Why tf aren't people concerned about the fact that there is glass between jeff and camera, jeff is standing on the other side of the glass, facing the camera and is yet able to effortlessly write on the glass which is readable from the camera's perspective???
I was educated in Jungian psychology as my touchstone. The point is that the mental and physical are different perspectives of the viewer. The mental perspective says the physical is real but part of the psychical perspective. The physical perspective says the mental is real but is really physical. They are the polarized or bifurcated ways of viewing reality. The problem is that the physicalists have usurped the question and established hegemony over the honest difference in perspective and call the psychic perspective superstitious mysticism and false metaphysics.
Hi Gregory Wonderwheel. I just wrote as much in a comment on the topic. You might find that similar to your conclusion. I am fascinated by the Mind/Body Problem which these concepts apply to. Your thoughts are interesting.
Yeah physicalism has been the dominant view for so long that people have confused the physical for being all that there is. Science is only telling half of the story. Physicalism is a truth but not ultimate truth.
Idealism, as well as Dualism and Pantheism and their variants get into the Mind/Body Problem (MBP) immediately. It is inescapable. For example, it is common to read modern people writing about how the "perceive" or "perceived" a mental object such as a concept, idea, or a thought. This is logically and factually, a philosophical error. What people "perceive" is by the operation of the 5 senses. As regards mental operations, and mental identities such as thoughts and ideas and feelings, the proper function to be referred to is "conceive". (There is no such thing as a Perception of an mental object such as an idea, concept, number, or letter.) However modern people are being trained by suggestion to assume a materialistic premise as found in Scientism or the worldview tha tthe New Atheists subscribe to, which is called Ontological Naturalism. This is different from actual science and scientific method called "Metaphysical Naturalism." (Here is an interesting activity to engage in. If you analyze Dawkins bestselling book, "The God Delusion" you can discover that there is not a single scientific evidence in the book to substantiate anything that Dawkins publishes as a true statement. So for those proclaiming "Scientism" as a worldview, they actually have no scientific premises at all. Wrap your mind around that if you will. They do claim metaphysical assumptions even when denying all things metaphysical.)
Exactly blueckaym. Abract concepts in the mind are not recognized in science, as existing in a causal relation to matter. Still, the existence of mental things (identities) do exist. So it is odd when people advocate Scientism try to deny mental identities as real, but write, speak, and generally communicate continually in numbers, letters, and indeed, "abstract concepts". If mental identities are not real, then by the principle of Reductio Ad Absurdum, nothing communicated in the physical sciences like Physics, Chemistry, Biology...etc. are not logically existing in any association with reality either. (Some of this goes back to arguments about 800 to 1000 years ago, in the dialogues about "Metaphysical Nominalism" and "Metaphysical Realism". Those holding to the Nominalist view, denied the reality of words and numbers /"abstract concepts". Those holding to the Realist view, contended that words and numbers /"abstract concepts" were real. (I think I have that accurately represented)
Okay, the discourse on Physicalism is interesting. However, it occurs me that Physicalism has a conclusion that works for affirmation and denial. For example, if it is the standpoint that "The Mental is physical" then it follows logically that the physical is mental. You know, like: "Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other." that idea that matter is also mind, is philosophically, Idealism rather than merely a Dualism. Both Idealism and Dualism recognize Mind and Matter. If both Idealism and Dualism declare that Mind = Matter or conversely, Matter = Mind, they have both argued the same thing, even if the premises have a variation in expression. (Comments?)
No, because they are not using "is" in the sense of perfect equivalence. It's not in the sense of "Michael is my son" = "My son is Michael." They are both using "is" in the sense of "belongs to the category of." So this would be like asserting that "(All) chairs are objects" means the same as "(All) objects are chairs." This is why saying "The mental is physical" and "The physical is mental" are ***not*** equivalent statements.
Why tf aren't people concerned about the fact that there is glass between jeff and camera, jeff is standing on the other side of the glass, facing the camera and is yet able to effortlessly write on the glass which is readable from the camera's perspective???
Because it's easy to flip video left to right.
th-cam.com/video/6_d44bla_GA/w-d-xo.html
Simple and straightforward. Very helpful lecture! I keep wondering though if you actually wrote everything backwards as you spoke hahaha
Thanks! And, no, I am not coordinated enough to write backwards. Here is a video explaining how I do it: th-cam.com/video/6_d44bla_GA/w-d-xo.html
I was educated in Jungian psychology as my touchstone. The point is that the mental and physical are different perspectives of the viewer. The mental perspective says the physical is real but part of the psychical perspective. The physical perspective says the mental is real but is really physical. They are the polarized or bifurcated ways of viewing reality. The problem is that the physicalists have usurped the question and established hegemony over the honest difference in perspective and call the psychic perspective superstitious mysticism and false metaphysics.
Hi Gregory Wonderwheel. I just wrote as much in a comment on the topic. You might find that similar to your conclusion. I am fascinated by the Mind/Body Problem which these concepts apply to. Your thoughts are interesting.
Yeah physicalism has been the dominant view for so long that people have confused the physical for being all that there is. Science is only telling half of the story. Physicalism is a truth but not ultimate truth.
These are all distinctly different, but tuned/intersecting: Mental, Emotional, Spiritual, Physical, Transcendental .. More
Your awesome
Keep going
Materialism vs idealism is the same I reckon
Reductive physicalists need to resolve Hemple’s dilemma.
When does idealism gets into the mind body problem?
Idealism, as well as Dualism and Pantheism and their variants get into the Mind/Body Problem (MBP) immediately. It is inescapable. For example, it is common to read modern people writing about how the "perceive" or "perceived" a mental object such as a concept, idea, or a thought. This is logically and factually, a philosophical error. What people "perceive" is by the operation of the 5 senses. As regards mental operations, and mental identities such as thoughts and ideas and feelings, the proper function to be referred to is "conceive". (There is no such thing as a Perception of an mental object such as an idea, concept, number, or letter.) However modern people are being trained by suggestion to assume a materialistic premise as found in Scientism or the worldview tha tthe New Atheists subscribe to, which is called Ontological Naturalism. This is different from actual science and scientific method called "Metaphysical Naturalism." (Here is an interesting activity to engage in. If you analyze Dawkins bestselling book, "The God Delusion" you can discover that there is not a single scientific evidence in the book to substantiate anything that Dawkins publishes as a true statement. So for those proclaiming "Scientism" as a worldview, they actually have no scientific premises at all. Wrap your mind around that if you will. They do claim metaphysical assumptions even when denying all things metaphysical.)
You can't make a course about philosophy of mind whiteout talking about idealism
Totally agree. This video makes it seem like there are only two options - Duelism and Physicalism.
Goes back to the Greeks, like Aristotle and Plato. That's a different course.
@@gbail9566 Plato's Idealism / Plato's Realism / Platonism is not really the same Idealism in the context of Philosophy of Mind.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to start off comparing Dualism vs Monoism instead of Dualism vs a particular type of monoism.
Some mathematicians & quantum physicists have to learn the difference between mental and physical :)
Quantum Mechanics is physical for sure, the problem in sustaining a mental perspective of it is, however, a matter of mental consistency.
Exactly blueckaym. Abract concepts in the mind are not recognized in science, as existing in a causal relation to matter. Still, the existence of mental things (identities) do exist. So it is odd when people advocate Scientism try to deny mental identities as real, but write, speak, and generally communicate continually in numbers, letters, and indeed, "abstract concepts". If mental identities are not real, then by the principle of Reductio Ad Absurdum, nothing communicated in the physical sciences like Physics, Chemistry, Biology...etc. are not logically existing in any association with reality either. (Some of this goes back to arguments about 800 to 1000 years ago, in the dialogues about "Metaphysical Nominalism" and "Metaphysical Realism". Those holding to the Nominalist view, denied the reality of words and numbers /"abstract concepts". Those holding to the Realist view, contended that words and numbers /"abstract concepts" were real. (I think I have that accurately represented)
@accelerationquanta5816 It may be in your reality.
Okay, the discourse on Physicalism is interesting. However, it occurs me that Physicalism has a conclusion that works for affirmation and denial. For example, if it is the standpoint that "The Mental is physical" then it follows logically that the physical is mental. You know, like: "Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other." that idea that matter is also mind, is philosophically, Idealism rather than merely a Dualism. Both Idealism and Dualism recognize Mind and Matter. If both Idealism and Dualism declare that Mind = Matter or conversely, Matter = Mind, they have both argued the same thing, even if the premises have a variation in expression. (Comments?)
No, because they are not using "is" in the sense of perfect equivalence. It's not in the sense of "Michael is my son" = "My son is Michael."
They are both using "is" in the sense of "belongs to the category of." So this would be like asserting that "(All) chairs are objects" means the same as "(All) objects are chairs." This is why saying "The mental is physical" and "The physical is mental" are ***not*** equivalent statements.
What they mean is that mentalism is a sub set of physicalism. Not equivalent, in other words, physicalism is the cause of mentalism.