• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Physicalism

Underseer

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 29, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
As some of you may remember from a particular thread at the philosophy forum at the old site, there's a new fad of trying to attack physicalism as a way of claiming that all of science is false.

The following is the first of a 3 part video series on physicalism, since you're likely to encounter some of these arguments:



PS -- My apologies if I put this in the wrong forum. I suppose it could have gone under epistemology, but I wasn't sure and I didn't see any other forums that fit, so I threw it in here.
 
There is a basic falsehood to theargument, Physicalism does not equate to physics. I have wored withCreationists who were quite good at science, outside of Creationisttheories.


Science is a process involving theoperation of the human brain. Science can make no claims of absoluteknowledge, all is subject to refutation and change at any time. thelast 200 years attributes to that fact.


You really can't 'refute science' inany general sense.


Science: Observe, model, test model...


Physicalism or any other -ism used todescribe reality is neither true nor false, it is a way of looking atthings.


The cornerstone of modern science asopposed to metaphysics and religion is causality.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism


'...In philosophy, physicalism is theontological thesis that "everything is physical", or thatthere is "nothing over and above"[1] the physical.Physicalism, therefore, is a form of ontological monism—a "onestuff" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-stuff"(dualism) or "many-stuff" (pluralism) view. Two questionsimmediately arise. First, what is meant by "the physical"?Second, what is it for non-physical properties to be "nothingover and above" the physical?...


Physicalism is closely related tomaterialism
The physicalist slogan is: "Thereis nothing over and above the physical." The previous sectionaddresses the issue of how "the physical" is to beunderstood. This section is concerned with how physicalists unpacktheir claim that there is "nothing over and above" thephysical...




Galen Strawson's realistic physicalism(or "realistic monism") entails panpsychism – or at leastmicropsychism.[39][40][41] Strawson argues that "many—perhapsmost—of those who call themselves physicalists or materialists [aremistakenly] committed to the thesis that physical stuff is, initself, in its fundamental nature, something wholly and utterlynon-experiential... even when they are prepared to admit withEddington that physical stuff has, in itself, ‘a nature capable ofmanifesting itself as mental activity’...'


Same old hodge-podge of traditionalphilosophy and veiled supernatural-mysticism.


The problem is the word physical andthe physical-non-physical dichotomy has no specific scientificmeaning. Useless unless you are trying to make the case for thesupernatural, mind independent of body, and t\so on.

it is a secular philosophy no more a refutation of science than Creationism refutes an old Erath millions of years old.
 
I think a big problem is the definition of "exists" is hard to pin down when you're talking about the "non-physical," whatever that is.

If we're talking about something physical like a rock, it's easy for us to agree what it means for that to exist.
 
Wiploc said:
But you don't know that for sure?
Click to expand...
Clever retort.


We have no possible absolute referenceframe or point which we can take as an absolute reference.

Assuch we describe reality quantitatively via the Systems Internationaldefinitions, which are arbitrary and human conceived. Meters,kilograms, seconds.


At best we can empirically validate ourmodels as best we can, beyond that it gets progressively subjectiveinterpretation and speculation.


If yiu think absolutes are possible,then you have to describe how that would be achieved experimentally.


On the old forum some on the philosophyside claim metaphysical assertions in the forme of -isms representan absolute description of reality. Creationism as well beingmetaphysics.
 
Steve, you're making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

First of all, "absolute truth" is an oxymoron. In philosophy, an "absolute" is something that is what it is regardless of whether or not a sentient mind is around to consider it. So a rock is an absolute, but the idea of a rock is not an absolute.

"Truth" on the other hand is a label we attach to ideas. By its very definition, it is dependent upon the existence of a sentient mind to consider it (unless you're a Platonist, but can we ignore those idiots for a moment?), and thus can never be an absolute.

Furthermore, even for those who are confused enough to believe in the possibility of "absolute truth," it is generally accepted that this is an inherent limitation of evidence-based epistemologies. Evidence-based epistemologies can say something is definitely false, but can't say something is definitely true. With evidence-based epistemologies, you're mostly dealing with a gradation of truth anyway (e.g. idea X is more valid than idea Y because of evidence A, B, and C).
 
steve_bnk said:
Clever retort.
Click to expand...

It's pretty obvious that all forms of the claim, "I know that I don't know anything," are self-refuting.



We have no possible absolute referenceframe or point which we can take as an absolute reference.
Click to expand...

But you don't know this for sure?



Assuch we describe reality quantitatively via the Systems Internationaldefinitions, which are arbitrary and human conceived. Meters,kilograms, seconds.
Click to expand...

But you don't know this for sure?



At best we can empirically validate ourmodels as best we can, beyond that it gets progressively subjectiveinterpretation and speculation.
Click to expand...

But you don't know this for sure?



If yiu think absolutes are possible,then you have to describe how that would be achieved experimentally.


On the old forum some on the philosophyside claim metaphysical assertions in the forme of -isms representan absolute description of reality. Creationism as well beingmetaphysics.
Click to expand...

I challenged the claim that science can make no claims of absolute knowledge. I don't see anything you wrote above as being relevant to the claim.

Perhaps, though, I misunderstand what you meant by "absolute." I read it as an intensifier. If I'm right about that, then "absolute knowledge" and "knowledge" mean the same thing, in the same way that, "This is good," and "This is fricking good," mean the same thing. If you meant something else, perhaps you can clear that up for me.

In any case, it seems obvious to me that there are lots of things we know:

For example, I know that 2+2=4.

If you don't like that, then I know that I believe 2+2=4.

If you think that The Matrix is serious philosophy, then I know that something believes that it is me and that it believes that 2+2=4.

If you go so radically skeptical that this doesn't work for you, then I know that if my assumptions are correct then 2+2=4.

Don't like that? Then how about, I believe that I know that if my assumptions are correct, then 2+2=4.

If you aren't willing to accept any of the above as true statements, then I suggest that you are engaged in special pleading, believing in knowledge except when you are discussing the topic of knowledge. Or maybe you're defining "knowledge" is some perverse and singular way so that doesn't affect real life, but does confuse people you discuss that topic with.

For the rest of us, I expect it's pretty obvious that we do know some things.
 
Wiploc, in philosophy, "absolute" is something that is what it is with or without sentient minds to perceive it or think about it. At least, that was how it was explained to me. A rock is an absolute, but the idea of a rock is not.
 
I'm not a physicalist. I'm not married to physicalism. I simply stick to it as long as it works and until proven false. And it's the oldest and most successful idea in the history of science up to now.

I find it less than interesting to find someone attacking science by means of YouTube and the internet. I will not mention the irony of it all only because the fairies that run the www might use their psyonic abilities against me for saying such a thing.
:innocent1:
 
2 + 2 is not absolute knowledge of the universe, it is a human definition. It is tautological, it can not possibly be wrong by definition.

How could you possibly know scientifically that all things in the universe have been understood?

We can not know if a photon or electron exists as we imagine and model them. All's we can say for sure is that predictive models using the concepts work.

Associating the word rock with an object is an assignment. It can not be wrong.
 
steve_bnk said:
2 + 2 is not absolute knowledge of the universe, it is a human definition. It is tautological, it can not possibly be wrong by definition.

How could you possibly know scientifically that all things in the universe have been understood?

We can not know if a photon or electron exists as we imagine and model them. All's we can say for sure is that predictive models using the concepts work.

Associating the word rock with an object is an assignment. It can not be wrong.
Click to expand...

I think 2+2=4 is axiomatic rather than tautological. It is internally consistent with a set of rules we all agreed to follow. So it is not akin to "all bachelors are unmarried" (tautological truth), but more like "green means go" (axiomatic truth).

If you ask a mathematician, they will insist that all of mathematics comes from set theory, however set theory is not as old as mathematics, so as far as I'm concerned the origin of math is counting, which is the inevitable result of early developing languages needing to describe quantities with greater and greater precision, which in turn is a consequence of existing in a universe made up of more or less discrete objects.
 
Just like every thread on this topic.

Unless somebody can demonstrate a non-physical substance (or anything that is not matter/energy), then there is nothing to talk about and physicalism is the default position.
 
Underseer said:
I think 2+2=4 is axiomatic rather than tautological. It is internally consistent with a set of rules we all agreed to follow. So it is not akin to "all bachelors are unmarried" (tautological truth), but more like "green means go" (axiomatic truth).

If you ask a mathematician, they will insist that all of mathematics comes from set theory, however set theory is not as old as mathematics, so as far as I'm concerned the origin of math is counting, which is the inevitable result of early developing languages needing to describe quantities with greater and greater precision, which in turn is a consequence of existing in a universe made up of more or less discrete objects.
Click to expand...

Which is in turn a consequence of having a brain that divides a universe of matter and non-matter into discreet objects. One that divides the continuous matter of an apple tree into roots, trunk, branches, leaves, and apples.


AdamWho said:
... physicalism is the default position.
Click to expand...

Remind me, what is the physical structure of 'the default position'?


The problem with these concepts is that people tend to (mis)use them as some kind of statement of ultimate truth. In practice the distinction depends heavily on what it is you are talking about. If you dealing with the physical sciences, then yes, everything is going to be physical, because that's all you're looking at. If you're dealing with subjective awareness, then everything is going to be mental, because that's all you're looking. But just adopting a metaphysical position as a form of ultimate truth can only ever be an assumption, and trying to use it as a means to beat scientists or theologians over the head is just silly. Use monism or dualism where it is appropriate, and not where it is not appropriate. Because what the universe is best described as depends on what it is you're trying to talk about.
 
steve_bnk said:
2 + 2 is not absolute knowledge of the universe, it is a human definition. It is tautological, it can not possibly be wrong by definition.
Click to expand...

So you're agreeing that I'm right and you were wrong. Some knowledge is absolute.



How could you possibly know scientifically that all things in the universe have been understood?
Click to expand...

You can't know that, because it isn't true. And we know this absolutely, right?



We can not know if a photon or electron exists as we imagine and model them. All's we can say for sure is that predictive models using the concepts work.
Click to expand...

We can say that for sure? So you're agreeing that I'm right and you were wrong. Some knowledge is absolute.



Associating the word rock with an object is an assignment. It can not be wrong.
Click to expand...

It cannot be wrong? So you're agreeing that I'm right and you were wrong. Some knowledge is absolute.
 
Wiploc said:
So you're agreeing that I'm right and you were wrong. Some knowledge is absolute.
Click to expand...

Saying that something can't be wrong by definition is a very weak statement in philosophy. It's saying that the conclusion depends on the definition chosen, and nothing else. Or as Underseer put it, it's an axiom - something assumed to be true.
 
It all seemed so reasonable when that guy said 'this is self evident and that is self evident too'. So it should follow it is self evident there are only so many angels on the pin head. I'm still counting those angels boss. That's self evident to you too isn't it?
 
AdamWho said:
Just like every thread on this topic.

Unless somebody can demonstrate a non-physical substance (or anything that is not matter/energy), then there is nothing to talk about and physicalism is the default position.
Click to expand...

Of course, the thing that cannot be explained is the explainer. The observer. The five senses through which all of knowledge comes to us. Sentient experience cannot be explained through physicalism. That's why Descartes invented his dualism. Descartes concluded that he, the observer, must exist. But how can he explain the external world apart from his mind? That's what is essay was fundamentally about. What was problematic was the physical, not the mental. Now some people want to turn that around and say that only the physical exists, but they can't prove that. There is no way to reduce sentient experience to material processes so we usually get a lot of nonsense that says something stupid like, "Our senses are merely an illusion."

On the larger question here, however, I have to disagree with most of what has been said. Science is a methodology. It is a particular empirical methodology. What scientists conclude from that methodology is always an interpretation of the scientific results. "Science" doesn't tell us anything. Science provides us with data. But how the data arranged and interpreted leads us to certain conclusions. As Einstein said, "Theory determines fact." Experiential data, scientific or otherwise, is not self-organizing. It gives us data, and we must turn that data into fact through theory.

Of course, in principle at least, theory cannot contradict the facts; but in practice, most of our theories do. We are not close to understanding the universe, but many scientists won't admit it because they do not want to abandon their pet theories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom