tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post4738545278904335170..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: An argument against materialismAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-6347761068204004142021-11-01T23:10:10.988-05:002021-11-01T23:10:10.988-05:00What is "I" here? Since I accept 1, I do...What is "I" here? Since I accept 1, I don't accept that there can be an "I" that is not part of material reality, so I don't accept 3. Rather, I consider the word "I" to refer to my whole self, and my whole self is part of material reality.jqbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07510836914645398165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-10169941232733383712008-02-01T09:38:00.000-06:002008-02-01T09:38:00.000-06:00I don't know what ontologically a field is. But m...I don't know what ontologically a field is. But mathematically, for a good example, think of a nice (e.g., infinitely differentiable) function that assigns a number or vector to every point in space (e.g., one might think of <A HREF="http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/biophys/4b.html" REL="nofollow">an electric field</A> as assigning a vector to every point in space pointing towards concentrations of charges).Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-77735939204029726152008-02-01T03:47:00.000-06:002008-02-01T03:47:00.000-06:00Oh right, I remember Spinoza denying that. I spen...Oh right, I remember Spinoza denying that. I spent much time trying to understand his arguments for pantheism in my modern philosophy class for test prep, and if I remember correctly he would say that I am a mode. (does that sound right?)<BR/><BR/>Is there any chance you could explain the concept of "field"? If its too much work then I'd appreciate it if you could direct me to a contemporary physics discussion of this.<BR/><BR/>I would probably see the force of the argument a lot better (and the plausibility of 3.) if I knew what a field was.MGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11961603927935499412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-82014556242007787172008-01-31T20:23:00.001-06:002008-01-31T20:23:00.001-06:00I meant: "One problem with DENYING 4 is the..."I meant: "One problem with DENYING 4 is the..."Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-87807271005583093982008-01-31T20:23:00.000-06:002008-01-31T20:23:00.000-06:00Spinoza denies 4.One problem with 4 is the general...Spinoza denies 4.<BR/><BR/>One problem with 4 is the general problem with denying paradigm cases of something. We are paradigm cases of substances. We are the only things that we can see from the inside.<BR/><BR/>Actually, I wonder if one can't make the argument work with "entity" in place of "substance" in 4, just with more ontological work.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-28674896505801110002008-01-31T16:38:00.000-06:002008-01-31T16:38:00.000-06:00Alex--This is a very interesting argument. Is it ...Alex--<BR/><BR/>This is a very interesting argument. Is it original?<BR/><BR/>Also, what do you anticipate are the problems that come with denying premise 4. (which I would expect some materialists to be entirely comfortable with)?MGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11961603927935499412noreply@blogger.com