On 3 June 2018 at 21:56, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 6/3/2018 3:40 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On 1 June 2018 at 19:41, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 6/1/2018 12:15 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>> >>>> On 31 May 2018 at 19:57, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5/31/2018 2:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You're a bit naughty Brent. You sometimes use this maneuver of >>>>>> nonchalantly listing something that is being discussed -- but that you >>>>>> don't like -- along with something else that is obviously outdated or >>>>>> silly. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's not that I "don't like" primary matter, it's that I think it's an >>>>> invented term that nobody actually postulates. >>>> >>>> >From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism#Overview : >>>> >>>> "To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are >>>> primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and >>>> mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting >>>> upon matter." >>> >>> >>> I concede the point. >> >> Thanks for saying. >> >>> There are many who consider that matter can explain >>> mind, so in the Materialism vs Idealism debate they are taking matter as >>> prior, and one may infer, as primary. But the few who actually think >>> about >>> the ontology of "matter", like Wheeler, Hawking, Tegmark,...do not just >>> postulate some "primary matter" and in fact ask questions like, "What >>> makes >>> the equations fly." They do not even insist that there is an ur-stuff >>> that >>> is matter. Which was my point that if there is an ur-stuff then the >>> ur-stuff makes both mind and matter and whatever else so there's little >>> point in calling is either matter or mind. >> >> I would say that you are alluding to ontological difficulties from >> within a Materialist position -- the idea that it is impossible to >> know, or that there is no ground reality from which one can build such >> an ontology. I have no antipathy for these positions, and I think I >> understand why they would arise. My antipathy is towards what I >> consider an authoritarian rejection of metaphysical questions -- that >> in fact such questions do not matter, and that one should stop asking >> them. That sounds like the ultimate hubris to me -- I don't have an >> answer, and the questions hint too much at the true dimensions of our >> ignorance, so I forbid the questions. > > > You refer to authoritarian rejection of metaphysical questions. I don't > think I asserted any authoritarian privilege (do I have any?).
I didn't mean you. I meant Bruce's original message with his "irrefutable evidence" and attempts to shut down debate without providing any actual arguments. > I only > argued that some questions are meaningless and that whether the ur-stuff of > the world is mind or matter is one of them. We infer the existence of > matter from perceptions (which is mental) but we also infer that it's > existence and certain organization is necessary for perception. There is > need not be some principle of hierarchy; we should always keep in mind the > possiblity of virtuous circles of explanation. Ok, I understand your position. To quote the Simpsons: (Homer tucks Bart in) Homer: Well, good night, son. Bart: Um, Dad? Homer: Yeah? Bart: What is the mind? I-is it just a.. system of impulses, or... is it... something tangible? Homer: Relax! What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind. (Homer laughs) Bart: (unconvinced) Th..anks, Dad... Homer: Good night, son. (Homer turns off the light and leaves - although Bart remains confused) >> >> I think you avoid a different discussion, that can be traced back to >> Plato's cave thought experiment. This question is about the >> ontological status of the entire concept of matter. Does it exist >> outside the experience of a conscious entity, or is it just the shadow >> of some other more fundamental reality, filtered through the conscious >> entity's perception? This doesn't change physics one iota, but it >> might change how physics' role is perceived in our culture. This >> latter issue, which has nothing to do with science and all to do with >> ego is, in my view, the true reason why many physicists so violently >> reject the discussion. To be clear, I am not trying to accuse >> physicists of nothing more than being human. > > > I don't think very many scientists have ever even heard of the discussion. > So they don't "violently reject" it. What they do is dismiss it as > irrelevant to their work. A few, like my late friend Vic Stenger, have been > motivated to write books to counter the misinterpretation of scientific > theories to support mystic woo-woo exemplified by Depak Chopra and > evangelical Christians like Hugh Ross and William Lane Craig. I understand the drive of people such as your friend to do this. I don't know about Vic Stenger, but I notice many times -- I would dare say in you -- that there is also fear that we might lose the slice of reason and science that we have in our culture to sleezy people with an agenda. I don't say that this fear is unfounded, but I do say that there is a pathological side to it. Give the size of what we don't know, it seems to me that the scientific theories of the next centuries would look like woo to us. There is a delicate balance in the open mindedness that is necessary to make progress, and I would say that the current scientific establishment is way too arrogant. My intuition is that this fear is what leads many scientists and academics to even contemplate the full weirdness of the situation we find ourselves in (aka "existence"). Most scientists and scientifically-literate people I know assume that consciousness emerges from brain activity without ever really thinking about the ramifications of this hypothesis. I have had this conversation several times, and I can usually tell that, when asked certain questions, people are surprised to realize that this idea is not on such solid grounds as they seemed to think. Academia discourages such questions, that is clear to me. It is quite similar to how attempting to interpret quantum mechanics instead of "shutting up and calculating" was a career killer for physicists -- case in point, Hugh Everett. Telmo. >> >>> However, that's not a reason to >>> avoid trying to produce mind from matter, as in AI. >> >> I agree. >> >>> And one is free to try >>> to produce matter from mind. >> >> Well, Idealism is the hypothesis that this is what is going on all the >> time... In any case, clearly there are rules, that physics studies. I >> tried really hard to make a pink elephant show up in my living room >> but it just didn't happen. > > > That's one for physics. But I'll bet the right chemistry would do it. :) Telmo. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
