What's wrong with physicalism ? And a possible defence of it

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8534
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What's wrong with physicalism ? And a possible defence of it

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:20 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:57 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:19 pm
The problem that how the brain can be conscious when its parts are not.
There is no problem since we know that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts in countless examples you seem to dull to recognise.
The whole cannot be greater than the sum of its part when the property of the whole is a function of properties of parts.
... In many many examples far to onumerous to mention.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8534
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What's wrong with physicalism ? And a possible defence of it

Post by Sculptor »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:12 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:57 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:19 pm
The problem that how the brain can be conscious when its parts are not.
There is no problem since we know that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts in countless examples you seem to dull to recognise.
"We," do? I'm not certain what those who say that mean, but if it means something made up of components weighing 5 lbs, 3 lbs, and 2 lbs, can be a whole greater than 10 lbs,
DIn't be stupid. It does not suit you.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What's wrong with physicalism ? And a possible defence of it

Post by RCSaunders »

Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:29 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:40 pm
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 2:13 pm Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain.
How odd. What patterns, exactly, are conscious perceiving and thinking? Are they physical patterns, chemical patterns, electrical patterns, behavioral patterns, or some other kind of patterns? What does that even mean?
The higher-order ones. It's a metaphor. It doesn't get specific boundaries.
Well that explains exactly nothing. You mght at least name one of these, "higher-order," patterns.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: What's wrong with physicalism ? And a possible defence of it

Post by Advocate »

[quote=RCSaunders post_id=526832 time=1631565290 user_id=16196]
[quote=Advocate post_id=526823 time=1631554149 user_id=15238]
[quote=RCSaunders post_id=526811 time=1631544049 user_id=16196]

How odd. What patterns, exactly, are conscious perceiving and thinking? Are they physical patterns, chemical patterns, electrical patterns, behavioral patterns, or some other kind of patterns? What does that even mean?
[/quote]

The higher-order ones. It's a metaphor. It doesn't get specific boundaries.
[/quote]
Well that explains exactly nothing. You mght at least name one of these, "higher-order," patterns.
[/quote]

It explains exactly everything. Looking for more precision than the universe allows is the futile path.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What's wrong with physicalism ? And a possible defence of it

Post by popeye1945 »

Apiatan16 wrote: Sun Aug 22, 2021 3:06 pm I think metaphysical physicalism is a coherent and solid position. I get my understanding of physicalism from what i can read on Quine on internet,i don't think he was himself interested by metaphysics. I just want to defend physicalism as a valid metaphysical position, and if i can't, so be it.
Apiatan.

In fact, there are no physical things there are only relative things to biological consciousness, take away consciousness and there is nothing. In fact physics, today tells us that in the realm of ultimate reality there are no things. You live in a condition, the affect of that condition upon your biology creates things, for you, relative to you, but the condition is the soup of no things you live in.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What's wrong with physicalism ? And a possible defence of it

Post by Iwannaplato »

Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:13 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 4:11 pm What is wrong with physicalism? There are anomalies like consciousness in this system of belief.
Nonsense. That we don't have an exhaustive taxonomy of causality yet is no evidence that the as-of-yet-unexplained is an anomaly to physicalism. There's also no direct link to love or my favorite color; that doesn't mean they aren't primarily physical phenomenon.
Well, if you are going to include primarily, if that word is necessary, then there is a problem. Because it would mean there is something else, also, and then we have a dualism.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What's wrong with physicalism ? And a possible defence of it

Post by Iwannaplato »

Apiatan16 wrote: Sun Aug 22, 2021 3:06 pm I think metaphysical physicalism is a coherent and solid position. I get my understanding of physicalism from what i can read on Quine on internet,i don't think he was himself interested by metaphysics. I just want to defend physicalism as a valid metaphysical position, and if i can't, so be it.
I think a problem with physicalism is that what gets categorized as physical has changed over time. It now includes things that if you described their qualities to philosophers, for example, they would likely not be considered physical: fields, particles in superposition, massless particles, as some examples. If anything that is found and verfied via science will be classed as physical, then physicalism cannot, within science anyway, be falsified.
The word physicalism is a metaphysical one. It's like the presocratics saying everything is water or fire, but here is it, everything is physical. And that word seems to imply a specfiic substance or category of substances, but in fact it means 'stuff that has been verified' usually by science. I think the physicalists should shift their term to one based on epistemology rather then what seems to be a metaphysical claim.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: What's wrong with physicalism ? And a possible defence of it

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=568833 time=1650445917 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=526630 time=1631380434 user_id=15238]
[quote=bahman post_id=526618 time=1631373091 user_id=12593]
What is wrong with physicalism? There are anomalies like consciousness in this system of belief.
[/quote]

Nonsense. That we don't have an exhaustive taxonomy of causality yet is no evidence that the as-of-yet-unexplained is an anomaly to physicalism. There's also no direct link to love or my favorite color; that doesn't mean they aren't primarily physical phenomenon.
[/quote]Well, if you are going to include primarily, if that word is necessary, then there is a problem. Because it would mean there is something else, also, and then we have a dualism.
[/quote]

Yes, dualism/compatibalism because our minds are a metaphorical later built atop the physical one.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What's wrong with physicalism ? And a possible defence of it

Post by RCSaunders »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 7:47 pm For it to be an anomaly you would have to show that consciousness can be derived without physicalism.
How do you know there is anything physical? Do you have to show it is derived from something else?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What's wrong with physicalism ? And a possible defence of it

Post by RCSaunders »

popeye1945 wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 1:55 am
Apiatan16 wrote: Sun Aug 22, 2021 3:06 pm In fact physics, today tells us that in the realm of ultimate reality there are no things. You live in a condition, the affect of that condition upon your biology creates things, for you, relative to you, but the condition is the soup of no things you live in.
So somehow this mystical, "condition," conditions one's biology, which does not exist, because there are no things ....so ... err.

There is something wrong with that.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8534
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What's wrong with physicalism ? And a possible defence of it

Post by Sculptor »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:44 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 7:47 pm For it to be an anomaly you would have to show that consciousness can be derived without physicalism.
How do you know there is anything physical? Do you have to show it is derived from something else?
Come over here and stop this rock I am throwing at your head
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What's wrong with physicalism ? And a possible defence of it

Post by RCSaunders »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:44 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:44 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 7:47 pm For it to be an anomaly you would have to show that consciousness can be derived without physicalism.
How do you know there is anything physical? Do you have to show it is derived from something else?
Come over here and stop this rock I am throwing at your head
What difference would it make, if I can't see the rock, feel the rock, or feel pain?

The rock exists whether I see or feel it or not, but I could not know it if I could not see it, or feel it, or perceive it in some way, but only I can feel the pain from its hitting my head. You cannot see, or feel, or perceive my pain, because it's not physical, but I assure you, if I throw a rock at your head, you'll agree your pain, which no else can possibly know because it has ho physical characteristics to perceive, is just as real as the rock.

If one is not required to explain how the physical is derived from something else, because it is obviously real, why would consciousness have to be explained as derived from something else?

====================================================

Please don't take the question too seriously. It's your fault you are one of the few people on this site worth having a philosophical conversation with.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8534
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What's wrong with physicalism ? And a possible defence of it

Post by Sculptor »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:40 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:44 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:44 pm
How do you know there is anything physical? Do you have to show it is derived from something else?
Come over here and stop this rock I am throwing at your head
What difference would it make, if I can't see the rock, feel the rock, or feel pain?
That would mean you are already dead.

The rock exists whether I see or feel it or not, but I could not know it if I could not see it, or feel it, or perceive it in some way, but only I can feel the pain from its hitting my head. You cannot see, or feel, or perceive my pain, because it's not physical, but I assure you, if I throw a rock at your head, you'll agree your pain, which no else can possibly know because it has ho physical characteristics to perceive, is just as real as the rock.

If one is not required to explain how the physical is derived from something else, because it is obviously real, why would consciousness have to be explained as derived from something else?

====================================================

Please don't take the question too seriously. It's your fault you are one of the few people on this site worth having a philosophical conversation with.
You can take the realist view. If I can kick it it it real
Of the idealist view that we can only know the rack as a set of internal sensations, and its "reality" is limited the the degree to which a thing may be perceived.
In practice, though we are fully obliged to accept the unavoidable reality of the Idealist position - the idea that we are all just "brains in vats" is so incredible that it simply saves time to accept our sensational experience as real, in a realist sense. Because for most things day to day, that is what works.
For my money that is where I sit on the issue, but tend to access the idealist perspective to challenge my everyday assumptions and ask what might really be going on. Scepticism is important. So rather than just swallow the shit news from Ukraine, or where ever - I fully understand through idealist scepticism that all the artificial information has passed through other filters and selections.

If there is something wrong with physicalism it is simply people's lack of judgement, not the fact that the world we know is based on a substrate of energetic matter; from rocks to thoughts
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What's wrong with physicalism ? And a possible defence of it

Post by RCSaunders »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 7:12 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:40 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:44 am

Come over here and stop this rock I am throwing at your head
What difference would it make, if I can't see the rock, feel the rock, or feel pain?
That would mean you are already dead.
Yes. Yes, I guess it would.

(You have no idea how that tickled me.)
Sculptor wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:44 am
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:40 pm The rock exists whether I see or feel it or not, but I could not know it if I could not see it, or feel it, or perceive it in some way, but only I can feel the pain from its hitting my head. You cannot see, or feel, or perceive my pain, because it's not physical, but I assure you, if I throw a rock at your head, you'll agree your pain, which no else can possibly know because it has ho physical characteristics to perceive, is just as real as the rock.

If one is not required to explain how the physical is derived from something else, because it is obviously real, why would consciousness have to be explained as derived from something else?

====================================================

Please don't take the question too seriously. It's your fault you are one of the few people on this site worth having a philosophical conversation with.
You can take the realist view. If I can kick it it is real
Of the idealist view that we can only know the rack as a set of internal sensations, and its "reality" is limited the the degree to which a thing may be perceived.
In practice, though we are fully obliged to accept the unavoidable reality of the Idealist position - the idea that we are all just "brains in vats" is so incredible that it simply saves time to accept our sensational experience as real, in a realist sense. Because for most things day to day, that is what works.
For my money that is where I sit on the issue, but tend to access the idealist perspective to challenge my everyday assumptions and ask what might really be going on. Scepticism is important. So rather than just swallow the shit news from Ukraine, or where ever - I fully understand through idealist scepticism that all the artificial information has passed through other filters and selections.

If there is something wrong with physicalism it is simply people's lack of judgement, not the fact that the world we know is based on a substrate of energetic matter; from rocks to thoughts.
Our views along that line are not different enough for me to make a point of them.

I'll only say this about your comment, "Skepticism is important. So rather than just swallow the shit news from Ukraine, or where ever - I fully understand through idealist skepticism that all the artificial information has passed through other filters and selections," which is:

I agree about skepticism of all things for which there is nothing but the word of some others to go on, any so-called authority, expert, scientist, analyst, doctor of ..." sacred scriptures, the, "famous," or, "important," or academic publications, etc. especially all so-called, "news resources."

But most of everything I know I had to learn, directly or more often, indirectly (books and other resources) from others. No one is able to discover everything for themselves in their short lifetime. But if I have to learn from others, how do I distinguish between actually learning form others and just gullible acceptance (ie faith and credulity such as religion and all superstitions)?

I have a very rigorous answer to that question for myself. Since you are a fellow skeptic, I'm curious about how you resolve that question.

[NOTE: I changed the spelling of sceptic to skeptic, not to correct you, but because this site's speller marks it as incorrect. Sceptic is a perfectly acceptable variant.]
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8534
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What's wrong with physicalism ? And a possible defence of it

Post by Sculptor »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 8:46 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 7:12 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:40 pm
What difference would it make, if I can't see the rock, feel the rock, or feel pain?
That would mean you are already dead.
Yes. Yes, I guess it would.

(You have no idea how that tickled me.)
:D :lol: :D :lol: 8)
Sculptor wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:44 am
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:40 pm The rock exists whether I see or feel it or not, but I could not know it if I could not see it, or feel it, or perceive it in some way, but only I can feel the pain from its hitting my head. You cannot see, or feel, or perceive my pain, because it's not physical, but I assure you, if I throw a rock at your head, you'll agree your pain, which no else can possibly know because it has ho physical characteristics to perceive, is just as real as the rock.

If one is not required to explain how the physical is derived from something else, because it is obviously real, why would consciousness have to be explained as derived from something else?

====================================================

Please don't take the question too seriously. It's your fault you are one of the few people on this site worth having a philosophical conversation with.
You can take the realist view. If I can kick it it is real
Of the idealist view that we can only know the rack as a set of internal sensations, and its "reality" is limited the the degree to which a thing may be perceived.
In practice, though we are fully obliged to accept the unavoidable reality of the Idealist position - the idea that we are all just "brains in vats" is so incredible that it simply saves time to accept our sensational experience as real, in a realist sense. Because for most things day to day, that is what works.
For my money that is where I sit on the issue, but tend to access the idealist perspective to challenge my everyday assumptions and ask what might really be going on. Scepticism is important. So rather than just swallow the shit news from Ukraine, or where ever - I fully understand through idealist scepticism that all the artificial information has passed through other filters and selections.

If there is something wrong with physicalism it is simply people's lack of judgement, not the fact that the world we know is based on a substrate of energetic matter; from rocks to thoughts.
Our views along that line are not different enough for me to make a point of them.

I'll only say this about your comment, "Skepticism is important. So rather than just swallow the shit news from Ukraine, or where ever - I fully understand through idealist skepticism that all the artificial information has passed through other filters and selections," which is:

I agree about skepticism of all things for which there is nothing but the word of some others to go on, any so-called authority, expert, scientist, analyst, doctor of ..." sacred scriptures, the, "famous," or, "important," or academic publications, etc. especially all so-called, "news resources."

But most of everything I know I had to learn, directly or more often, indirectly (books and other resources) from others. No one is able to discover everything for themselves in their short lifetime. But if I have to learn from others, how do I distinguish between actually learning form others and just gullible acceptance (ie faith and credulity such as religion and all superstitions)?

I have a very rigorous answer to that question for myself. Since you are a fellow skeptic, I'm curious about how you resolve that question.

[NOTE: I changed the spelling of sceptic to skeptic, not to correct you, but because this site's speller marks it as incorrect. Sceptic is a perfectly acceptable variant.]
I think the spelling checker is not site specific, but specific to your browser. It seems I have managed to switch mine over to English/ Australian, whilst yours is North American.
My method to detect falsity tends to fall into two categories.
1) Is the idea susceptible to a "Copernican Turn", and
2) Is it even possible to be able to say a thing within the bounds of empirical knowledge.

So Copernicus, observing the sun going round the earth everyday, followed Aristarchus in asking, what would it look like if the sun were immobile and it was, instead that the earth itself that was moving. What would that mean? This massive insight was to eventually lead to a complete transformation of the understanding of the universe. Suddenly the stars had to be at unimaginable distances, rather than a sphere of pinpricks a few thousand miles away. In an almost literal sense he made the universe immense and humans very small.
IN many cases applying the turn can provide insights, and different ways of looking which can unpack the most fundamental assumptions.
For some reason humans seem obsessed with seeing purpose in the universe and this leads to interpreting evolved traits backwards. Even in practitioners who fully accept Darwin. Interpretations of evolved traits by naturalists persist in the myths of the creationists. This is a big topic. But we can talk more about it. Suffice it to say that the sort of language used tends to encourage a persistent notion of teleology, giving succour to creationists who can use the words against the Darwinists. You need to keep thinking about Darwin's "turn", which like Copernicus' turn looked backwardly at change.
So the second point is about the validity of the interpretation.
My current interest is concerning the Keto Diet and the role of fasting. I've been massively successful this year in losing over 30lbs in weight by reducing my eating to one meal a day (OMAD), at the same time reducing carbs and processed food. Clearly this success has helped me to validate the claims made about the benefits of fasting, but there are still areas where I maintain a healthy scepticism.
The proponents of fasting claim that in times where calorie intake is low the body goes into a "repair" state and restricts "growth". There are good hormonal indicators of this. But there is one aspect where their claims seem to me to be overwrought. That is the concept of AUTOPHAGY. This, "self eating" is said to be the tendency of the body systems to clean up old cells, and recycle the contents. My feeling is that they make too many certain claims for this, and I feel that is one area where I have to maintain a scepticism because it is NOT possible to be able to observe this in living tissue.
So when I talk about autophagy to people I always add a codicil that the claims might be greater than the evidence.

So that is a question I like to ask. How do you know? Or how could you ever know?
Post Reply