Physicalism

[Juma]

To be more specific, the words "orange" and "particles" are not the actual orange. There is only one unique orange. So if we are truly going to let a symbol stand for that unique orange, then we must have a unique symbol.

No. We just needs symbols that are specific enough to have a unique reference. The symbol does not need to be unique.

Object A means object B, where object A is the word "wheel" and object B is the wheel. However, object A is not object B. Do you agree with the latter statement?

Yes. A word is not a wheel... Obviously.

 

[Juma]

Which decision represents you? It's a logical contradiction.

No it is not. It is a practical complication. And there is the big differences between us: you seem to beleive that logic is the base of the universe. I see pracricality as the base of the universe. Logic is a result of how our brains work. it is a tool,

And you are increasing the number of words that you have special meanings for. Now it is not just "and", but also "be" and "is". Why do you think that bolding them make your specific meaning of them somehow clearer? It doesnt.

So please explain: what is this specific meaning of those words that you require?

Like I told Tom Sawyer, if I used "equals" in the past, and I think I did, I shouldn't have. What I should have put was "be" or "is".

That didnt explain anything. Be aware that "is" is the most ambigous word there is.

 

[ryan]

To be more specific, the words "orange" and "particles" are not the actual orange. There is only one unique orange. So if we are truly going to let a symbol stand for that unique orange, then we must have a unique symbol.

No. We just needs symbols that are specific enough to have a unique reference. The symbol does not need to be unique.

Object A means object B, where object A is the word "wheel" and object B is the wheel. However, object A is not object B. Do you agree with the latter statement?

Yes. A word is not a wheel... Obviously.

Okay, now do you agree that object B can only be object B?

 

[Juma]

To be more specific, the words "orange" and "particles" are not the actual orange. There is only one unique orange. So if we are truly going to let a symbol stand for that unique orange, then we must have a unique symbol.

No. We just needs symbols that are specific enough to have a unique reference. The symbol does not need to be unique.

Object A means object B, where object A is the word "wheel" and object B is the wheel. However, object A is not object B. Do you agree with the latter statement?

Yes. A word is not a wheel... Obviously.

Okay, now do you agree that object B can only be object B?

When you say that "A is B" you are applying some sort of metric to be able to compute their relationship. Without specifying what metric you use words like "is", "be", "equals", "specific" etc are undefined.

Object D and E can be same in one metric and separate in another.

I think this is why you get confused when I say that 2 is a big global process.

Because you add some metric of yours that I doesnt.

I am purposely vague in what way 2 "is" that global process because if I tried to be exact in how 2 "is" that global process I would be never be able to do anything else.

 

[ryan]

To be more specific, the words "orange" and "particles" are not the actual orange. There is only one unique orange. So if we are truly going to let a symbol stand for that unique orange, then we must have a unique symbol.

No. We just needs symbols that are specific enough to have a unique reference. The symbol does not need to be unique.

Object A means object B, where object A is the word "wheel" and object B is the wheel. However, object A is not object B. Do you agree with the latter statement?

Yes. A word is not a wheel... Obviously.

Okay, now do you agree that object B can only be object B?

When you say that "A is B" you are applying some sort of metric to be able to compute their relationship. Without specifying what metric you use words like "is", "be", "equals", "specific" etc are undefined.

Object D and E can be same in one metric and separate in another.

I think this is why you get confused when I say that 2 is a big global process.

Because you add some metric of yours that I doesnt.

I am purposely vague in what way 2 "is" that global process because if I tried to be exact in how 2 "is" that global process I would be never be able to do anything else.

I mean "is" by all that we can possibly sense from it. So can you answer my question?

 

[Juma]

To be more specific, the words "orange" and "particles" are not the actual orange. There is only one unique orange. So if we are truly going to let a symbol stand for that unique orange, then we must have a unique symbol.

No. We just needs symbols that are specific enough to have a unique reference. The symbol does not need to be unique.

Object A means object B, where object A is the word "wheel" and object B is the wheel. However, object A is not object B. Do you agree with the latter statement?

Yes. A word is not a wheel... Obviously.

Okay, now do you agree that object B can only be object B?

When you say that "A is B" you are applying some sort of metric to be able to compute their relationship. Without specifying what metric you use words like "is", "be", "equals", "specific" etc are undefined.

Object D and E can be same in one metric and separate in another.

I think this is why you get confused when I say that 2 is a big global process.

Because you add some metric of yours that I doesnt.

I am purposely vague in what way 2 "is" that global process because if I tried to be exact in how 2 "is" that global process I would be never be able to do anything else.

I mean "is" by all that we can possibly sense from it. So can you answer my question?

That two things "are the same" means nothing more than that they cannot be distinguished from each other.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why can't they agree with each other simultaneously? That's what equals means. If A = B, then they agree with each other simultaneously. It's correct that it's a unique orange and it's correct that it's a unique collection of particles. Neither invalidates the other and both are correct at the same time.

"Equals" is not actually strong enough. I know this because the mass-energy equivalence does not mean that pure energy such as a photon has mass. I have been putting "be" and "is" in bold because that is more accurate for the purposes of my argument. So if I put equals, it was a mistake.

OK, when you describe a particular orange as a this particular orange, how are you incorrect? When you describe a particular orange as this particular collection of particles, how are you incorrect? Both represent the orange perfectly well, if only from different points of view. Neither is less accurate than the other, so you don't have one of the terms being less representative of the orange than the other.

 

[ryan]

To be more specific, the words "orange" and "particles" are not the actual orange. There is only one unique orange. So if we are truly going to let a symbol stand for that unique orange, then we must have a unique symbol.

No. We just needs symbols that are specific enough to have a unique reference. The symbol does not need to be unique.

Object A means object B, where object A is the word "wheel" and object B is the wheel. However, object A is not object B. Do you agree with the latter statement?

Yes. A word is not a wheel... Obviously.

Okay, now do you agree that object B can only be object B?

When you say that "A is B" you are applying some sort of metric to be able to compute their relationship. Without specifying what metric you use words like "is", "be", "equals", "specific" etc are undefined.

Object D and E can be same in one metric and separate in another.

I think this is why you get confused when I say that 2 is a big global process.

Because you add some metric of yours that I doesnt.

I am purposely vague in what way 2 "is" that global process because if I tried to be exact in how 2 "is" that global process I would be never be able to do anything else.

I mean "is" by all that we can possibly sense from it. So can you answer my question?

That two things "are the same" means nothing more than that they cannot be distinguished from each other.

Okay, but we are assuming an ideal situation. We assume that we know so much about the object, like position and composition, that there cannot possibly be that same description with anything else.

If I had a picture of a tree beside the actual tree in the photo, I can say that the means or describes the tree. I can't say that the picture is the tree. So when you say that 2 is some other process, we know that it's not.

 

[ryan]

Why can't they agree with each other simultaneously? That's what equals means. If A = B, then they agree with each other simultaneously. It's correct that it's a unique orange and it's correct that it's a unique collection of particles. Neither invalidates the other and both are correct at the same time.

"Equals" is not actually strong enough. I know this because the mass-energy equivalence does not mean that pure energy such as a photon has mass. I have been putting "be" and "is" in bold because that is more accurate for the purposes of my argument. So if I put equals, it was a mistake.

OK, when you describe a particular orange as a this particular orange, how are you incorrect? When you describe a particular orange as this particular collection of particles, how are you incorrect? Both represent the orange perfectly well, if only from different points of view. Neither is less accurate than the other, so you don't have one of the terms being less representative of the orange than the other.

I got sidetracked. I should not have said that two different symbols cannot mean the same thing.

The main point that I was trying to make is that one thing cannot be another. A drawing of the Sun can mean the Sun, but it can't be the Sun. On the surface this seems obvious, but when it comes to symbols representing nothing but themselves, such as in math, the theory gets interesting.

When Juma and others say that a number is really just some huge physical system, then they are taking away what math and any other logical constructs are. Like I said above, one thing can't be something else; 2 cannot be physical system A.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The main point that I was trying to make is that one thing cannot be another. A drawing of the Sun can mean the Sun, but it can't be the Sun. On the surface this seems obvious, but when it comes to symbols representing nothing but themselves, such as in math, the theory gets interesting.

When Juma and others say that a number is really just some huge physical system, then they are taking away what math and any other logical constructs are. Like I said above, one thing can't be something else; 2 cannot be physical system A.

OK, that is true. Only for physical things, though. When you have logical constructs like with mathematical symbols, then you can have as many of them being the same as you want because they don't have the same limitations.

 

[ryan]

The main point that I was trying to make is that one thing cannot be another. A drawing of the Sun can mean the Sun, but it can't be the Sun. On the surface this seems obvious, but when it comes to symbols representing nothing but themselves, such as in math, the theory gets interesting.

When Juma and others say that a number is really just some huge physical system, then they are taking away what math and any other logical constructs are. Like I said above, one thing can't be something else; 2 cannot be physical system A.

OK, that is true. Only for physical things, though. When you have logical constructs like with mathematical symbols, then you can have as many of them being the same as you want because they don't have the same limitations.

Aren't you a physicalist?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The main point that I was trying to make is that one thing cannot be another. A drawing of the Sun can mean the Sun, but it can't be the Sun. On the surface this seems obvious, but when it comes to symbols representing nothing but themselves, such as in math, the theory gets interesting.

When Juma and others say that a number is really just some huge physical system, then they are taking away what math and any other logical constructs are. Like I said above, one thing can't be something else; 2 cannot be physical system A.

OK, that is true. Only for physical things, though. When you have logical constructs like with mathematical symbols, then you can have as many of them being the same as you want because they don't have the same limitations.

Aren't you a physicalist?

Umm ... ya? I fail to see how that would have any relevance towards what I said.

 

[ryan]

The main point that I was trying to make is that one thing cannot be another. A drawing of the Sun can mean the Sun, but it can't be the Sun. On the surface this seems obvious, but when it comes to symbols representing nothing but themselves, such as in math, the theory gets interesting.

When Juma and others say that a number is really just some huge physical system, then they are taking away what math and any other logical constructs are. Like I said above, one thing can't be something else; 2 cannot be physical system A.

OK, that is true. Only for physical things, though. When you have logical constructs like with mathematical symbols, then you can have as many of them being the same as you want because they don't have the same limitations.

Aren't you a physicalist?

Umm ... ya? I fail to see how that would have any relevance towards what I said.

Where you said, "OK, that is true. Only for physical things, though" seems to imply that there are non-physical things too. And then you went on to imply that mathematical symbols don't have the "same limitations" as physical things do. Or am I making a false connection here?

Don't feel weird though; I think that most philosophers and even many scientists roughly agree on this position. However, it seems almost impossible to demonstrate that non-physical entities exist.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Where you said, "OK, that is true. Only for physical things, though" seems to imply that there are non-physical things too. And then you went on to imply that mathematical symbols don't have the "same limitations" as physical things do. Or am I making a false connection here?

Don't feel weird though; I think that most philosophers and even many scientists roughly agree on this position. However, it seems almost impossible to demonstrate that non-physical entities exist.

Well, they're ideas, so they're physical things in that they're electrical signals from the neurons in our brains. They're not something external to us in any kind of dualistic sense.

From that point of view, mathematical symbols can't be referred to as the same thing because even if they're mathematically equivalent, one of them is referred to by Neuronal Cluster A and the other is referred to by Neuoronal Cluster B. I don't see how it's helpful to be so pedantic about that point, though.

 

[ryan]

Where you said, "OK, that is true. Only for physical things, though" seems to imply that there are non-physical things too. And then you went on to imply that mathematical symbols don't have the "same limitations" as physical things do. Or am I making a false connection here?

Don't feel weird though; I think that most philosophers and even many scientists roughly agree on this position. However, it seems almost impossible to demonstrate that non-physical entities exist.

Well, they're ideas, so they're physical things in that they're electrical signals from the neurons in our brains. They're not something external to us in any kind of dualistic sense.

Well now this goes back to one object is not a different object. How can a mathematical truth like 2 + 2 = 4 be a true statement and also be Neuronal Cluster A, unless of course you accept some kind of non-physical entity or dualism.

From that point of view, mathematical symbols can't be referred to as the same thing because even if they're mathematically equivalent, one of them is referred to by Neuronal Cluster A and the other is referred to by Neuoronal Cluster B. I don't see how it's helpful to be so pedantic about that point, though.

I don't understand this last sentence. What does "helpful" have to do with any of this?

 

[none]

...
Well now this goes back to one object is not a different object. How can a mathematical truth like 2 + 2 = 4 be a true statement and also be Neuronal Cluster A, unless of course you accept some kind of non-physical entity or dualism.
...

this is a good question in my opinion, based on my perception.
the perception of the mathematical expression that corresponds to "mathematical truth" is sensory
you wouldn't be able to say it was a "mathematical truth" (I think the proper word is equality) unless there was the expression.
further the expression has function within the abstraction mathematics, which can be attributed to brain activity.
I am curious your reply...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Where you said, "OK, that is true. Only for physical things, though" seems to imply that there are non-physical things too. And then you went on to imply that mathematical symbols don't have the "same limitations" as physical things do. Or am I making a false connection here?

Don't feel weird though; I think that most philosophers and even many scientists roughly agree on this position. However, it seems almost impossible to demonstrate that non-physical entities exist.

Well, they're ideas, so they're physical things in that they're electrical signals from the neurons in our brains. They're not something external to us in any kind of dualistic sense.

Well now this goes back to one object is not a different object. How can a mathematical truth like 2 + 2 = 4 be a true statement and also be Neuronal Cluster A, unless of course you accept some kind of non-physical entity or dualism.

From that point of view, mathematical symbols can't be referred to as the same thing because even if they're mathematically equivalent, one of them is referred to by Neuronal Cluster A and the other is referred to by Neuoronal Cluster B. I don't see how it's helpful to be so pedantic about that point, though.

I don't understand this last sentence. What does "helpful" have to do with any of this?

There's a neuronal cluster which refers to the statement and another one which performs the equation. You're attempting to add a layer of mystery and obfuscation to something that's not very mysterious and then pointing at the enigma you created for the purpose of having something enigmatic and acting surprised to find an enigma there.

 

[ryan]

...
Well now this goes back to one object is not a different object. How can a mathematical truth like 2 + 2 = 4 be a true statement and also be Neuronal Cluster A, unless of course you accept some kind of non-physical entity or dualism.
...

this is a good question in my opinion, based on my perception.
the perception of the mathematical expression that corresponds to "mathematical truth" is sensory
you wouldn't be able to say it was a "mathematical truth" (I think the proper word is equality) unless there was the expression.
further the expression has function within the abstraction mathematics, which can be attributed to brain activity.
I am curious your reply...

I am not clear on what you're getting at. Is this an argument against physicalism or for physicalism?

 

[none]

...
Well now this goes back to one object is not a different object. How can a mathematical truth like 2 + 2 = 4 be a true statement and also be Neuronal Cluster A, unless of course you accept some kind of non-physical entity or dualism.
...

this is a good question in my opinion, based on my perception.
the perception of the mathematical expression that corresponds to "mathematical truth" is sensory
you wouldn't be able to say it was a "mathematical truth" (I think the proper word is equality) unless there was the expression.
further the expression has function within the abstraction mathematics, which can be attributed to brain activity.
I am curious your reply...

I am not clear on what you're getting at. Is this an argument against physicalism or for physicalism?

it is my explanation as to what is going on with the mathematical expression being evaluated as "mathematical truth".
basically Tom Sawyer said it better, that it is all related to brain activity both the evaluation and the conception of the expression.
like I said I am not shakespear, Tom Sawyer said it better.

 

[ryan]

Where you said, "OK, that is true. Only for physical things, though" seems to imply that there are non-physical things too. And then you went on to imply that mathematical symbols don't have the "same limitations" as physical things do. Or am I making a false connection here?

Don't feel weird though; I think that most philosophers and even many scientists roughly agree on this position. However, it seems almost impossible to demonstrate that non-physical entities exist.

Well, they're ideas, so they're physical things in that they're electrical signals from the neurons in our brains. They're not something external to us in any kind of dualistic sense.

Well now this goes back to one object is not a different object. How can a mathematical truth like 2 + 2 = 4 be a true statement and also be Neuronal Cluster A, unless of course you accept some kind of non-physical entity or dualism.

From that point of view, mathematical symbols can't be referred to as the same thing because even if they're mathematically equivalent, one of them is referred to by Neuronal Cluster A and the other is referred to by Neuoronal Cluster B. I don't see how it's helpful to be so pedantic about that point, though.

I don't understand this last sentence. What does "helpful" have to do with any of this?

There's a neuronal cluster which refers to the statement and another one which performs the equation. You're attempting to add a layer of mystery and obfuscation to something that's not very mysterious and then pointing at the enigma you created for the purpose of having something enigmatic and acting surprised to find an enigma there.

But now you have downgraded from "is" to "refers". There is a huge difference, and I corrected myself about not seeing the difference earlier. So is 2 + 2 = 4 true, or is it a big mess of neurons and whatnot?