Christianity is heading for a full allegorization

[polymath257]

I don't see a problem. Why would things have to be the same 'substance' in order to interact?

Well it does kinda depend on your definition of substance. But, as far as definitions of "substance" go, I like drawing the line at "must interact with physical reality."

You are pretty empirically-minded, Poly, so think about it. If there IS some kind of thing out there that doesn't interact with physical matter or energy at all, it may as well not exist. We'll never sense it. We'll never know it. And if we do somehow sense it or detect it- Boom. That's interaction.

It makes sense to define substance as something that MUST interact with physical matter or energy.

Actually, I would go further and say that the definition of 'existence' is 'that which interacts with something physical'.

So, something that never interacts with anything physical, like you said, cannot be sensed, detected, or verified. it might as well not exist at all. And, in fact, we get a simpler system by saying no such thing *can* exist.

And that is why physicalism is true. The *definition* of 'physical' is ALSO 'interacts with something physical'.

[The Grand Nudger]

All moot unless someone, anyone, can show or even explain how the mind belongs (or could belong) to any other hypothetical category of substance. There's alot that we don't know about human consciousness....that it comes from human brains isn't in doubt. That's not a theory, but a fact that any theory seeks to explain.

There could be a whole multiverse full of different substance out there - but there's no reason to think that a human mind belongs to any of them. Materialism could be false, and it would still be the case that human consciousness has a material origin.

[Ferrocyanide]

I don't see a problem. Why would things have to be the same 'substance' in order to interact?

Well it does kinda depend on your definition of substance. But, as far as definitions of "substance" go, I like drawing the line at "must interact with physical reality."

You are pretty empirically-minded, Poly, so think about it. If there IS some kind of thing out there that doesn't interact with physical matter or energy at all, it may as well not exist. We'll never sense it. We'll never know it. And if we do somehow sense it or detect it- Boom. That's interaction.

It makes sense to define substance as something that MUST interact with physical matter or energy.

Interact is the keyword.
How does matter interact with matter?
An electron interacts with another electron or any other charged particle via its electric field/magnetic field.

A neutrino, a neutron, a photon does not interact with an electron via the electric force/magnetic force.

I think that neutrinos, a neutrons, a photons can all interact together via the their gravitation forces (if you want to accept that gravity is a force. There is another concept that sees gravity as a deformation of space. I think the electric force/magnetic force can also be viewed that way.).

There is a strong interaction between baryon particles, such as neutrons, protons, anti-neutrons, anti-protons. At close distances, they can bind together.

There is another force called the weak force. Neutrinos interact with other particles via the weak force.

So, it looks like all interactions are done via fields.
If one particle has field X and another particle has field Y, they will not interact with each other.
If one particle has field X and another particle has field Y and also field X, they will interact via field X.

So what Angrboda said makes sense.

[polymath257]

Well it does kinda depend on your definition of substance. But, as far as definitions of "substance" go, I like drawing the line at "must interact with physical reality."

You are pretty empirically-minded, Poly, so think about it. If there IS some kind of thing out there that doesn't interact with physical matter or energy at all, it may as well not exist. We'll never sense it. We'll never know it. And if we do somehow sense it or detect it- Boom. That's interaction.

It makes sense to define substance as something that MUST interact with physical matter or energy.

Interact is the keyword.
How does matter interact with matter?
An electron interacts with another electron or any other charged particle via its electric field/magnetic field.

A neutrino, a neutron, a photon does not interact with an electron via the electric force/magnetic force.

I think that neutrinos, a neutrons, a photons can all interact together via the their gravitation forces (if you want to accept that gravity is a force. There is another concept that sees gravity as a deformation of space. I think the electric force/magnetic force can also be viewed that way.).

There is a strong interaction between baryon particles, such as neutrons, protons, anti-neutrons, anti-protons. At close distances, they can bind together.

There is another force called the weak force. Neutrinos interact with other particles via the weak force.

So, it looks like all interactions are done via fields.
If one particle has field X and another particle has field Y, they will not interact with each other.
If one particle has field X and another particle has field Y and also field X, they will interact via field X.

So what Angrboda said makes sense.

A LOT of care is required here.  Several statements are either wrong or seriously misleading.

First, all particles are associated with a field and vice versa.

So, there are electron fields. And the electromagnetic field is associated with photons.

This means that each of the forces is described by an exchange of some particle.

When two charged particles interact electromagnetically, they do so by the exchange of a photons. So, you were wrong when you said that photons do not interacts with electrons via the electromagnetic force. In fact, the electromgnetic force is *precisely* charged particles interacting with photons.

You were also factually wrong when you said that neutrons do not interact electromagnetically. While they are not charged, they *do* have a magnetic field.

The weak force is the exchange of W and Z particles. So, leptons and quarks interact via W and Z particles and that interaction is the weak force. Neutrinos are one type of lepton. Here, the W particles are charged and the Z particles are electrically neutral.

The particles associated with the strong force are called gluons. There are 8 types of gluons.

Now, there *is* a difference between the 'matter' particles and the 'force' particles. The 'matter' particles are all fermions (electrons, quarks, neutrinos), while the 'force particles (photons, W, Z, and gluons) are all bosons.

BTW, the particle for gravity is called the graviton and is spin 2. We can *also* consider gravity as the curvature of spacetime: the two descriptions are mathematically equivalent.

For each basic interaction, there is a diagram detailing that interaction. So, the diagram for an electron and a photon just has the photon, an incoming electron, and an outgoing electron. Because of symmetries, this same diagram describes the interaction of positrons and photons and describes both a single incoming photon or a single outgoing photon. For any given observed interaction, we have to write down all of the diagrams with those incoming particles and those outgoing particles and 'add them up' to get the probability of that interaction and its properties.

Interactions with W and Z particles can change leptons to quarks and vice versa. Interactions with gluons can change the type of quarks.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Substance is not a concept of physics. It comes from Scholasticism. So IMO at least some of the mind-body problem stems from mixing the nomenclature of two very different conceptual frameworks.

[Jehanne]

Substance is not a concept of physics. It comes from Scholasticism. So IMO at least some of the mind-body problem stems from mixing the nomenclature of two very different conceptual frameworks.

Like the so-called Eucharist?  It's not really bread after the Consecration, but, it only appears to be bread, and the bread is just the "accident" that remains after the true "substance" has become the Body & Blood of Jesus Christ?

[Belacqua]

Substance is not a concept of physics. It comes from Scholasticism. So IMO at least some of the mind-body problem stems from mixing the nomenclature of two very different conceptual frameworks.

And like so many things in Scolasticism, "substance" is a term from Aristotle. That which stands under = substance.

If we assume that it always means what it means in modern English conversation (as people often mistakenly do with the word "cause"), we're going to end up begging several questions and narrowing down the discussion to the point of silliness. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/

[emjay]

Substance is not a concept of physics. It comes from Scholasticism. So IMO at least some of the mind-body problem stems from mixing the nomenclature of two very different conceptual frameworks.

Personally I can't conceive of the mind being made of... as in composed or constructed of... like an object in the physical universe... any kind of material/substance. Obviously what I can conceive and what's possible are not necessarily the same thing, but it does mean that that is not a question I think I can ask, let alone answer, so just have to take its existence, in whatever sense that is, as a brute fact.

So I think at the very least this rules out substance dualism for me as a position... I'm not entirely sure given what GN said earlier that talk of immaterial comes under substance dualism, but I'm assuming that means inasmuch as proposing an immaterial substance such as spirit or whatever as an explanation of what mind is composed of, but since that's not what I'm doing - since I'm not trying to address the issue of its composition at all in that sense - any reference to immaterial on my part I think is just a poor choice of words or a bad comparison/metaphor, but in any case not meant in the sense of immaterial substance of composition... so yeah, I think that rules out substance dualism for me.

[Disagreeable]

The former side is thinking "yeah, seems like there is a qualitative difference, we should take this observation seriously". The latter side is thinking "it's to do with complexity, man, nothing more; don't worry, we got this!"

At least the former starts with the only thing that we can ever truly know for certain. Whereas the latter, however interesting its findings otherwise are with respect to related—yet nevertheless distinct matters—is not only not being fundamentally relevant in the way that is required to address the depth of the question at hand but it is also merely, solely, ultimately and generally putting the cart before the horse philosophically-speaking.

---

[...]people who hold to the hard problem will insist that none of those things explain whatever their thing is.  That's the entire gimmick to begin with - explicitly stated.

We perhaps fundamentally disagree, as you seem rather Dennettian in your thinking. Nonetheless, although I technically agree that there is no hard problem of consciousness I do think that there is a hard problem of matter.

No problems for physicalism or mentalism, though (not talking about pseudo-scientific 'mentalism', I'm literally talking about the notion that everything is mental. As a monist I see that everything is both mental and physical. That is not necessarily to say that everything is conscious. Although, it depends what we mean).

---

Is that alright with you?

Absolutely, my friend.

[The Grand Nudger]

Substance is not a concept of physics. It comes from Scholasticism. So IMO at least some of the mind-body problem stems from mixing the nomenclature of two very different conceptual frameworks.

Yeah, maybe.  Yet another argument for abandoning scholasticism.

---

[...]people who hold to the hard problem will insist that none of those things explain whatever their thing is.  That's the entire gimmick to begin with - explicitly stated.

We perhaps fundamentally disagree, as you seem rather Dennettian in your thinking. Nonetheless, although I technically agree that there is no hard problem of consciousness I do think that there is a hard problem of matter.

No problems for physicalism or mentalism, though (not talking about pseudo-scientific 'mentalism', I'm literally talking about the notion that everything is mental. As a monist I see that everything is both mental and physical. That is not necessarily to say that everything is conscious. Although, it depends what we mean).

Ish.   It's become pretty clear that the little man behind the eyes is not what he represents himself as.  Dennet, I think, can demonstrate that in a number of entertaining ways.  Some people take this to imply that we're illusory in some meaningful way.  I don't think so.  We're just not what we thought or think we are. Won't be the first time.

A hard problem of matter?  That sounds interesting.  Something like...if we discovered everything there was to discover about material interaction, everything that causes it, everything it can do - the universe will still be fundamentally or at least partially inexplicable?  An open question sort of issue?