All relations are metaphysical, because a relation is not a material substance

>are carbohydrates energy
No, they're a molecule that carries energy with the bonds between atoms.

>are they energy once converted by our body?
No, when they are metabolized they are converted to other molecules with less energy than the parent molecule did, and the difference is stored in the bonds of yet other molecules.

I think the contemporary understanding is that matter is a function of energy, but that there are some types of energy that are not material. I MAY BE MISTAKEN THOUGH. Any actual physicians are welcome to bitchslap me.

>Getting Trolled by Constantine
>Shiggy

Define "troll"

Define "Shiggy"

Define "Green text"

If it can't be approached empirically, it doesn't exist.

Nah. Too simple. The very concept of existence for example is a metaphysical concept. Yet existence sure as fuck can't be defined by science. So existence doesn't exist? Meaning what, that no object has the property of existence? That I don't exi

Actually, relations are physically recorded as biochemistry in the brain so they do exist physically.

Since human thought isn't magic, its all created through synapses and various other things that obey the laws of physics.

So it exists.

Physically.

Existence doesn't need to be defined. It can be empirically observed. It's only magic-thinking idiots that feel the need to define it.

>Actually, relations are physically recorded as biochemistry in the brain so they do exist physically.
>Since human thought isn't magic, its all created through synapses and various other things that obey the laws of physics.
>So it exists.
>Physically.

Nice try, but human thought is not supposedly relational then, or your reasoning would be false. Amirite? Then what is registered by the brain are not the relations themselves but the (Supposedly) propositional conception of these relations. Therefore conceptions of relations are physically registered in the brain, but relations themselves are not.

So they don't exist.

Physically.

Sure, and it's only magically idiotic people that think existence itself can be observed. So I guess we at least are on the same dancefloor. Wanna make out?

The concept of relations is human thinking about how things are related.

Human thinking is atoms arranging themselves into certain patters that cause this human thinking.

Without human thinking relationships would not exist.

Except for animals who are aware that different objects in the universe share characteristics or have cause and effect. Who also have minds made up of matter.

Yes.

Besides for fucks sake existence ain't even THAT hard to define. I mean most people are ok with "X exists if and only if X has a causal influence".

Now the concept of causality gets a bit more brutal to define. But it has been done. I won't pretend to know all the quirks though.

Let us put it this way. Let's say the universe became hostile to all life everywhere all at once and all life died.

If there were no beings to come up with relationships between things in the universe, then there wouldn't be anything in the universe to come up with relationships.

Rocks and space dust don't create relationships.

Yes, except for animals, AI's, and counterfactually existing intelligences. And a lot of stuff actually.

You don't get to be a physicalist, basing intellectual concept on matter, AND doubt the exterior world. That kind of position doesn't hold for long.

Which is mentioned animals at the end of my post if you felt to read that far.

Either way, all intelligence requires matter to function and must obey the laws of physics so it all exists.

All the way down.

Same answer as above. Either you think the exterior world obeys rules independently of our little existence (Whether these rules be comprehensible or not I should add), or you say that these rules depend on our existence.

If you choose option you cannot make a thought experiment "conceiving" the world without life, since life is the necessary condition for any conception.

Something is said to "exist" if it produces some/any effect that, if it did not exist "exist" could not be otherwise observed.

So, for example, you cannot see, hear, smell, touch or taste dark matter, but (at least provisionally) it can be said to "exist" because we can observe that it exerts gravitational force. Now, in the future we may suddenly realize that the whole dark matter thing was nonsense like the aether turned out to be, and dark matter never existed/was illusionary etc. but provisionally it can be said to exist."

Most would raise the objection that "therefore God exists, because even though you can't see, hear, touch etc., the universe could not otherwise be observed, thus God must be at least as existing as dark matter." Which is a nice try, but dark matter is a much better explanation for the gravitational anomalies we are observing and at the very least can theoretically be falsified.

The first sentence was just me developing your remark. With Ai's. And other stuff. Which you didn't mention.

But I must say, again, either the universe exists with rules that are independent from our existence, or the universe doesn't exist without us conceiving it. You don't get your cake and eat it too.

This is philosophy, damnit, not wankery 101. YOUR MEEK IDEAS HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXIST.

I believe relationships are a mental construct. Sure things like quality and cause and effect exist in the universe, but without intelligence which requires matter to function, the concept of relations would not exist.

As far as a thought experiment, its not. The universe at one time had no intelligence to create relationships and only recently (as far as we know) that intelligence got to a point where it could construct relationships between objects to better manipulate those objects etc.

A lifeless universe has no relationships. Qualia too.

All mental constructs require matter to function because mental constructs require intelligence and intelligence requires matter to function.

Its not magic that makes these things.

Most philosophy is wankery because they had no understanding of biology.

The universe can exist without observation, but relationships are a mental construct created by language.

I would go as far as to say if we didn't not have the language to express relationships they wouldn't exist either.

Matter would still exist, but relationships of what that matter does and how it acts is separate from what humans think about it.

At last something that kinda works!. But you still have to explain to me HOW causality works if there are no relationships between objects independently of our conceiving them. I don't think you'll be able to do that. After all how could you conceive universe in which objects interact without entering in a kind of relation?

Now as far as the existence of the "concept" of relations. Sure. But I never was talking about the concept, that's a linguistics thing. The only thing is to distinguish always between the mental construct and its reference.

And no, It is not magic.

Most biology is wankery because they had no understanding of philosophy.

(Seriously, do you even the concept of species brah?)

That's easy. Causality works because matter reacts with other matter and energy in the universe.

That does not require an observer (except that there is spooky behavior in quantum physics).

Those interactions is basically observed by intelligence which constructs relationships to better understand or how to predict how things matter and energy will turn out.

The relationships themselves are a mental construct of those predictions or observations should turn out by the belief of whatever intelligence observing them.

Matter and energy would still behave however they behave without an observer because they obey physics.

To be fair, physics and the laws of physics are mental constructs on how humans predict how energy and matter react and what they are predicted to do.

In that sense, what humans call the laws of physics are just a mental construct as independent of what matter and energy really does.

Its just a tool to help us understand why things happen.

Which exist in the human mind which exist physically.

>Now as far as the existence of the "concept" of relations
The problem is that "relations" is just a concept humans invented for the purposes of organizing thought. We group many different types of interactions (many which do exist physically independent of humans) with artificial groups (often created exclusively for convenience and reflective not of independent reality but of subjective human experience.) Grouping all of them under the vague term "relation" and attempting to say anything useful about them at once will obviously present problems, as we are trying to use messy human categories to say anything true about reality.

Your definition is super circular, but that's because of the way you phrased it, not because of it's spirit. What I think you wanted to say was: "Something is said to "exist" if the currently accepted scientific theory has to suppose its causal influence in order for it to be coherent"

That's an instrumentalist position. I tend to gravitate towards that myself. Risky but doable. You already answered the main objection too. The only problem is that it is a contextual definition, which means existence is defined for a specific culture at a certain time, and as such you end up saying stuff like "X exists for Y but X doesn't exist for Z". Not the most dramatic thing but hey.

As stated before, they exist in the same way Winnie the Pooh exists.

...

>That's easy. Causality works because matter reacts with other matter and energy in the universe.

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh. And HOW exactly do they "react" without conceiving them to be in a relation to one another? Doesn't convince me. We do define the laws of physics in terms of relations nowadays. Afaik.

And how does he exist?

If its reductionist, its idiotic.

But biochemicals have no meaning on their own.
Your neurons are not relations themselves, but they house relations as a substrate of a sign.
All reality is inherently symbolic.

Matter doesn't need to create the concept of relationships in order to react with other matter and energy.

It behaves that way because certain atomical structures interact with other particular atomical strutures and involve energy in the process.

When intelligence sees it, it makes itself understand what happens by creating the concept of a relationships.

I realize this might be difficult to conceive because humans have a hard time disassociating their thought process with the universe because that is how we deal with what we observe.

So the best I can suggest is to stop anthropomorphizing non-intelligence and make the assumption that what we perceive and observe is not required for matter and energy to interact with each other.

His statement applies to literally every possible definition of "relation" so he doesn't even need to bother defining it.

A NEW CHALLENGER APPEARS.

> All reality is inherently symbolic.

Big words. Did too much formal logic to still believe that.

Don't patronize me. I am a philosophy student specialized in contemporary epistemology. Trust me, I have seen some shit. And it is not a distinction between the scientific worldview and the naïve worldview that is about to throw me off.

What I don't like about your position is that you confuse metaphysical arguments about the nature of the universe for linguistic arguments. I am not talking about how one "defines" or even "understands" relations. I am talking about the very possibility of understanding the laws of physics as non-relational. I.E, provided the laws of physics are about objects that have an existence (Which IS your position) how can one understand them in a non-relational way. Here is a cookie: You can say to solve the issue that the laws of physics don't actually deal with objects but with ONE object. As such it may only have monal properties.

Now if you decide to defend the idea according to which the laws of physics are radically not understandable for our cognition, meaning there is NO POSSIBLE LINK between our worldview and the way the world works, fine, but then you shoot down your own argument by admitting you are talking out of your ass.

Also anthropomorphizing stuff is what we do! Heck yeah.

> metaphysical
> means not material
I guess being a retard is some sort of metaphysical position too.

Well, It's been a pleasure but I really need to finish my paper. Didn't expect I'd get a metaphysical discussion out of a massive troll but hey! Surprises!

Means "beyond matter" you asswipe, and it is NOT used as an adjective. Kids these days.

When you say "Metaphysical property" you say "Property that is being studied by the field interested in what is beyond matter". Not directly "Non material" and CERTAINLY not "Non existing"

>Doesn't seem to know what metaphysical means
Beat it, Kant.

> "beyond matter"
It is beyond physics and there are non material things in physics i.e. time, energy, forces, laws.

>material is not metaphysical
>substance is not metaphysical

What the fuck are you talking about.

True, true, I fucked up. It is indeed strictly "Beyond what was understood by Aristotle as belonging to the realm of physics."

And since I admitedly don't precisely know my Aristotelician physics I'll admit I was, in fact, an asswipe as well.

When I say "substance", of course I meant it is the modernist, Hobbesian conception.

By "material" I mean it in the modernist sense, as in "materialist".

>If it can't be approached empirically, it doesn't exist.

Right so, politics, philosophy, the scientific method, economics, love, hatred doesn't exist then, gotcha.

>Positivists

He didn't say scientifically, he said empirically. All of those are approachable empirically.

All essences in language are objects in our ontology and thus metaphysical. You seriously don't know what you're talking about.

And there is no reason why the metaphysical can't be detected empirically, unless you use Kant's definition.

Ontos and substance are synonymous in Hobbesian epistemology, even though the latter is a nerely translation of the former in Christian theology.

>All of those are approachable empirically.

Really? How so?

Explain to all of us how you empirically prove the scientific method.

*aren't synonymous

Where was the word "prove" used?

Given that you're arguing semantics, instead of answering my question, I'm going to assume you don't have an answer.

Huhu, now that is straight up bullying!

And Constantine: You'll have a hard time convincing him that your ontology is not metaphysical.

Constantine, you like Hegel? I'm a little surprised.

If by "like", you mean "agree with", I don't like him at all. If by 'like' you mean 'respect", then I like him very much.

He cannot expect you to "prove" but, if it is "approachable" as you said you do have to be able to at least give him something to work with. Can you confirm a scientific theory? Or love? This may be an option. Can you define love in terms of empirically observable criteria? Also a maybe, even though it becomes shit hard for the scientific theory.

Another option is just to take a dump on the whole thing by just saying "Nah, these don't actually exist" and walk away like a boss.

The answer is that the scientific method was itself gradually developed empirically, through observation and testing. No, it does not prove that the scientific method is true, but that was never the claim. And people do approach the scientific method even today, by using it and testing to see what happens.

>radically not understandable for our cognition

I'm not sure where you came to that conclusion from my arguments.

I'm not arguing that what energy and matter does is not able to be codified in mental constructs or that we cannot conceive of them.

Quite the opposite. I was arguing that relationships exist as a mental concept and that matter and energy do the things they do to each other simply because its how the atoms interlock with each other to form molecules and release or consume energy.

Matter does not preconceive how it will react in a relationship. It simply reacts when conditions meet certain criteria.

We see these relationships as an observer that is a mental construct.

metaphysics is also approached empirically, i just can't pinpoint which particular sense organ cognizes metephysical truths. unless maybe you consider thought a sense organ

>rationalism a kind of empiricism

it's no more radical an idea than gregory palamas' idea of the direct vision of god

that's basically plato, and many other ancient thinkers. rationa thought cognizes truths

That's not really the framework being used here for empiricism, which comes from the Enlightenment. Yes, Orthodox theology affirms experience God directly through spiritual sense, but that epistemology is an anathema to Western philosophy since the seeds Scholasticism (which mean must remember, ultimately came from Muslim thinkers pushing for a deist version of Islam) sprouted..

>no definitions
Do you even philosophy?

I didn't know scholastics were opposed to it. I guess that makes sense. I wasn't using empirical in that kind of technical sense, but in the literal sense of "relating to direct experience".

Can you elaborate on how scholastics treat this particular question? Are you saying Aquinas doesn't believe in this "direct vision"?

I said that he didn't need to because it applied to just about every definition of relation you could think of. I can't think of any senses that that word is generally used that it wouldn't apply. Can you?

All demarcations and interactions

No, he surely didn't. He only considered God approachable through faith and reason.

And relevancy, I might add.

So what was the point of life as far as he is concerned if it's not deification? Do good stuff and get your reward?

Latin theology is very juridical. Penance and punishment are seen as synonymous, hence why Purgatory was so logical for them.

However, strictly speaking, he considers *contemplating* God to be the point of life, in like with Augustine who got it from Plato.

What are you speaking about when you speak of "energy"? Energy must have some ontology. The very question is metaphysical

Augustine was also influenced by Plotinus, so wouldn't he have believed in some kind of "union"?

In a sense, I mean, that is after all what Communion is all about. He also believing in emulating God. But as far as something so drastic as deification goes, he didn't think like that.

Depends on the exact context. Thermal energy is not identical to gravitational potential energy. None of them are themselves substances though.

The internal energy of a system may very well be a substance.

Yes, but ontology is a mental construct. Energy doesn't care how you classify it. It does its thing regardless.

Could you elaborate?

Ontology is the exact opposite of a mental construct. The ontology of something is its being. Its ontology is how it is.

You said thermal energy isn't a substance. Thermal energy is the internal energy of a system as a result of its temperature. The internal energy of a system is intrinsic to that system and is contained within it. I'm not saying that it is a substance, but I would say it's not at all apparent that it isn't. Our working definition of this type of energy makes it quite clear that it is an intrinsic property. It is something in need of an ontology.

Motion is not a substance.

The ontology we label things is a mental construct. Atoms are how they are regardless of how it is.

Even if we agree that ontology is not a mental construct, then its still material and therefore provable or falsifiable or however you want to say it.

Thermal energy is not motion

Unless I'm misremembering, thermal energy is stored in the vibration (motion) of the bonds within a molecule, and with gases it is also the non-macroscopic kinetic energy of the particles.

>Atoms are how they are regardless of how it is.

And its ontology would reflect this

>Even if we agree that ontology is not a mental construct, then its still material and therefore provable or falsifiable or however you want to say it.

That does not follow. Something's ontology may simply be that it is not something that has any being. or exists. If it does exist, it does not necessarily have to be material either.

Stored is the key word. It is not the motion itself, but produced by the motion.

>Stored is the key word. It is not the motion itself, but produced by the motion.
So what is producing the motion?

Depends. Particles in the environment often bump into each other, forces act upon them and so on. This motion is what constitutes its kinetic energy, internal energy, etc. What the energy is remains a question

Ontology is present in the nature of the thing. The thing labels itself by right of its properties. Things you draw from. Not things you use to draw on top of.