Physicalism

[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?

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.

Perhaps being less like Shakespeare will be better. I mean; why the poetic structure?

Anyways, your last explanation seems very ambiguous. In one sentence you have "conception", "evaluation", "related" and "expression"; all of which are very blurry and circular when it comes to physical versus non-physical discussions.

You are either too far ahead for me to understand, or you are throwing s*** at the wall and hoping something sticks.

 

[none]

the poetry must be due to my unique brain activity.
throwing shit at the wall, that is funny.
I don't know how else to explain it, so I'll wait awhile, maybe I can be less poetic.

 

[ryan]

the poetry must be due to my unique brain activity.

Do you seriously have a condition that causes you to construct sentences like that? If so, I am sorry.

I don't know how else to explain it, so I'll wait awhile, maybe I can be less poetic.

Well, I said that because you seem to be concerned on your delivery, I think. In post #296 you put

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.

Now, word for word, I can follow it. But I am so used to seeing periods and capital letters that I got thrown off by the third line.

 

[none]

now that you followed it...what is your response?
I find your answers amusing.

 

[ryan]

now that you followed it...what is your response?
I find your answers amusing.

I don't know what's going on here. I don't know what to make of the whole thing. I feel like I would need a Ph.D in philosophy to even know whether you are making sense or not.

It's sad; I am actually wondering what the hell I am even doing on this whole forum.

I think that I need to study my textbook some more.

 

[none]

Should I lie and tell you I am a Nuerologist with advanced degrees in both Philosophy and Mathematics who minored in Culinary Arts and all the disciplines of Engineering?
go if you must.

 

[ryan]

Should I lie and tell you I am a Nuerologist with advanced degrees in both Philosophy and Mathematics who minored in Culinary Arts and all the disciplines of Engineering?
go if you must.

Why would it matter either way?

 

[none]

I don't know, I don't know that much about philosophy.

 

[ryan]

I don't know, I don't know that much about philosophy.

Just keep reading and trying to understand what you read, and you will be fine.

 

[none]

I am glad that you have a sense of humor, but I was expecting something different than confusion as a reply to what I said.

 

[ryan]

I am glad that you have a sense of humor, but I was expecting something different than confusion as a reply to what I said.

I guess I have come as far as my knowledge can take me. It's back to the books for me.

 

[none]

darn, I was so close.

 

[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?

"Sense from it"? Are you then referring the human senses? Then two atoms could be the same since you cannot sense so small distances.

 

[ryan]

darn, I was so close.

What do you mean?

 

[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?

"Sense from it"? Are you then referring the human senses? Then two atoms could be the same since you cannot sense so small distances.

Sorry, I meant that we sense what comes from it.

 

[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?

"Sense from it"? Are you then referring the human senses? Then two atoms could be the same since you cannot sense so small distances.

Sorry, I meant that we sense what comes from it.

Now I am completely lost.., what "comes from it"??)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Could people make a point of using their delete button and not quoting the whole history of responses in their quotes?

This thread has become unreadable.

 

[Kharakov]

2nded Tom's notion after I laughed.

 

[none]

darn, I was so close.

What do you mean?

I thought I had a pen pal.

 

[ryan]

Now I am completely lost.., what "comes from it"??)

Information in the form of radiation, forces, chemicals, etc. how else can we know that something exists?

- - - Updated - - -

darn, I was so close.

What do you mean?

I thought I had a pen pal.

Was that one of your goals for being on here?