|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Date: Feb 1, 2008 02:58
In regard to Joe Bloggs, I think it would be unobjectionable to say that his
hands, feet, eyes, etc. are in the physical category, whereas his thoughts,
desires, beliefs, etc. are in the mental category. Why do we make this
judgment? Is it because e.g. his thoughts are not available to our sense
organs whereas e.g. his hands are? Then what of his spleen? -- But what
of the possibility that this can be _made_ available to our sense organs
(e.g. by surgery)? Is it, then, because e.g. his thoughts _can't_ be made
available to our sense organs that we consider them mental? -- But what
of the possibility that technology may eventually allow his thoughts to be
made available? So does it come to this in the end -- that with advances
in technology, the mental is continually migrating over to the physical...
|
| Show full article (0.98Kb) |
|
| | 74 Comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Feb 1, 2008 04:31
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:58:24 +0000, andy-k wrote:
> In regard to Joe Bloggs, I think it would be unobjectionable to say that
> his hands, feet, eyes, etc. are in the physical category, whereas his
> thoughts, desires, beliefs, etc. are in the mental category. Why do we
> make this judgment? ....
> .............
> But what of the possibility that technology may eventually
> allow his thoughts to be made available?
If Joe is reading you at the same rate as he is being read, would this
make a difference?
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: ArtArt Date: Feb 1, 2008 05:04
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:58:24 GMT, "andy-k" wrote:
>In regard to Joe Bloggs, I think it would be unobjectionable to say that his
>hands, feet, eyes, etc. are in the physical category, whereas his thoughts,
>desires, beliefs, etc. are in the mental category...
|
| Show full article (2.40Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Feb 1, 2008 07:34
On Feb 1, 10:58 am, "andy-k" wrote:
> In regard to Joe Bloggs, I think it would be unobjectionable to say that his
> hands, feet, eyes, etc. are in the physical category, whereas his thoughts,
> desires, beliefs, etc. are in the mental category. Why do we make this
> judgment? Is it because e.g. his thoughts are not available to our sense
> organs whereas e.g. his hands are? Then what of his spleen? -- But what
> of the possibility that this can be _made_ available to our sense organs
> (e.g. by surgery)? Is it, then, because e.g. his thoughts _can't_ be made
> available to our sense organs that we consider them mental? -- But what
> of the possibility that technology may eventually allow his thoughts to be
> made available? So does it come to this in the end -- that with advances...
|
| Show full article (1.30Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Feb 1, 2008 07:53
"ZerkonX" wrote:
> andy-k wrote:
>> In regard to Joe Bloggs, I think it would be unobjectionable to say that
>> his hands, feet, eyes, etc. are in the physical category, whereas his
>> thoughts, desires, beliefs, etc. are in the mental category. Why do we
>> make this judgment? ....
>> .............
>> But what of the possibility that technology may eventually
>> allow his thoughts to be made available?
>
> If Joe is reading you at the same rate as he is being read,
(presumably by somebody other than me -- say John Smith)...
> would this make a difference?
I'm not sure I understand the question, but I would reply that
John would be reading my thoughts via Joe.
But if Joe is reading me at the same time as I am reading Joe,
then that would appear to precipitate the mother of all feedback loops.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Feb 1, 2008 08:02
"Art" wrote:
> Andy, this line of thought you are on strikes me as needlessly muddled
> and confused. Makes me wonder which philosopher(s) led you to such
> confusion :)
>
> What exactly is wrong with the following simple-minded "definitions"?:
>
> I consider that the physical includes all the objects of the hard
> sciences from the level of the very small (quantum) to the very large
> (astronomical).
By what criteria do we distinguish objects of the hard sciences
from objects of the soft (or not-so-hard) sciences?
> I consider that the mental includes the usually accepted mental
> activities such as a person's thoughts, feelings and memories.
By what criteria do you make this judgment?
|
| Show full article (1.60Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Feb 1, 2008 08:04
"chazwin" wrote:
> It is demonstrable that what we are commonly see to refer to as "mental"
> is actually physical. You have to do no more than examine a brain injury,
> or take some interesting drugs to see that the mental is on the causal
> spectrum of materialism,
So you regard the 'mental' as a subset of the 'physical'?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: 3333333333 Date: Feb 1, 2008 08:48
andy-k wrote:
> In regard to Joe Bloggs, I think it would be unobjectionable to say that his
> hands, feet, eyes, etc. are in the physical category, whereas his thoughts,
> desires, beliefs, etc. are in the mental category. Why do we make this
> judgment? Is it because e.g. his thoughts are not available to our sense
> organs whereas e.g. his hands are? Then what of his spleen? -- But what
> of the possibility that this can be _made_ available to our sense organs
> (e.g. by surgery)? Is it, then, because e.g. his thoughts _can't_ be made
> available to our sense organs that we consider them mental? -- But what
> of the possibility that technology may eventually allow his thoughts to be
> made available? So does it come to this in the end -- that with advances
> in technology, the mental is...
|
| Show full article (1.68Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ArtArt Date: Feb 1, 2008 08:51
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:02:05 GMT, "andy-k" wrote:
>"Art" wrote:
>> Andy, this line of thought you are on strikes me as needlessly muddled
>> and confused. Makes me wonder which philosopher(s) led you to such
>> confusion :)
>>
>> What exactly is wrong with the following simple-minded "definitions"?:
>>
>> I consider that the physical includes all the objects of the hard
>> sciences from the level of the very small (quantum) to the very large
>> (astronomical).
>
>By what criteria do we distinguish objects of the hard sciences
>from objects of the soft (or not-so-hard) sciences?
|
| Show full article (2.55Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Date: Feb 1, 2008 09:03
"33333" wrote:
> Trying to list everything together under a single category called
> "physical" is as artificial an endeavor as dividing and listing
> everything under the two categories of physical and mental.
> The belief that the former must be done in order for interaction to be
> possible is arbitrary gibberish resulting from reification of our sets.
I'm in complete agreement.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
