Physical idealism

[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.