Okay so if I'm understanding you correctly, what I'm calling a physical process emerges from, is a result of, not the physical fundamentals, rather it is the result of the interaction of those fundamentals where that interaction results in properties that were otherwise not present. — NotAristotle

We need to define physical fundamentals first. We can argue that all existence is composed of smaller parts and that the sum complexity produce emergent properties that we then apply the definition of "an object". Calling something a physical object is just a terminology by us humans to define reality easier, it's part of the simplified language we use to function in day to day life. But "objects" are only accumulations of different other systems and the reason they accumulate and produce separation from other objects, like me as a human being not just vaporizing into an equilibrium of the space I'm in, is due to fundamental forces that bind and define these sets of things that make up me as a material entity. We could argue that these forces are either emergent properties themselves of other fundamentals, or they are part of the defining entities that mathematically steer sets to form certain types of higher complexities.

What I mean is that for a system to produce emergent properties; pure randomness cannot work on its own due to simple chaos theory. It's only when something has enough initial defining guiding principles that randomness start to form into a higher complexity that produce emergent properties. And it is in our math equations of reality that we can spot these guiding principles. If we zoom out and back to the beginning, before the big bang, going by the inflation theories of our universal bubble forming by randomness into a stable mathematical balance (like the fine structure constant) produces a stable rising complexity out of whatever we formed out of. In the theory it's proposed that there can form other inflationary universes that has its constants being different and therefor something like the fine structure constant are unable to balance the electromagnetic forces against other forces and the inflation of those universes fizzle out before being able to form any further higher complexities. It may be that we live in a universe in which these forces have found a mathematical equilibrium that stabilizes the progression of entropy and thereby enables enough of it to generate further higher complex outcomes, i.e emergent properties.

Whether or not these forces and the mathematical balance are emergent properties themselves or functions as the guiding principles are up for debate. But the fact that we have such probability chaos in quantum randomness and with virtual particles, yet still generate balanced bonds of matter and energy that doesn't immediately cancel itself out or break apart speaks to reality, as we experience it, to be a probability luck that occurred when our reality began. We wouldn't exist without all those forces ending up in a functioning relation to each other and we wouldn't exist if these forces didn't act as guiding principles for how higher complexities behave, leading to emerging outcomes and new levels of complexities.

In essence, everything is in relation and acting on each other, there are nothing defining the borders between anything other than the fundamental forces producing such borders by their fundamental interactions. Without their mathematical balance, nothing would be, at all.

As an analogy, H2O, the result of interaction between atoms, is a liquid at room temperature, while oxygen and hydrogen atoms, the constituents, do not have the property of being liquid at room temperature. — NotAristotle

Yes, in a sense this is how we can define it. A single water molecule, H2O, does not have itself the property of a specific state of matter. When you heat up a water molecule it becomes more kinetic and that energy soon overcomes any intermolecular forces. These forces bind together many atoms and only when they act in a larger amount do we see these kinetic behaviors act upon each other and the intermolecular forces binding low kinetic atoms. So only when atoms form molecules that then bonds with others do we see matter and only through different levels of energy do we see this matter behave in certain states.

Scaling up from that we find more complex interactions between different states of matter, different matter reacting on other types matter and their states interacting etc. and we're off to form even higher levels of complexities. Nothing of this is a straight line, but what we observe are cutoff points in which interactions pool into some new function that interacts as if the whole system could be defined as one single entity, this is the emergent property.

But, physicalism generally focus on topics like consciousness and in terms of that we focus on the brain/body, its physical processes, the neurological parts of the brain, and how they function and what I'm arguing for, consciousness appearing as an emergent property out of the complex bonds between singular biological functions. A form of hallucination that gets produced by a specific balance of these parts interactions with each other. Therefore we cannot simply draw a line from one part of the brain to a resulting behavior in our sum consciousness without understanding the guiding principles and how they steer the path of the complexity.

With respect to emergent properties - the emergent qualities of substances like glass or water as analogies do not really provide the basis of explanations for consciousness in terms of emergence. New properties can emerge from simpler constituents—glass from sand, liquidity from a combination of hydrogen and oxygen. These examples show that a whole can indeed have properties that its constituent parts do not possess individually, a central idea in emergence theory. — Wayfarer

And it's here that I ask, why would our entity as humans be separated from the rest of the universe? We see the emergent properties throughout our reality, acting on different scales and in different sets of interactions, with cutoff points in which we can observe the emergent properties appear and that we then simplify in language by defining them as "objects". But we aren't bound in language to only call simple bonds and interactions "an object", we also call sets of complexities as "objects". A solar system, an ecosystem etc. When speaking of an eco system as a whole it produces a behavior as a single entity when zoomed out and we can zoom out further and further and see more emergent properties arise from its parts.

"Consciousness" is as undefined as a physical object as an "ecosystem". And in similar fashion both systems produce problems for us to define their behavior by just studying its parts. Just like consciousness we have problems explaining the behavior of the whole of an ecosystem by trying to draw lines from its parts. It's like something "clicks into place", a cutoff point in which new behaviors emerge. It's this abstraction that produce a problem for scientists to just explain consciousness by the neurological parts alone. The interactions between all systems and individual neurons increase so quickly in mathematical complexity that we lose our computational capability to verify any meaningful causal links other than trivial ones that formed our knowledge of how different parts in the brain are linked to basic and trivial functions of our consciousness. But the holistic entity that is our consciousness shows functions that we don't understand by these trivial links we experiment with. And they disappear as through a cutoff point when we remove more and more interactions and interplays between functions in the brain, as I defined when writing about the near-death waking up-experiences.

However while these examples demonstrate physical and chemical emergence, they do not adequately address the unique challenges posed by consciousness. The emergence of physical properties like the transparency of glass or the liquidity of water can be (and have been) completely explained through physical and chemical processes. These are objective properties that can be observed and measured from an external perspective. — Wayfarer

Because they are simple for explaining the principle. Increasingly complex systems become harder to quantify in their emergent properties, yet we see them. Talking about matter is only there to make a simple example of the principle, but in relation to consciousness we reach a level of complexity and emergent properties that become harder to explain and test, and it's why we've yet to conclude it true. This is what much of modern sciences attempt to achieve. But as I explained with my example of the constants in physics having "infinite" decimals, it could be possible to explain these extreme complexities if we had the computational power to reach the end of such constant's string of decimals, seen as the geometrical resolution should predictably break down at some point, changing a constant to a variable as we reach the smallest functional resolution at the Planck scale and enter pure randomness. What I mean by that is that the complexities of higher emergent phenomena require such extreme level of computational precision that we may never be able to simply formulate a map of how consciousness appears. The numbers go through the roof if we brute force it.

It's basically similar to modern AI systems, even though they are extremely rudimentary in comparison; with the increasing complexity and amount of information, the guiding principles of the system forms emergent properties in the models behavior that was not directly programmed in, yet, they're there. Like how an LLM start to function in another language that was not programmed in as a function. And in similar fashion to other complex system producing emergent phenomenas, the computer scientists working on these models simply cannot explain how it happens, leading to the black box problem which echoes the problems we have in science to explain consciousness.

Consciousness, on the other hand, presents a different kind of problem. It's not just about the emergence of new properties but about the emergence of the capacity for subjective experience. This includes what it feels like to see, feel pain, or taste. This subjective quality is what is not observable or measurable in terms of objective properties of chemical substances. And that is by design, as by design, scientific observation excludes the subject. — Wayfarer

Why would billions of years of evolution not be able to form a certain emergent property based on necessity? We see highly complex systems all over in nature; that emerged through evolution. The only reason you apply consciousness some magical special treatment is because of our emotions as the conscious being thinking about it. It produces a feedback loop of experienced paradoxes that stirs up emotions and start to play into our cognitive biases. It quickly becomes supernatural and religious in nature, in which we protect our sanity by looking at consciousness as something uniquely special compared to the rest reality itself. That's what I call the human arrogance bias as we form theories not based on a universal logic, but instead by applying a higher value to ourselves skewing our ability to theorize correctly.

So, there exist no reason or evidence, other than religious needs and wants, to separate consciousness as a function from the rest of the natural world. The emergent property all of this is about is that specific subjectivity you mention. And the evolutionary necessity can simply be boiled down and explained through the human species starting with the evolutionary trait of adaptability, the need for it. Humans are highly adaptable in nature when speaking of only our basic body functions. Adaptability is an extremely powerful evolutionary trait, especially for animals that move over large distances and climates. It is not far fetched that the whole reason we developed our level of consciousness is due to this adaptability, a function that makes us able to plan and change behaviors according to the environment. This increase in complexity developed through evolution would then, just like other emergent systems of high complexities, produce new functions that weren't part of the intended simple function. That in order to be adaptable, we developed systems to recognize, memorize and formulate visualized scenarios in order to be able to plan our next moves. These systems together would be able to produce a new level of complexity which may be the reason why subjectivity occurs.

Our only problem is that we cannot quantify that complexity as the number of interactions between systems reach levels far beyond what's computationally possible by brute force.

Even if we fully understood the brain's physical and biological attributes - and we're a very long way from that - we might still lack an explanation for how these attributes give rise to subjective experience. There is an incommensurability involved which is not bridgeable in terms of more data. This gap in understanding leads us to question whether the concept of emergence, as understood in physical sciences, is sufficient to explain consciousness, or whether it is, at best, just another analogy or metaphor (or straw to grasp at). — Wayfarer

There's enough to assume it plays a part. But we don't know if we can produce a model that maps how it functions. And what I'm arguing for is that instead of looking at each part, each interaction and trying to brute force it, search for the underlying guiding principles. These are essential for emergent systems to produce properties that functions as their own entities, and finding these principles should be possible.

Basically, it becomes a trial and error research, setting up starting points (principles) that guide the generated complexity as we look for and analyze the emergent properties and if they show behaviors of subjective agency. It's basically what the AI research is doing, but without having that business as the main goal. Their approach is just higher functionality and all focus has been on the shenanigans that appears out of capitalist goal, but there's a reason why AI is considered instrumental as a tool for scientists researching consciousness. Because it enables testing complexity in a new way, and these tools in research is only just now being used.

If monism and evolution are true, emergence must be true. — creativesoul

Consciousness, in my view, is just part of the same coin as anything else. Maybe the best description would be that both mind and matter are part of the same thing, but an emergent property that functions as a fluid abstract system rather than a set object could be viewed as an abstract while a defined set object that emerge would be called an object. And these are bound to what scale they're defined under. A set of objects can emerge an abstract. Whether a set of abstracts can form an object however is probably closer to religion, but an abstract could form emergent properties of another abstract, as we can see in behavior science and sociology studying the psychology of masses of people, when speaking of primarily human consciousness. But one idea of an object formed out of a mass abstract complexity could be something like a Dyson sphere, a production of objects that becomes physical out of the abstract system of the masses.

This subjective quality is what is not observable or measurable in terms of objective properties of chemical substances. And that is by design... — Wayfarer

If the 'subjective quality' of experience(or experience if you prefer) emerges, then a lack of experience within or regarding the more basic elemental constituents is exactly what would be required and expected, not by design so much, but rather by necessity(existential dependency and elemental constituency).

Apple pies are not found - cannot be found - by looking at apple trees.

That's not a flaw. It is a feature.

:100:

"Consciousness" is as undefined as a physical object as an "ecosystem". And in similar fashion both systems produce problems for us to define their behavior by just studying its parts. Just like consciousness we have problems explaining the behavior of the whole of an ecosystem by trying to draw lines from its parts. It's like something "clicks into place", a cutoff point in which new behaviors emerge. It's this abstraction that produce a problem for scientists to just explain consciousness by the neurological parts alone. The interactions between all systems and individual neurons increase so quickly in mathematical complexity that we lose our computational capability to verify any meaningful causal links other than trivial ones that formed our knowledge of how different parts in the brain are linked to basic and trivial functions of our consciousness. But the holistic entity that is our consciousness shows functions that we don't understand by these trivial links we experiment with. And they disappear as through a cutoff point when we remove more and more interactions and interplays between functions in the brain, as I defined when writing about the near-death waking up-experiences. — Christoffer

:100: :up: to your whole post...

...and this paragraph especially is brilliantly said.

If monism and evolution are true, emergence must be true.
— creativesoul

Consciousness, in my view, is just part of the same coin as anything else. Maybe the best description would be that both mind and matter are part of the same thing, but an emergent property that functions as a fluid abstract system rather than a set object could be viewed as an abstract while a defined set object that emerge would be called an object. — Christoffer

Greetings Christoffer! Your contributions to this thread have been interesting. They've captured my attention.

It seems to me that not only are mind and matter "part of the same thing", but that they are part of a plurality of things, all of which 'emerge' as more complex entities.

And yes, consciousness must be taken into account in a fluid spatiotemporal manner. The problem currently - it seems to me - is the apparent inability for the sciences to draw the evolutionary bridge between language less creatures' and language users'. There are also inherent issues with the origins of meaning, which is required for all cases of consciousness. The experience must be meaningful to the creature, at the time.

"Consciousness" is as undefined as a physical object as an "ecosystem". And in similar fashion both systems produce problems for us to define their behavior by just studying its parts. Just like consciousness we have problems explaining the behavior of the whole of an ecosystem by trying to draw lines from its parts. It's like something "clicks into place", a cutoff point in which new behaviors emerge. It's this abstraction that produce a problem for scientists to just explain consciousness by the neurological parts alone. The interactions between all systems and individual neurons increase so quickly in mathematical complexity that we lose our computational capability to verify any meaningful causal links other than trivial ones that formed our knowledge of how different parts in the brain are linked to basic and trivial functions of our consciousness. But the holistic entity that is our consciousness shows functions that we don't understand by these trivial links we experiment with. And they disappear as through a cutoff point when we remove more and more interactions and interplays between functions in the brain, as I defined when writing about the near-death waking up-experiences.
— Christoffer

:100: :up: to your whole post...

...and this paragraph especially is brilliantly said. — wonderer1

Seconded. It seems to me that methodological approach deserves attention. Earlier, perhaps your first post in this thread, you set out much the same reasoning I've agreed with elsewhere(a nod to methodological naturalism and Occam's razor).

Where were you when I was talking about definitions in philosophy? :smile:

"at the end of the day such items are either physical or supervene on the physical." — frank

One can always reduce things of non-physical nature to something physical.
For example, morality has to do with survival; and since survival refers to the body, life, our existence as such --some even say that survival is the main, of not the only, moral goal in life-- it can be judged to be physical in nature. But this reduction is a fallacy. Because it assumes that one can exist only as a body; that it suffices to be alive. It does not include existence as a father, as a friend, as a citizen, as a human being, in general. It does not include well-being, conscience, the sense of freedom, the need for recognition and being respected, and all kind of emotional and mental states that are irreducable to matter.
Our reality, our view of the world, what we think about everything, is based on physical things and concrete ideas as well as on non-physical things and abstract ideas.

I'm familiar with that 'koan'. In reality Zen/Ch'an is highly regimented and disciplined and is generally conducted in an atmosphere of strict routine and observance of rules and hierarchy. Have a read of Harold Stewart's take on Westerner's interactions with Japanese Zen. (Stewart was an Australian poet and orientalist who lived the last half of his life in Kyoto.)

Acolytes are expected to develop indifference to the discomforts of heat and cold on a most frugal vegetarian diet and to abstain from self-indulgence in sleep and sex, intoxicating drinks and addictive drugs. Altogether Zen demands an ability to participate in a communal life as regimented and lacking in privacy as the army. — Wayfarer

This doesn't give me the impression that you really thought about that quote I posted. What does what you posted have to do, with Zen having rudimentary technology for dealing with human intuitions?

Have any thoughts on what that quote itself said?

Some things that give me, as a physicalist, a spiritual experience:



For me, best when listened to with closed eyes:

If the 'subjective quality' of experience(or experience if you prefer) emerges, then a lack of experience within or regarding the more basic elemental constituents is exactly what would be required and expected, not by design so much, but rather by necessity(existential dependency and elemental constituency). — creativesoul

Sorry, but this makes no sense.

And it's here that I ask, why would our entity as humans be separated from the rest of the universe? — Christoffer

Again, a very, very long post, which unfortunately shows no insight into the fundamental plight of existence, which is precisely the sense of separateness and the accompanying anxiety that this produces. But, of course, that is dismissed on account of it being 'religious'.

Small wonder, methinks, that I voluntarily neglect modern thought. — Mww

I totally get that.

Have any thoughts on what that quote itself said? — wonderer1

Sure. This part:

We begin to “know” rather than remain open to. When we cling strongly to what we have learned, it becomes easy for us to be convinced that we get it, and in fear of losing it, we begin to hold tightly to it. This fixation ends up becoming a crutch towards our growth. The teacher and teachings are both useful and to some degree, necessary, so they should be utilized, but both also must, ultimately, be allowed to drop away.

Very true. The reason I answered with that piece by Harold Stewart was just to point to the broader social context in which Zen/Ch'an is usually situated. In the modern west, it's very much an individualist attitude, but the cultures in which it is practiced are very different to that. But it's a digression from this thread.

When you attend any Buddhist ceremony or meditation centre, you will notice there’s a lot of bowing. You bow to the Three Jewels Buddha, Dharma, Sangha. One of the things I learned from Buddhism was the significance of bowing, in acknowledgement of the wisdom of the teachings, practitioners and teacher. There is a Pali text, the Parable of the Raft, in which the Buddha likens the teaching to a hastily-constructed raft built from twigs and branches, used to ‘cross the river’, but not to be carried about once the river is crossed. That is the same point that Lin Chi/Rinzai is making. But there is still a river to cross.

If the 'subjective quality' of experience(or experience if you prefer) emerges, then a lack of experience within or regarding the more basic elemental constituents is exactly what would be required and expected, not by design so much, but rather by necessity(existential dependency and elemental constituency).
— creativesoul

Sorry, but this makes no sense. — Wayfarer

Yeah, no surprise. In order for it to make sense, one must be thinking about what it would take in order for consciousness to be an emergent result of evolutionary progression. We must first do a bit of arm chair reasoning.

We would not look for it at the level of chemical compound. Those are necessary elemental constituents.

Yeah, no surprise. In order for it to make sense, one must be thinking about what it would take in order for consciousness to be an emergent result of evolutionary progression. — creativesoul

But the problem is, you’re still regarding ‘it’ as a phenomena, as something that exists. But consciousness is not ‘something that exists’, it is the ground of experience. Now, certainly, consciousness can be treated as a phenomena, as something that can be studied and understood - that is what cognitive science and psychology deal with. But I think the ‘hard problem’ argument is not addressed to that - it is about the meaning of being (‘what it is like to be….’), which is not an objective phenomenon.

But the problem is, you’re still regarding ‘it’ as a phenomena, as something that exists. But consciousness is not ‘something that exists’, — Wayfarer

Nah.

The problem - here and now - is that I have someone whom I've respected for decades attempting to tell me what my viewpoint is, and they're dead wrong in very important ways. You're right in saying I regard consciousness as something that exists. The rest is inapplicable, a false description. It does not match up to my position on consciousness, particularly regarding its emergence.

someone whom I've respected for decades — creativesoul

Sorry, as this is entirely off-topic, but what... Do you know each other IRL, or have been following each other across the internet since the Nineties? (genuinely curious - seems anomalous here)

Nah. Just me overstating more than a decade of time between my first reading of Wayfarer's posts. :blush: Not plural.

Ahh ok, lol all good. Thank you

Again, a very, very long post, which unfortunately shows no insight into the fundamental plight of existence, which is precisely the sense of separateness and the accompanying anxiety that this produces. But, of course, that is dismissed on account of it being 'religious'. — Wayfarer

Saying that a long post is a reason for "no insight", makes absolutely no sense. I've taken what you say into consideration in order to write out a detailed answer to what you brought up. This constant focus on the "length" of my writing is a rather dishonest point really. This topic is extremely complex and requires extremely detailed descriptions, in that perspective, my writing is rather short actually.

We're fundamentally talking about functions of our reality that I'm arguing extends beyond mere consciousness and therefor require further exploration. It's key to the understanding as a whole since a core part points out that our consciousness is as much a part of the natural world as anything else, and therefore functions according to how the rest of reality functions.

My point of religious reasoning mainly focus on when someone fail to acknowledge where evidence and actual observed phenomena exist. I've read your idealism argument and you do focus a lot on actual scientific research, but where I think it fails is to connect to any actual alternative and separate conclusion that answers beyond the scientific research and reasoning I'm building out of. It essentially produces a caricature of scientific perspectives and I don't know why.

That's why I continue to ask the question; where's the alternative? What's the alternative theory, position and perspective that's able to follow what's already been proven as well as what has been observed and being observed in scientific research today?

If you argue for idealism, what is it that you are arguing for? And are you just using the lack of final evidences as your foundation for your argument or do you have a foundation for idealism that is able to supersede what science and emergence theories provides?

I cannot dismiss your argument as "religious" until I know how you argue for it and counter-argue against what I've written. So far you're only focusing on dismissing everything, without real explanation for a different counter perspective.

I'm not sure how to interpret what you wrote there because it generally looks like you are after answers to reality in the form of comfort, something that reduces the anxiety of our existence. For me, that is an irrelevant point as it has nothing to do with what's true about reality. Those are two different aspects of existing as a human being. I am interested in answers to what reality is and how consciousness functions, but I don't really care in that sense about any meaning to it, because "meaning" is arbitrary, it is a trivial thing in this topic. "Meaning" is something I can create with what I have, it's something I can work on separately. We don't get meaning out of these theories and answers, we only get answers to the questions. Meaning is something we have to build out of the truth we find and if we believe there to be meaning elsewhere, that is the religious aspect I pointed out in my argument being inventions that ignores actual search for truth.

Saying that a long post is a reason for "no insight", makes absolutely no sense. — Christoffer

I believe these were intended as two separate attributes.

It is long. And it provides no insight. Could be wrong, but that seems the case to me.

That's why I continue to ask the question; where's the alternative? What's the alternative theory, position and perspective that's able to follow what's already been proven as well as what has been observed and being observed in scientific research today? — Christoffer

That is a good question and I will come back to it.

I tend towards dismissing your arguments in the same spirit that you trend to dismiss a vast range of philosophical spirituality as ‘religious fantasy’. You strike me as a highly intelligent and articulate atheist with cast-iron convictions. Consider:

I am interested in answers to what reality is and how consciousness functions, but I don't really care in that sense about any meaning to it, because "meaning" is arbitrary, it is a trivial thing in this topic. "Meaning" is something I can create with what I have, it's something I can work on separately. We don't get meaning out of these theories and answers, we only get answers to the questions — Christoffer

Whereas I see philosophy (and in some ways, religion) as being precisely the concern with what Victor Frankl called ‘man’s search for meaning’. But you dismiss it as an infantile search for comfort, as being like thumb-sucking. That’s how it comes across to me.

And the reason I tend towards being dismissive is because I couldn’t say anything inside what you consider valid terms of reference which could hold any sway. What you’re asking for is a scientific explanation of what is outside the purview of scientific explanations. Whereas I feel you’re saying, if something is outside the purview of science, then how could it be worth considering?

In respect of alternative frameworks to scientific materialism which still respect science perhaps this essay might be a starting point https://aeon.co/essays/the-blind-spot-of-science-is-the-neglect-of-lived-experience

Sorry, as this is entirely off-topic, but what... Do you know each other IRL, or have been following each other across the internet since the Nineties? (genuinely curious - seems anomalous here) — AmadeusD

We both were members of the predecessor forum to this one, and possibly the one before that. But you’re right, none of us know each other personally, it is purely a medium for the exchange of ideas.

I think on your very, very long post you went off the rails in your very first paragraph.

A physical object is always going to be primary and it's definition will be secondary. If there is any ambiguity about what the parameters of the physical object are they should be resolved by setting parameters on the physical object.

If the definition of the word you are using doesn't match the physical object.then you are using the wrong word.

We both were members of the predecessor forum to this one, and possibly the one before that. But you’re right, none of us know each other personally, it is purely a medium for the exchange of ideas. — Wayfarer

Oh, interesting. As a new addition i had no idea there were prior iterations. Neat! What a great little community.

The Kuhn-Popper split is one of philosophy rather than science, and the two views definitely cannot be accommodated within each other, any more than postmodernism can be accommodated within realism. They both talk about the allegedly ‘same’ world outside of our schemes, but in terms sharply different from each other. — Joshs

It seems to me that the changing of paradigms could, at least in practice, if not sociological theory, be mapped onto falsification.

It seems to me that the changing of paradigms could, at least in practice, if not sociological theory, be mapped onto falsification. — Janus

:up:

My usual spiel, physicalism (a version of materialism) doesn't really have a good definition anymore, because there's nothing which can sensible be made that physicalism can be opposed to. — Manuel

I suppose you mean that modern Physicalism is more inclusive than ancient Materialism (Atomism). It's intended to include the full-range of modern science : especially chemical substance and dynamic causation ; hence covers the major categories of empirical Science : Chemistry (matter) and Physics (energy), along with their sub-categories : biology, geology, astronomy, etc. So, anything "opposed" to Physicalism would be implicitly classified as Pseudoscience. Yet, the "hard" sciences do omit the "soft" sciences of Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, and Politics. All of which are closer to Philosophical (theoretical) than to Empirical (experimental) methodologies. Are they also pseudosciences?

On a philosophy forum, the Physicalism label is usually contrasted with Idealism or Spiritualism, or Pseudoscience-in-general. The primary distinction is that "Physics" is Natural Science, whereas "Spirit" is Supernatural Superstition. Yet in reality the line between them is blurry. For my own discussions, I prefer dualistic Physicalism to monistic Materialism because it is more inclusive : tangible Matter and invisible Energy. Unfortunately, the physical concept of Energy is also acceptable to modern Paranormalists, Spiritualists and Ghost Hunters, who seek for evidence of their spiritual quarry with technology designed to detect physical energy and spooky forces. Is that what you mean by "doesn't have a good definition anymore"? :smile:


Physicalism :
This includes not only material objects, but also energy, forces, and physical laws. In summary, while materialism asserts that everything is made up of material substance, physicalism goes further to claim that everything can be explained by physical entities and their properties.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-materialism-and-physicalism

But the problem is, you’re still regarding ‘it’ as a phenomena, as something that exists. But consciousness is not ‘something that exists’, it is the ground of experience. Now, certainly, consciousness can be treated as a phenomena, as something that can be studied and understood - that is what cognitive science and psychology deal with. But I think the ‘hard problem’ argument is not addressed to that - it is about the meaning of being (‘what it is like to be….’), which is not an objective phenomenon. — Wayfarer

As you implied, the key to your differences with is in divergent definitions of "To Be / To Exist". A typical dictionary definition says that "To Exist" means Objective Reality, which seems to exclude Subjective Ideality. Reality is taken to be what the physical senses sense, and implicitly denies what metaphysical Reason infers, often by analogy, not experiment. Yet physical science could not function without inferences of that which is not apparent to the 5 senses, including invisible Energy, known only by deduction from its effects on matter.

I suspect (infer) that Kant coined the term "Noumenon" with such to-be-or-not-to-be debates in mind. The term tries to make Ideas seem like merely a different kind of Phenomenon, which exists in a nonphysical/metaphysical sense. That's also why I have recently been emphasizing the scientific relationship between causal Energy and intentional Mind. But it still sounds like non-sense to some. :smile:

, , yes, 's is an excellent post.

But can anyone set out clearly what emergence is?