Rich said:

"There are as many varieties if physicalism as there are off Buddhism. I would say physicalism is a point-of-view that declares everything is physical, but then again this is my POV of physicalism". — Rich

You're right in that the term is used loosely and is but one category of beliefs.
— noAxioms

Yes, even within metaphysical Physicalism, there are several varieties of Physicalism, the most extreme (and clearly-stated, even if wrong) one of which is Eliminative Physicalism..

The way I've heard it distinguished (sometimes, not necessarily) is that Materialism involves what Ossipoff is denying: that material is fundamental, and that the existence of the material is thus some sort of what is being called a brute fact.

Yes.

Physicalism just say's we're physical things, that people are built of the material and nothing immaterial. It does not necessarily assert that the physical is fundamental, or even objectively existent.

Yes, that's science-of-mind Physicalism, as distinct from metaphysical Physicalism. I've heard Physicalism defined in both of those two ways. Those are two meanings for Physicalism.

How does metaphysical Physicalism differ from Materialism? It's merely an update of it, to include not just matter, but other physical entities like fields, the matter-waves of quantum-mechanics, etc.

Yes, science-of-mind Physicalism is just saying that we're physical, we're the body, and I, in a loose general way, agree with that.

But I doubt that I really agree with any of the versions of science-of-mind Physicalism:

Mystical Spiritual Mumbo-Jumbo Physicalists:

Some Physicalists, believing in the mind as a separate metaphysical substance, try too explain away what they've fictitiously posited and believe in, by saying that mind is something that "supervenes" on the brain (Actually there's nothing to do that "supervening"), or in terms of epiphenomena, or by the mumbo-jumbo of emergent phenomena.

All of that is mystical, spiritual, fictitious balderdash.

Eliminative Physicalists, as a type of philosophy-of-mind Physicalists, agree with me on that. Does that mean that they really agree with me? I doubt it, because they seem to take it a bit farther:

They seem to say that the experience, the point-of-view, of the animal is illusory and fictitious, and that the only valid point of view is the objective 3rd-person point-of-view of a Realist's world, in which there's no such thing as an animal's point of view.

That's ridiculous. I say that the animal's point-of-view is the only really valid one, because that's exactly what our life-experience possibility-stories are about.

I'd said:

How does Physicalism explain why there's this physical world which, according to Physicalism, is Reality itself. ... independently, fundamentally-existent.,.

— Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

Materialism would perhaps care to address that question, but your question assumes that there is something, physical or not. So how do you explain that there is whatever you assume there is?

Glad you asked.

Yes, here's what there is:

******************************************
There are hypothetical systems of hypothetical facts relating hypothetical quantity-values (They're called "physical laws"), abstract logical facts, and mathematical theorems, and hypothetical if-then facts relating these various things..

...systems of inter-referring hypothetical facts.
******************************************
It has been asked, "Where are there these facts?

Someone answered:

If there were no facts, then the fact that there are no facts would be a fact.

Someone at these forums answered:

"Alright, then couldn't there be just one fact that says, 'There are no facts, except for the fact that there are no other facts

For one thing, that one peculiarly discriminatory fact would call for explanation, and, it seems to me, would qualify as a brute-fact.

Is there something "brute" about the system of facts that I enclosed in asterisks, above?

Do such systems of inter-referring hypothetical facts need justification or explanation?

I say they don't.

Look, these systems of inter-referring hypotheticals have no meaning or application except in reference to eachother. They don't have, or need, any existence, reality or meaning outside of their own inter-referring context.

Therefore, it would be meaningless to speak of some global fact "There are no facts, except the one fact that there are no facts" that would apply to the system in asterisks above. ...because that system neither has nor needs any existence outside of its own context, among the facts that are in that inter-referring system.

So that's why the infinitely-many inter-referring hypothetifal systems, whose description is enclosed in asterisks above, can, do, and must exist--each only in its own context.

They don't need explanation, because they're inevitable.

Each of our life-experience possibility-stories is such a system.

It seems to be a contingent truth

No, the existence of the inter-referring systems of hypothetical facts that are described above, in the passage that's enclosed in asterisks isn't contingent. It's inevitable. It's inevitable that there are infinitely-many such systems, including the one that is your own life-experience possibility-story.

Michael Ossipoff

Well, for one thing, the fact that Skepticism (the metaphysics that I propose) explains it.

Michael still doesn't understand he can't attach the "metaphysics" that he supposes to the already-defined word skepticism. Language doesn't work that way

Also, he is mis-using brute-fact, which actually means: "something that cannot be explained."

Is there something "brute" about the system of facts that I enclosed in asterisks, above? — Michael Ossipoff

Yes. It a list of ambiguous terms that describe a supposedly other list of ambiguous terms each of which would be a brute fact assuming they they could actually be identified in some sort of unambiguous manner.

The issue with your metaphysics is that it is a laundry list of ambiguous brute facts. Impregnable yet also unintelligible.

The way to eliminate facts is just to understand that there is no reason to even use such a concept. All we have are beliefs with a varying amount of intensity and consensus. The word fact is used to give gravitas to a belief.

"Is there something "brute" about the system of facts that I enclosed in asterisks, above?": — Michael Ossipoff

Rich says:
— Rich

Yes. They are a list of ambiguous terms...

A term's definition, or a statement, is ambiguous if it could have (at least) two meanings, and it isn't clear which of those meanings is intended.

If a term or word in what I said is ambiguous in that sense, then you should feel free to specify which word or term that is, and I'll define it more specifically.

Maybe what you meant was that I spoke in general terms, as do definitions of all metaphysicses

that describe a supposedly other list of ambiguous terms...

See above.

each of which would be a brute fact

Brute facts are facts that are unexplained. A fact that is inevitable isn't brute, because it's explained by its inevitability.

I told why the infinitely-many systems of inter-referring hypothetical facts are inevitable.

If you ask why they "are", I answer that they don't and needn't have any existence, applicability, reference or meaning outside of their own context, within a particular such inter-referring system.

The issue with your metaphysics is that it is a laundry list of ambiguous brute facts.

See above.

You want brute-facts?

Well, how about an extra-corporal distributed holographic memory-repository, made of quanta consisting of Mind?

Why is there that extra-corporal distributed holographic memory-repository made of quanta consisting of Mind?

Michael Ossipoff

Mystical Spiritual Mumbo-Jumbo Physicalists:

Some Physicalists, believing in the mind as a separate metaphysical substance, try too explain away what they've fictitiously posited and believe in, by saying that mind is something that "supervenes" on the brain (Actually there's nothing to do that "supervening"), or in terms of epiphenomena, or by the mumbo-jumbo of emergent phenomena.

All of that is mystical, spiritual, fictitious balderdash. — Michael Ossipoff

A more unbiased summary of somebody else's view I've never read.
Off-point of me to comment, but you seem to dislike similar assessments of your own views. Just sayin..

Yes, here's what there is:

******************************************
There are hypothetical systems of hypothetical facts
...

I cut most of the meat out, because the statement began with "there are" which is sort of my point. The rest I actually kind of get, and approve more than you know, despite the fact that we seem to have built such different towers on such similar foundations.

It has been asked, "Where are there these facts?

Someone answered:

If there were no facts, then the fact that there are no facts would be a fact.

Not so. If there were no facts, then the fact above simply would not be. That's not even a paradox.
It has no frame in which it has meaning, so the potential truth of it doesn't exist either.

That's my take anyway.

Well, how about an extra-corporal distributed holographic memory-repository, made of quanta consisting of Mind?

Why is there that extra-corporal distributed holographic memory-repository made of quanta consisting of Mind? — Michael Ossipoff

It's an idea, that all it is. A wonderful conception in my opinion. And the reason I use it is because all the pieces of the puzzle for nicely and it is useful and practical idea. I never claim any facts, because I think the term is used to state a strong belief. My beliefs are moderate because they are constantly changing.

If you wish for me to identify all if the unexplainable brute-facts in your metaphysics, simply create an unambiguous list of all of the facts that you rely on and I'll explain why there are anything but inevitable but rather are a product of your own personal belief system which you may share with others. My guess is you have very strong beliefs which is why you considered them facts.

I’d said:
.

Mystical Spiritual Mumbo-Jumbo Physicalists:
.
Some Physicalists, believing in the mind as a separate metaphysical substance, try too explain away what they've fictitiously posited and believe in, by saying that mind is something that "supervenes" on the brain (Actually there's nothing to do that "supervening"), or in terms of epiphenomena, or by the mumbo-jumbo of emergent phenomena.
.
All of that is mystical, spiritual, fictitious balderdash. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:
.

A more unbiased summary of somebody else's view I've never read.

.
Shall I assume that that’s sarcasm?
.
If, by saying that what I said was unbiased, you meant that it’s biased, then in what sense was it biased? Unfair because I’m pre-judging those Physicalists, based on prior experiences and opinions, instead of fairly evaluating their claims?
.
But doesn’t that presume a knowledge of my motives, or how I arrived at that opinion.
.
For example, when you say that the mind “supervenes on” the brain, you’ve already assumed that there’s some separate entity, separate from the body, called the mind.
.
Maybe you were offended by my strong language, but I said it that way because I felt that it should be emphatically-said.
.
The class of Physicalists that I referred to are talking fiction.
.
Sorry if that’s offensive, but there’s no nicer way to say it.
.
If it isn’t said forcefully or emphatically, maybe some will miss the message.
.

Off-point of me to comment, but you seem to dislike similar assessments of your own views. Just sayin..

.
Nothin’ wrong with just sayin’ !
.
When there’s a general or vague criticism of things that I’ve said, I ask for (but never get) something a bit more specific.
.
Then should I better clarify what I mean about the Mystical Spiritual Mumbo-Jumbo Physicalists?
.
I’ll try:
.
They believe in Mind, as something separate and different from the body (needing to be explained in terms of the body by “superevenience”, “epiphenomena” or “emergent-properties”). Doesn’t that sound like Spiritualism? Was that really an unfair word?
.
No, those guys are just making it complicated, when it isn’t.
.
Their “Hard-Problem-Of-Consciousness”:
.
“How could that material body, that piece of material, observed by a white-smocked scientist with a clipboard, have 1st-person experience? Inexplicable !!”
.
No, not really.
.
The animal is designed, by natural-selection, to maximize its survival and reproduction. Obviously that requires response to its surroundings, its environment. What would you expect that resultingly-necessary perception and analysis of the surroundings, and preferences, likes, fears, etc. to be like, for the animal. Is it any surprise that you have exactly that experience?
.
What point of view would you expect that to be from? Is it really surprising that you, an animal, have 1st-person experience.
.
Where’s the puzzle in that?
.
Forget about a mind that “supervenes on” the brain, or is an "emergent-property" of the brain. No need to hypothesize that fictional entity in the first place, and then struggle to explain it.

Each of us is just that animal, with its natural-selection-designed purposes, goals, preferences, likes and dislikes.
.
I’d said:
.

Yes, here's what there is:

.
******************************************
There are hypothetical systems of hypothetical facts
...

.
You replied:
.

I cut most of the meat out, because the statement began with "there are" which is sort of my point.

.
You don’t like the use of “There are…” in:
.
“There are hypothetical systems of hypothetical facts…”
.
I used to always put “there” in quotes, when I said that a hypothetical fact is “there”. I wasn’t comfortable with saying that a hypothetical or abstract fact is there, because I felt that such expressions are undefined in metaphysics.
.
But Litewave pointed out that self-consistent facts, and consistent systems of facts exist in a meaningful sense, and that there’s no need to be uncomfortable about saying “There are” those facts.
.
Why don’t you like “There are…”?
.

The rest I actually kind of get, and approve more than you know, despite the fact that we seem to have built such different towers on such similar foundations.

.
What different conclusions did it lead you to?
.
I’d said:
.

It has been asked, "Where are there these facts?

.
Someone answered:
.

If there were no facts, then the fact that there are no facts would be a fact.

You replied:

Not so. If there were no facts, then the fact above simply would not be.

.
Yes, it would not be, because, as a fact, it would be forbidden by itself if it were true.

So it's a meaningless statement, like "Everything I say is a lie."
.

That's not even a paradox.
It has no frame in which it has meaning, so the potential truth of it doesn't exist either.

That's my take anyway.

Agreed.
.
I’m not calling it a paradox—only a statement that can’t be valid.
.
I have no objection to your wording. The point is that a statement “There are no facts” couldn’t be valid, and there’s no disagreement on that.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Well, how about an extra-corporal distributed holographic memory-repository, made of quanta consisting of Mind?

Why is there that extra-corporal distributed holographic memory-repository made of quanta consisting of Mind? — Michael Ossipoff


It's an idea, that all it is. — Rich

So is Skepticism. But your idea is an idea that calls for an explanation, and doesn't have one.

...a brute-fact.

And the reason I use it is because all the pieces of the puzzle fit nicely.

What observation, experiment or experience doesn't fit the idea that we're all just the animal, and nothing more...without any extra-corporal component?

What observation, experiment or experience doesn't fit Skepticism, as I described it, in which your life-experience possibility-story is a system of inter-referring hypotheticals such as I described between two rows of asterisks?

If you wish for me to identify all if the unexplainable brute-facts in your metaphysics...

It goes without saying that you're invited to.

..., simply create an unambiguous list of all of the facts that you rely on and I'll explain why there are anything but inevitable but rather are a product of your own personal belief system which you may share with others. My guess is you have very strong beliefs which is why you considered them facts.

No,that won't do.

I told why the system of inter-referring hypotheticals is inevitable.

Feel free to mention a specific statement or conclusion of mine, in that post, that is incorrect or unjustified (e.g. because it doesn't follow from its alleged justification). But tell why.

Otherwise, all that we're getting from you are vague, unspecified, referentless, unsupported angry-noises.

Michael Ossipoff

Let me add this:

simply create an unambiguous list of all of the facts that you rely

It would be a very short list, because Skepticism doesn't rely on any assumptions at all.

Michael Ossipoff

But the suggestion that we're nothing more than the animal, just what we appear to be, is obviously by far the simplest suggestion. — Michael Ossipoff

It's actually even more simple to say I am what I am and that's all that I am, which was Popeye's philosophy. For some this may be enough but I am more curious.

Biology and natural-selection give us a pretty good description and explanation of the animal that we all are. — Michael Ossipoff

Well now we are getting into ultra-brute facts, which is more than a statement, but rather a whole if all kinds of ideas, opinions, conjectures, stories, etc. I can't even begin to address such a waterfall of brute-facts.

Be happy with your philosophy but don't expect anyone to try to understand it.

There are literally nob facts. Just pieces of a puzzle that I've observed that sort of fit together. This is what I believe philosophy is all about. A detective game that is constantly uncovering new clues. As with some French philosophers, I am much more interested in discovering and understanding than I am with being right. — Rich

It isn't provable which metaphysics is right, and maybe the matter of simple animal-ness vs elaborate theories isn't provable either. It's always possible to come up with some elaborately, unnecessarily, complicated theory, tailored to fit the observations.

But the suggestion that we're nothing more than the animal, just what we appear to be, is obviously by far the simplest suggestion. I like simple suggestions that accord with observations, experiments and experience.

What observation, experiment or experience doesn't fit the idea that we're all just the animal, and nothing more...without any extra-corporal component? — Michael Ossipoff
— Rich

Is this one of your brute-facts?

Well, "brute-fact" is a term that I use when comparing metaphysicses. Comparison of simple animal-ness with your extra-corporal holographic quantum-mind memory-repository isn't really an issue for which I'd use that term.

In a comparison of metaphysicses, yours vs Skepticism, then I speak of yours as having a brute-fact.

In a comparison of simple animal-ness vs your theory, I'd just say that simple animal-ness is a much simpler explanation, and the simplest explanation that fits observation, experiment and experience.

You have to describe all this is animal, all that is extra-corporeal, and I'll let you know what I think of this brute-fact.

Biology and natural-selection give us a pretty good description and explanation of the animal that we all are.

If you wish for me to identify all if the unexplainable brute-facts in your metaphysics, simply create an unambiguous list of all of the facts that you rely on and I'll explain why there are anything but inevitable — Rich

I really can't address your idea until you unambiguously lost all of the brute-facts. There appear to be quite a bit based upon what I've read.

Alright, and feel free to specify them if and when you're ready to.

Michael Ossipoff

So is Skepticism. But your idea is an idea that calls for an explanation, and doesn't have one.

...a brute-fact.

There are literally no

But the suggestion that we're nothing more than the animal, just what we appear to be, is obviously by far the simplest suggestion. — Michael Ossipoff

facts. Just pieces of a puzzle that I've observed that sort of fit together. This is what I believe philosophy is all about. A detective game that is constantly uncovering new clues. As with some French philosophers, I am much more interested in discovering and understanding than I am with being right.

What observation, experiment or experience doesn't fit the idea that we're all just the animal, and nothing more...without any extra-corporal component? — Michael Ossipoff

Is this one of your brute-facts? You have to describe all this is animal, all that is extra-corporeal, and I'll let you know what I think of this brute-fact.

I really can't address your idea until you unambiguously lost all of the brute-facts. There appear to be quite a bit based upon what I've read.

If you wish for me to identify all if the unexplainable brute-facts in your metaphysics, simply create an unambiguous list of all of the facts that you rely on and I'll explain why there are anything but inevitable but rather are a product of your own personal belief system — Rich

I assumed that you were asking about assumptions, but, upon taking another look, your use of the word "facts" suggests that you were saying that the hypothetical facts that I referred to in the lines between the asterisks were brute facts.

So I'll comment a bit more on those, in answer to your question:

Something hypothetical certainly isn't brute. A hypothetical is the "if" clause of an "if" fact..

But what about the "if" fact itself. Well, of course sometimes an "if" fact is, itself, just the "if" clause of another "if" fact.

Of course an "if" fact could be brute, if it's taken as true without explanation. But, in the systems that I spoke of, facts that aren't pure "if" clauses are consequences of other facts. ...and it all rests on certain purely hypothetical "if"s, and on mathematical theorems and abstract always-true logical facts.

As I mention below, of course mathematical theorems, themselves, are just consequences of "ifs" such as number-system axioms, and geometry axioms.

But, in general, yes, an "if/then" is consequence of some combination of mathematical theorems and abstract always-true logical facts.

Valid mathematical theorems are true as a consequence of a hypothetical set of axioms, such as the axioms of a "field" such as the real number system, with respect to a pair of binary operations such as the operations of multiplication and division.

But remember that there's no need for these systems to rest on anything more than "if"s, because no one's saying that they have any truth, existence or validity, outside their own context.

The whole system rests on "ifs", at its basis...not brute-facts.

Even the provable mathematical theorems are consequences of "if"s--the axioms of the number-system, or of geometry.

It's all based on "if"s.

It has no brute-facts.

What about physical-laws? They're hypothetical "if" facts about relations between hypothetical quantity values. They're part of the "if" clause of "if-then" statements. ...as are the quantity-values themselves.

Michael Ossipoff

It's such a huge list, Michael , if debatable premises. Surely you don't expect anyone to begin a separate discussion of each one? As I said before happy with your list. And don't worry if no one reads all of it, Kant was equally verbose and became famous.

with respect to a pair of binary operations such as the operations of multiplication and division. — Michael Ossipoff

I meant multipl

It's such a huge list — Rich

Sorry, Rich, but a physical world is more complicated than you might like it to be. Such a system of inter-referring hypotheticals includes all sorts of them, including the kinds that I mentioned.

I must have mislunderstood you. I mistakenly thought that you wanted me to specify some of the kinds of facts that I was talking about.

Sorry that a physical world isn't as simple as you'd like it to be.

[quote
, Michael , if debatable premises
[/quote]

Is that intended as a sentence? Did you mean a huge list of debatable premises?

As i said, the whole thing rests entirely on "if"s.

No assumptions.

No brute-facts.

Surely you don't expect anyone to begin a separate discussion of each one?

Did I ask anyone to?

As I said before happy with your list.

That isn't a sentence either. I don't know what it means. But that's ok.

And don't worry if no one reads all of it

Suit yourself. You asked me to list some of the kinds of hypothetical inter-referring facts that i was referring to.

Michael Ossipoff

with respect to a pair of binary operations such as the operations of multiplication and division — Michael Ossipoff

I meant multiplication and addition.

Michael Ossipoff