I would like to know what’s problematic with this philosophy. — Benj96

Physicalism is a metaphysics. There is no way to prove it false or true.

There is no way to prove it false or true. — Jackson

Interesting, could you elaborate a bit more? Also out of curiosity by what criteria is something “proven” to you or in the sense that you’re using it here?
Is it proven if it’s consistently the same throughout time - ie repeatability? If it stands to reason/ logic, or if you have first hand experience/ have observed it? Or other possible proofs?

Interesting, could you elaborate a bit more? Also out of curiosity by what criteria is something “proven” to you or in the sense that you’re using it here?
Is it proven if it’s consistently the same throughout time - ie repeatability? If it stands to reason/ logic, or if you have first hand experience/ have observed it? Or other possible proofs? — Benj96

So, science moves by proofs, not beliefs. If a scientist or philosopher says physicalism is true, we expect proofs.

I understand however science has difficulty proving all things. Hence why I asked. Proof can be sought not only scientifically but mathematically, philosophical etc.

That’s because scientific method is based on 1. Repeatability (which fails for exceedingly rare substances, events that may only occur once or twice over large spans of time)
2. Observability - “our dissections are only as good as our sharpest knives.” That is to say our instruments for measurement are physically limited and not all things are within our current reach of measurement.
3. Predictive value - which fails in the realm of highly unstable or extremely rapid physical states - like quantum fluctuations, the speed of light, black holes, the Big Bang etc.

Scientific method like all methods has limitations in offering Proofs.

Scientific method like all methods has limitations in offering Proofs. — Benj96

I am saying that physicalism is not science.

I am saying that physicalism is not science. — Jackson

Alright. But if that’s the case what is the relevance of your previous statement:

If a scientist or philosopher says physicalism is true, we expect proofs — Jackson

Surely if physicalism and science are unrelated then why do we need a scientists proof for physicalism

I would like to know what’s problematic with this philosophy. — Benj96

As a metaphysics, it's arbitrary, even scientistic. However, as a methodology (criterion) for eliminaing "nonphysical" concepts from the construction of explanatory models of phenomena, physicalism is demonstrably more useful than any non/anti-physicalist alternative.

So, science moves by proofs, not beliefs. — Jackson

Your belief is mistaken: physical sciences are not "move(d) by proofs" (Popper); only formal sciences have proofs.

Surely if physicalism and science are unrelated then why do we need a scientists proof for physicalism — Benj96

I did not say they are unrelated. I said there is nothing in science that can prove physicalism is true--or false.

The problem goes back at least to Leibniz. Science can be practical, but cannot be true because it cannot be false.

The problem goes back at least to Leibniz. Science can be practical, but cannot be true because it cannot be false — Jackson

Aha now I understand what you’re getting at. Apologies for the misinterpretation.

Science can be practical, but cannot be true because it cannot be false. — Jackson

Well, then it is not science (Popper et al), is it?

Materialism has always had difficulty defining what it means to be material. If you mean what I think you mean by it - no "spooky stuff" - then that's just naturalism.

Besides this, probably the most significant challenge to materialism is the Kantian transcendental aesthetic, which holds that space and time are not things in themselves but are pure forms of sensibility. Pairing this with Kant's epistemology leads to the result that not only is the "external" and "material" world beyond space and time, it's completely inaccessible to knowledge, which makes metaphysical claims about its nature (like materialism) empty of any meaning.

damn that’s a conundrum then haha. What are we left with? Just the self and our internal state directly accesible only to us as individuals?

To my mind, methodologically speaking, materialism (facticity, data) is a subset of physicalism (modeling) which is subset of naturalism (explanation). Also, Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic fails to account for spacetime (i.e. Special or General Relativity) even though it can be applied to "common sense experience", or folk cognition, of "time" (non-axiomatic arithmetic) and "space" (euclidean geometry).

For those who may not known physicalism is a philosophy in which there is nothing beyond that which is strictly physical/material. — Benj96

The difficulty with it is its circular definition. Is it any more than monism? What have you said about something when you say it is physical?

Materialism has always had difficulty defining what it means to be material. If you mean what I think you mean by it - no "spooky stuff" - then that's just naturalism.

Besides this, probably the most significant challenge to materialism is the Kantian transcendental aesthetic, which holds that space and time are not things in themselves but are pure forms of sensibility. Pairing this with Kant's epistemology leads to the result that not only is the "external" and "material" world beyond space and time, it's completely inaccessible to knowledge, which makes metaphysical claims about its nature (like materialism) empty of any meaning. — _db

:up:

We seem to know about space and time a priori. This supports the idea that they're aspects of us rather than the world (as it is). But aren't their other possible explanations for this?

The problem is deceptively simple. Physical = Existence. These two terms have the exact same definition and that implies nonphysical = nonexistence! :snicker:

First of all, I would expect that you also mention "materialism" as another name of "physicalism", which in fact is more commonly used and their differences (nuances) usually don't matter in discussions like this. (Not mentioning the connection looks like you are talking about a different thing.)

The consequences of such a philosophy is that the mind/ consciousness, the state of being/ living and all other seemingly illusive or mysterious/ abstract phenomenon are at there basis concrete and are wholly explicable by physics, chemistry, etc even if the exact mechanisms have not yet been elucidated. — Benj96

It is not clear to me what "consequences" actually are, but you are raising here an important issue, a flow in human knowledge, the responsible of which are materialists or materially-oriented people and esp. scientists --although philosophers have a big share in this. So, allow me to say what the main consequence is for me: There's no progress in understanding the consciousness and the mind, which includes thought and thinking, reasoning, emotions, mental health and a host of other mental features. Because these do not belong the material (physical) world.

You say, rightly so, that "the exact mechanisms have not yet been elucidated", which I believe is or should be obvious to everyone. Well, how long still --after so many years of research-- should we wait to see some tangible results, mainly in the form of evidences, from science on this subject? Is this lack of results maybe an indication of a failure in this area --the mind-- and that this area is not an area for the conventional, totally materialistic science to get involved in?

I strongly believe it is.

It leaves little to no room for theology, spirituality — Benj96

Certainly. This is in accordance with the consequence I mentioned above.

I would like to know what’s problematic with this philosophy. — Benj96

I have launched a discussion about this subject: The problem with "Materialism" (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12480/the-problem-with-materialism/p1). I also mention your term, "physicalism", which is almost the same thing.

The problem is deceptively simple. Physical = Existence. These two terms have the exact same definition and that implies nonphysical = nonexistence! :snicker: — Agent Smith

What do you mean by “physical” - do you mean having substance or material? Because a photon is massless and yet it exists- if it didn’t you wouldn’t be able to read this.

Is this lack of results maybe an indication of a failure in this area --the mind-- and that this area is not an area for the conventional, totally materialistic science to get involved in?

I strongly believe it is. — Alkis Piskas

I also agree with this attitude. I think the hard problem may be a pseudoproblem in the sense that science may not be the correct discipline to decide the functioning of the mind. However if the mind is generated by the brain - which is bio-electro-chemical in nature - there should definitely be a link.

So alas it’s a conundrum.

As for physicalism vs materialism. I’m simply chose physicalism because I felt it better encapsulated processes in physics that aren’t material but no less exist - such as the photon (which has no mass) and electromagnetism etc - all physical phenomena but with no actual material (atoms/ matter etc).

What do you mean by “physical” - do you mean having substance or material? Because a photon is massless and yet it exists- if it didn’t you wouldn’t be able to read this. — Benj96

I only meant to point out the fact that the words "exist" and "physical" are synonyms and ergo, any attempt to discuss the nonphysical is going to be a conversation on nonexistence.

What do you mean by “physical” - do you mean having substance or material? Because a photon is massless and yet it exists- if it didn’t you wouldn’t be able to read this. — Benj96

Physical means detectable by the senses/instruments (mass + volume + energy)

Existence means the same thing.

That's precisely the problem.

@Benj96

Physical = matter & energy are physical.

Matter = Mass + volume

Energy = Can do work

Nonphysical = Neither matter nor energy (apophatic definition). Try defining "nonphysical" cataphatically!

I think the hard problem may be a pseudoproblem in the sense that science may not be the correct discipline to decide the functioning of the mind — Benj96

It is very good that you have brought this up! :up:

In fact, it's existence the "hard problem" is considered controversial. But this shouldn't be the case.
Since Chalmer's forrmulation of this theory or position, it has been and continues to be used a lot, to a point that it has become a stereotype. And it is discussed from different points of view and environments, both purely scientific and philosophical. But if we isolated from its enviroment and strip it of all "noise" that sourrounds it, "the hard problem of consciousness", as an independent idea, refers to a very simple truth, about which every honest scientist, philosopher or "thinker" should agree: 1) It is a "probelm" because it has not been solved, at least not to the satisfaction of most people and 2) It is "hard" because people have tried to solve it for eons! All that, independently of the environment people tried to solve it.
So, there's no problem with the phease itself. People complicating --their biases, misconceptions and the complicated way their minds work in-- is the problem!

I have also heard --from a honest scientist-- that consciousness is a mystery, which maybe is a better way to express the problem of consciousness, esp. in order to get of the stereotype. But not even that is necessary. Just admitting that the nature and mechanics of consciousness have not been explained fully or even satisfactorily is enough.

if the mind is generated by the brain ... — Benj96

I don't think it is. I don't think any evidence has been offered, except brain reactions to the environment. Of course, since the brain works on a stimulous-reaction basis. In a similar way with a computer, which reacts on programming instructions. The mind though, although it may work on a stimulus-response basis --e.g. on a subconscious level, in aberrated states, in disorders, etc.-- a healthy, non-aberrated mind works in a totally different way. (Not the place and moment to discuss this!)

So alas it’s a conundrum — Benj96

Yes, it really looks so. But again, it hasn't to be so.

I’m simply chose physicalism because I felt it better encapsulated processes in physics that aren’t material but no less exist - such as the photon (which has no mass) and electromagnetism etc - all physical phenomena but with no actual material (atoms/ matter etc). — Benj96

Materialism deals with both matter and energy: "All existence is made up of energy in some form. Matter is a form of energy. All things that exist are made of energy, atoms, molecules, forces and other entities that consist of energy. There are no non-physical or non-material existents." (https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%204%20Metaphysics/Materialism.htm, Chapter 4: Materialism)

To my mind, methodologically speaking, materialism (facticity, data) is a subset of physicalism (modeling) which is subset of naturalism (explanation). — 180 Proof

So physicalism, materialism and naturalism are concepts. How are concepts physical, material or natural? How do physical things and concepts interact, or how do physical things come to possess concepts?

As a metaphysics, it's arbitrary, even scientistic. However, as a methodology (criterion) for eliminaing "nonphysical" concepts from the construction of explanatory models of phenomena, physicalism is demonstrably more useful than any non/anti-physicalist alternative. — 180 Proof

Sounds circular. What does it even mean for a concept to be physical vs. Non-physical? Are you talking about the ontology of concepts, or what the concepts are about? If the latter how do concepts come to be about anything? Is aboutness physical or non-physical?

It gained traction with advancements in the natural sciences which heavily depended on observation and repeatability as a ground for establishing fact verses hypothesis or beliefs. — Benj96

And then lost traction when science discovered that the world is not as it appears and that observers might actually influence what is observed.

Physical = matter & energy are physical. — Agent Smith

Energy is not “always” physical (referring to “physical” as having dimension and material/substance). It can be... because E=mc2. Matter has equivalence to energy - Einstein.
But light (which is energy) has no mass or dimension. It is not matter. But it is energy.

Matter = Mass + volume — Agent Smith

Matter and mass are the same thing. Matter always has volume. Mass is volumetric. Name a piece of matter that doesn’t have a volume or similarly matter that doesn’t have mass. It’s one and the same.

And then lost traction when science discovered that the world is not as it appears and that observers might actually influence what is observed. — Harry Hindu

Precisely. Enter shrodinger and the fundamentals of quantum mechanics.

Materialism deals with both matter and energy: "All existence is made up of energy in some form. Matter is a form of energy. All things that exist are made of energy, atoms, molecules, forces and other entities that consist of energy. There are no non-physical or non-material existents." — Alkis Piskas

Ah well if that’s the case then it does satisfy both the material/ substantial/ matter as well as all processes or interactions (energetic) that exert work on those material things. I was confused because the word “material” seems misleading in that it suggests only the set of things that have mass/matter (which I and many think to be synonymous with materials). That’s why I used the term physicalism (even if erroneous) because it seemed not to depend on matter being the only way something can exist. But your definition of materialism does indeed do that so I’m happy haha.

How do physical things and concepts interact, or how do physical things come to possess concepts? — Harry Hindu

Well that’s where the mind comes in doesn’t it? The mind holds conceptual information. Art, music, creativity, re-inventing, mixing of ideas and things and our bodies (physical) act as a conduit between the mind and the physical environment - manifesting into reality concepts that previously only existed in the mind.

When an artist envisions a new unique mental image (a concept) they employ their physical existence (their body) and physical tools - paintbrushes, canvas, paints etc to “realise” their concept - to make it an individual, existing, physical representation of their concept that can be interpreted and appreciated by others.

The concept - of a specific composition or orientation of literal or abstract objects / people is now separated from the mind that “gave birth to it”. It can exist perhaps even longer than the conscious being that created it. It can impart insights into that persons mind long after they are deceased - I believe we call it “legacy.”

Sounds circular. What does it even mean for a concept to be physical vs. Non-physical? — Harry Hindu

A “concept” to me is a ‘mental construction’ of something that may either a). Already exist. For example I have the concept of a tree in my mind. Or b). Something that does not already exist - a technological invention, sci-fi, a musical piece, a hypothesis, a work of art or creativity.
C). Some recombinant mixture between both things - those that do exist and those that do not yet exist.

But the key to a “concept” is that it exists in the mind, it is personal - only applying to me in a specific reference frame, is separate from the object or person or subject for which it represents.

For example the concept I have of my mother is a personal/ biased/interpretative and incomplete definition or understanding of my actual existing mother - which I could never fully conceive of unless I “was” her (all her memories, thoughts, experiences etc). I can only conceptualise things in my reality - I can never “know” their entirety.

A unique personal concept can be made physical. It can be used/ utilised, it can be understood, dissected, analysed, improved even. But then it has changed. It’s shared. No longer personal. So it takes on the linguistic concept of a noun - denoting an object.

For example if I and only I consider the possibility of a toaster. I describe it to an engineer - it’s function, how it looks, it’s form and dimension. The engineer may create it and hey presto - we have toast. Now your concept is an object. Your personal concept of it deviates from what you created - because now toasters are blue, cream, black, some can toast 2, 4 , 6 pieces of bread. Some are plastic ... some are metal, some are incorporated into paintings, musics literature etc. Your concept gets reworked by other minds and it is not now yours alone, but rather a physical thing at the mercy of all conscious beings.

Even if you conceptualised the “original” toaster. It’s unlikely you can ever conceive of all the possibilities and applications and forms your invention may take in the future, or what it’s significance to society may be through time - especially if the world is taken over by rogue sentient toasters!