Thoughts are objects, mind and brain are identical
in [Physics]
|
From: Immortalist on 18 Jun 2010 20:53 > > Using your own personal definitions of words is one of the surest ways > to impede communication. You might want to re-think your approach. > > >What might help is if you chant; "if objects > >are processes then..." > > >More importantly can you point to where it begins to not make sense? > > At "if objects are processes then...". The only problem with that is that physicists defines objects as processes. Its hard science, be they "clouds of fields" or other designations, no solid object has ever been found in nature that has not turned out to be a process.
From: Immortalist on 18 Jun 2010 20:58 On Jun 17, 7:08 pm, chibiabos <c...(a)nospam.com> wrote: > In article > <cd3050b7-d36c-41b0-bfb6-34937c68e...(a)s6g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 15, 6:45 pm, chibiabos <c...(a)nospam.com> wrote: > > > In article > > > <cb98da81-4358-45a7-a9c5-143f7ff38...(a)y18g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > One form of materialism is the view that mental states are identical > > > > with brain states. To have a certain kind of mental state is the same > > > > thing as having a certain type of brain state. To think a certain sort > > > > of thought is to have a certain sort of thing happen in the brain. To > > > > feel pain is to have another sort of thing happen in the brain. To > > > > wish for good weather is to have another sort of thing happen in the > > > > brain. This theory is called the mind-brain identity theory. > > > > > Persons And Their World: An Introduction to Philosophy - Jeffrey Olen > > > >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0075543117/ > > > > > Mental states are objects, like tables or chairs. They are events, > > > > like the kicking of a football. Thinking is a mental state, an object. > > > > So are wishing and hoping and dreaming objects if objects are just > > > > events. These are all mental events, things that we do. Therefore > > > > there are such "objects" as thoughts, wishes, hopes,, or images. > > > > > What is the difference between an event and an object? No difference > > > > because all known objects are events based upon interactive processes. > > > > (Nominalism) An event is a happening, an occurrence. It is what > > > > objects do, what happens to objects. Take, for example, the event of > > > > kicking a football. If I kick a football, there are only two objects > > > > involved-me and the ball. There is also the event of my kicking the > > > > ball, but that event is not a third object True, we sometimes talk as > > > > though there were such objects as kicks. We say that someone made a > > > > good kick, or that a kick saved a game, or that a field-goal kicker > > > > made five kicks during a game. But that is just a manner of speaking. > > > > There are no such objects as kicks. > > > > > Similarly, there are such objects as handshakes. If I shake a friend's > > > > hand, the objects involved are my hand and my friend's hand. We can > > > > talk as though there were a third thing. We can say, for example, that > > > > I gave my friend a firm handshake, which is really like giving someone > > > > a firm container. To give a firm handshake is to shake hands firmly.. > > > > That is, there is only the event of shaking hands, but no such object > > > > as a handshake. Shaking hands is something we do. > > > > Fritz Perls much? > > > No, but I pay a lot attention to Evolutionary Psychology and ways to > > philosophize about it. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology > > What you do is not philosophy. It is cerebral flatulence. > The truth of your claim is not determinable with the evidence you provided. Philosophically, or in common language it will do no good to make empty claims with no evidence or support. Since you have left yourself open to defeat here let me paste a common definition of philosophy and please show me where I deviate from it. --------------------------------------- What is philosophy? This is a notoriously difficult question. One of the easiest ways of answering it is to say that philosophy is what philosophers do, and then point to the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Russell, Wittgenstein, Sartre, and other famous philosophers. However, this answer is unlikely to be of much use to you if you are just beginning the subject, as you probably won't have read anything by these writers. Even if you have, it may still be difficult to say what they have in common, if indeed there is a relevant characteristic which they all share. Another approach to the question is to point out that philosophy is derived from the Greek word meaning 'lover of wisdom'. However, this is rather vague and even less helpful than saying that philosophy is what philosophers do. So some very general comments about what philosophy is are needed. Philosophy is an activity: it is a way of thinking about certain sorts of question. Its most distinctive feature is its use of logical argument. Philosophers typically deal in arguments: they either invent them, criticise other people's, or do both. They also analyse and clarify concepts. The word 'philosophy' is often used in a much broader sense than this to mean one's general outlook on life, or else to refer to some forms of mysticism. I will not be using the word in this broader sense here: my aim is to illuminate some of the key areas of discussion in a tradition of thought which began with the Ancient Greeks and has flourished in the twentieth century, predominantly in Europe and America. What kind of things do philosophers working in this tradition argue about? They often examine beliefs that most of us take for granted most of the time. They are concerned with questions about what could loosely be called 'the meaning of life': questions about religion, right and wrong, the nature of the external world, the mind, science, art, and numerous other topics. For instance, most people live their lives without questioning their fundamental beliefs, such as that killing is wrong. But why is it wrong? What justification is there for saying that killing is wrong? Is it wrong in every circumstance? And what do I mean by 'wrong' anyway? These are philosophical questions. Many of our beliefs, when examined, turn out to have firm foundations; but some do not. The study of philosophy not only helps us to think clearly about our prejudices, but also helps to clarify precisely what we do believe. In the process it develops an ability to argue coherently on a wide range of issues - a useful transferable skill. PHILOSOPHY: THE BASICS Nigel Warburton http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415146941/ > -chib > > -- > Member of S.M.A.S.H. > Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
From: raven1 on 18 Jun 2010 22:36 On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:53:04 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist <reanimater_2000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Using your own personal definitions of words is one of the surest ways >> to impede communication. You might want to re-think your approach. >> >> >What might help is if you chant; "if objects >> >are processes then..." >> >> >More importantly can you point to where it begins to not make sense? >> >> At "if objects are processes then...". > >The only problem with that is that physicists defines objects as >processes. Cite? > Its hard science, be they "clouds of fields" or other >designations, no solid object has ever been found in nature that has >not turned out to be a process. Again, using your own personal definitions of words is one of the surest ways to impede communication. You might want to re-think your approach.
From: raven1 on 18 Jun 2010 22:38 On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:58:01 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist <reanimater_2000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >The study of philosophy not only helps us to think >clearly about our prejudices, but also helps to clarify precisely what >we do believe. In the process it develops an ability to argue >coherently Re-read that. Several times. With emphasis on the last word. >on a wide range of issues - a useful transferable skill. > >PHILOSOPHY: THE BASICS >Nigel Warburton >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415146941/
From: Immortalist on 18 Jun 2010 23:01
On Jun 18, 7:36Â pm, raven1 <quoththera...(a)nevermore.com> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:53:04 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist > > <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> Using your own personal definitions of words is one of the surest ways > >> to impede communication. You might want to re-think your approach. > > >> >What might help is if you chant; "if objects > >> >are processes then..." > > >> >More importantly can you point to where it begins to not make sense? > > >> At "if objects are processes then...". > > >The only problem with that is that physicists defines objects as > >processes. > > Cite? > Oh yes, wikipoopia even has the answer to that one but it appears that they leave "point particles" defined vaguely as "objects. But nothing else besides them are objects only processes and interactions of point particles which actively combine to make parts of the constantly changing atoms and molecules, and their properties, which is everything that we sense that the world is made of. But there is a mention of the conflict with string theorists who believe that strings are the smallest changing fields from which everything is made. To them everything is just like a guitar string playing different notes, each particle is these string fields vibrating at different frequencies. But hey you have genetics aced brother, don't let the funny parts of physics change you. Matter is a general term for the substance of which all physical objects are made.[1][2] Typically, this includes atoms and other particles which have mass. However in practice there is no single correct scientific meaning; each field uses the term in different and often incompatible ways. A common way of defining matter is as anything that has mass and occupies volume.[3] For much of the history of the natural sciences people have contemplated the exact nature of matter. The idea that matter was build from discrete building blocks, the so-called particulate theory of matter,was first put forward by the Greek philosophers [Leucippus]] (~490 BC) and Democritus (~470â380 BC). Over time an increasingly fine structure for matter was discovered: objects are made from molecules, molecules consist of atoms, which in turn consist of subatomic particles like protons and electrons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter In physics, subatomic particles are the small particles composing nucleons and atoms. There are two types of subatomic particles: elementary particles, which are not made of other particles, and composite particles. Particle physics and nuclear physics study these particles and how they interact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subatomic_particle For mathematical purposes, elementary particles are normally treated as point particles, although some particle theories such as string theory posit a physical dimension. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle A point particle (ideal particle or point-like particle, often spelled pointlike particle) is an idealized object heavily used in physics. Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension: being zero- dimensional, it does not take up space. A point particle is an appropriate representation of any object whose size, shape, and structure is irrelevant in a given context. For example, from far enough away, an object of any shape will look and behave as a point- like object. Particular "types" of point particles include point masses and point charges, point particles whose only attributes are their mass and charges respectively... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle Modern particle physics research is focused on subatomic particles, including atomic constituents such as electrons, protons, and neutrons (protons and neutrons are actually composite particles, made up of quarks), particles produced by radioactive and scattering processes, such as photons, neutrinos, and muons, as well as a wide range of exotic particles. Strictly speaking, the term particle is a misnomer because the dynamics of particle physics are governed by quantum mechanics. As such, they exhibit wave-particle duality, displaying particle-like behavior under certain experimental conditions and wave-like behavior in others (more technically they are described by state vectors in a Hilbert space; see quantum field theory). Following the convention of particle physicists, "elementary particles" refer to objects such as electrons and photons, it is well known that these "particles" display wave-like properties as well. All the particles and their interactions observed to date can almost be described entirely by a quantum field theory called the Standard Model. The Standard Model has 17 species of elementary particles: 12 fermions (24 if you count antiparticles separately), 4 vector bosons (5 if you count antiparticles separately), and 1 scalar boson. These elementary particles can combine to form composite particles, accounting for the hundreds of other species of particles discovered since the 1960s. The Standard Model has been found to agree with almost all the experimental tests conducted to date. However, most particle physicists believe that it is an incomplete description of nature, and that a more fundamental theory awaits discovery... ....The current state of the classification of elementary particles is the Standard Model. It describes the strong, weak, and electromagnetic fundamental forces, using mediating gauge bosons. The species of gauge bosons are the gluons, Wâ» and W+ and Z bosons, and the photons. The model also contains 24 fundamental particles, which are the constituents of matter. Finally, it predicts the existence of a type of boson known as the Higgs boson, which is yet to be discovered... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics > > Its hard science, be they "clouds of fields" or other > >designations, no solid object has ever been found in nature that has > >not turned out to be a process. > > Again, using your own personal definitions of words is one of the > surest ways to impede communication. You might want to re-think your > approach. |