Either you misunderstand my original post and the point of my argument, or you misunderstand the application of the axiom of existence. Either way, you come across as rather arrogant.
“everything that exists actually exists”- agreed. How did I challenge this?
I am challenging the idea that ONLY THE PHYSICAL WORLD EXISTS… i.e. I am proposing that more than the physical world EXISTS.
Everything that exists in a perceivable way is part of the “physical world”. It doesn’t have to be made of atoms to be physical. Gravity is a physical entity. Magnetism is a physical entity. If there was some mysterious force causing human beings to “choose”, that would be a physical entity by definition. If you could prove that God created Earth, that would mean God is a physical entity, which only manifests itself by creating planets.
“something more”, and “non-physical” are meaningless phrases used by people trying to escape the need for actual evidence when making a claim. They’re not concepts referring to actual existents.
If you wish to tell us about something that exists that we don’t know about, tell us what it is, don’t tell us what it’s not. Telling us that it’s not physical tells us only one thing: you don’t actually know what the subject of your own sentence is.
Everything that exists in a perceivable way is part of the “physical world”. It doesn’t have to be made of atoms to be physical. Gravity is a physical entity. Magnetism is a physical entity. If there was some mysterious force causing human beings to “choose”, that would be a physical entity by definition. If you could prove that God created Earth, that would mean God is a physical entity, which only manifests itself by creating planets.
I would not say these things are physical entities at all. They’re all attributes of physical entities. It’s a kind of materialism to say *only* the physical world exists. What you can say is that nothing can exist APART from physical entities.
I would not say these things are physical entities at all. They’re all attributes of physical entities. It’s a kind of materialism to say *only* the physical world exists. What you can say is that nothing can exist APART from physical entities.
I agree with Eiuol. “Physical” was used correctly, “entity” was not. Instead, to be consistent Tanaka should call them “existents” as he did later in the same post. (“Attributes” is more specific and also correct.) The ability to affect and be effected by physical entities is what it means “to exist”.
But that is nitpicking. Tanaka’s point that ’ “something more”, and “non-physical” are meaningless phrases used by people trying to escape the need for actual evidence when making a claim. They’re not concepts referring to actual existents’ is valid. Jacob86’s s stubborn clinging to such ‘anti-concepts’, concepts that are invalid due to having no referent, make it frustrating to deal with him. I could respond to his earlier replies to me, but it would be useless.
I agree with Eiuol. “Physical” was used correctly, “entity” was not. Instead, to be consistent Tanaka should call them “existents” as he did later in the same post. (“Attributes” is more specific and also correct.) The ability to affect and be effected by physical entities is what it means “to exist”.
But that is nitpicking. Tanaka’s point that ’ “something more”, and “non-physical” are meaningless phrases used by people trying to escape the need for actual evidence when making a claim. They’re not concepts referring to actual existents’ is valid. Jacob86’s s stubborn clinging to such ‘anti-concepts’, concepts that are invalid due to having no referent, make it frustrating to deal with him. I could respond to his earlier replies to me, but it would be useless.
This is ridiculously circular reasoning.
The issue is “are there non-physical existents (specifically, is Man’s nature partially non-physical)?”
Your response is “NO”.
Why?
“Because there are no non-physical existents”.
Your argument here is this: “There are no non-physical existents- and I know this because there are no non-physical existents”.
I understand that you believe that there are no non-physical existents. I want to know WHY you believe it. Specifically in regard to Man’s nature.
Simply saying “there aren’t” as your reasoning is not reasoning.
I am challenging your conclusion. Simply restating it is not helpful in a debate.
You say that I am dodging the issue with my “anti-concepts”.
I say that you are dodging the issue by circularly assuming that they are “anti-concepts”.
PS- It is shameful and disappointing that such reasoning is applauded by otherwise very sharp philosophical thinkers.
The issue is “are there non-physical existents (specifically, is Man’s nature partially non-physical)?”
Your response is “NO”.
Why?
“Because there are no non-physical existents”.
Your argument here is this: “There are no non-physical existents- and I know this because there are no non-physical existents”.
I understand that you believe that there are no non-physical existents. I want to know WHY you believe it. Specifically in regard to Man’s nature.
Simply saying “there aren’t” as your reasoning is not reasoning.
I am challenging your conclusion. Simply restating it is not helpful in a debate.
You say that I am dodging the issue with my “anti-concepts”.
I say that you are dodging the issue by circularly assuming that they are “anti-concepts”.
PS- It is shameful and disappointing that such reasoning is applauded by otherwise very sharp philosophical thinkers.
“There are no non-physical existents” is not a proposition justified by reasoning, but by observation. The justification is an appeal to reality, not merely more words. Wrap your head around that, rationalist.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.