The ‘facts’ about what can and cannot be instantiated in matter

Posted on by

In the ‘decisions’ thread walto made this comment:

‘Hard problem’? Hah! Piece of cake. Everything is instantiated! Well, you know what sorts of things can be instantiated? Look it up.

When I suggested that I’d not be doing that Mung noted:

Translation: don’t bother me with facts.

Which implies to me that there is a verified list of what can and cannot be instantiated in matter (chemicals and the like). I.E. Facts.

This is contrary to what I had originally assumed, hence my reluctance to bother looking it up. So I’ve changed my mind. I am interested in ‘looking it up’. I’m always willing to learn. So the floor is yours Mung, walto.

As this list would no doubt be of interest to many here I thought I’d make it an OP rather then getting lost in the ‘decisions’ thread.

Mung, Walto, where can I read about these facts regarding what can and cannot be instantiated in matter? Why do I have to go look it up? Can’t you just provide the list itself?

61 thoughts on “The ‘facts’ about what can and cannot be instantiated in matter”

  1. phoodoo: This is precisely why we shouldn’t trust scientists to give their opinion about matters of thought

    And about origins! and… and about evolution! and about whether evolution is about origins! and about the philosophical underpinnings of science! and about methodological naturalism! … and .. and…

    (YEC barging in) don’t forget geology!

  4. phoodoo,

    It came out exactly as I meant it.

    Here’s what you said:

    Except perhaps the fact that people with no brain function, can still recall experiences.

    Here’s what you were trying to say:

    Except perhaps the fact that people can recall experiences that occurred when their brains were not functioning.

  5. phoodoo: Except perhaps the fact that people can recall experiences that occurred when their brains were not functioning.

    Yeah, right! They even made a film about that too!

  6. phoodoo: Scientists ability to interpret information they uncover is often non-existent.

    Let’s leave it to the popular press, spin doctors and politicians to tell us what it all means!

  7. phoodoo:
    Alan Fox,

    Do you think Omagains topic on this thread is about what Chalmers calls unconsciousness?

    Ask OM. I just read threads, join in as the inclination and opportunity arises. I do think “consciousness”, like “soul” and “quale” are linguistic constructs. But, then again, that’s the problem with language.

  8. keiths: phoodoo,

    It came out exactly as I meant it.

    Here’s what you said:

    Except perhaps the fact that people with no brain function, can still recall experiences.

    Here’s what you were trying to say:

    Except perhaps the fact that people can recall experiences that occurred when their brains were not functioning.

    What makes you think they can’t recall what is happening at the time it is happening keiths? When you are dreaming can you recall what you are dreaming during the dream, or only after you wake up?
    maybe you better save the writing for me keiths, and try to understand what you are saying.

  9. Neil Rickert: OMagain: I suppose all I’m saying is the ‘hard problem’ is ultimately solvable without recourse to wizards behind the curtain.

    I see the “hard problem” as a false problem. It doesn’t need to be solved. Trying to solve it is like trying to find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

    So Omagain is talking about qualia here?

    Come on Neil.

  11. OMagain: As far as I’m concerned if it’s can’t be located in time/space/matter/energy then it does not exist except as a shared concept in physical human brains. That does not deny the existence of abstract entities, but places their location in a shared conceptual reality that is distinct from actual reality, embodied in the interconnections in our brains. We can represent something that does not actually exist in reality in thought.

    Looks like you are busy reinventing the wheel. But it has already been invented. Consider concepts like physics versus metaphysics, actuality versus potentiality, universal versus particular, abstract versus concrete, material versus immaterial, existent versus non-existent, real, surreal, and unreal. Make relevant distinctions. Hint: The better your metaphysical system, the less synonyms you will find in this bunch.

Leave a Reply