M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
- Pure Energy does not have self knowledge.
What say ye?
- Status
What say ye?
T
tonyrey
Guest
If you mean “Physical Energy” I agree.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
But does the argument work?If you mean “Physical Energy” I agree.
T
Touchstone
Guest
Why should I accept (1)? I can see no reason to do so. Assuming you mean matter/energy, then on a physicalist model, a human (or a raccoon) considering its own senses is “matter contemplating matter”. Or, as Carl Sagan put it (paraphrasing from memory): we are a way for the cosmos to contemplate itself.
That would be transcendence, in terms of “where’s the self-knowledge in this atom or that?” Consciousness doesn’t obtain reductively like that, and cognition transcends, goes beyond any atomic-level description you could provide.
But it’s physical transcendence.
That’s an idea that, if we just agree is “unresolved”, makes (1) dubious.
-TS
A
awatkins69
Guest
I think it’s true. However, physicalists assert that, somehow, bare matter comes about to have non-physical effects.
However, this is quite absurd in my view. Ex nihilo nihil fit. No matter what you do with matter, you are going to get material effects. At least, given a reductionistic view of things.
T
Touchstone
Guest
I don’t think physicalism asserts that, or can assert that, given its premises. Any physical causes would produce, by definition, physical effects.
Even in a non-reductionist view, physical causes produce physical effects. There’s no “nihilo” anywhere in this context, on physicalism.
-TS
A
awatkins69
Guest
Ah, yes, you could always argue that mental things are physical things. Not many people do that, however. It’s certainly not at all self-evident or going to be highly and absolutely compelling.
G
GEddie
Guest
We are not pure energy; we are energy interacting with matter.
So your statements do not apply to human life.
God Bless and ICXC NIKA
T
Touchstone
Guest
It’s not self-evident, but it doesn’t need to be render this argument toothless. On physicalism, (1) is false, so it seems this argument doesn’t go anywhere until physicalism is somehow falsified. And good lick with that, as its a metaphysical enclosure, no more falsifiable than dualism.
This argument just begs that central question in its premise. As for “highly and absolutely compelling”, that’s not even possible for such a proposition. Materialist understandings theory of mind find dualist intuitions extraneous, superfluous to materialist/physicalist explanations. That makes it compelling just in an economical sense – the supernatural/immaterial parts of the explanation just are superfluous, either because they aren’t meaningful/coherent, or simply don’t add anything testable to the explanation.
-TS
A
awatkins69
Guest
Most people don’t think that atoms have minds. But if you put together a bunch of atoms you get a bunch of minds? Okie dokie.
T
Touchstone
Guest
Well, as I keep pointing out, hydrogen atoms don’t have “wetness” either. But if you combine a couple of them with an oxygen atom, you get “wetness”?
Yeah, right, sure! Okie dokie…
-TS
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
This is an observation of an effect. This does not tell us how the effect came to be from a state that was not “wetness”, and thus one cannot conclude from a mere observation that “physics” fully explains why there is such a thing as wetness. Out of nothing comes nothing, thus wetness cannot be fully explained by the physical cause in question, since it was not identical to wetness. There is merely a correlation to between two events…
A
awatkins69
Guest
Of course my friend. However, these are clearly not mental effects. At least, I hope you would not classify them as such.
T
Touchstone
Guest
Fine, we can say the same thing for “mental effects” as “wetness effects”. Are you suggesting there is something supernatural about ‘wetness’, and all the other effects science understands to be natural effects?
It’s not a mental effect, but a “wetness” effect. But an effect, even so.Of course my friend. However, these are clearly not mental effects. At least, I hope you would not classify them as such.
-TS
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Firstly, there has to be a non-physical explanation if the new qualitative existence we call H2O cannot be fully explained in physical terms. This much destroys naturalism as a rational system of thought. Secondly H2O is quantifiable. Conciousness is not quantifiable in any true empirical sense. We only associate human brains with self-conciousness because we experience self conciousness, and this experience has some kind of relationship with what we call a brain. But if you take a brain by itself making no pre-empirical judgements or assumptions, there is nothing about the structure, size, or the materials involved that can tell you that a brain thinks or has self awareness. When I think of a Universe or a star, you will not find a Universe or a Star in the physical structure of my brain. The brain by itself is just a grouping of atoms, and neither of these atoms as individuals are concious. Sure, we see a new shape and size, and the matter is grey, but we can perceive these new qualities through observation and experiment. However, were is this “self awareness” that we are all aware of? It is nowhere physical. We cannot say the same for H2O. This is where your counter-example fails, since in your example the effect is physically quantifiable, and thus can be legitimately understood in those terms. But when it comes to self awareness, your example fails miserably, leaving the theist free to wonder what justification you have for physicalising self awareness. There is no justification that can be given in the language of physics or science in general. Thus there is no reason to think that self awareness is fundamentally a grouping of atoms.
Self awareness is an anomaly in the world of physics and an embarrassment to any true naturalist.
T
Touchstone
Guest
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
I tend to agree, actually. One only has to posit that (let’s say) Energy=God.
So, since energy permeates and makes up the Universe, then one could say, in that sense, Energy DOES have self-knowledge, since it is “God.”
Shades of Spinoza.
Not saying it is like that, but simply positing one possible way argument 1 is dubious.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Accept that you have arbitrarily defined energy as God, just like the naturalist arbitrarily defines self awareness as physical.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
I don’t quite think that that is true. Quantum physics and mechanics tends to posit that everything is energy, including matter.
If I’m wrong, please correct me.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
I accept it in the sense that I was simply coming up with a possible objection to 1.
It is indeed possibly arbitrary, but I was not trying rigorously “lock a definition” into place.
I 'm not as philosophically minded as some of you here----in the sense that I’m nor as “rigorous” in my definitions and positings as many here. I mostly ask questions that will help me understand things (the nature of reality and God) better. I come here to learn as well to discuss.
Remember, Socrates stated that the first step to Philosophy is to admit that one knows nothing.
I’m simply trying to get closer to my God and Christ and worship them better.
I try to keep up with the more “knowledgeable and advanced” here and offer my thoughts to try to make me understand the questions addressed and myself as well. Nothing more, nothing less.
So yes, i guess I accept your statement. I was simply offering an opinion.
- Status