Yes.
Society doesnât create ideas and concepts?
1 Like
The irony is that I did nothing of the sort you did that yourself.
1 Like
By what means do you determine itâs a fact?
They sure do. I never said different.
All I am asking is how you itâs a fact?
Because it exists.
How I know what is a fact?
If there is only the physical an âemotionâ is an arbitrary pattern in a particle system. It exists in the sense that there is some particle system resembling what we colloquially named an emotion. The label however is superfluous and arbitrary. I can call a grouping of 5 O2 particles a âwally-wackerâ. Do wally-wackers exist? I guess. But there is absolutely no addition to knowledge or reality from naming an arbitrary group of particles. There is nothing special or real about a wally-wacker that isnât already covered by physics. âemotionâ exists in the same arbitrary non-additive way a wally-wacker does.
You never get a true deflection/dynamic loading behavior/deformation or anything. You can increase confidence that there wonât be catastrophic failure or plastic deformation or buckling but thatâs about it.
It relates because FEA while a science and useful ultimately isnât a true reflection of the physical. There are no finite elements in nature, even though they are useful in a scientific theory.
The point is that I think you lack introspection in your own belief. If you believe only in the physical, then the things you claim to care about are arbitrary even in definition, much more so in value. The discussion is silly with me bringing up particle physics when you talk about emotions, because thatâs the nature of your belief. It is silly because if there is only the physical than âemotionâ is an arbitrary silly word. I think most people who talk about âonly the physicalâ use those words to gloss over the fact that using it when only believing in the physical is exclusively using it to refer to an arbitrary, ill defined, particle system. Of course itâs silly. Of course people donât mean a pattern in the particle system in there brain (another arbitrarily defined particle system) when they say they are happy. But you are the one that claimed you do.
1 Like
Didnât you bring up emotions?
âEmotionâ probably is an arbitrarily chosen word but what it is a sign for, is real.
There is no physical reason for the selection of âemotionâ as distinguished from any other state of the system. Itâs like saying I believe in wally-wakers because they are real. Both the word and the definition are arbitrary to the actual nature of the system.
But the system exists. âEmotionâ is just a sign. If emotions were, as you claim, supernatural, then they would exist as imaginary ideas since the supernatural does not exist outside of the imagination. Either way, they exist.
Just like wally-wackers and mojo-dunkers-dooles.
So that means abortion is OK?
For someone only believing in the physical it would make life and human arbitrary, yes.
1 Like
Assuming that it would make life and human arbitrary (although you are being vague with that) it doesnât follow that for someone who thinks that way abortion would be OK.
OK would be arbitrary. It wouldnât matter either way.
âokâ would not necessarily be arbitrary in that case.
Yes, is it an objective fact or a subjective fact?
Is what an objective or subjective fact? There will always be a degree of subjectivity when it comes to what we know.