I'm not disputing the facts of evolution, but h. sapiens realises horizons of meaning which are completely unavailable to other creatures. In fact I don't really understand why this is something that has to be argued for, when the differences between h. sapiens and other species seems to blindingly obvious. — Wayfarer
There is no evidence of anything "beyond" what we know of reality. — Philosophim
We put chips in monkeys' brains and they died. That's how far along neuroscience is. Barbarism. — theRiddler
Physicalism was probably not a major intellectual issue for the Greeks & Romans & Jews. Because, except for a few unorthodox philosophers, they typically took Spiritualism for granted.Is it that the focus given to physicalism is due because it is truly central to philosophical discourse, or is it just an accident that occurred by coincidence due to the interests of the forum's userbase? — Kuro
Physicalism was probably not a major intellectual issue for the Greeks & Romans & Jews. Because, except for a few unorthodox philosophers, they typically took Spiritualism for granted. — Gnomon
I can't be bothered arguing against that kind of complacency. — Wayfarer
The Stoics...were materialists. — Wayfarer
From the gods I received that I had good grandfathers, and parents, a good sister, good masters, good domestics, loving kinsmen, almost all that I have. — Marcus Aurelius
And when I did first apply myself to philosophy, that I did not fall into the hands of some sophists, or spent my time either in reading the manifold volumes of ordinary philosophers, nor in practising myself in the solution of arguments and fallacies, nor dwelt upon the studies of the meteors, and other natural curiosities. All these things without the assistance of the gods, and fortune, could not have been. — Marcus Aurelius
Remember how long thou hast been putting off these things, and how often thou hast received an opportunity from the gods, and yet dost not use it. Thou must now at last perceive of what universe thou art a part, and of what administrator of the universe thy existence is an efflux, and that a limit of time is fixed for thee, which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind, it will go and thou wilt go, and it will never return. — Marcus Aurelius
...thou mayest answer This, and That, freely and boldly, that so by thy thoughts it may presently appear that in all thee is sincere, and peaceable; as becometh one that is made for society, and regards not pleasures, nor gives way to any voluptuous imaginations at all: free from all contentiousness, envy, and suspicion, and from whatsoever else thou wouldest blush to confess thy thoughts were set upon. He that is such, is he surely that doth not put off to lay hold on that which is best indeed, a very priest and minister of the gods, well acquainted and in good correspondence with him especially that is seated and placed within himself, as in a temple and sacrary. — Marcus Aurelius
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. — Marcus Aurelius
If I accepted something without evidence for my emotional gratification, that would be complacent. — Philosophim
What would you consider evidence for the reality of the non-physical? — Wayfarer
A very good question. First, it needs to be something falsifiable. — Philosophim
While falsifiability can definitely be proper of scientific discourse, for good reason even, I think it is seldom at all a good condition of philosophical or mathematical discourse which includes philosophical evidence that is sometimes given in the form of proofs. This is because some of the truths that philosophers and mathematicians deal with genuinely have no falsity conditions, i.e. all tautologies, like a=a or (p∨(q∧r))→((p∨q)∧(p∨r)), simply cannot be falsified but are undoubtedly true. — Kuro
In a similar manner, contradictions are falsums, and in classical logic or other logics that uphold noncontradiction, if we have a contradictory formula like p∧¬p, then this always returns false whereas its negation ¬(p∧¬p) will be a tautology: i.e. will always return true and cannot be false, thus is unfalsifiable. — Kuro
Well, a common objection in philosophical argumentation is a self defeat objection. If an opponent of a position finds a contradiction in its doctrine, then if that contradiction is genuine, the doctrine will be always false. And so the negation of the doctrine will be always true with no falsity conditions. — Kuro
In the context of the materialism/physicalism, the thesis that there exists only the physical, then if an opponent of the doctrine found it to be contradictory and was hypothetically successful, his proof of the negation of physicalism will be unfalsifiable by definition due to the logic outlined earlier. And this trivially entails the existence of at least one non-physical entity granting physicalism as false. — Kuro
For these purposes, I think falsifiability is a terrible criterion in the context of philosophy, but may be more fit for other uses like science or other empirical inquiry, and therefore also urge that you reconsider it. — Kuro
s it that the focus given to physicalism is due because it is truly central to philosophical discourse, or is it just an accident that occurred by coincidence due to the interests of the forum's userbase? — Kuro
Even elementary particles need other particles to gain identity. Add to this the bare fact that the internal identity of those basic structures of nature can never be known apart from assimilating them to our own internal reality, and it becomes clear, like a shape in the fog rising above it in the bright blue moonlight, that both the ideal and the material, through interaction, are mutually shape-shifting. — EugeneW
Idealism is the hope for something Transcedental. — dimosthenis9
Materialism on the other hand, is merely based on facts,and that's why has an "advantage" on that fight. — dimosthenis9
A very good question. First, it needs to be something falsifiable. By that, I mean that there needs to be some way of clearly defining what the non-physical is, and testing it. — Philosophim
If we don't understand something, than the reality is, we don't understand something. History is filled with people doing this, and its always wrong. — Philosophim
But the issue there is that the 'criterion of falsifiability' was devised by Karl Popper specifically to differentiate an empirical from a non-empirical claim (I notice Kuro has made a similar point.) — Wayfarer
You're assuming an empiricist position, and then demanding empirical evidence against it! — Wayfarer
But anyway, to illustrate my point, consider the argument about the reality of numbers (see What is Math?). The argument is, on the one side, that numbers are real, independently of anyone who is aware of them - which is generally known as mathematical realism or mathematical platonism. It grants mathematical objects reality, albeit of a different order to empirical objects.
A counter argument might be that numbers are the artefacts of human thought and that they're only real in that context. — Wayfarer
I have no take on the matter, its an interesting topic I would need to think on. — Philosophim
I have no take on the matter, its an interesting topic I would need to think on.
— Philosophim
I suggest you do that before reflexively reeling off an answer. — Wayfarer
"Everything is all in the mind, there is no physical world." Of course, just because I can propose something that would potentially show it to be false, it does not mean it IS false. As it is clear that everything is not in the mind, and there is a world outside of our thoughts, this claim against physicalism which could show it to be false, is false itself. — Philosophim
Now, are you able to do so, or can you not? — Philosophim
Not really. Many forms of idealism argue for a universal mind (essentially a primitive instinctive consciousness) which holds object permanence and provides us a shared reality independent of our minds. Humans are dissociated alters of the Great Mind - that kind of thing. — Tom Storm
Since there is no evidence of a universal mind, then it is false. — Philosophim
Idealism is (often) a continuation of religion through increased abstraction. — lll
Since there is no evidence of a universal mind, then it is false. — Philosophim
At the end some people can't except that there is nothing more than matter and what our senses tell us. I consider myself one of them.Not sure if there is that "more" indeed though, but i can't give up my lust for it. — dimosthenis9
As Wayfarer will tell you, there are philosophers and scientists who would say there is no evidence of physicalism. I suspect both world views in the end come down to a kind of faith. — Tom Storm
I did, and it went straight past you. — Wayfarer
You're assuming an empiricist position, and then demanding empirical evidence against it!
— Wayfarer
After that, nothing further to add. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.