(2024-08-01, 11:18 AM)sbu Wrote: There is no single, clear ontological model of what "physical" means that is universally accepted. So how can you conclude anything about what’s “non-physical”?
Adding to, but with some potential difference, what @Valmar said...I think there's a general - though not complete - agreement that physical refers to the stuff of this universe that Physicalists tell us has no mental character. This would include no qualia.
I use "corporeal" to make the distinction, where that which is in the world could have aspects like redness and other qualia. Yet these aspects are beyond physics ability to describe.
However I don't think the First Person PoV, the Aboutness of Thought, nor Reason are corporeal or physical.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
(This post was last modified: 2024-08-01, 08:17 PM by Sciborg_S_Patel. Edited 1 time in total.)
- Bertrand Russell