Physicalism is the philosophical view that everything in the universe, including mental states and consciousness, can be explained by physical processes.
In general I would argued that everything that exists is composed of physical entities and that any non-physical entities can be reduced to physical entities.
Forty-five years ago I held the view that mental states are identical to physical states and that any apparent differences between mental and physical states can be explained by the different ways they are described, a matter of language and semantics.
Daniel Dennett is an American philosopher . He is 81 now and I think he is my big example regarding physicalism and the philosophy of mind. To be honest... I think I even look like him a little in RL :-)
He defended physicalism in his work "Consciousness Explained" (1991). He argued that consciousness is not a separate entity from the physical world but is instead a product of physical processes in the brain.
You can get a free download of that book here: https://freethoughts.dorshon.com/wp-content/uploads/Consciousness-Explained.pdf
In accordance with all this my point of view is that consciousness can be fully explained by neuroscience and that any non-physical aspects of consciousness are illusory.
So far so good. On our way to a final conclusion we already passed two station. The first one was defining criteria to decide whether the statement "X exists" is true of false.
In that process we ran into abstract terms. There does not exist some entity which is designated by the term "Supermarket", unless, as we saw we regard this general term as a container concept.
There does not some stand-alone entity 'supermarket'. The word is the name of a set, a huge collection of objects that comply with our criteria to establish the truth-value of the statement "The supermarket exists".
Does the mind exist? Yes, like you cannot deny velocity as being real. What is the ontological status of velocity? When we say that it exists, what do we mean by existence?
There is not such a thing as velocity as an independent property and material objects (dualism). Velocity exists as a relation between stationary object X and moving object Y. Scientifically you can do all kinds of things with it. You can measure it, influence it, change it, stop it and so on.
Likewise the mind is not a thing. The mind is the relation between the neurons and the energy that drives the communication with the neurons. In other words, the mind is as real as velocity.
You can't have velocity without at least two objects in relation to each other. You can't have a mind without at least two neurons in communication to each other.
I told you I had a chat with ChatGPT about that abstract term "gravity". For Einstein "matter", as we discuss it here, was the connection between mass and energy.
That makes me think, that equally the mind is the close connection between brain-mass and the electric energy, that makes it tick,
Thank you for your attention again....
Main Sources:
MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition
TABLE OF CONTENT -----------------------------------------------------------------
1 - 100 Philosophers 9 May 2009 Start of
2 - 25+ Women Philosophers 10 May 2009 this blog
3 - 25 Adventures in Thinking 10 May 2009
4 - Modern Theories of Ethics 29 Oct 2009
5 - The Ideal State 24 Febr 2010 / 234
6 - The Mystery of the Brain 3 Sept 2010 / 266
7 - The Utopia of the Free Market 16 Febr 2012 / 383
8. - The Aftermath of Neo-liberalism 5 Sept 2012 / 413
9. - The Art Not to Be an Egoist 6 Nov 2012 / 426
10 - Non-Western Philosophy 29 May 2013 / 477
11 - Why Science is Right 2 Sept 2014 / 534
12 - A Philosopher looks at Atheism 1 Jan 2015 / 557
13 - EVIL, a philosophical investigation 17 Apr 2015 / 580
14 - Existentialism and Free Will 2 Sept 2015 / 586
15 - Spinoza 2 Sept 2016 / 615
16 - The Meaning of Life 13 Febr 2017 / 637
17 - In Search of my Self 6 Sept 2017 / 670
18 - The 20th Century Revisited 3 Apr 2018 / 706
19 - The Pessimist 11 Jan 2020 / 819
20 - The Optimist 9 Febr 2020 / 824
21 - Awakening from a Neoliberal Dream 8 Oct 2020 / 872
22 - A World Full of Patterns 1 Apr 2021 / 912
23 - The Concept of Freedom 8 Jan 2022 / 965
24 - Materialism 7 Sept 2022 / 1011
The Discussion
[13:14] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): tell chat we like it that way
[13:14] herman Bergson: lol
[13:14] I am done...I gonna hang myself :-) Wasn't there that weird story that ChatGPT in Italy had advised someone to kill himself? Now I understand ^_^
[13:14]
[13:15] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes
[[13:15] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and he did
[13:15] herman Bergson: See you at the funeral :-)
[13:15] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): you caN'T IS YOU HANGED YOURSELF
[13:15] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): not going
[13:16] herman Bergson: ohh...got a point Beertje :-)
[13:16] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm indeed i heard that story
[13:16] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): I think a lot of professors feel that way when they talk to gpt
[13:16] herman Bergson: The story is nonsense...
[13:16] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): :))
[13:16] Max Chatnoir: Interesting!
[13:17] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but can even Chat GPT properly criticize a text. i think when u told it to criticize it Chat GPT takes that as = write negative about it no matter what it is, not sure it can do text analysis that way reall
[13:17] herman Bergson: Well..the point is that ChatGPT treats this lecture as a scientific essay....It hasn't any understanding of the context in which it is delivered
[13:17] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): like it said it lacks depth, this lecture did not lack depth by any means i think
[13:17] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): exactly
[13:18] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): u told it basically to write negative comments of it no matter the content
[13:18] herman Bergson: Well..I just said to a friend...I oversimplify philosophical problems.....
[13:18] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thats what i think is happened here
[13:18] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:18] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:18] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): no wonder we cant graduate
[13:18] herman Bergson: In fact that is a compliment regarding my educational skills to explain complex issues
[13:18] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): lol
[13:19] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): did you submit it to bard??
[13:19] Max Chatnoir: I asked Chat GTP the same question 3 times yesterday. The first time it gave me an answer. The second time, it gave me an apology for the first answer, and gave me a different answer. The third time it gave me a better version of the first answer.
[13:19] herman Bergson: not yet....just managed to log in to Bard
[13:20] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): in fact you are a genius, who can explaine complicated thought to us simple souls
[13:20] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): at least machines do what we tell them to, and thats a good thing. my trusty 3d printer just manufactured a new stand foot for my bike exact to 0.01 (thats how exact my digital caliper is) of a mm to what i drew in CAD
[13:20] herman Bergson: thank you Beertje...will put the rope on eBay then :-)
[13:20] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ha
[13:21] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): ツ
[13:21] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): gpt as long as it does not recognize itself is ok
[13:21] herman Bergson: You saved my life ^_^
[13:21] Max Chatnoir: Please do not hang yourself.
[13:21] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): when it does watch out
[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): haha no
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): (cheers herman up by offfering to make him new high quality bike parts)
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:22] herman Bergson: Anyway...physicalism still prevails here :-)
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its TURF season after all
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe
[13:22] Max Chatnoir: What a relief!
[13:22] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:22] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:22] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ok
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa yes
[13:23] herman Bergson: Next time the Bard will sing for you about this lecture Gemma :-)
[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:23] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): we shall see
[13:23] bergfrau Apfelbaum: no matter what this program writes! Don't hang yourself and buy a bottle of wine. you genius:-)
[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): good suggestion
[13:23] herman Bergson: lol
[13:24] Max Chatnoir: Is that related to the claim that if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, there is now sound?
[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ask bard what you should add to it to make it better
[13:24] herman Bergson: Well don't worry...it didn't crush my ego :-)
[13:24] Max Chatnoir: ...sorry, no sound.
[13:24] herman Bergson: It was just an interesting test which shows the limits of Chat...it has no idea about the context
[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): sound is the brains interpretation of vibration in air, so the vibrations are there for sure but not sound u could say
[13:25] herman Bergson: in other owrds...
[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): according to me
[13:25] Max Chatnoir: Works for me, Bejiita!
[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:25] herman Bergson: in my prompt I first should have written a description of the SL context etc...what has been etc....and then ask to critisize
[13:25] Max Chatnoir: The stimulus is there even if the receiver is absent.
[13:26] herman Bergson: What do you mean Max?
[13:26] Max Chatnoir: The sound waves.
[13:27] Max Chatnoir: Sorry, that wasn't a response to what you said. Please ignore it.
[13:27] herman Bergson: np
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ur right max though
[13:28] herman Bergson: Interesting remark Bejiita....
[13:28] herman Bergson: sound is another way of talking about movement of air
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the stimulus (vibrations in air) is always there no matter if someone is there or now
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): not
[13:28] Max Chatnoir: And air is physical.
[13:28] herman Bergson: I see what you meant Max
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thats true
[13:28] herman Bergson: That falling tree in the forest....
[13:29] herman Bergson: ok..guess we have some idea what the mind can be....
[13:29] bergfrau Apfelbaum: "receiver is missing" like in the church
[13:30] herman Bergson: Next step is to see whether the Identity theory of the Supervenience theory are the most effective interpretations
[13:30] herman Bergson: I'll save that for another lecture tho ^_^
[13:30] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ok
[13:31] Max Chatnoir: Thanks!
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:31] herman Bergson: Thank you all again for your participation..:-)
[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:31] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Thank you Herman
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): YAY! (yay!)
[13:31] herman Bergson: Class dismissed and enjoy the coming weekend :-))
[13:31] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thank you Herman and class!
No comments:
Post a Comment