind then. A number of people in the past have brought up the idea that color is information processing in order to defend physicalism, so I assumed you were too.

I am making such an argument. I just don't feel the need to prove that color is physical directly. I'd rather prove that color is a process that is physical in nature, entailing the physical-ness of color.

I don't see how that can be done if "color" describes the subjective experience itself.

The subjective experience of color is just the brain organizing objective stimuli. It's called a gestalt.

I agree, but that doesn't mean it's physical or objective. It's simply elicited by the physical and objective.

Science offers us an explanation of color and our experience of color in physical terms and processes. As long as we have that, I see no need to go any further and suggest that there's more to color than our body processing external stimuli and our brain forming color according to holistic Gestalt rules.

But that amounts to letting science get away with not explaining the subjective side of qualia. According to physicalism, everything is physical. So why shouldn't it be held accountable for explaining qualia, which obviously exists, and appears to escape physical reduction?

Physicalism is an ontological thesis.

But you're defending it on a scientific basis. You're basically saying "qualia is scientifically useless, and therefore physicalism doesn't have to account for it". It's profoundly circular.

You're not characterizing my point properly. The point is that physicalism doesn't amount to the statement that everything we see can be explained in physical terms. That's an epistemological proposition. Physicalism amounts to the assertion that everything is physical, whether or not we have the epistemological tools to work out the physical mechanisms behind it.

Okay, then either your position is without scientific support, or my previous post applies.

There are instances where sciences has provided us with a physical explanation. Physicalism has no problem making use of these. It simply denies that inexplicability in practice is inexplicability in principle rather than a gap in current research or thought.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 5:45:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 5:38:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:35:21 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:27:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:26:35 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:24:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physical structures are necessary for receiving colors but colors themselves are not physical.

Color isn't an entity. It's a process. This process is decidedly physical in every regard.

Answer this: do colors exist without any consciousness?

Not its holistic properties.

So basically, the necessary components of color for interpretation by conscious beings to perceive them may be present, but colors themselves do not exist. Do you accept that objective reality as we know it does not exist without conscious perception?

The lower-level properties of color, like photons, and information processing through transducers like rods and cones would still exist, but the holistic properties (i.e. how our mind organizes perception according to Gestalt laws of organization) wouldn't exist without a brain.

Do you accept that objective reality as we know it does not exist without conscious perception?

Not since I was three months old and gained my sense of object permanence!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 5:47:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 5:41:42 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:39:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:34:36 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:30:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:24:09 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:20:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:04:44 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 5:01:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:59:00 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:56:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:47:51 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:46:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:42:13 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:41:12 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 4:18:27 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2014 1:43:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Physicalism is the notion that the physical is all that really exists. "To exist" means to be a part of an objective reality.

Colors are part of our objective reality. We clearly perceive that objects have color as a property. The problem is that color doesn't physically exist. Only when varying wavelengths of light strike the eye color can be perceived. The colors themselves don't exist as any intrinsic property of light. So in a physical universe devoid of all consciousness, colors do not exist because colors themselves are not physical.

This shows that the objective reality that we perceive could not exist independently of consciousness. Properties such as color, weight, texture, heat, cold, sound, etc. all would not exist in an objective reality devoid of all consciousness because none of these properties *physically exist*.

So basically reality itself depends on our perception of reality in order to exist. This can't be the case if physicalism is true.

Thoughts?

Color = Information processing

Establishing a correspondence between color and other perceived phenomena does not prove (or even suggest) that color is physical.

I'm not basing my argument on correspondence.

Nor am I trying to prove that color is physical.

Oh, never mind then. A number of people in the past have brought up the idea that color is information processing in order to defend physicalism, so I assumed you were too.

I am making such an argument. I just don't feel the need to prove that color is physical directly. I'd rather prove that color is a process that is physical in nature, entailing the physical-ness of color.

I don't see how that can be done if "color" describes the subjective experience itself.

The subjective experience of color is just the brain organizing objective stimuli. It's called a gestalt.

I agree, but that doesn't mean it's physical or objective. It's simply elicited by the physical and objective.

Science offers us an explanation of color and our experience of color in physical terms and processes. As long as we have that, I see no need to go any further and suggest that there's more to color than our body processing external stimuli and our brain forming color according to holistic Gestalt rules.

But that amounts to letting science get away with not explaining the subjective side of qualia. According to physicalism, everything is physical. So why shouldn't it be held accountable for explaining qualia, which obviously exists, and appears to escape physical reduction?

Physicalism is an ontological thesis.

But you're defending it on a scientific basis. You're basically saying "qualia is scientifically useless, and therefore physicalism doesn't have to account for it". It's profoundly circular.

You're not characterizing my point properly. The point is that physicalism doesn't amount to the statement that everything we see can be explained in physical terms. That's an epistemological proposition. Physicalism amounts to the assertion that everything is physical, whether or not we have the epistemological tools to work out the physical mechanisms behind it.

Okay, then either your position is without scientific support, or my previous post applies.

There are instances where sciences has provided us with a physical explanation. Physicalism has no problem making use of these. It simply denies that inexplicability in practice is inexplicability in principle rather than a gap in current research or thought.

I don't see how science can make any progress toward explaining something so inherently subjective as color.