It really depends upon how one uses this language of ‘physical’ and ‘non-physical’. What is ‘physical’? Is it fields, strings, quantum foam? Some kind of vacuum energy with local excitations? If it’s ontology is not separable from 1st person awareness, then there are 2 approaches to the ‘physical’. - ThreadSky

About ThreadSky

jamesdmac.bsky.social • 90 days ago

It really depends upon how one uses this language of ‘physical’ and ‘non-physical’. What is ‘physical’? Is it fields, strings, quantum foam? Some kind of vacuum energy with local excitations? If it’s ontology is not separable from 1st person awareness, then there are 2 approaches to the ‘physical’.

Comments

jccust.bsky.social•90 days ago

As i said many times here: 'physical' in the scientific sense usually means what is in the scope of the consequences of the fundamental physical interactions (the 2 quantum forces, electromagnetism and gravity).

jamesdmac.bsky.social•90 days ago

…Which is still an incomplete, partial description we arrive at from the 3rd person perspective. My point is that this perspective or approach is not the only one to the ‘physical’. There is also the most intimate & immediate contact we have with it, which is our ‘being’ it in the 1st person.

jccust.bsky.social•90 days ago

See, the very claim that we need more than the fundamental physical interactions is, today, unscientific and, therefore, pseudoscience.

jamesdmac.bsky.social•90 days ago

Who is claiming that we need to posit something more than the ‘physical’? I’m certainly not. All I have been saying is that there are 2 distinct *approaches* that humans have to it: 1) 3rd person measurement (and description); 2) 1st person awareness (or ‘being’ it). Not opposed, but distinct.

jccust.bsky.social•90 days ago

Well, reading your last messages, it certainly seemed like you claimed exactly this. But okay.

Posting Rules

Be respectful to others
No spam or self-promotion
Stay on topic
Follow Bluesky's terms of service

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply