Jacob86 Posted February 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 "There are no non-physical existents" is not a proposition justified by reasoning, but by observation. Really? You've observed all existents and have determined that none of them are non-physical? Come on. You KNOW this is fallacious. Wrap your head around that, rationalist. And I could just as easily call you an empiricist. The problem is that you only turn into an empiricist in regard to issues which you dislike. The other problem is that my reasoning doesn't match any of the faulty reasoning in "rationalism", so I don't understand what you hope to achieve in that accusation. We've already had this epistemological debate, remember? You ended up declaring rabid skepticism and denouncing me for my desire for certainty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Really? You've observed all existents and have determined that none of them are non-physical? Come on. You KNOW this is fallacious. It is fallacious to assert that counting things on your fingers and toes is the only way to know anything. Aristotle taught that to be is to be something particular and definite, to be physical. Thus to not be is to be nothing particular and indefinite, to be non-physical. In the Randian axiomatic form this is: Axiom: Existence is Identity. Contrapositive: Non-identity is non-existence. If you are unfamiliar with the immediate inferences that may strike you as an argument, but it isn't. A contrapositive is merely an equivalent restatement of an original proposition. The same truth-value of the original proposition is always preserved in the contrapositive. As an axiom's truth value is justified by observation, so then is the contrapositive's truth-value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob86 Posted February 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 It is fallacious to assert that counting things on your fingers and toes is the only way to know anything. Aristotle taught that to be is to be something particular and definite, to be physical. Thus to not be is to be nothing particular and indefinite, to be non-physical. You are equating "particular and definite" with "physical". I don't think Aristotle included the "physical" in his teaching on this point. I fully agree that to be is to be something particular and definite. This does not mean that a thing must be physical in order to be real though. Are your thoughts physical? Are they real? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Has anyone provided a definition of "physical" yet? Might be helpful. Tanaka 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DancingBear Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Has anyone provided a definition of "physical" yet? Might be helpful. Physical- made of matter, which is a concept referring to particles, sub-particles, atoms, and molecules. Jacob86 and Tanaka 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Has anyone provided a definition of "physical" yet? Might be helpful. Tanaka gave a list above of the kinds of things being referred to. "Physical" is not synonymous with "material" because it includes forces and energy. But in order to avoid the hazard of appearing to dictate what is possible to be discovered in physics it is desirable to have a principle. To be physical is to exist in a causal relationship with some other existent. Non-physical is acausal, meaning magic. The distinction between "physical" and "existential" is merely different perspectives of the same fact that existence is identity. Identity implies that to exist is to be a certain set of intrinsic attributes, and also implies a certain relation between existents in action. Edited February 2, 2011 by Grames brian0918 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Has anyone provided a definition of "physical" yet? Might be helpful. Physical- made of matter, which is a concept referring to particles, sub-particles, atoms, and molecules. I guess Dante was wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob86 Posted February 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Physical- made of matter, which is a concept referring to particles, sub-particles, atoms, and molecules. This is what I have meant by "physical".. and its hard to imagine the term being used in any other way... Thanks DancingBear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob86 Posted February 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Tanaka gave a list above of the kinds of things being referred to. "Physical" is not synonymous with "material" because it includes forces and energy. But in order to avoid the hazard of appearing to dictate what is possible to be discovered in physics it is desirable to have a principle. To be physical is to exist in a causal relationship with some other existent. Non-physical is acausal, meaning magic. Would you really have defined "physical" like this anywhere other than the context of THIS particular conversation?? I can't claim to read your mind, but I doubt you or anyone else would. You've simply defined it to include the aspects of reality that I am arguing for. Remember, I am not arguing for Acausal non-physical aspects to humanity. The entire argument deals with CAUSALITY. lol. What DancingBear posted above is what I have meant by "physical". If you'd like to reserve your above definition for the term, I suppose that's fine. Just go back and read "material" where I have posted "physical" and it should work just fine. I am still arguing that there needs to be some non-material aspect to Man. Concerning energy: Isn't energy just a term to refer to the potentiality/actuality of motion of material objects? So when I say "material" I mean "the stuff" and "the movement of the stuff". Notice, though, that this doesn't change the argument at all. It just gets into more hair-splitting scientific details which have no impact on the philosophical weight of the argument-- other than to distract from the issue at hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Just go back and read "material" where I have posted "physical" and it should work just fine. I am still arguing that there needs to be some non-material aspect to Man. Volition is non-material, I don't think anyone would say otherwise. It only exists separate from humans epistemologically speaking as a concept, since there is no actual "volition" to pull out and show to someone. I hope that distinction is useful. Edited February 3, 2011 by Eiuol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Would you really have defined "physical" like this anywhere other than the context of THIS particular conversation?? I can't claim to read your mind, but I doubt you or anyone else would. In physics and engineering when an equation or system of equations has two solutions very frequently one solution must be dismissed as non-physical because it requires backwards-in-time causation or some other acausal or impossible interpretation. A typical usage in this fashion occurs in the Wikipedia article Mathematical descriptions of the electromagnetic field The operator is called the d'Alembertian. These equations are inhomogenous versions of the wave equation, with the terms on the right side of the equation serving as the source functions for the wave. These equations lead to two solutions: advanced potentials (which depend on the configuration of the sources at future points in time), and retarded potentials (which depend on the past configurations of the sources); the former are usually (and sensibly) dismissed as 'non-physical' in favor of the latter, which preserve causality. What DancingBear posted above is what I have meant by "physical". If you'd like to reserve your above definition for the term, I suppose that's fine. Just go back and read "material" where I have posted "physical" and it should work just fine. I am still arguing that there needs to be some non-material aspect to Man. Then what you mean is trivial. All attributes are distinguished from parts by the fact that they cannot have a distinct existence separable from the entity they are an attribute of. All attributes are non-material, things like color and taste. Volition is an attribute. This will not support your metaphysical dualism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icosahedron Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 Try reading Grames' post. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "entirely physical." Concepts are not physical and they exist, but their existence depends upon concrete entities. There cannot be action apart from a physical entities. There cannot be attributes apart from physical entities. Volition is the same. If I may amplify this point: I can only experience EXAMPLES of any given concept. A concept is a TYPE of thing, not an actual instance of a thing that can be felt. Note that concepts have indirect material effects to the extent they give leverage to me (at least) in reaching my goals. This is an interesting feedback loop! - ico Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 If I may amplify this point: I can only experience EXAMPLES of any given concept. A concept is a TYPE of thing, not an actual instance of a thing that can be felt. Note that concepts have indirect material effects to the extent they give leverage to me (at least) in reaching my goals. This is an interesting feedback loop! - ico From Merriam-Webster: Definition of CONCEPT 1: something conceived in the mind : thought, notion 2: an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances Keeping the second context in mind, consider the following: A word is merely a visual-auditory symbol used to represent a concept; a word has no meaning other than that of the concept it symbolizes, and the meaning of a concept consists of its units. It is not words, but concepts that man defines—by specifying their referents. Those 'EXAMPLES' experienced, are the units. They are the referents. Even the concept of 'concept' has referents, examples or units available via introspection to be utilized as such. Without an actual instance of a thing, where would we get a concept? The two are synergistic. Since a definition of any concept is often formulated in terms of other concepts, the feedback loop is amplified by the logical and hierarchal interrelationships therein. Volition is choosing to maintain the relationship between a concept and its referents or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DancingBear Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 From Merriam-Webster: Definition of CONCEPT 1: something conceived in the mind : thought, notion 2: an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances Thanks for a definition of concept. Also from Merriam-Webster (online): Definition of VOLITION 1 : an act of making a choice or decision; also : a choice or decision made 2 : the power of choosing or determining : will Does anyone have any evidence of a human (or anything else) making a choice which cannot possibly be determined? Perhaps it's human foresight that is really behind claims of volition. Perhaps the human brain, able to predict the future with higher accuracy has given itself the impression that it's making decisions. The way I see it, the brain is part of an organism that wants to survive. When this organism gets something right, it is rewarded. Wrong, punished. The complexity of the human brain allows for high degrees of analysis and more effective action. You don't 'choose' to do anything that gets you punished on purpose; even if you're masochistic, then punishment is rewarding for you. In other words, you act in line with your values. These values are reinforced in your brain by punishment and reward. Punishment and reward are products of reality, not chosen. Has anyone considered the difficulty scientists have creating machines with volition. If it's so self-evident, why is it so hard to apply to a machine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Does anyone have any evidence of a human (or anything else) making a choice which cannot possibly be determined? You're asking the wrong question. We don't need to examine individual choices and try to parse out what was possible and what was not for the chooser. I don't know how you could even approach a question like that. The argument for the existence of volition is much simpler and more basic; it's an axiomatic basis for any claim of knowledge. Any claim of conceptual knowledge is a claim that the knowledge-holder has performed a conscious act of determining the truth or falsity of a proposition. Defending the existence of knowledge without defending the capability of people to choose to think or not is contradictory. Has anyone considered the difficulty scientists have creating machines with volition. If it's so self-evident, why is it so hard to apply to a machine? The fact of volition is axiomatic, and self-evident through introspection. However, how volition actually works is an incredibly complicated scientific question, and furthermore we shouldn't expect it to be simple. There's a big difference between experiencing something working within our own consciousness and understanding enough about human biology to explain how that something works. It's the difference between being able to use our eyes to get around and understanding everything about the human eye, the optic nerve, and the visual cortex. Xall and brian0918 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DancingBear Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) ...Defending the existence of knowledge without defending the capability of people to choose to think or not is contradictory... Good point. So we should be questioning the existence of knowledge. If knowledge exists, then consciousness must exist. So, how do we know knowledge exists? Wait, if we know it exists, then that is knowledge... Am I stumbling on something important? Maybe instead of asking how, I should ask can we know anything? If we know that we can know something, that's also knowledge... Serious responses are desired (i.e. I'm not being an idiot on purpose). Edited February 7, 2011 by DancingBear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob86 Posted February 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Good point. So we should be questioning the existence of knowledge. If knowledge exists, then consciousness must exist. So, how do we know knowledge exists? Wait, if we know it exists, then that is knowledge... Am I stumbling on something important? Maybe instead of asking how, I should ask can we know anything? If we know that we can know something, that's also knowledge... Serious responses are desired (i.e. I'm not being an idiot on purpose). Yes- you are stumbling onto something important. It's basic. But important. At the end, you said "if we know that we can know something, that's also knowledge.." This is true. Now, in order to be fully convinced that knowledge is possible, assume the opposite position: "if we know that we CANNOT know something, that's also knowledge". Do you see how this position (that knowledge is impossible) is self-refuting? This should help you to see why the ability to have knowledge is also axiomatic. The "agnostics of truth" try to say "we cannot know anything for sure", while assuming that they CAN know THAT for sure. In their guise of "humility" they are being extremely arrogant. They are implicitly saying that THEY ALONE have access to objective knowledge and that everyone else is "blind and confused". If you've ever heard the analogy of the "elephant and blind men" this becomes very evident. Grames 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob86 Posted February 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Then what you mean is trivial. All attributes are distinguished from parts by the fact that they cannot have a distinct existence separable from the entity they are an attribute of. All attributes are non-material, things like color and taste. Volition is an attribute. This will not support your metaphysical dualism. Yes, it is an attribute. But is this attribute imagined or real? Is its function imagined or real? Is Man capable of action which is not entirely coerced by "physical"/"material" cause and effect or not? Is Man capable of overcoming the total coercion of natural causes in material nature or not? If "No", then Man does not have volition (or consciousness for that matter). If "Yes", then that aspect of Man which possesses this capability is not, itself, physical/material/ "made of physical matter". That's the issue. It is fairly simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dingbat Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) I agree that it is not made of physical matter, the spiritual is non-material, but it could be made from physical matter or energies. Either way, it is of this universe, and a property of it. Edited February 8, 2011 by Dingbat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob86 Posted February 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 I agree that it is not made of physical matter, the spiritual is non-material, but it could be made from physical matter or energies. Could you explain the distinction you are referring to here between "made OF physical matter" and "made FROM physical matter"? Either way, it is of this universe, and a property of it. If by "universe", you mean "all of existence", of course. But this still begs the question: What kinds of things exist? Are there non-physical existents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dingbat Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Could you explain the distinction you are referring to here between "made OF physical matter" and "made FROM physical matter"? The human spirit is not made of physical matter, but maybe it is the result of physical matter. For example, the mind is distinct from the brain, but the mind rests upon the physical, biochemical foundation of the brain. If by "universe", you mean "all of existence", of course. But this still begs the question: What kinds of things exist? Are there non-physical existents? I don't know. That is the job of scientists. But, from personal experience, I believe our sensational experience of life is something that cannot be measured empirically, and I identify it as the spiritual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Is Man capable of action which is not entirely coerced by "physical"/"material" cause and effect or not? Is Man capable of overcoming the total coercion of natural causes in material nature or not? You are invalidly equating causation with coercion. You are effectively claiming that identity is coercion since causality is identity in action. By your argument the only way to not be coerced is be of no identity. But "non-identity is non-existence", so that is impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob86 Posted February 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 You are invalidly equating causation with coercion. You are effectively claiming that identity is coercion since causality is identity in action. By your argument the only way to not be coerced is be of no identity. But "non-identity is non-existence", so that is impossible. No. The only way to not be coerced is to have an identity which is capable of being free to some degree from the total causal effects of outside action. Yes, causality is identity in action, but we are attempting to inquire about the Identity/Nature of Man in this discussion. Freedom from coercion for Man does not mean that he must be free from HIS identity. It means that his identity must be such that he is from from the coercive effects of OTHER causal actions to some degree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 No. The only way to not be coerced is to have an identity which is capable of being free to some degree from the total causal effects of outside action. Yes, causality is identity in action, but we are attempting to inquire about the Identity/Nature of Man in this discussion. Freedom from coercion for Man does not mean that he must be free from HIS identity. It means that his identity must be such that he is from from the coercive effects of OTHER causal actions to some degree. That isn't even possible. Coercion is a form of causation when it is present and no one is immune to either coercion or causation. Since causality is identity in action an existent to which causation did not apply must be a non-identity, therefore a non-existent. And you are still mixing up the relationship between those two. Coercion is a subset of causation. The reverse is not true and to continue to entertain the notion is the fallacy of illicit conversion. "All coercion is causation" is an A-type categorical proposition and is true. "All causation is coercion" is the converse of the above premise, but forming the converse of an A-type categorical proposition is not valid. See FallacyFiles.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob86 Posted February 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 That isn't even possible. Coercion is a form of causation when it is present and no one is immune to either coercion or causation. Since causality is identity in action an existent to which causation did not apply must be a non-identity, therefore a non-existent. And you are still mixing up the relationship between those two. Coercion is a subset of causation. The reverse is not true and to continue to entertain the notion is the fallacy of illicit conversion. "All coercion is causation" is an A-type categorical proposition and is true. "All causation is coercion" is the converse of the above premise, but forming the converse of an A-type categorical proposition is not valid. See FallacyFiles.org Yes. I fully understand this. The difference is the TYPE of causation being discussed. I am not proposing that causation does not apply to Man. ***PLEASE STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH* The tendancy of Oists on this forum to misconstrue the position of others is extremely annoying, dishonest, evasive, and down right dis-respectful. IF you don't understand my position or if you think you do but I say that you don't, PERHAPS it might be a wise idea to ask clarifying questions about what I mean and do not mean rather than imagining me to mean your straw man. Quite frankly, I am SICK of these straw men- whether they come from intentional arrogance or ignorance, or misunderstandings. They can EASILY be avoided by asking clarifying questions! I completely agree that Man is subject to causality. I am proposing that the "free" in free will means that he is free TO SOME EXTENT (i.e. DO NOT READ "TO ALL EXTENTS"), and in SOME RESPECT (i.e. DO NOT READ "ALL RESPECTS") from the total effects of OUTSIDE MATERIAL CAUSATION (i.e. DO NOT READ "ALL CAUSATION"). I will refrain from typing any more until I am SURE that you understand what I am saying in the above and that you understand what I am NOT saying. Hint: Read the parentheses for clarification. IF you understand the above and can parrot it back to me in your own words, then I will be convinced that a rational discussion can commence. Until then, I will regard it as utterly futile to speak to you since you seem to have ZERO interest in grasping the meaning of what I say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.