Physical idealism

[The Grand Nudger]

When you say "this is an idea", and then proceed to describe material interactions, material objects, and the outcomes of material interactions between material objects...that you insist that they are different things or define them to be different things is irrelevant. You described -the same thing-.

If you have some case in which they aren't..in which your description of a physical idea is not redundant with a material interaction or object, then provide -that- example.

[bennyboy]

When you say "this is an idea", and then proceed to describe material interactions, material objects, and the outcomes of material interactions between material objects...that you insist that they are different things or define them to be different things is irrelevant.  You described -the same thing-.

If you have some case in which they aren't..in which your description of a physical idea is not redundant with a material interaction or object, then provide -that- example.

I'm talking about physical idealism, and you are bothered when I talk about material properties and processes?  What does "physical" mean to you?

What, to you, does the word "idea" mean?

[The Grand Nudger]

It doesn't matter what any of it means to me.  When you've described what you call "physical ideas".... they have been...in each example, interchangeable with material interactions and objects. Nothing has been added, nothing has been removed, no additional insight or explanation has been produced.

[bennyboy]

It doesn't matter what any of it means to me.  When you've described what you call "physical ideas".... they have been...in each example,  interchangeable with material interactions and objects.  Nothing has been added, nothing has been removed, no additional insight or explanation has been produced.

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

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. 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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

[Whateverist]

I was reading this:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/04/health...index.html


And it got me to thinking. . . there must be a genetic pattern for a "toe," and then a counter of some type.  So you could arbitrarily (I assume) program a DNA sequence to have any number of toes or fingers, and yet, magically, they "turn out."  The baby's toes all look good, he's just got the wrong number of them.

In other words, the human body actually isn't completely represented in the DNA, but as a sequence of instructions ABOUT a human body-- for example, how many toes it should have.

Stuff to think about.

Fascinating stuff how cells grow together to form tissues and organs.  Each new creature self assembles following the same basic process of growth.  Variations resulting in changes to how many and how large each part shall be somehow accounts for all the variety we see.  Cool beans.

[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?

[The Grand Nudger]

Gravity - is- encompassed by materialism.  If you chose to call gravity a "physical idea"...yeah...you'd still be talking about the same thing. You did describe -how- you thought material properties "manifest as things".....and when you did so..you referred, exclusively, to material interactions. It doesn't matter much that your explanation was about as wrong as it could get, it's still a material explanation.

If it was your intention to reduce idealism to a redundant description of materialism..then okay, but for some reason I doubt that's what you were angling for.

: shrugs :

[bennyboy]

Gravity - is- encompassed by materialism.  If you chose to call gravity a "physical idea"...yeah...you'd still be talking about the same thing.  You did describe -how- you thought material properties "manifest as things".....and when you did so..you referred, exclusively, to material interactions.  It doesn't matter much that your explanation was about as wrong as it could get, it's still a material explanation.  

If it was your intention to reduce idealism to a redundant description of materialism..then okay, but for some reason I doubt that's what you were angling for.  

: shrugs :

When the OP is titled "Physical idealism," why do you think I wouldn't refer to material things and their properties? 

Let me guess-- borrowed concept?  Except that I am in fact talking about physical idealism.  And unless you want to harp on about the deeply interesting differences between materialism and physicalism, then you're kind of talking past me with this constant blah blah blah about how the things I'm talking about are material.  Never said they weren't, not interested in trying to prove they aren't.

Are you sure you're not just doing this?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not concerned with the term physical.  When you describe these things you call "ideas" they've been both 

a:horribly incorrect by reference to everything we know of evolution, for example.
and
b: completely indistinguishable from the things we already call material interactions.  

As such, I don't know why you would call it idealism, at all, even if the notions expressed were accurate. I'd just call it physical materialism. That'd be a bit redundant, though..so...just materialism. Am I not making myself clear? I just think you're trying to shoehorn idealism into something...somewhere. That's all. If there -are- deeply interesting differences between idealism and materialism..they are nowhere to be found in your description of idealism.