Physical idealism

[bennyboy]

---

I'm saying specific things about what a physical idea is, and you are saying, "You're just talking about stuff 'n' sich." 

-because you are.

Yes, I am talking about stuff 'n' sich, but I'm talking about particular collections of stuff 'n' sich that arise in particular ways, and about the philosophical consequences.  You seem to think I'm against materialism when I use the word "idealism" but I'm not-- because to me, they are not mutually exclusive.

Obviously not.....they're not even distinguishable from each other.  

I'm saying that a physical idea is a formative principle, and that specifically in the case of the body, individual body parts don't evolve-- the idea of individual body parts evolves, and what changes are not the whole parts themselves, but ideas about how those parts are expressed.

I don't think you have any meaningful corrections to make to the theory of evolution.

So a "hand" isn't an expression of a genetic code specifically for a hand: it's the expression of a lot of non-hand ideas, evidenced by the possibility that relatively minor changes in DNA can end up in things like a baby with 31 fingers and toes.

"Evidenced", he says, lol.   I've already agreed with you..that there are loads of "non hand ideas" and more than DNA involved.  It's just that they're all interchangeable with other material interactions, such as the ones you've been describing throughout the thread.

---

It's like I said, "This apple fell due to gravity" and you said, "Oh wow. . . you are totally just talking about materialism.  Why even use the word gravity?"

I'm trying to talk about HOW material properties manifest as things, and you're saying, "La la la it's all just material."  Who said it wasn't?