How do you define "physical?"

[Bunyip]

Bosons aren't gravitons. (?)

Cats are mammals, but mammals are not cats. You're point?
Gravitons are (hypothesised to be) bosons, bosons are not gravitons.
What are you trying to say?

 

[Willamena]

You're point?

That gravitons are not particles. Yet.

 

[nazz]

In what way is a weightless astronaut not measurable?

The quote was "weight, motion, AND resistance", not OR

 

[Bunyip]

That gravitons are not particles. Yet.

I think you mean that they are not known to exist as particles yet. But ok.

 

[Willamena]

The quote was "weight, motion, AND resistance", not OR

In what way is weightless, motionless and resistenceless not a measure?

 

[Willamena]

I think you mean that they are not known to exist as particles yet. But ok.

I applaud your faith.

 

[Bunyip]

I applaud your faith.

What faith is that? I have no faith that they exist or not - why would I?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion,gravity is a physical force

Gravitons aren't.

, anger is a mental concept.

...and mental concepts aren't "real". So why is it that there are numerous ways to detect (even measure levels of!) anger using physical means (from neuroimaging technology to a simple assortment of medical instruments and observation)?

What it is that you simply can not grasp about such a simple idea I have no idea.

The problem is its simplicity. It's a bit like saying that everyone is either good or evil, or that all language consists of grammar and lexicon, or any number of similar dichotomies. In order to maintain such assertions, you have to assert that something like anger or lust which manifest in quite physical ways are immaterial (or not real), and your logic for asserting that certain things are real such as energy or forces are based at least in part in a certain unfamiliarity with these and related notion. Energy is a property of a system and a "force" is just as physical as is "work" or "momentum". Meanwhile, by asserting gravitons exist you are stating (whether you know it or not) that gravity as it is part of theories in virtually all of the natural sciences does not exist, despite how fundamental it is in these disciplines/fields.

If you want to ask me a question or clarify a point I made - just ask me.

What is your criterion or what are your criteria for determining whether something is or isn't physical?

 

[nazz]

In what way is weightless, motionless and resistenceless not a measure?

the original quote said nothing about measuring the lack of something.

 

[Bunyip]

Gravitons aren't.


...and mental concepts aren't "real". So why is it that there are numerous ways to detect (even measure levels of!) anger using physical means (from neuroimaging technology to a simple assortment of medical instruments and observation)?


The problem is its simplicity. It's a bit like saying that everyone is either good or evil, or that all language consists of grammar and lexicon, or any number of similar dichotomies. In order to maintain such assertions, you have to assert that something like anger or lust which manifest in quite physical ways are immaterial (or not real), and your logic for asserting that certain things are real such as energy or forces are based at least in part in a certain unfamiliarity with these and related notion. Energy is a property of a system and a "force" is just as physical as is "work" or "momentum". Meanwhile, by asserting gravitons exist you are stating (whether you know it or not) that gravity as it is part of theories in virtually all of the natural sciences does not exist, despite how fundamental it is in these disciplines/fields.


What is your criterion or what are your criteria for determining whether something is or isn't physical?

As I have explained to you several times before, in detail. The criteria I am applying is that in English the words conceptual and real (as examples) are used to distinguish between the products of the mind and physical objects.

So 'concept' refers to the thought of an apple, and 'real' refers to a physical apple. The thought of something is distinct from the object itself and conventionally we use words like 'abstract' and 'conceptual' to refer to the thought and 'real' and 'exists' to refer to the object.


I am making a distinction between products of the mind and physical objects. It is a common distinction that i have applied from the outset using the usual terms.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The criteria I am applying is that in English the words conceptual and real (as examples) are used to distinguish between the products of the mind and physical objects.

1) This is not true. First, the word "real" in English, even when meant to designate something that exists and/or is an aspect of reality is frequently non-physical (just to be on the safe-side I went through ~5,000 uses of "real" in this sense in American English). I was wayyyy too bored to go through the equivalent for the BNC, so I just looked at the OED again and definition two states "Actually existing or present as a state or quality of things; having a foundation in fact; actually occurring or happening. Also: expressing a subjective relation to a person; actual, significant; able to be grasped by the imagination." Thus "anger" is real according to both standard usage (restricted to uses of "real" to mean "that which is, exists, or is 'in reality'") and the OED's definition.
2) Words do not in general have much meaning apart from the constructions (or, less technically but more inaccurately, context) in which they are found. "Real" is particularly problematic as (in addition to being a noun) it modifies both nouns and verbs (adjective and adverb).
3) Physical objects do not make up most of reality. In fact, entire (complete) "models" of physics (such as Bohm's) consist entirely of processes, or the ways in which reality consists of changes to things that exist. Every theory of physics that describes the subatomic realm does so by in some way taking as "physical" that which is forced to be physical only through measurement/observation/interaction.
5) Concepts are not properties of the mind. They are products of the brain.
6) Physical objects require concepts to be physical objects. A book is a physical object as such only because you have a concept of book. Mice and cats cannot "see" books because there is no concept that enables them to perceives as one object that which is really an arbitrary number of diverse potential objects (e.g., one could view the binding as one component and pages as another, or all pages as each individual objects, or further still the ink, pages, etc., as all distinct).
7) More importantly, that which we might say is "objectively" physical consists of objects, properties, and processes and these are categorized as such through conceptual representations. A heartbeat is a real thing, but it is alternatively a property of the body or a process of the heart or of the cardiovascular system all depending upon one's concept and context. An earthquake or volcano exist only as physical processes. Every physical object is at best a conceptual/abstract notion that we use to organize the world around us.

Basically, there exists a fundamental, integral, and intricate connection between what we perceive and what we conceive as well as between both and what we regard as "physical objects".

That's without getting into the ways in which something like "force" is an abstract notion that is used to explain the dynamics of systems. It is purely a concept (like "work").

So 'concept' refers to the thought of an apple, and 'real' refers to a physical apple.

You can't have physical apples without the concept of an apple. Consider an apple tree: why do we view apples in such a tree as something other than simply the tree? We need not, any more than we need regard an apple slice as a piece of an apple rather than a whole (my dogs certainly can't perceive or conceive of apple slices as parts of an idealized whole).

The thought of something is distinct from the object itself and conventionally we use words like 'abstract' and 'conceptual' to refer to the thought and 'real' and 'exists' to refer to the object.

The thought of something is what enables it to be itself in the way we perceive it and conceptualize it. Were there nothing in the universe capable of conceptual processing then there would exist no objects, as objects are merely one way to categorize perceptual experiences according to conceptual networks and conceptual classifications (my dog does have a concept of "food", and is able to determine whether something I call "food" is actually in that category).

To the extent there is a clearly objective reality apart from our concepts, it exists at best as whatever the fundamental processes, properties, and nature of the fundamental constituents of all that is (simplistically, "particles" and their properties as well as the processes that are involved with their dynamics).

 

[Bunyip]

1) This is not true.

Of course it's true, you are not making sense to me I'm afraid - it is a conventional distinction in the commonly used terms.

First, the word "real" in English, even when meant to designate something that exists and/or is an aspect of reality is frequently non-physical (just to be on the safe-side I went through ~5,000 uses of "real" in this sense in American English). I was wayyyy too bored to go through the equivalent for the BNC, so I just looked at the OED again and definition two states "Actually existing or present as a state or quality of things; having a foundation in fact; actually occurring or happening. Also: expressing a subjective relation to a person; actual, significant; able to be grasped by the imagination." Thus "anger" is real according to both standard usage (restricted to uses of "real" to mean "that which is, exists, or is 'in reality'") and the OED's definition.

Yes, there are other meanings in other contexts - I know that, why do you keep rattling on a point I am not contesting?-

2) Words do not in general have much meaning apart from the constructions (or, less technically but more inaccurately, context) in which they are found. "Real" is particularly problematic as (in addition to being a noun) it modifies both nouns and verbs (adjective and adverb)

Exactly my point, and in the context I specified my usage was correct.

3) Physical objects do not make up most of reality. In fact, entire (complete) "models" of physics (such as Bohm's) consist entirely of processes, or the ways in which reality consists of changes to things that exist. Every theory of physics that describes the subatomic realm does so by in some way taking as "physical" that which is forced to be physical only through measurement/observation/interaction.
5) Concepts are not properties of the mind. They are products of the brain.

Quibbling

6) Physical objects require concepts to be physical objects. A book is a physical object as such only because you have a concept of book. Mice and cats cannot "see" books because there is no concept that enables them to perceives as one object that which is really an arbitrary number of diverse potential objects (e.g., one could view the binding as one component and pages as another, or all pages as each individual objects, or further still the ink, pages, etc., as all distinct).

Relevance?

7) More importantly, that which we might say is "objectively" physical consists of objects, properties, and processes and these are categorized as such through conceptual representations. A heartbeat is a real thing, but it is alternatively a property of the body or a process of the heart or of the cardiovascular system all depending upon one's concept and context. An earthquake or volcano exist only as physical processes. Every physical object is at best a conceptual/abstract notion that we use to organize the world around us.

Basically, there exists a fundamental, integral, and intricate connection between what we perceive and what we conceive as well as between both and what we regard as "physical objects".

That's without getting into the ways in which something like "force" is an abstract notion that is used to explain the dynamics of systems. It is purely a concept (like "work").

So what? That is all unrelated to the specific context and definition I gave.

You can't have physical apples without the concept of an apple.

LOL Erm....wow! Yes you can mate, rocks existed before people had thoughts of rocks - in fact before there were people. You are demonstrably wrong there. Objects exist whether humans exist or not.

Consider an apple tree: why do we view apples in such a tree as something other than simply the tree?

Because it is useful to distinguish between an apple and the tree. I do not like to eat trees, but I like to eat apples.

We need not, any more than we need regard an apple slice as a piece of an apple rather than a whole (my dogs certainly can't perceive or conceive of apple slices as parts of an idealized whole).

Actually mate we do need to distinguish between apples and apple trees, you are not making sense. Take it from a guy who lives in a 500 acre orchard - distinguishing apples from trees is an established, crucial and thoroughly conventional practice in the fruit industry.

The thought of something is what enables it to be itself in the way we perceive it and conceptualize it. Were there nothing in the universe capable of conceptual processing then there would exist no objects, as objects are merely one way to categorize perceptual experiences according to conceptual networks and conceptual classifications (my dog does have a concept of "food", and is able to determine whether something I call "food" is actually in that category).

That's just bizarre - objects exist regardless. Where are you getting this stuff from? Deepak Chopra?

To the extent there is a clearly objective reality apart from our concepts, it exists at best as whatever the fundamental processes, properties, and nature of the fundamental constituents of all that is (simplistically, "particles" and their properties as well as the processes that are involved with their dynamics).

What?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Of course it's true, you are not making sense to me I'm afraid

How might one verify whether or not a given sense of a word or construction is what one says it is? Because, apart from asserting definition to be true, you've nowhere provided any evidence that it is. I've given you part of my evidence that it isn't and I am more than willing to provide the corpus results.

Yes, there are other meanings in other contexts - I know that, why do you keep rattling on a point I am not contesting?

Because it is hard for me to understand someone insisting that the whole of reality be divided along his interpretation of a particular sense of a few words. I keep hoping there's more substance.

Quibbling

You're defining reality with a word or two and all that is not in terms of one or two others, you provide no justification for doing so other than that the sense of the definitions of the words you use are consistent with some usage, and your division of all that is and isn't based on such a meager reasoning conflicts both with language use and is inadequate for physics, linguistics, metaphysics, ontology, & epistemology. I think "quibbling" over the fact that even you can't manage to use your own dichotomy without contradicting yourself or insisting that concepts are products of the mind is fundamental to your ontological approach but pointing out that they aren't is quibbling.

Relevance?

So what?
It has to do with the ontological status of a given object; namely, the dependence upon objects as being instantiations of a concept (e.g., the concept of apple relates to physical apples) entails that every instantiation of this concept exists as such only insofar as the concept does. While this used to be mostly an issue for metaphysics and philosophy, once the cognitive sciences started to develop it quickly became clear that this is true at a fundamental level: the "objects" of objective reality are categorized according to particular conceptual schemata and have no existence as such objects apart from such a conceptual network.

LOL Erm....wow! Yes you can mate

"Categorization is the mental operation by which the brain classifies objects and events. This operation is the basis for the construction of our knowledge of the world. It is the most basic phenomenon of cognition"
Cohen, H., & Lefebvre, C. (2005). Bridging the Category Divide. in H. Cohen (Ed.) Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive Science. Elsevier.

rocks existed before people had thoughts of rocks

How about μάρμᾰρος, λέπας, πάγος, πέτρα, σπῐλάς, λᾱτομητός, or a few other words all of which mean something like "rock" but none of which mean "rock"? As I said before, distinctions you make because of your language its conceptual basis do not correspond to actual objects but rather the ways in which you organize perceptual input. You have a concept of "rock" that is distinct from "earth", a cavern, etc., but not necessarily distinct from pebbles or hewn rock. For the ancient Greeks this was not the case, and what the objects they would say existed before people had thoughts do not correspond to rocks. Did the substances of what you call rocks exist? Sure. But without concepts it is just substance, processes, and properties. That's all that can be said of the "physical" without concepts.

Because it is useful to distinguish between an apple and the tree.

You can't help but make these distinctions. This goes back to gestalt psychology, it's the basis for proto-type theory and extensions thereof, it's integral to various theories within cognitive linguistics (metaphor, radial categories, entrenchment, ICMs, construal, embodiment, etc.) , and it's even the reason many an optical illusion is an optical illusion.

you are not making sense.

Ok, what is your interpretation of the past several decades of research within cognitive neuroscience, cognitive linguistics, cognitive psychology, and more or less the entirety of the "brain" sciences with respect to the ways in which the perceptual-conceptual link requires us to make certain distinctions we do such that we don't just see depth and color but objects? For that matter, what is your interpretation of the research that is informed by the cognitive sciences and computer sciences where they overlap in terms of object categorization? If I don't make sense, it could be because I can either describe in brief what is "the most fundamental problem of cognitive science" (ibid) or I can simply throw references at you or I can write long posts you won't read.

 

[Bunyip]

How might one verify whether or not a given sense of a word or construction is what one says it is?

Dictionaries and glossaries of terms are useful for that.

Because, apart from asserting definition to be true, you've nowhere provided any evidence that it is. I've given you part of my evidence that it isn't and I am more than willing to provide the corpus results.

Why would I need to 'prove' the common dictionary usages of words?

Because it is hard for me to understand someone insisting that the whole of reality be divided along his interpretation of a particular sense of a few words. I keep hoping there's more substance.

No idea where you get these bizarre inventions from - I am dividing thoughts from objects as it is conventionally done. How you get from that to an insistence regarding dividing up all of reality I have no idea whatsoever. I am trying to discuss, not insist or dictate.

You're defining reality with a word or two and all that is not in terms of one or two others, you provide no justification for doing so other than that the sense of the definitions of the words you use are consistent with some usage, and your division of all that is and isn't based on such a meager reasoning conflicts both with language use and is inadequate for physics, linguistics, metaphysics, ontology, & epistemology. I think "quibbling" over the fact that even you can't manage to use your own dichotomy without contradicting yourself or insisting that concepts are products of the mind is fundamental to your ontological approach but pointing out that they aren't is quibbling.


So what?
It has to do with the ontological status of a given object; namely, the dependence upon objects as being instantiations of a concept (e.g., the concept of apple relates to physical apples) entails that every instantiation of this concept exists as such only insofar as the concept does. While this used to be mostly an issue for metaphysics and philosophy, once the cognitive sciences started to develop it quickly became clear that this is true at a fundamental level: the "objects" of objective reality are categorized according to particular conceptual schemata and have no existence as such objects apart from such a conceptual network.


"Categorization is the mental operation by which the brain classifies objects and events. This operation is the basis for the construction of our knowledge of the world. It is the most basic phenomenon of cognition"
Cohen, H., & Lefebvre, C. (2005). Bridging the Category Divide. in H. Cohen (Ed.) Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive Science. Elsevier.



How about μάρμᾰρος, λέπας, πάγος, πέτρα, σπῐλάς, λᾱτομητός, or a few other words all of which mean something like "rock" but none of which mean "rock"? As I said before, distinctions you make because of your language its conceptual basis do not correspond to actual objects but rather the ways in which you organize perceptual input. You have a concept of "rock" that is distinct from "earth", a cavern, etc., but not necessarily distinct from pebbles or hewn rock. For the ancient Greeks this was not the case, and what the objects they would say existed before people had thoughts do not correspond to rocks. Did the substances of what you call rocks exist? Sure. But without concepts it is just substance, processes, and properties. That's all that can be said of the "physical" without concepts.



You can't help but make these distinctions. This goes back to gestalt psychology, it's the basis for proto-type theory and extensions thereof, it's integral to various theories within cognitive linguistics (metaphor, radial categories, entrenchment, ICMs, construal, embodiment, etc.) , and it's even the reason many an optical illusion is an optical illusion.


Ok, what is your interpretation of the past several decades of research within cognitive neuroscience, cognitive linguistics, cognitive psychology, and more or less the entirety of the "brain" sciences with respect to the ways in which the perceptual-conceptual link requires us to make certain distinctions we do such that we don't just see depth and color but objects? For that matter, what is your interpretation of the research that is informed by the cognitive sciences and computer sciences where they overlap in terms of object categorization? If I don't make sense, it could be because I can either describe in brief what is "the most fundamental problem of cognitive science" (ibid) or I can simply throw references at you or I can write long posts you won't read.

Buddy, you are just ranting. I can make no sense of your responses, other than posturing, bile and misrepresentation. Let's just leave it. You nit pick, accuse, boast, pontificate, twist everything I say into unrecognisability - what you seem unable to do it to actually discuss something with another person. This is a conversation not a trial buddy

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Dictionaries and glossaries of terms are useful for that.

And I provided you with a definition from the most authoritative English dictionary in existence (and the most authoritative/superior dictionary period). It conflicts with your usage, but as you've already admitted you are relying on a special sense of a particular usage there's really no point in involving any dictionaries or corpora. You've based your entire ontological approach on an arbitrary selection of a particular sense of a particular usage of a few words. If it works for you, great. Some people believe everything is energy, others that it is all four elements (or 5), etc.

No idea where you get these bizarre inventions from

Decades of scientific research across multiple fields. Maybe I'm odd like this, but when I seek to understand the nature of reality I have to admit I'm a bit skeptical: I tend not to stray far from where there is scientific evidence unless I have to.

I am dividing thoughts from objects as it is conventionally done.

It is not conventionally done by those who study object categorization, concepts, perception, and cognition (whether via linguistics or neuroscience).

How you get from that to an insistence regarding dividing up all of reality I have no idea

According to you, everything that exists in reality is physical and is to be contrasted with everything else that isn't "real" but somehow still a part of realty: the abstract/conceptual. What else is left for there to even refer to such that you could state that you dichotomy isn't dividing up reality?

I can make no sense of your responses

Now that I believe.

You nit pick, accuse, boast, pontificate, twist everything I say into unrecognisability

1) In the middle of several accusations against me, you include the fact that you think I accuse. The words "pot", "kettle", "black", & "calling" come to mind.
2) Despite a clear ability to use the quote feature, never once have you quoted directly something I said and compared it with something you did to indicate that I ever misrepresented anything you stated.
3) Part of the reason much of how I describe your positions seems unrecognizable to you is because I am describing what it entails. If you can't follow the logic (and/or do not happen to be familiar with certain topics/subjects), then naturally it would seem like "twisting" your words. For example, you accused me of stating you said that energy was a property of a system, when what I did was take the fact that this is so in physics and the fact that you said energy was physical and reached the obvious conclusion. Likewise for "force" (still waiting for whether "work" is also physical).
4) I don't recall boasting. I happen to be familiar with subjects you aren't (and the reverse is also true). I've pointed out errors you've made and given my justification for doing so, while you've insulted me, accused me of everything from not understanding science to using Deepak Chopra.
5) I have only so many ways I can communicate notions and concepts with you. I can quote from literature you won't understand as it isn't meant for you to understand, I can try to summarize it, I can use others' summaries, or I can take the easy way out and just through dozens of references at you. Instead, I've tried to explain fairly basic aspects of several disciplines and the relevant scientific fields within them, but you never ask for clarification or in any way indicate that you are interested in understanding, just dismissing. However, I can but keep on trying.

 

[Willamena]

the original quote said nothing about measuring the lack of something.

We're not measuring a lack, we're measuring an astronaut.

 

[Bunyip]

And I provided you with a definition from the most authoritative English dictionary in existence (and the most authoritative/superior dictionary period). It conflicts with your usage, but as you've already admitted you are relying on a special sense of a particular usage there's really no point in involving any dictionaries or corpora. You've based your entire ontological approach on an arbitrary selection of a particular sense of a particular usage of a few words. If it works for you, great. Some people believe everything is energy, others that it is all four elements (or 5), etc.



Decades of scientific research across multiple fields. Maybe I'm odd like this, but when I seek to understand the nature of reality I have to admit I'm a bit skeptical: I tend not to stray far from where there is scientific evidence unless I have to.



It is not conventionally done by those who study object categorization, concepts, perception, and cognition (whether via linguistics or neuroscience).


According to you, everything that exists in reality is physical and is to be contrasted with everything else that isn't "real" but somehow still a part of realty: the abstract/conceptual. What else is left for there to even refer to such that you could state that you dichotomy isn't dividing up reality?



Now that I believe.


1) In the middle of several accusations against me, you include the fact that you think I accuse. The words "pot", "kettle", "black", & "calling" come to mind.
2) Despite a clear ability to use the quote feature, never once have you quoted directly something I said and compared it with something you did to indicate that I ever misrepresented anything you stated.
3) Part of the reason much of how I describe your positions seems unrecognizable to you is because I am describing what it entails. If you can't follow the logic (and/or do not happen to be familiar with certain topics/subjects), then naturally it would seem like "twisting" your words. For example, you accused me of stating you said that energy was a property of a system, when what I did was take the fact that this is so in physics and the fact that you said energy was physical and reached the obvious conclusion. Likewise for "force" (still waiting for whether "work" is also physical).
4) I don't recall boasting. I happen to be familiar with subjects you aren't (and the reverse is also true). I've pointed out errors you've made and given my justification for doing so, while you've insulted me, accused me of everything from not understanding science to using Deepak Chopra.
5) I have only so many ways I can communicate notions and concepts with you. I can quote from literature you won't understand as it isn't meant for you to understand, I can try to summarize it, I can use others' summaries, or I can take the easy way out and just through dozens of references at you. Instead, I've tried to explain fairly basic aspects of several disciplines and the relevant scientific fields within them, but you never ask for clarification or in any way indicate that you are interested in understanding, just dismissing. However, I can but keep on trying.

Learn how to engage in polite conversation, as opposed to these preposterously misguided interrogations - I am not interested in reading your posts until you do. I would prefer however if you did not 'keep trying' - trying to engage with you is utterly futile. It goes nowhere and is pertinent to nothing. Post future comments to somebody else please.