|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: someone2someone2 Date: Jun 24, 2007 08:59
I was wondering which of you can understand the following reasoning,
and perhaps which of you object to it:
M refers to the physical entity in question.
B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question.
P refers to the a property in question.
Where M is the same in (1) and (2), B(M) is the same in (1) and (2),
and P is the same in (1) and (2).
1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring
knowledge of whether it has P or not.
2) Presence of P or lack of, does not influence/affect B(M), else the
explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without P.
If (1) is true, then (2) is true.
(to help you along, depending on the substitution, (1) would not
always be true)
|
| |
|
| | 5 Comments |
|
|
Author: MilanMilan Date: Jun 24, 2007 09:18
>I was wondering which of you can understand the following reasoning,
> and perhaps which of you object to it:
>
> M refers to the physical entity in question.
> B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question.
> P refers to the a property in question.
>
> Where M is the same in (1) and (2), B(M) is the same in (1) and (2),
> and P is the same in (1) and (2).
>
> 1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring
> knowledge of whether it has P or not.
>
> 2) Presence of P or lack of, does not influence/affect B(M), else the
> explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without P.
>
> If (1) is true, then (2) is true.
> ...
|
| Show full article (0.98Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Anthony G. RubinoAnthony G. Rubino Date: Jun 24, 2007 10:26
Anyone who refuses to consider any non-material reality cannot
understand, or accept, such an argument. If only the material aspects
of reality are considered, then non-material aspects are already
excluded, and rejected, despite the fact that there can be no physical
evidence of the non physical, such as the acceptance or rejection
itself.
What are the physical properties of the virtual realities created by
thinking? What are the physical properties of thoughts? Is there any
physical way to differentiate between thinking about thoughts and
thinking about objects?
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/trisector/
So many misconceptions, so little time.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ABCABC Date: Jun 24, 2007 11:35
someone2 wrote:
> I was wondering which of you can understand the following reasoning,
> and perhaps which of you object to it:
>
> M refers to the physical entity in question.
> B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question.
> P refers to the a property in question.
>
> Where M is the same in (1) and (2), B(M) is the same in (1) and (2),
> and P is the same in (1) and (2).
>
> 1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring
> knowledge of whether it has P or not.
>
> 2) Presence of P or lack of, does not influence/affect B(M), else the
> explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without P.
>
> If (1) is true, then (2) is true.
>
> (to help you along, depending on the substitution, (1) would not ...
|
| Show full article (0.87Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: AlanSAlanS Date: Jun 24, 2007 15:04
someone2 btinternet.com> wrote:
>M refers to the physical entity in question.
>B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question.
>P refers to the a property in question.
[...]
This line of thinking might have been plausible maybe 100 years ago.
It's no longer clear what to make of "property" without measurement.
In fact, whenever you speak of "property" or "behaviour" (what's the
difference?), you have to define what your procedure is for
measurement. I'm sad to say that in general, philosophers are
painfully behind the times in such matters, still clinging to
antiquated notions.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: someone2someone2 Date: Jun 28, 2007 13:30
On 28 Jun, 19:39, someone2 btinternet.com> wrote:> On 28 Jun, 19:13, zinnic gate.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Jun 28, 4:37 am, someone2 btinternet.com> wrote:>
>
>>>> On Jun 24, 11:59 am, someone2 btinternet.com> wrote:>
>>>>> I was wondering which of you can understand the following reasoning,
>>>>> and perhaps which of you object to it:
>
>>>>> M refers to the physical entity in question.
>>>>> B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question.
>>>>> P refers to the a property in question.
> ...
|
| Show full article (8.89Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
