Timeline for How might a physicist define 'mind' using concepts of physics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 10 at 17:09 | comment | added | JimmyJames | @d_b That's incorrect. Back in the 1800s or earlier that would be the general understanding, but we know now that chemistry is a specialization of physics as is any other physical science. That doesn't mean chemistry isn't its own field of study or that physicists are somehow superior to chemists, but to think that chemistry isn't bound by the laws of physics is just wrong. | |
| Jun 10 at 16:58 | comment | added | JimmyJames | A physicist is someone who engages in the development of physics, usually as a profession: dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/physicist | |
| Jun 10 at 16:52 | comment | added | Jo Wehler | @JimmyJames Please feel free to show me your updated version what a physicist is. | |
| Jun 10 at 16:37 | comment | added | d_b | @leepappas I think someone needs to correct your physics professor. Chemistry isn't any more a subset of physics than ice hockey is. Ask your physics professor if he can solve all of the problems in an organic chemistry textbook just by applying quantum mechanics. If not, I don't think he has any right to claim that chemistry is a subset of physics. The same goes for cognitive science. | |
| Jun 10 at 15:51 | comment | added | JimmyJames | #1 Seems like a very outdated idea about how physics relates to other sciences. Like a century or more. | |
| Jun 8 at 21:13 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @leepappas If you think a scientific definition of "mind" is within reach, and its considered by most to be a very difficult definition, potentially unattainable, what does that say about your mind? (self reference is one of those things that makes discussion of these terms really tricky) | |
| Jun 8 at 15:59 | comment | added | Rushi | @TKoL I was addressing the first comment above of the OP: I'm a materialist. I didnt say I am a physicist. And a comment is not an answer | |
| Jun 8 at 15:50 | comment | added | TKoL | @Rushi if you aren't a physicalist, you shouldn't speak for them. Most physicalists do not consider mind an epiphenomenon. Whether they're justified in that or not is certainly up for debate, but you aren't the person to tell them what they believe. | |
| Jun 8 at 5:00 | comment | added | Rushi | Missed your call out in comment above @leepappas | |
| Jun 8 at 1:58 | comment | added | Rushi | 1. I am a materialist 2. There is mind. What is it? are contradictory. A proper materialist only believes in brains and electric signals. Or some such. Mind is just an "epiphenomenon" of no relevance. | |
| Jun 7 at 23:24 | comment | added | lee pappas | @jowheler, I had a professor who corrected a chemistry major in the middle of a lecture, by explaining to him chemistry was a subset of physics. I'm a materialist, so I think physics can explain anything that exists. Here I just want a scientific definition of 'mind' , and I think it's within reach. | |
| Jun 7 at 22:42 | history | answered | Jo Wehler | CC BY-SA 4.0 |