speaking to skeptics

[TheAist]

you have definitely improved my skepticism repeatedly. which has improved my life and conception of reality. Because of this, i will always be eternally grateful. And i mean that, because i have passed skepticism on to younger generations.

[pyrrho314]

thanks, it's nice to hear that... cheers.

[LimpLoser]

I find if i listen carefully to what Pyrrho says, he usually makes sense.

[pyrrho314]

lol, I find when you've been taking your meds you make sense :p

[a2tis]

"ideas are material" - well ideas behave in a different ways from material things: you can't measure mass or velocity of ideas or any other material characteristics. you can expand of what "material" means if you like but this kind of new language would describe less not more. expanding the meaning of words makes them less specific, containing less information.

[wonderist]

Pyrrho means 'material' in the sense of 'materialism', not necessarily strictly 'matter'. This is why I use the word physicalism instead of materialism, because it avoids this unnecessary confusion. It also avoids the equivocation with consumerism/materialism, which is so often used against philosophical materialism by the lay public.

Ideas are a form of information. Information is physical. Ideas are 'made' of the same stuff youtube comments and computer programs are 'made' of: Information.

[pyrrho314]

I've tried that but come to the conclusion that this is babying this so called lay public, they must learn materialism qua E=mc^2.

[wonderist]

I don't see how it it babying. Whenever I have used the word in public, it has caused people to think. What is physicalism? Why is it different from simple materialism? What makes something physical rather than material?

This is hardly babying them. Babying them might be to just use the word 'stuff'.

[pyrrho314]

I didn't mean to criticize you for communicating it that way... it's just in my case, I prefer the world and history of discussing materialism... and there is a clear distinction between that and the sort of materialism that is greed over materials. Further, the one materialism is legitimately related to the other, a philosophical materialism can indeed lead to a greedy materialism... so I like the whole bag of works faced together.

[wonderist]

I don't see the connection. The people who are the most thoroughly philosophically materialistic, namely the scientists, are not prone to be obsessed with greed. If they were, they probably wouldn't be scientists.

But, whatever. I personally much prefer physicalism, but so long as we're basically talking about the same thing, who cares?

[pyrrho314]

that's an interesting question, if the scientists are the most material. I am not sure, many of them are in love with abstractions and idealism which take them quite far from materialism. They may acknowledge materialism, and extend it, that's wise of them, but we could discuss if it makes them the most thoroughly materialist. Aren't back to nature camping dudes more materialistic?

[wonderist]

The word 'materialist' is so overloaded that it is impossible to avoid mis-communication. When I said 'most thoroughly philosophically materialistic', I meant 'scientific materialism', i.e. taking the basic idea of materialism to its furthest reaches via science. See my vid on Physicalism. I'm going to avoid the word materialism from here on.

[pyrrho314]

I'm saying, among other things, the baggage of "materialism" is just, and the word physicalism should just attain the same reputation... the drawback of wordly philosophies is they tend toward the superficial and immediate unless applied in ballance with their opposites.

[wonderist]

I disagree completely. Conceiving that the universe/cosmos consists of only physical things in *no way* implies that you also think the only thing that matters in life is the accumulation of property and wealth. This is the 'baggage' of materialism, and it is not just.

I don't need to believe in the non-physical in order to have a deep, non-superficial philosophy.

[pyrrho314]

I did not say that. I send it tends toward it. It doesn't mean you give into that tendency.

[ElectronicPhone]

or how bout instead of materialism/physicalism bla bla lets say its one "ism"

that everything can be reduced to the same thing, just like when your math teacher says reduce everything to its common denominator bla bla

thing is, mathy stuff terminates at more mathy stuff

one ism, reductionism - ya all are gonen down the wrong path in my opinion

[wonderist]

Ism doesn't convey any meaning except belief. Physicalism has a specific meaning which matches my intent. This should be obvious to you. Unless you've given up on meaningful communication. If so, then good luck to you. I happen to think it is your path (giving up on communication) that is the wrong one.

[pyrrho314]

I can measure the mass of the brain, I can measure the mass of the neurons having the idea, or implementing it, and I can measure the energy that flows through the neural circuit... and on and on.

And I'm using a standard definition of the material, actually, at least the post E=mc2 conception of it.

[wonderist]

Without acknowledging the physicality of information (i.e. structure, state, form, etc.) you'll never have an adequate account of mind in relation to brain, just as without information you can't explain the difference between software and hardware.

Information theory brings so much explanatory power to the table that to ignore it in favour of only matter/energy is to leave oneself impoverished.

[a2tis]

information, matter, energy, space-time - all that is physical, it doesn't mean information is matter. at least not from the scientific point of view. it's two different categories. (i don't mind you merging them in various philosophical ways - i just don't see the point).

[pyrrho314]

"Material" doesn't mean "is mass"... due to E=mc^2 all matter is really composed of energy. Obviously energy has to be material for that to be possible. Basically, the distinction goes back to before the two, mass and energy, were unified, and it was possible they were too different things, two elements... but mass IS energy, energy is material, and that's how it works out now since nuclear sciences.

[wonderist]

You are stumbling over the confusing word 'material'. This is exactly why I avoid the word materialism and prefer physicalism. Please see my video on Physicalism for my view on the subject. It's annoying to have to tread the same water endlessly in YT comments.

[a2tis]

you measure brain, neurons, neural energy - but all that is not ideas. the same idea can produce unique amount of energy, and move different neurons in different directions within different parts of the brain at each measure attempt. you can't take 2 ideas, lets say "we exist" and "we don't exist", and compare them using measurements of neurons, brain mass or energy. (if such experiment has been done - please let me know, i haven't heard of such yet).

besides ideas are dependent on context.

[pyrrho314]

It's somewhat a semantic issue, but one way or another everything about the idea is in the physical state of the brain, just as everything about this browser is in the state of my computer. The idea, in fact, is something the brain is doing, a material system.

As for the brain measuring, there are fMRI and pet scans etc, and yes, they say, "think of of this", or show pictures, and measure the brain states, and this is comparing the material qualities of different ideas.

[a2tis]

unless you can tell which idea is which by measuring brain states of different individuals you're not measuring material qualities of ideas.

show at least one material quality of specific idea (mass, volume, velocity, measurable and always observable effects of interaction of different ideas, etc.) that could be measured and could be shown to be present in all manifestations of that idea in all individuals - then you can claim ideas are material.

[wonderist]

Using Functional MRI, or fMRI, we have recently been able to scan brains to identify one idea versus another idea. They can actually 'read' your mind. If you hold a particular idea (from a small set of possible ideas) in your mind, the machine can analyze your scan and tell which idea you are imagining.

Ideas, like computer programs, are informational patterns in your brain. We can detect these patterns, just like you can read the patterns of information from a hard disk or memory chip.

[CPLains]

A cluster of neurons means nothing by itself - to think of the idea as brainsubstance based on the fact that some thought is correlated with it is a fallacy, just as it would be a fallacy for me to conclude that the expression on someone's face was somehow in itself whatever i interpreted it to be.. It will be interesting to see how the study of consciousness unravels these mysteries. Meaning seems to spread.. Expect a lot of neurologists spouting unexamined claims from raw ambigous fact.

[CPLains]

Well, on second thought you might agree with this.

But i do think it's much more interesting to discuss the intersection between a priori and posteriori, and whatever related things follow. In the case of the brain, an extraordinary bridge between impossible difference.

Neurons specifying a face, or a color obviously have a place, or at least some unique patterns/info. But would they make sense without the latent surroundings? Would they mean anything? This seems like a deep question to me...

[pyrrho314]

it is deep, but the expression on someones state relates to their brain state, not of course what you interpret that to be... for you could make a mistake, but it is indeed very much generated by and representative of their brain state.

[wonderist]

This is like asking, "If all humans died off, and all culture was completely destroyed except for the single sentence 'I like cake', would that scratching of symbols mean anything?"

Obviously, no. But humans and culture do exist, and so that 'scratching of symbols' *does* mean something.

A cluster of neurons teleported into the vacuum of space no longer means 'Car'. But that same cluster, within a brain of highly connected and inter-related neurons educated in English *does* mean 'Car'.

[wonderist]

The fallacy would be the assumption that the thought is non-physical. We have already located the physical analogues of thoughts. Eventually, we'll map the entire brain and identify all the physical analogues of all the 'mental' phenomena. When that happens, there will be nothing left for a non-physical mind to explain, as it will all be explained by the physical. Just like we understand the physical workings of the cell, and no longer need the concept of a non-physical 'lifeforce'.

[CPLains]

But that same cluster, in another brain - might mean something completely different - and that's the problem; when definitions leak to context, you have to be able to contain it.

Likewise, another cluster totally unlike the first might mean car in another brain. It's not only that you have to specify, it's that you cannot determine it without seeing the function it has in the situation.

And then you're into a functionalist world, or process..

[CPLains]

I'm not saying brains are like that, i'm not saying that when i see green you see gold etc. It's just a pretty powerful argument against any sort of reductionism.

It turns into rules and bits and "games"..

[wonderist]

Processes are physical, too.

Imagine we discover an alien planet. Their 'writing' consists of different chemical concentrations injected into jello in various patterns. They are able to make predictions about the motion of objects using 'equations' and 'mathematics' that are alien to us, but they use them just the same. In fact, we know that when they make these predictions they use particular blobs of jello to read and begin 'calculating' with.

[wonderist]

They are able to make the same predictions we make, using our Newtonian equations. Our Newtonian physics and their Newtonian physics are *the same* physics, even though we have ours written on paper, and they have theirs written in blobs of jello.

It is the same with brains. My idea of a 'car' exists written in a particular cluster of neurons in my brain, and your idea of a 'car' exists written in a different cluster of neurons in your brain. But they are both ideas of 'car'.

[wonderist]

Our brains do not develop from a blue-print. They develop by growing and interacting with the senses. Ideas are generated and stored in memory depending on when and how you learned about the idea. Each person's brain is unique, but you must admit we share common ideas. We both speak English and use English words. My words are encoded in my brain in different parts than yours are in yours, but they both exist as encoded information in brains. The interactions between ideas make the meanings.

[pyrrho314]

it is my impression our brains are built from a blue print, which itself evolved by growing and interacting with the senses. The fact that we can share ideas well enough is no doubt related to the fact that we share designs, so can see the "same" pattern.

[wonderist]

Nope, the brain has a basic architecture called the cortical column which is replicated in a sheet, like a honeycomb. The sheet is scrunched together to fit in our skulls. But there is no blueprint that says, "The 'car' concept goes here, the 'house' concept goes there." The column is a generic structure and can learn to be whatever happens to be needed. Thus, if you need to learn about cars, some column(s) in your brain will begin to encode knowledge of cars. The layout isn't predetermined.

[CPLains]

You say a process is "physical". But if one process (idea) can be realized in different physical forms, then isn't the process itself, or the idea, the most fundamental thing? There is nothing outside or more fundamental to the process that can make out that it is that process. You can say, well, it has this function or other, and then say "whatever has this function is x". But this has nothing to do with the underlying physics. You're on the level of *form*.

[wonderist]

Form is just another word for structure, state, or information. Form is physical too. Information, form, process, are all under the purview of physics, namely information theory.

[CPLains]

Well, that's a much more complicated position than you make it out to be; check my comments on your newest video.

[a2tis]

i agree that information is physical. it's not material tho.

[pyrrho314]

material == physical, it's simply one of the connotations of the word "material" as in "energy is material", as in "the material world" IS "the physical world". It may not be massive, except even energy has "equivalent mass".

[wonderist]

Good vid. I pretty much agree, close to 100%. I just use different words/labels to describe the same things. E.g. You use materialist, I use physicalist. You use empiricist, I use pragmatist. Etc. But it looks like they are different words that point to the same thing. I'll have to start making vids again to catch up with your 1000+.