Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Terrapin Station]

It would imply that anything within the scope of mind is ultimately something physical, which would include the mentioned categories such as "subjective things". Thus, how would it be possible to claim that being can be applicable to something other than physical?

I'm sure I've said this a bunch of times in different ways:

When I say something like "Being doesn't imply something physical," I am:
* Not saying anything pro or con about physicalism,
* Not arguing for or against physicalism,
* Not saying anything in the context of a physicalism versus nonphysicalism discussion,
* Not even thinking about physicalism
etc.

I'm saying something simply about the (concept of) being, in general, as it's used in general, regardless of anyone's personal views, including my own.

If you try to read every comment I make as some sort of overall argument for my personal views, where everything is building on the same foundation, my comments will make very little sense to you, because that's not at all what I'm doing.

I try to be pretty straightforward and above-board. If I'm saying something about physicalism, if I'm arguing for physicalism somehow, I'll explicitly do so. Otherwise my comments are probably from a broader context where I'm not arguing for my personal views (well, beyond personal views about how concepts like "being" are employed in general, and so on.)

[psyreporter]

The primary argument behind the current discussion is the following:

When non-locality is applicable to reality itself, the physical cannot be the origin of reality.

In non-locality there is no spatial or temporal distance. It means that the 'begin' by which physical/empirical reality can be possible, cannot originate from the physical which includes causality.

Non-locality being applicable to kind in Nature has diverse implications with regard possible explanations for reality.

To return to your argument:

"Logical options. Either we're exhausting the logical possibilities or we're not. Again, if you can think of a third option, that's great, but you'd need to present what the third option would be. ... I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist")."

The original question is whether the 'physical' can be the origin of the Universe and mind which was based on your argument that there are two logical options to explain an existent (being), it either magically having sprung into existence or having always existed.

When non-locality is applicable to kind in Nature, which includes qualia such as colors, that implies that something must preceded the two mentioned logical options on a fundamental level (ie before one of the options is possible).