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

[Consul]

What is that which "science cannot address"?

Many things. One example is whether we are brains-in-vats. There is no evidence associated with this idea, for or against. And that, in itself, is a conclusive reason why science cannot deal with it. No evidence = no analysis = no conclusion. No formal and precise scientific consideration of this issue is possible. We must use the tool kit of 'serious thought' to address this issue, and others like it, and that is what metaphysics does. It handles those issues for which science is unsuited.

So a theory or hypothesis is metaphysical if and only if its truth-value is empirically undecidable?
But then there is metaphysics in physics too (e.g. multiverse-theory).

[Terrapin Station]

I'll do an "It's not explained" discussion on these grounds:
(1) You give detailed criteria you're using for counting as an explanation in general,
(2) You also tell us why your criteria from (1) are going to be the demarcation criteria for explanations, and
(3) We examine whether the criteria given in (1) actually are your demarcation criteria by testing them with a number of mundane things (so, not consciousness) that you believe are explained versus not explained, and we make sure that you can present explanations for what you consider explained that meet your criteria, and we see whether some of the mundane stuff that you don't consider explained can't be explained per your criteria.

If we don't do the above three points systematically, I'll not entertain "it's not explained" discussions. Unfortunately, since I can't get you to even respond to the simplest of questions or requests, there's no way in hell that you'll be doing any of (1), (2) or (3) above.



Before I answer any more questions, is there any possibility that you'll answer even a single question I asked you above? If you won't, why should I answer any question you're asking? Don't conversations require both people answering questions?

Do you want me to start doing this:

2nd request:
"we'd have to clarify what that's supposed to be saying that's different than merely 'How does physicalism explain abstracts?'"

TS!

Happy Friday! I have an idea, where perhaps we can hit the re-set button (if you will accept the challenge). Obviously the discussion is not producing any kind of' 'universal truth', as it were. And so, how about we ferret-out your Physicalism? Let's have fun and try to deconstruct yours and my arguments (I'll start with parsing some concepts including words you used that I think are metaphysical, and put them in a basic syllogism which may or may not be sound). Then, we can see whether the conclusion follows. I'll offer a few fig-leaf examples. And, I'll keep your definition on the subject line so we don't get distracted (I'll change it if you are not comfortable with the definition) thus:

RE: In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,[1] or that everything supervenes on the physical.[2] Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view. Both the definition of "physical" and the meaning of physicalism have been debated.


A few examples of a logical syllogism to parse:

Terrapin Station used the concept of "individuals" in his premises to argue for how all humans perceive things-in-themselves vis a vis physicalism:

"Individuals" relate to human being
Consciousness relates to "individuals"
Therefore, consciousness relates to human being

And so:

Human beings listen to music
TS is a human being
Therefore, TS has listened to music
Music is perceived metaphysically
Humans perceive music
Therefore, humans perceive the metaphysical
All mathematics is perceived metaphysically
Humans perceive mathematics
Therefore, humans perceive the metaphysical

Similarly:

All humans have a Will
TS is a human
Therefore, TS has a Will
The Will is metaphysical
Sentience is the Will
Therefore, sentience is metaphysical


This one I need your help with:

TS has the capacity to perceive emotions
Physicalism does not explain how TS perceives things
Therefore, Physicalism is not perceived as emotions


TS, which one's are false? If false, please rearrange the syllogisms to make 'the premise' sound so that the conclusion can follow properly.
If you get stumped, (which I'm hoping you won't) no worries, we can just post the definitions of each concept first (Metaphysics in this case is the first principles of Being/ontology) then rearrange accordingly.

If you want to start over, okay, but you need to start over with something shorter, because the above is a complete mess. There are numerous issues with every sentence. For example, at the start, from where are you getting that I'm forwarding some sort of argument about how people perceive anything? And then you're using the "things-in-themselves" term, which is a mess that you won't address, and on and on and on.

You need to start with something simpler, and you need to actually respond to comments made and questions asked, especially when I ask for a clarification.

By the way, the manner in which you're using "metaphysical" as an adjective is just nonsensical.

Also, re "physicalism does not explain," again, I WILL NOT DO a "this is explained/this is not explained" discussion if you don't address the requirements I gave above for a discussion about that. If we start over or not, you're going to need to meet those requirements if you want to introduce a "this is not explained" argument.

So pick something very simple, just an idea or two, just a sentence or two that you want to start with, and then you're going to need to actually respond to comments and answer questions. What simple thing would you like to start with?

TS!

I'm not sure I'm following that. Are you saying logic (deduction) is complicated?

That your reading comprehension is that bad certainly doesn't help this.

Again, if you want to start over okay. Keep it short. Just a sentence or two to start. Can you do that?

[Pattern-chaser]

What is that which "science cannot address"?

Many things. One example is whether we are brains-in-vats. There is no evidence associated with this idea, for or against. And that, in itself, is a conclusive reason why science cannot deal with it. No evidence = no analysis = no conclusion. No formal and precise scientific consideration of this issue is possible. We must use the tool kit of 'serious thought' to address this issue, and others like it, and that is what metaphysics does. It handles those issues for which science is unsuited.

So a theory or hypothesis is metaphysical if and only if its truth-value is empirically undecidable?

Absolutely not. Empirically undecidable issues are examples of subject matter that science cannot deal with, but metaphysics can, as I said in my previous post (quoted above). But "if and only if"? You should know better than to offer such poor logic, to trap a poor mortal like me.

[3017Metaphysician]

TS!

Happy Friday! I have an idea, where perhaps we can hit the re-set button (if you will accept the challenge). Obviously the discussion is not producing any kind of' 'universal truth', as it were. And so, how about we ferret-out your Physicalism? Let's have fun and try to deconstruct yours and my arguments (I'll start with parsing some concepts including words you used that I think are metaphysical, and put them in a basic syllogism which may or may not be sound). Then, we can see whether the conclusion follows. I'll offer a few fig-leaf examples. And, I'll keep your definition on the subject line so we don't get distracted (I'll change it if you are not comfortable with the definition) thus:

RE: In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,[1] or that everything supervenes on the physical.[2] Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view. Both the definition of "physical" and the meaning of physicalism have been debated.


A few examples of a logical syllogism to parse:

Terrapin Station used the concept of "individuals" in his premises to argue for how all humans perceive things-in-themselves vis a vis physicalism:

"Individuals" relate to human being
Consciousness relates to "individuals"
Therefore, consciousness relates to human being

And so:

Human beings listen to music
TS is a human being
Therefore, TS has listened to music
Music is perceived metaphysically
Humans perceive music
Therefore, humans perceive the metaphysical
All mathematics is perceived metaphysically
Humans perceive mathematics
Therefore, humans perceive the metaphysical

Similarly:

All humans have a Will
TS is a human
Therefore, TS has a Will
The Will is metaphysical
Sentience is the Will
Therefore, sentience is metaphysical


This one I need your help with:

TS has the capacity to perceive emotions
Physicalism does not explain how TS perceives things
Therefore, Physicalism is not perceived as emotions


TS, which one's are false? If false, please rearrange the syllogisms to make 'the premise' sound so that the conclusion can follow properly.
If you get stumped, (which I'm hoping you won't) no worries, we can just post the definitions of each concept first (Metaphysics in this case is the first principles of Being/ontology) then rearrange accordingly.

If you want to start over, okay, but you need to start over with something shorter, because the above is a complete mess. There are numerous issues with every sentence. For example, at the start, from where are you getting that I'm forwarding some sort of argument about how people perceive anything? And then you're using the "things-in-themselves" term, which is a mess that you won't address, and on and on and on.

You need to start with something simpler, and you need to actually respond to comments made and questions asked, especially when I ask for a clarification.

By the way, the manner in which you're using "metaphysical" as an adjective is just nonsensical.

Also, re "physicalism does not explain," again, I WILL NOT DO a "this is explained/this is not explained" discussion if you don't address the requirements I gave above for a discussion about that. If we start over or not, you're going to need to meet those requirements if you want to introduce a "this is not explained" argument.

So pick something very simple, just an idea or two, just a sentence or two that you want to start with, and then you're going to need to actually respond to comments and answer questions. What simple thing would you like to start with?

TS!

I'm not sure I'm following that. Are you saying logic (deduction) is complicated?

That your reading comprehension is that bad certainly doesn't help this.

Again, if you want to start over okay. Keep it short. Just a sentence or two to start. Can you do that?

All humans have a Will
TS is a human
Therefore, TS has a Will
The Will is metaphysical
Sentience is the Will
Therefore, sentience is metaphysical

[Consul]

So a theory or hypothesis is metaphysical if and only if its truth-value is empirically undecidable?

Absolutely not. Empirically undecidable issues are examples of subject matter that science cannot deal with, but metaphysics can, as I said in my previous post (quoted above). But "if and only if"? You should know better than to offer such poor logic, to trap a poor mortal like me.

If empirical undecidability is not a necessary&sufficient condition of being metaphysical, then what is?

[Pattern-chaser]

So a theory or hypothesis is metaphysical if and only if its truth-value is empirically undecidable?

Absolutely not. Empirically undecidable issues are examples of subject matter that science cannot deal with, but metaphysics can, as I said in my previous post (quoted above). But "if and only if"? You should know better than to offer such poor logic, to trap a poor mortal like me.

If empirical undecidability is not a necessary&sufficient condition of being metaphysical, then what is?

I offer no "necessary & sufficient conditions", but only a simple definition of metaphysics that is good enough for most purposes. Once again, I suggest that your need for precision is unhelpful.

[Consul]

I offer no "necessary & sufficient conditions", but only a simple definition of metaphysics that is good enough for most purposes. Once again, I suggest that your need for precision is unhelpful.

Any definition implies necessary&sufficient conditions: If A is defined as B1,…,Bn, then (being) B1,…,Bn is both necessary and sufficient for (being) A. For example, "bachelor" =def "unmarried man"; so being a man and being unmarried are (together) both necessary and sufficient for being a bachelor.

[Terrapin Station]

All humans have a Will
TS is a human
Therefore, TS has a Will
The Will is metaphysical
Sentience is the Will
Therefore, sentience is metaphysical

Thanks for keeping it short.

So first, I don't actually agree that all humans have will phenomena. Unconscious humans, which might include humans in comas, for example, wouldn't have will phenomena. Will isn't a "part" that humans have installed, by the way, just in case you were meaning "Humans have a will" in that sense. Will is a particular range of mental phenomena; it's something that conscious brains do. I'm not advocating changing how "will" works linguistically, but for philosophical purposes, will should really be thought of as a verb, not a noun. In other words, it's an action, not a "thing that acts." (Even though technically even things that act obtain via actions, but that's a lot more complicated issue.)

But any rate, we could say, "Suppose all humans have will phenomena (that is, suppose that no humans are unconscious, etc.)." And sure, we could say, in an odd grammatical move, that "The will is metaphysical." We can say that because saying that something is "metaphysical" in that context would simply amount to saying that it exists. If there is x, then x exists, and "x is metaphysical."

I'm reluctant to add more--see how many issues there are in such a short comment from you?--but I do not at all agree that sentience is the same as will. "Sentience," in its most broad sense, simply refers to creatures being responsive to sensations, though it's often used to broadly connote consciousness, or a conscious response to sensations. "Will" is far more narrow than that. "Will" most broadly refers to the conscious/intentional "directedness" of one's actions, and it often has a narrower connotation of decisions with respect to that conscious/intentional directedness. So will requires sentience, but sentience is far broader than will, and will isn't a subset of sentience, either, unless we're using "sentience" strictly as a synonym for consciousness overall. (If we're using "sentience" in the more technical sense of "responsiveness to sensations," then will and sentience aren't at all the same thing, though will would typically require sentience or at least the illusion of sentience.)

At any rate, as above, insofar as there is sentience, it exists (otherwise we couldn't accurately say that "there is sentience"), so we could, in that odd grammatical contortion that you're liking, say that "sentience is metaphysical." Again, anything that exists would be metaphysical. Metaphysics is [technically philosophy of] existence or being. So anything that exists, however it exists, whatever its nature, etc., would be metaphysical in that sense.

[Pattern-chaser]

I offer no "necessary & sufficient conditions", but only a simple definition of metaphysics that is good enough for most purposes. Once again, I suggest that your need for precision is unhelpful.

Any definition implies necessary & sufficient conditions: If A is defined as B1,…,Bn, then (being) B1,…,Bn is both necessary and sufficient for (being) A. For example, "bachelor" =def "unmarried man"; so being a man and being unmarried are (together) both necessary and sufficient for being a bachelor.

I offered a simple, general, everyday 'definition' that works for most cases:

Topic title: Can we agree as to what metaphysics is?

How about this? It's how the word is generally used....

"Metaphysics" describes those questions, theories and enquiries that science cannot address, but philosophy can.

If you must have a formal and dissectable scientific definition, you'd do better with something quoted from your formidable library.

[3017Metaphysician]

All humans have a Will
TS is a human
Therefore, TS has a Will
The Will is metaphysical
Sentience is the Will
Therefore, sentience is metaphysical

Thanks for keeping it short.

So first, I don't actually agree that all humans have will phenomena. Unconscious humans, which might include humans in comas, for example, wouldn't have will phenomena. Will isn't a "part" that humans have installed, by the way, just in case you were meaning "Humans have a will" in that sense. Will is a particular range of mental phenomena; it's something that conscious brains do. I'm not advocating changing how "will" works linguistically, but for philosophical purposes, will should really be thought of as a verb, not a noun. In other words, it's an action, not a "thing that acts." (Even though technically even things that act obtain via actions, but that's a lot more complicated issue.)

But any rate, we could say, "Suppose all humans have will phenomena (that is, suppose that no humans are unconscious, etc.)." And sure, we could say, in an odd grammatical move, that "The will is metaphysical." We can say that because saying that something is "metaphysical" in that context would simply amount to saying that it exists. If there is x, then x exists, and "x is metaphysical."

I'm reluctant to add more--see how many issues there are in such a short comment from you?--but I do not at all agree that sentience is the same as will. "Sentience," in its most broad sense, simply refers to creatures being responsive to sensations, though it's often used to broadly connote consciousness, or a conscious response to sensations. "Will" is far more narrow than that. "Will" most broadly refers to the conscious/intentional "directedness" of one's actions, and it often has a narrower connotation of decisions with respect to that conscious/intentional directedness. So will requires sentience, but sentience is far broader than will, and will isn't a subset of sentience, either, unless we're using "sentience" strictly as a synonym for consciousness overall. (If we're using "sentience" in the more technical sense of "responsiveness to sensations," then will and sentience aren't at all the same thing, though will would typically require sentience or at least the illusion of sentience.)

At any rate, as above, insofar as there is sentience, it exists (otherwise we couldn't accurately say that "there is sentience"), so we could, in that odd grammatical contortion that you're liking, say that "sentience is metaphysical." Again, anything that exists would be metaphysical. Metaphysics is [technically philosophy of] existence or being. So anything that exists, however it exists, whatever its nature, etc., would be metaphysical in that sense.

Thanks. Okay, am I to interprete that as a kind of acquiescence to existing conscious metaphysical phenomena? The reason I use the word 'aquiescence' is because it doesn't seem to square with your belief system(s). Please correct me if I'm wrong. For instance, you had said previously that everything (all things that exist) are physical and that you are a 'physicalist':

In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,[1] or that everything supervenes on the physical.[2] Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view. Both the definition of "physical" and the meaning of physicalism have been debated.

Please help unpack that distinction if you will. Now, based on your reply, the next things you will need to parse is your specific distinction that you offered between the Will and human Sentience. Should we pull up the definitions standards first? The reason I ask, if we are to do logic, we must first see if the premises are sound. And so, you will have to support your supposition(s) that the Will and Sentience are purely physical in nature.

In summary two issues you have to resolve (so far) viz your belief in Physicalism:

1. Consciousness: meta-physical phenomenon.
2. The Will and human Sentience (feeling).

Did I interpret your reply correctly?

Let me do some of the groundwork for you. Below, here are some 'definition standards' (which we'll arrange into a logico-deductive proposition) that seem to contradict your reply, as you used the words:

"Intentional":
noun
1an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result.

2the end or object intended; purpose.

3intentions, a purpose or attitude toward the effect of one's actions or conduct:
a bungler with good intentions.

b purpose or attitude with respect to marriage:
Our friends are beginning to ask what our intentions are.


4the act or fact of intending.

One Question for Terrapin Station: what is purpose/attitude, physical or metaphysical?



"Directness":


verb (used with object)

1to manage or guide by , advice, instructional helpful information, etc.:
He directed the company through a difficult time.

2to regulate the course of; control:
History is directed by a small number of great men and women.

11to act as a guide.

12to give commands or orders.


One Question for Terrapin Station: Is; advice, instructional helpful information, physical or metaphysical?


I don't want to overwhelm you (for now), but I'll pull-up the definition standards for your "Decisions" along with the basic understanding of human Will and Sentience at a later time.

[Terrapin Station]

Thanks. Okay, am I to interprete that as a kind of acquiescence to existing conscious metaphysical phenomena? The reason I use the word 'aquiescence' is because it doesn't seem to square with your belief system(s). Please correct me if I'm wrong. For instance, you had said previously that everything (all things that exist) are physical and that you are a 'physicalist':

In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,[1] or that everything supervenes on the physical.[2] Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view. Both the definition of "physical" and the meaning of physicalism have been debated.

Yes. Put simply, there are minds/there is mental phenomena. Minds/mental phenomena are brain states. Hence they're physical. They're also "metaphysical" if you like. The metaphysical category they belong to is "physical stuff."

1. Consciousness: meta-physical phenomenon.

Every single thing that exists is a metaphysical phenomenon, by virtue of existing. Metaphysics is philosophy of existence or philosophy of being.

"Physical" is a category of metaphysics.

2. The Will and human Sentience (feeling).

Did I interpret your reply correctly?

Are you saying that sentience and will phenomena are not conscious? If so, no, you didn't "interpret" my reply correctly. In fact, no interpretation is necessary for that. I said that will is a mental (hence a conscious) phenomenon. "Sentience" is also often used to connote consciousness in general.

One Question for Terrapin Station: what is purpose/attitude, physical or metaphysical?

How many friggin times am I going to have to repeat that physical and metaphysical ARE NOT DIFFERENT THINGS.

"Metaphysical" means "pertaining to the philosophy of existence."

If what exists is physical stuff, then philosophy about the existence of physical stuff IS METAPHYSICS. "Physical" is a category in metaphysics.

Purpose/attitude are physical. Physical things exist. Hence we're talking about metaphysics when we talk about physical stuff per se.

"Directness":

The word I used was "directEDness," not "directness."

One Question for Terrapin Station: Is; advice, instructional helpful information, physical or metaphysical?

Everything that exists is physical. Physical things ARE METAPHYSICAL. At least acknowledge that I'm telling you this. You can disagree with it, but then present your disagreement. Don't act like I haven't said it 50 times.

[Terrapin Station]

In short, "metaphysical" is NOT a synonym for "not physical."

Metaphysics is philosophy of existence or being.

If what exists is physical, then metaphysics is about physical stuff.

If what exists is nonphysical, then metaphysics is about nonphysical stuff.

If what exists is a combination of physical and nonphysical, then metaphysics is about a combination of physical and nonphysical stuff.

Does that make sense to you?

[3017Metaphysician]

Thanks. Okay, am I to interprete that as a kind of acquiescence to existing conscious metaphysical phenomena? The reason I use the word 'aquiescence' is because it doesn't seem to square with your belief system(s). Please correct me if I'm wrong. For instance, you had said previously that everything (all things that exist) are physical and that you are a 'physicalist':

In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,[1] or that everything supervenes on the physical.[2] Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view. Both the definition of "physical" and the meaning of physicalism have been debated.

Yes. Put simply, there are minds/there is mental phenomena. Minds/mental phenomena are brain states. Hence they're physical. They're also "metaphysical" if you like. The metaphysical category they belong to is "physical stuff."

1. Consciousness: meta-physical phenomenon.

Every single thing that exists is a metaphysical phenomenon, by virtue of existing. Metaphysics is philosophy of existence or philosophy of being.

"Physical" is a category of metaphysics.

2. The Will and human Sentience (feeling).

Did I interpret your reply correctly?

Are you saying that sentience and will phenomena are not conscious? If so, no, you didn't "interpret" my reply correctly. In fact, no interpretation is necessary for that. I said that will is a mental (hence a conscious) phenomenon. "Sentience" is also often used to connote consciousness in general.

One Question for Terrapin Station: what is purpose/attitude, physical or metaphysical?

How many friggin times am I going to have to repeat that physical and metaphysical ARE NOT DIFFERENT THINGS.

"Metaphysical" means "pertaining to the philosophy of existence."

If what exists is physical stuff, then philosophy about the existence of physical stuff IS METAPHYSICS. "Physical" is a category in metaphysics.

Purpose/attitude are physical. Physical things exist. Hence we're talking about metaphysics when we talk about physical stuff per se.

"Directness":

The word I used was "directEDness," not "directness."

One Question for Terrapin Station: Is; advice, instructional helpful information, physical or metaphysical?

Everything that exists is physical. Physical things ARE METAPHYSICAL. At least acknowledge that I'm telling you this. You can disagree with it, but then present your disagreement. Don't act like I haven't said it 50 times.

1. To your first point of 'acquiescence' are you saying then that consciousness is both physical and metaphysical? Just want to be clear there.

2. I did not say anything about being 'not conscious' (Although Freud theorized about the conscious, subconscious and unconscious mind-another discussion altogether). Are you saying then, that the human Will and human Sentience (feelings) are in-themselves, metaphysical or physical? (Sorry but it's not clear where you stand on that question-you seem to be equivocating a little bit.)

3. Okay, now you are saying that the physical and metaphysical" are not different things".Got it. Now, can you provide an example of how that works? For instance, in the context of any number of metaphysical things we've been parsing (the Will, sentience, intention, purpose, etc..), please share why, where, what, and how a human being can physically describe and explain their own natural "purpose" , just as one example.


I know you've been repeating yourself, but that's because you're not making it clear, using logic, how those metaphysical things from our conscious existence can be explained and described as such. Make sense?

[Terrapin Station]

1. To your first point of 'acquiescence' are you saying then that consciousness is both physical and metaphysical? Just want to be clear there.

Yes. Any and every physical thing that exists is metaphysical. Consciousness is a physical thing that exists. It's also metaphysical, since it exists.

Are you saying then, that the human Will and human Sentience (feelings) are in-themselves, metaphysical or physical? (Sorry but it's not clear where you stand on that question-you seem to be equivocating a little bit.)

"Metaphysical or physical" makes NO SENSE. "Metaphysical" is not a synonym for "not physical."

Everything physical is metaphysical. Consciousness is physical, and hence also metaphysical.

Now, can you provide an example of how that works? For instance, in the context of any number of metaphysical things we've been parsing (the Will, sentience, intention, purpose, etc..), please share why, where, what, and how a human being can physically describe and explain their own natural "purpose" , just as one example.

You describe and explain things by saying them or writing them, correct? Speech and writing are obviously physical, are they not?

I know you've been repeating yourself, but that's because you're not making it clear, using logic, how those metaphysical things from our conscious existence can be explained and described as such. Make sense?

An example of a "metaphysical thing from your conscious existence" is that you think, "I'd like to eat a slice of pizza." You describe that by opening your mouth and saying, "I'd like to eat a slice of pizza." And you'd explain it in the same way if for some reason someone doesn't understand it.

I'm not trying to be glib there. Either what is stumping you doesn't make much sense or you're not explaining it very well.

[3017Metaphysician]

1. To your first point of 'acquiescence' are you saying then that consciousness is both physical and metaphysical? Just want to be clear there.

Yes. Any and every physical thing that exists is metaphysical. Consciousness is a physical thing that exists. It's also metaphysical, since it exists.

Are you saying then, that the human Will and human Sentience (feelings) are in-themselves, metaphysical or physical? (Sorry but it's not clear where you stand on that question-you seem to be equivocating a little bit.)

"Metaphysical or physical" makes NO SENSE. "Metaphysical" is not a synonym for "not physical."

Everything physical is metaphysical. Consciousness is physical, and hence also metaphysical.

Now, can you provide an example of how that works? For instance, in the context of any number of metaphysical things we've been parsing (the Will, sentience, intention, purpose, etc..), please share why, where, what, and how a human being can physically describe and explain their own natural "purpose" , just as one example.

You describe and explain things by saying them or writing them, correct? Speech and writing are obviously physical, are they not?

I know you've been repeating yourself, but that's because you're not making it clear, using logic, how those metaphysical things from our conscious existence can be explained and described as such. Make sense?

An example of a "metaphysical thing from your conscious existence" is that you think, "I'd like to eat a slice of pizza." You describe that by opening your mouth and saying, "I'd like to eat a slice of pizza." And you'd explain it in the same way if for some reason someone doesn't understand it.

I'm not trying to be glib there. Either what is stumping you doesn't make much sense or you're not explaining it very well.

1. Okay. So you understand that metaphysical things exist, but you haven't explained the qualities of conscious existence, right?

2. Okay. You are unable to describe and explain human "purpose", right?

3. You seem to be equivocating again. You answered my question with a question (that's okay). Let's deconstruct your question(s) in response to my question:

a. "Speech":
NOUN
1.the expression of or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds.

"he was born deaf and without the power of speech"



b. "Writing":
NOUN

1.the activity or skill of marking coherent words on paper and composing text.

"parents want schools to concentrate on reading, writing, and arithmetic"



Questions for Terrapin Station:

4. Are you trying to say or argue that expressing one's thoughts and feelings ( your "Speech") answers the question I asked you thus: "why, where, what, and how a human being can physically describe and explain their own natural "purpose" ?

5. Are you trying to say or argue that communication in "writing" answers the question I asked you thus: "why, where, what, and how a human being can physically describe and explain their own natural "purpose" ?

To help, I think if you concentrate on the feeling of "purpose", that it would not be germane to your reply concerning "eating Pizza". Purpose relates to first principles of Being, not the instinct of a human feeling hungry. Make sense?