5 ms·

>they're still physical interactions that can be interrogated approximately the same way we interrogate how muscle fiber works or whatever Newtonian physics fa

>they're still physical interactions that can be interrogated approximately the same way we interrogate how muscle fiber works or whatever Newtonian physics fail to explain quantum phenomenon.

cygx 9y ago
Which is probably not relevant for the problem at hand: I would be surprised if brains were able to maintain quantum coherence, which means quantum effects will effectively reduce to classical probabilities...
- manjushri 9y ago
  >I would be surprised if brains were able to maintain quantum coherence Are you hypothesizing the mind is entirely self contained within the brain and independent from the rest of the body and it's environment?
  - cygx 9y ago
    No, I'm hypothesizing that brains can be understood within the realm of classical physics.
    - manjushri 9y ago
      Then how is that relevant? Were talking about the philosophy of mind, not just brains.
roywiggins 9y ago
Well, sure. But we know an awful lot about quantum mechanics, and we know quantum mechanics is spooky but appears to be contained entirely in the realm of the physical. Particles behave by laws that we can sit down and calculate. That's all materialism is- it doesn't insist that everything is determined by any particular set of physical laws, much less Newton's, which we know is incomplete. Maybe everything's a wave, maybe everything is a tiny vibrating string, maybe we're all holographic projections on a membrane. All of this is compatible with materialism. Materialism is essentially a philosophical stance, that everything in the world is physical. It's not something that is likely to be solved empirically and it's not clear how you would even prove it one way or another. Anything as-yet unexplained might yet yield to a physical explanation, and insofar as physics is well-understood, skeptics can retreat into talking about mental states and so on.
- manjushri 9y ago
  > a philosophical stance, that everything in the world is physical. It's not something that is likely to be solved empirically and it's not clear how you would even prove it one way or another. Anything as-yet unexplained might yet yield to a physical explanation, and insofar as physics is well-understood, skeptics can retreat into talking about mental states and so on. Interesting. From a philosophical standpoint I see no quarrel. You could replace "physical" with "god" in your definition and it would read true to many religions. It's when dogmatism overrides doubt, questioning, and humility that people are misguided, in scientific theory and religion.
  - hackinthebochs 9y ago
    > You could replace "physical" with "god" in your definition and it would read true to many religions. The difference is that the concept of physical minimally satisfies the required features to fill the conceptual role implied by science. If you replace physical with god, you are either eliminating the necessary properties of god or you're assuming more than is warranted.
    - manjushri 9y ago
      What are the "necessary properties of god"?
      - hackinthebochs 9y ago
        Necessary properties of our concept of god, e.g. intelligent creator. If you deflate the concept of god such that any sort of eternal grounding substance of the universe is "god" then you've abandoned what is important in the concept of god (or attempting to engage in sleight of hand).
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        manjushri 9y ago

>they're still physical interactions that can be interrogated approximately the same way we interrogate how muscle fiber works or whatever Newtonian physics fail to explain quantum phenomenon.

cygx 9y ago

Which is probably not relevant for the problem at hand: I would be surprised if brains were able to maintain quantum coherence, which means quantum effects will effectively reduce to classical probabilities...

manjushri 9y ago
>I would be surprised if brains were able to maintain quantum coherence Are you hypothesizing the mind is entirely self contained within the brain and independent from the rest of the body and it's environment?
- cygx 9y ago
  No, I'm hypothesizing that brains can be understood within the realm of classical physics.
  - manjushri 9y ago
    Then how is that relevant? Were talking about the philosophy of mind, not just brains.

roywiggins 9y ago

Well, sure. But we know an awful lot about quantum mechanics, and we know quantum mechanics is spooky but appears to be contained entirely in the realm of the physical. Particles behave by laws that we can sit down and calculate. That's all materialism is- it doesn't insist that everything is determined by any particular set of physical laws, much less Newton's, which we know is incomplete. Maybe everything's a wave, maybe everything is a tiny vibrating string, maybe we're all holographic projections on a membrane. All of this is compatible with materialism. Materialism is essentially a philosophical stance, that everything in the world is physical. It's not something that is likely to be solved empirically and it's not clear how you would even prove it one way or another. Anything as-yet unexplained might yet yield to a physical explanation, and insofar as physics is well-understood, skeptics can retreat into talking about mental states and so on.

manjushri 9y ago
> a philosophical stance, that everything in the world is physical. It's not something that is likely to be solved empirically and it's not clear how you would even prove it one way or another. Anything as-yet unexplained might yet yield to a physical explanation, and insofar as physics is well-understood, skeptics can retreat into talking about mental states and so on. Interesting. From a philosophical standpoint I see no quarrel. You could replace "physical" with "god" in your definition and it would read true to many religions. It's when dogmatism overrides doubt, questioning, and humility that people are misguided, in scientific theory and religion.
- hackinthebochs 9y ago
  > You could replace "physical" with "god" in your definition and it would read true to many religions. The difference is that the concept of physical minimally satisfies the required features to fill the conceptual role implied by science. If you replace physical with god, you are either eliminating the necessary properties of god or you're assuming more than is warranted.
  - manjushri 9y ago
    What are the "necessary properties of god"?
    - hackinthebochs 9y ago
      Necessary properties of our concept of god, e.g. intelligent creator. If you deflate the concept of god such that any sort of eternal grounding substance of the universe is "god" then you've abandoned what is important in the concept of god (or attempting to engage in sleight of hand).
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - manjushri 9y ago