Physical idealism

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I'm far less certain that earthlike conditions would produce limbed creatures.  We're a minority here..in earth conditions.  Our existence has never been and is still not guaranteed.   The mechanism in your example....the requirement -you- placed, would be earthlike conditions, wouldn't it?  How is the "idea of limbness" independent of a mechanism, in that example?

It's not independent of "a" mechanism.  It's independent of "its" mechanism, in the sense that the idea will be represented, but not necessarily by DNA (or a CD or whatever).  However, my idea is that given similar enough environmental conditions, the statistical chance of similar (or identical) ideas developing would be very high.

What I'm not sure about is whether DNA might be so overwhelmingly likely given Earthlike conditions that we might find something much like it in any water-covered planet with similar chemistry which has life.

It happens right here on earth, in independent lines of evolution, whenever similar demands are placed on organisms. It's called convergent evolution. It's fairly reasonable to presume that, given enough time and earth-like conditions, we could expect to see things like eyes, limbs, swimming plan-forms (e.g. sharks and dolphins), digestive tracts, respiratory systems, and neural clusters near the sensor-end developing, as we see on earth. Whether that's driven by DNA or some other chemical is entirely a different question. 

The life will probably not closely resemble that which we have one earth, except in such cursory basics (Three- or four-eyed creatures? Trilateral or radial symmetry? Who knows?), but I agree it's safe to predict that similar circumstances would be likely to produce similar-ish creatures.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Benny, I might suggest you look into a term: multiple realizability. I understand you to be saying that the function of DNA could, in say a space alien for example, could be performed in another way without DNA. As such, the function can discerned as something distinct from the actual material even if it cannot be alienated from it.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not independent of "a" mechanism.  It's independent of "its" mechanism, in the sense that the idea will be represented, but not necessarily by DNA (or a CD or whatever).  However, my idea is that given similar enough environmental conditions, the statistical chance of similar (or identical) ideas developing would be very high.

Your argument, in effect, is "If it aint DNA, it's ideas".

That's not even true here....DNA is not the only mechanism involved with regards to our limbs, or numbers of digits, or what have you......as we've already discussed. Proposing that something is independent of one mechanism, but due to another, such as earthlike conditions...doesn't really move the chains for the "idea of limbess", now does it? It moves the chains for earthlike conditions. Your comments -continue- to establish that material interactions are fundamental to the things you call physical ideas, which is 180 degrees away from what you set out to do, I think.

What I'm not sure about is whether DNA might be so overwhelmingly likely given Earthlike conditions that we might find something much like it in any water-covered planet with similar chemistry which has life.

So....if things were similar, things would be similar?

[bennyboy]

Benny, I might suggest you look into a term: multiple realizability. I understand you to be saying that the function of DNA could, in say a space alien for example, could be performed in another way without DNA. As such, the function can discerned as something distinct from the actual material even if it cannot be alienated from it.

I like your description of it, but I think that term is usually applied to a theory of mind, and I don't want to confuse mental ideas with the formative factors that I'm calling "ideas" in this thread.

As for your comments-- yes, I think that's well put.

[bennyboy]

Your argument, in effect, is "If it aint DNA, it's ideas".  

That's not even true here....DNA is not the only mechanism involved with regards to our limbs, or numbers of digits, or what have you......as we've already discussed.  Proposing that something is independent of one mechanism, but due to another, such as earthlike conditions...doesn't really move the chains for the "idea of limbess", now does it?  It moves the chains for earthlike conditions.  Your comments -continue- to establish that material interactions are fundamental to the things you call physical ideas, which is 180 degrees away from what you set out to do, I think.

You've said this now maybe half a dozen times, and I keep saying that I'm not talking about cosmogonic idealism, but about the relationship between chaos and persistent forms. I'm not bothered by your insistence that it supports a material view, because that's the view I'm discussing. You gotta let go of past conversations and realize that I'm taking an interest in something else right now.

[The Grand Nudger]

Where, in your description of this relationship between chaos and persistent forms, are we to find anything that would be accurately described as a physical idealism..rather than inaccurately -called- physical idealism? Do you understand why your comment regarding the -various- mechanisms at play was malformed, why it could not support the conclusion? Do you understand why your attempts to correct the theory of evolution have not been successful?

I'm addressing your comments in this thread, directly and repeatedly, not our previous conversations. So, yeah, let go.

[bennyboy]

Where, in your description of this relationship between chaos and persistent forms, are we to find anything that would be accurately described as a physical idealism..rather than inaccurately -called- physical idealism?  Do you understand why your comment regarding the -various- mechanisms at play was malformed, why it could not support the conclusion?  Do you understand why your attempts to correct the theory of evolution have not been successful?

I'm addressing your comments in this thread, directly and repeatedly, not our previous conversations. So, yeah, let go.

Do you understand that I've never argued against either materialism nor evolution in this thread, and that your strawmen are irrelevant?  Why should I support the words you put in my mouth?

I've discussed everything you've asked about at least three times already, and you've discarded it then parroted on as though I'd never discussed it.

There are clearly formative factors in the universe, which serve as building blocks in ways that the structures they supervene on could not.  A collection of steel cannot, for example, spontaneously fly through the air and put a hole in someone's head.  It is the idea of a bullet which allows actual bullets to come into existence, is it not?

You will now special plead: well of COURSE it's an idea, people made it.  But unless you want to argue that humanity is outside the circle of material cause and effect, it's obvious that a person is killed by the physical expression of an idea which itself isn't limited to any particular medium: it can be passed on by word of mouth, by picture, or by text.

So the exact kind of thing I'm talking about clearly is a reality.  The question is whether this is unique to humans, or whether it's intrinsic to the way the universe functions. And the answer to this is all around us, and in us. The DNA is not a little image of a person, but a collection of ideas about what a person should look like, and how a person should behave. These are the formative factors which allow an assortment of chemicals to be brought together into a coherent, functioning human being-- which could not exist without the ideas encoded in that DNA. They are physical, and they are ideas, because they are representations of something which may be brought into being, but which does not exist yet.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you understand that I've never argued against either materialism nor evolution in this thread, and that your strawmen are irrelevant?  Why should I support the words you put in my mouth?

When you claim that the "idea of limbness" is independant of it's mechanism (-s-..plural...I;ll remind you again..since you didn;t acknowledge that you understood your misstep there), or is the thing that's evolving.....you have argued against both materialism, and the ToE. 

I've discussed everything you've asked about at least three times already, and you've discarded it then parroted on as though I'd never discussed it.

Because your answers were and remain unsatisfactory.

There are clearly formative factors in the universe, which serve as building blocks in ways that the structures they supervene on could not.  A collection of steel cannot, for example, spontaneously fly through the air and put a hole in someone's head.  It is the idea of a bullet which allows actual bullets to come into existence, is it not?

No.  That would be what you need to find a way to demonstrate, and the sentences which preceded it do not lend support to the claim.  I'll stick with our experience of reality, wherein no "idea of a bullet" is sufficient to explain any given bullet - just as DNA is insufficient to explain any given biological structure.  Wherein our ideas of bullets, like our ideas of physical structures, are dependant upon..you know, the bullets the structures.

You will now special plead: well of COURSE it's an idea, people made it.  But unless you want to argue that humanity is outside the circle of material cause and effect, it's obvious that a person is killed by the physical expression of an idea which itself isn't limited to any particular medium: it can be passed on by word of mouth, by picture, or by text.

Actually I don't think that bullets are ideas -at all-, I think they're weighted projectiles about which you -have- ideas.  

So the exact kind of thing I'm talking about clearly is a reality.

There you go, using the word "clearly"..as though that were the end of it

 The question is whether this is unique to humans, or whether it's intrinsic to the way the universe functions.  And the answer to this is all around us, and in us.  The DNA is not a little image of a person, but a collection of ideas about what a person should look like, and how a person should behave.  These are the formative factors which allow an assortment of chemicals to be brought together into a coherent, functioning human being-- which could not exist without the ideas encoded in that DNA.  They are physical, and they are ideas, because they are representations of something which may be brought into being, but which does not exist yet.

Is that the question...lol? Is the question of whether or not what you're describing is accurate -in the first place- one which you no longer feel like discussing? DNA is not a collection of ideas, it's a collection of organic chemicals. They aren;t "brought together" to do anything at all.....and the "formative factors" which allow these chemicals to do what they do, are not ideas either...but the material interactions between them and their environment.....-about which you have strange ideas-. The "physical idealism" you've describd is just a window dressing for plain old materialism...and also happens to be woefully inaccurate with regards to limbs and bullets.

Yes, I'll keep repeating this until your descriptions change or you lose interest, no matter how many times we've discussed it from now until then.

[bennyboy]

When you claim that the "idea of limbness" is independant of it's mechanism (-s-..plural...I;ll remind you again..since you didn;t acknowledge that you understood your misstep there), or is the thing that's evolving.....you have argued against both materialism, and the ToE. 

It's like you think refusing to read is a slam-dunk argument-winning technique. I said maybe 3 times that ideas require A mechanism, but not a particular mechanism-- making the idea independent of a specific medium in the same way that an .mp3 file is.

Actually I don't think that bullets are ideas -at all-, I think they're weighted projectiles about which you -have- ideas.  

In a bullet factory, someone sets up machinery in order to create bullets. Are there bullets there? No. Someone has an idea about the thing that should be created, and brings into effect their creation.

Is that the question...lol?  Is the question of whether or not what you're describing is accurate -in the first place- one which you no longer feel like discussing?  DNA is not a collection of ideas, it's a collection of organic chemicals.

So is an .mp3 song, or the collected works of Shakespeare. A pretty dense person would say, "That's not ideas. . . that's material!" as though they are mutually exclusive. The point is that the particular collection of organic chemicals serve as a collection of FORMATIVE PRINCIPLES. Get it? That's the definition of idea in this context. A formative principle, something which represents a potential object which does not yet exist.

The "physical idealism" you've describd is just a window dressing for plain old materialism...and also happens to be woefully inaccurate with regards to limbs and bullets.  

Polly want a cracker? This does not describe materialism. It describes those aspects of materialism which involve the persistence of patterns, specifically formative principles which bring into reality objects which don't already exist.

Get this, and drop it. I'm not arguing against materialism. I'm talking about specifics aspects of it. It's like I want to talk about QM and you say, "Hey! You're just talking about physics!"

I gotta say I think I'm about at the end with you in this thread. Either I'm unable to explain my ideas clearly enough for you to understand, or you are deliberately refusing to get the point so you can keep making strawman arguments. Either way, the effort of trying to respond to you is pretty quickly surpassing my interest in engaging in this conversation.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's like you think refusing to read is a slam-dunk argument-winning technique.  I said maybe 3 times that ideas require A mechanism, but not a particular mechanism-- making the idea independent of a specific medium in the same way that an .mp3 file is.

MP3 files -aren't- independent of a specific medium........but who cares, right?  Not that this inaccuracy is, ultimately, the reason I find this unsatisfying no matter how many times you repeat it.  Nothing about being independent of a particular medium makes it sensible to call something an idea, physical or otherwise.  

In a bullet factory, someone sets up machinery in order to create bullets.  Are there bullets there?  No.  Someone has an idea about the thing that should be created, and brings into effect their creation.

Firstly, lets consider the absurdity of using this example for something which you also feel is equally applicable to the evolution of biological structures...and secondly...so what?  Their idea isn't fundamental to existence of a projectile.  Their idea isn't even how they "bring into effect" their creation.  

So is an .mp3 song, or the collected works of Shakespeare.  A pretty dense person would say, "That's not ideas. . . that's material!" as though they are mutually exclusive.  The point is that the particular collection of organic chemicals serve as a collection of FORMATIVE PRINCIPLES.  Get it?

Yes, I get it.....and it doesn't change my opinion of the claims you've put forward in support of tha, or my opinion of the sensibility in describing the things you've chosen to mention as such.

That's the definition of idea in this context.  A formative principle, something which represents a potential object which does not yet exist.

see above.

Polly want a cracker?  This does not describe materialism.  It describes those aspects of materialism which involve the persistence of patterns, specifically formative principles which bring into reality objects which don't already exist.

Ideas of bullets don't bring bullets into reality...so I guess the idea of a bullet isn't a formative principle after all -by your own definition.

Get this, and drop it.  I'm not arguing against materialism.  I'm talking about specifics aspects of it.  It's like I want to talk about QM and you say, "Hey!  You're just talking about physics!"

I gotta say I think I'm about at the end with you in this thread.  Either I'm unable to explain my ideas clearly enough for you to understand, or you are deliberately refusing to get the point so you can keep making strawman arguments.  Either way, the effort of trying to respond to you is pretty quickly surpassing my interest in engaging in this conversation.

You left out a third option...which I would combine with your first.  You have an innaccurate view of MP3 files, evolution, and small arms manufacturing...and difficulty describing whatever it is you're thinking that isn't actually related to or found within any of those examples.