What is Evidence?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then how do you understand no as a non-physical process?

Just as I understand understand as non-physical. I am not doing something physical, I am do something mental.
You do know that the phrase to show you have 2 meanings and the one is physical and the other is mental.
So if I am to show you how I understand something in my thinking I can't show you that as physical. because it is mental and in the mind.

Your rule that the mind is physical, is a mental rule in the mind.

 

[Nakosis]

Just as I understand understand as non-physical. I am not doing something physical, I am do something mental.
You do know that the phrase to show you have 2 meanings and the one is physical and the other is mental.
So if I am to show you how I understand something in my thinking I can't show you that as physical. because it is mental and in the mind.

Your rule that the mind is physical, is a mental rule in the mind.

That's not how I use the term physical so you are arguing for something that is not related to anything I said.

You of course can use your own definition for words but we can't have a coherent discussion.

 

[Yerda]

Just as I understand understand as non-physical. I am not doing something physical, I am do something mental.
You do know that the phrase to show you have 2 meanings and the one is physical and the other is mental.
So if I am to show you how I understand something in my thinking I can't show you that as physical. because it is mental and in the mind.

Your rule that the mind is physical, is a mental rule in the mind.

A physicalist might say something like, these mental objects/properties are instantiated by, or supervene upon the physical objects/properties (i.e. the brain/neurotransmission). I think.

Which is to say, that for you to do something mental (add 1+1) first something physical must happen (brain stuff). Mental experiences are what it is like to be in a certain physical state.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's not how I use the term physical so you are arguing for something that is not related to anything I said.

You of course can use your own definition for words but we can't have a coherent discussion.

So what is physical?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A physicalist might say something like, these mental objects/properties are instantiated by, or supervene upon the physical objects/properties (i.e. the brain/neurotransmission). I think.

Which is to say, that for you to do something mental (add 1+1) first something physical must happen (brain stuff). Mental experiences are what it is like to be in a certain physical state.

Yeah, I tried physicalism. The closest I could get was non-reductive physicalism in that the world is that, but we can't reduce all understanding to be phyiscal.

 

[Nakosis]

So what is physical?

Anything which can be measured either directly or indirectly.
Basically the fact of it being measurable makes it physical.
For example your thoughts produce brainwaves which can be measured. Therefore your thoughts are physical.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Anything which can be measure either directly or indirectly.
Basically the fact of it being measurable makes it physical.
For example your thoughts produce brainwaves which can be measured. Therefore your thoughts are physical.

Now I will show you as how you can understand that you in effect cheat.
Premise 1: Your thoughts produce brainwaves.
Premise 2. Brainwaves are physical and can be measured.
Conclusion: Therefore your thoughts are physical.

That is your mental deduction. For the conclussion to be true both premises must be true.
The problem is that you can't show that your subjective thoughts produce objective brainwaves, because that is a contradiction in terms. Something subjective can't also be objective, so premise 1 is not true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am a bit late to this discussion but I still want to add that different disciplines have different standards of evidence.

In the sciences evidence consists of observations that support or oppose a scientific hypothesis or theory.

In other words to be able to claim to have evidence in the sciences one has to be willing to take a risk and give examples of what sort of observations would show that one is wrong.

Historians have their own qualifications too. From my understanding they put all religions on an equal footing. Any claims that involve the actions of a god or gods are simply ignored. Clear myths are ignored.

 

[Nakosis]

Now I will show you as how you can understand that you in effect cheat.
Premise 1: Your thoughts produce brainwaves.
Premise 2. Brainwaves are physical and can be measured.
Conclusion: Therefore your thoughts are physical.

That is your mental deduction. For the conclussion to be true both premises must be true.
The problem is that you can't show that your subjective thoughts produce objective brainwaves, because that is a contradiction in terms. Something subjective can't also be objective, so premise 1 is not true.

Only if you conflate the meanings available for objective and subjective.

You can use subjective under one definition and objective under another definition which don't oppose each other.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am a bit late to this discussion but I still want to add that different disciplines have different standards of evidence.

In the sciences evidence consists of observations that support or oppose a scientific hypothesis or theory.

In other words to be able to claim to have evidence in the sciences one has to be willing to take a risk and give examples of what sort of observations would show that one is wrong.

Historians have their own qualifications too. From my understanding they put all religions on an equal footing. Any claims that involve the actions of a god or gods are simply ignored. Clear myths are ignored.

Correct, but the joke is that there is no evidence for the correct standard for evidence.
In effect some of what is going on is about what is the correct standard for evidence for the world as such. I have never found such one in any human writting, be it science, philosophy or religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Only if you conflate the meanings available for objective and subjective.

You can use subjective under one definition and objective under another definition which don't oppose each other.

Yeah, but you conflate them because you claim that if you have a non-objective first person thougth it is the same as an objective brainwave.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, but you conflate them because you claim that if you have a non-objective first person thougth it is the same as an objective brainwave.

So then you agree that it is possible to have something both subjective and objective at the same time if one uses the necessary definitions to do so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct, but the joke is that there is no evidence for the correct standard for evidence.
In effect some of what is going on is about what is the correct standard for evidence for the world as such. I have never found such one in any human writting, be it science, philosophy or religion.

The standards were worked out over the years by what leads to correct solutions and what does not. The same applies to evidence in courts of law. In fact there are different standards for civil and criminal law. In criminal law since the outcome can be the incarceration of someone or even harsher penalties the standards of evidence are very high. Again, those have been worked out by societies over millennia. So saying that there is no evidence for the correct standards is a bit of a red herring. It implies that there is no good reason for those standards when the opposite is true.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So then you agree that it is possible to have something both subjective and objective at the same time if one uses the necessary definitions to do so.

Yes, there are different defintions of those words and you can use different ones and avoid contraditions, but you can't use the directly connected ones say as this one for objective.
"having reality independent of the mind".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The standards were worked out over the years by what leads to correct solutions and what does not. The same applies to evidence in courts of law. In fact there are different standards for civil and criminal law. In criminal law since the outcome can be the incarceration of someone or even harsher penalties the standards of evidence are very high. Again, those have been worked out by societies over millennia. So saying that there is no evidence for the correct standards is a bit of a red herring. It implies that there is no good reason for those standards when the opposite is true.

I like you. You are of course right. The joke is that a good reason is a cultural, intersubjective construct, but we all use them.

 

[Yerda]

Yeah, I tried physicalism. The closest I could get was non-reductive physicalism in that the world is that, but we can't reduce all understanding to be phyiscal.

In light of the thread topic, the thing with all of these ontological positions is that they are all compatible with the available empirical evidence. If idealism or dualism or some other ism is true and physicalism isn't rain will still fall and the sun will still shine.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In light of the thread topic, the thing with all of these ontological positions is that they are all compatible with the available empirical evidence. If idealism or dualism or some other ism is true and physicalism isn't rain will still fall and the sun will still shine.

Yeah, that is how I figured out I didn't have to believe in any of them, because the world is still there.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, there are different defintions of those words and you can use different ones and avoid contraditions, but you can't use the directly connected ones say as this one for objective.
"having reality independent of the mind".

Ok, if that is your objection, in my view/understanding/argument, it is not necessary to have a reality independent of the mind.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Everything we know about the brain can be show to be a physical process. There is nothing about the brain that can be shown to be a non-physical process. Therefore the only reasonable argument is that there are no non-physical processes necessary for the brain to function.

There exists nothing to support any other argument.

You are assuming that the brain is the mind. This is an unsubstantiated assumption. In spite of the correlations which neuroscience has observed between areas of the brain and aspects of consciousness, there is no sound basis for reductionism. Even if we accept as axiomatic (and there is no consensus on this, either in science or philosophy) that consciousness emerges from electrochemical activity in the brain, we must still acknowledge qualitative experience as a clearly identifiable, unique phenomena in it’s own right.

And then there are those - scientists as well as philosophers - who consider that consciousness may be a fundamental property of existence. After all, the only thing we can observe with absolute assurance is, as Renee Descartes pointed out, that we are conscious.

“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
- Erwin Schrodinger

 

[RestlessSoul]

Ok, if that is your objection, in my view/understanding/argument, it is not necessary to have a reality independent of the mind.

Well a more pertinent question might be, is it possible for such a reality to exist, and if so, is it possible to access it?