Philosophy of Mind.

Is consciousness a dimension? If so, does this make thought a physical reality?

Discuss.

Is consciousness a dimension? If so, does this make thought a physical reality?

Discuss.

[Louie Dawgs]

No, and no. Thy physical is all there is, it is disingenuous to define something as a dimension, (and thus in existence) when in fact no physical existence to this point exists. The concept of mind dualism always asserts a non-physical existence of some sort, which I consider to be counterfactual to existence at it's most reductive stage.

[Louie Dawgs]

No, and no. Thy physical is all there is, it is disingenuous to define something as a dimension, (and thus in existence) when in fact no physical existence to this point exists. The concept of mind dualism always asserts a non-physical existence of some sort, which I consider to be counterfactual to existence at it's most reductive stage.

[NOBLE]

Depending on how one defines it, yes, consciousness is a dimension, but it could be argued that what isn't? A dimension is any way by which a thing can be measured that is different from all other ways, and we measure all things through our consciousness.
Thought is a reality, but it's not absolutely"physical." It's more of a mental reality that can have physical manifestations like the number 2.

[NOBLE]

Depending on how one defines it, yes, consciousness is a dimension, but it could be argued that what isn't? A dimension is any way by which a thing can be measured that is different from all other ways, and we measure all things through our consciousness.
Thought is a reality, but it's not absolutely"physical." It's more of a mental reality that can have physical manifestations like the number 2.

If something has a physical manifestation, is it not then a physical object? Numbers are abstract, let's use a different example. A table, for instance. This item began as a thought, and was thus physically manifested. Is a table not, then, physical? I'm not going to touch on Louie's materialism, though.

If something has a physical manifestation, is it not then a physical object? Numbers are abstract, let's use a different example. A table, for instance. This item began as a thought, and was thus physically manifested. Is a table not, then, physical? I'm not going to touch on Louie's materialism, though.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by BLNK

If something has a physical manifestation, is it not then a physical object? Numbers are abstract, let's use a different example. A table, for instance. This item began as a thought, and was thus physically manifested. Is a table not, then, physical? I'm not going to touch on Louie's materialism, though.

I'm not arguing that thought can't be identified as a physical reality. I'm arguing that's its not absolutely or exclusively physical.
If a table begins as a thought and then becomes physically manifested, why should we conclude that it doesn't remain a thought simultaneously?
There are many things that have both physical and mental manifestations/applications. Just because something has a physical manifestation doesn't mean it is purely or absolutely physical.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by BLNK

If something has a physical manifestation, is it not then a physical object? Numbers are abstract, let's use a different example. A table, for instance. This item began as a thought, and was thus physically manifested. Is a table not, then, physical? I'm not going to touch on Louie's materialism, though.

I'm not arguing that thought can't be identified as a physical reality. I'm arguing that's its not absolutely or exclusively physical.
If a table begins as a thought and then becomes physically manifested, why should we conclude that it doesn't remain a thought simultaneously?
There are many things that have both physical and mental manifestations/applications. Just because something has a physical manifestation doesn't mean it is purely or absolutely physical.

[Louie Dawgs]

No, no, no. platonic idealism is all wrong. To think that somehow a more perfect form of a form exists is wrong.

[Louie Dawgs]

No, no, no. platonic idealism is all wrong. To think that somehow a more perfect form of a form exists is wrong.

I'm not restricting the physicalism of the object to be absolute, simply questioning whether it would be physical, if a dimension.

I'm not restricting the physicalism of the object to be absolute, simply questioning whether it would be physical, if a dimension.

[NOBLE]

Time is a dimension. Is time physical?

[NOBLE]

Time is a dimension. Is time physical?

Yes.......

Yes.......

[NOBLE]

We might be applying two different definitions of "physical." By physical, I was meaning "corporeal" or having material existence.

[NOBLE]

We might be applying two different definitions of "physical." By physical, I was meaning "corporeal" or having material existence.