What are the issues with physicalism
For those who may not known physicalism is a philosophy in which there is nothing beyond that which is strictly physical/material. 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.
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.
It leaves little to no room for theology, spirituality - at least not in a sense removed from a to be eventually resolved hard problem of consciousness, and strongly pertains to an overall importance of substance and properties of those substances.
I would like to know whats problematic with this philosophy. What issues not already mentioned do we encounter if we take this to be the actual truth of things. Or you may expand on those previously mentioned.
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.
It leaves little to no room for theology, spirituality - at least not in a sense removed from a to be eventually resolved hard problem of consciousness, and strongly pertains to an overall importance of substance and properties of those substances.
I would like to know whats problematic with this philosophy. What issues not already mentioned do we encounter if we take this to be the actual truth of things. Or you may expand on those previously mentioned.
Comments (35)
Physicalism is a metaphysics. There is no way to prove it false or true.
Interesting, could you elaborate a bit more? Also out of curiosity by what criteria is something proven to you or in the sense that youre using it here?
Is it proven if its 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?
So, science moves by proofs, not beliefs. If a scientist or philosopher says physicalism is true, we expect proofs.
Thats 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.
I am saying that physicalism is not science.
Alright. But if thats the case what is the relevance of your previous statement:
Quoting Jackson
Surely if physicalism and science are unrelated then why do we need a scientists proof for physicalism
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.
Quoting Jackson
Your belief is mistaken: physical sciences are not "move(d) by proofs" (Popper); only formal sciences have proofs.
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.
Aha now I understand what youre getting at. Apologies for the misinterpretation.
Well, then it is not science (Popper et al), is it?
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.
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?
: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?
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.)
Quoting 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.
Quoting Benj96
Certainly. This is in accordance with the consequence I mentioned above.
Quoting 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.
What do you mean by physical - do you mean having substance or material? Because a photon is massless and yet it exists- if it didnt you wouldnt be able to read this.
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 its a conundrum.
As for physicalism vs materialism. Im simply chose physicalism because I felt it better encapsulated processes in physics that arent 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).
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.
Physical means detectable by the senses/instruments (mass + volume + energy)
Existence means the same thing.
That's precisely the problem.
Physical = matter & energy are physical.
Matter = Mass + volume
Energy = Can do work
Nonphysical = Neither matter nor energy (apophatic definition). Try defining "nonphysical" cataphatically!
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.
Quoting 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!)
Quoting Benj96
Yes, it really looks so. But again, it hasn't to be so.
Quoting 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)
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?
Quoting 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?
And then lost traction when science discovered that the world is not as it appears and that observers might actually influence what is observed.
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.
Quoting Agent Smith
Matter and mass are the same thing. Matter always has volume. Mass is volumetric. Name a piece of matter that doesnt have a volume or similarly matter that doesnt have mass. Its one and the same.
Precisely. Enter shrodinger and the fundamentals of quantum mechanics.
Ah well if thats 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). Thats 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 Im happy haha.
Well thats where the mind comes in doesnt 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.
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. Its 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 - its function, how it looks, its 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. Its unlikely you can ever conceive of all the possibilities and applications and forms your invention may take in the future, or what its significance to society may be through time - especially if the world is taken over by rogue sentient toasters!
I have heard theories that the brain could be a sort of transmission tower or receiver that has the capacity to condense and accelerate the properties and abilities of the environment at large that exist anyways - a sort of sluggish, slow and inefficient awareness. That is to say that our ability to feel emotions, to imagine, to reason is like a self-contained hyper-dynamic rapidly evolving system that emulates the natural world but in a way (learning) that enables us to adapt to whatever nature throws at us.
In this way the brain doesnt generate consciousness, It simply concentrates it/ empowers it, so that our body - an environment created by and an extension of the environment (outside ourselves) has the capacity to gain control or be the leading edge of awareness - which is not exclusive to us or even living things for that matter.
The theory sort of suggests that consciousness as we know it is all of evolution crunched down into a plastic, malleable semi- fluid, semi- crystalline electrochemical representation of the nature from whence it came.
Its a bit panpsychism except we cannot appreciate the consciousness of lower order life and chemistry because its so inefficient, slow and disordered to be considering aware (even if it has a limited capability to be so).
I don't blame you. :smile: It indeed looks like "materialism", etymologically at least, refers only to matter. But don't forget that materialism, as a philosopy was develped in ancient times, even the term itself was not yet used. (Re: Archimede's Atom and Greek atomists - Democritus, Leucippus, etc.).
But the existence of what we call "energy" has to wait for quite long to "make the news". And at some point humanity was presented with Einstein's famous equation relating mass to energy. And todya we can talk about
Quoting Benj96
No, no. It was not erroneous at all! I just made a remark that you had to connect "physicalism" to "materialism" so that people won't think you are talking about something different than materialism, which is still today the prevailing term. On the other hand, the term "physical" is much mor commonly used in a lot of contexts, e.g. physical universe/world, physical laws, physical vs non-physical, physical attraction, and so on.
I also prefer to use the word "physical" instead of material in a lot of cases.
The subject of your topic is quite important --I want to believe for most of us here-- regardless of the term used.
Don't listen to rumors! :grin:
Well, one can describe the receiver-transmitter mechanism of the brain in a lot of pompous ways. The don't change this basic characteristic of the brain. Moreover, these "pompous" descriptions often include blunders such as "abilities of the environment". How can the environment have any kind of ability, since the word refers to something that only humans and animals possess, things they are able to do, like skills, etc.
Then we have another one: "sluggish, slow and inefficient awareness". There is no such a thing as a sluggish or slow awareness. Awareness does not move!!
Quoting Benj96
You can say that again!
Quoting Benj96
I'm not sure if we can as "as we know it" ... I have started to believe that everyone has a different definition. description and view of the term.
"As we know it", should refer to its common, basic meaning, which is the state of being aware --i.e., being able to perceive or notice-- things in our environment and within us.
Now, the further one deviates from that, the more fancy and insubstantial things one can say about consciousness, and about which I don't give a damn.
Thanks. :smile: