Emery wrote:One thing I'm interested in concerning the TAG argument: do you think non-physical objects (or concepts) are necessarily mental concepts, or is there a third, non-mental category that non-material things can inhabit?
scomsjw wrote:This doesn't seem like a very convincing argument to me. It seems to depend on accepting that everything is either "material" or "conceptual". I suspect that theists would argue that god is neither of these so they would need a third category just for him. I am uncomfortable about the use of the word "conceptual" - partly because I think it likely that thoughts cannot exist outside of brains. Surely a better distinction is "material" and "non-material". Its possible that "non-material" things could be subdivided into "essential" or "intrinsic" laws that exist whether or not there are brains to comprehend them and "conceptual" which I would use to denote things like unicorns which exist only as ideas and so would not in any sense exist if there were no brains to imagine them.
I don't see how math, logic, reason could possibly exist outside of non physical reality unless they are part of an original idea which would fall into the category of a mental concept.
Nope I cannot agree. Even something defined as a concept (say a unicorn) exists as a set of chemical/electrical states in a brain. There is only one category.scomsjw wrote:Surely a better distinction is "material" and "non-material".
It's possible to have a universe where some things are vastly different than they are here, but it's impossible to have a universe where one plus one doesn't equal two. So pure mathematics would be an example of something that's independent of mind.
scomsjw wrote:On the other hand a creative idea absolutely demands a cause - but I would think of that cause as something going on inside a brain.
Users browsing this forum: humanguy and 1 guest