Any Defenses of Materialism?

[1137]

That's not quite correct.
In emergentism, you have matter creating minds, and yet it is not reductionism.
That's why I have asked you before about how you use your terms.

Yes but with emergence the mind is immaterial to an even greater extent.

 

[Koldo]

There is definitely nothing difficult to understand about Stoljar's article: "physicalism" is a metaphysical thesis in which its fundamental posit can only be given a circular definition. Therefore it is a vacuous thesis.

You still can't articulate any defense of either materialism or physicalism as a true metaphysical thesis, can you?

Do you mean you were unable to understand what was meant by 'physical theory' and 'physical body' as anything more than a vacuum ?

 

[Koldo]

Yes but with emergence the mind is immaterial to an even greater extent.

Which is irrelevant to the point I was making.

 

[Nous]

Do you mean you were unable to understand what was meant by 'physical theory' and 'physical body' as anything more than a vacuum ?

I don't know what you're asking here. Stoljar's article didn't say anything about a vacuum.

If you believe I have misunderstood something about physicalism, then quote whatever I said and demonstrate its error.

I'll ask this question again: You still can't articulate any defense of either materialism or physicalism as a true metaphysical thesis, can you?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

So emergent dualism? Then the mind is still something immaterial that arose from matter (in an unknown way), thus making materialism false.

Not according to the definition of materialism that you have provided. perhaps you should have examined it a little closer?

Materialism makes no claim(within that definition) that the mind can be reduced from the brain(as I have already pointed out), only that mind is a result of brain. You are a result of your parents, you are not your parents. You can not be reduced to your parents. That mind itself is not material, but arises from material processes, is completely consistent with the definition that, again, you provided.

You aren't actually arguing against materialism, you are arguing against a very specific proposition(the mind can be reduced to the brain) that nobody actually made; not any definition, nor any proponent of materialism, nor anyone in this thread. You are effectively arguing against yourself.

As for dualism(of the mind body sort), that's also not a necessity. You can categorize anything as a dualism. apples/non apples=dualism. Mind isnt a singular thing, there are many emergent properties that are totally seperate, yet affect our experience. Emotion(many types), self awareness(ego, I), internal vocalization(thinking), body awareness, subconscious mind, etc etc, and the physical experience can be similarly broken down. There is only dualism if you create one in your own mind.

 

[Koldo]

I don't know what you're asking here. Stoljar's article didn't say anything about a vacuum.

If you believe I have misunderstood something about physicalism, then quote whatever I said and demonstrate its error.

I'll ask this question again: You still can't articulate any defense of either materialism or physicalism as a true metaphysical thesis, can you?

You have said that Physicalism 'is a vacuous thesis.'. Did you mean you were unable to get anything meaningful from the definitions provided ?
I am trying to understand whether you actually comprehend what was being stated before anything else.
Were you able to comprehend what was meant by physical theory and physical objects ? I have provided links to both terms in the wikipedia.
Read them and tell me whether you understand what was meant by 'Physicalism' now.

 

[Nous]

You have said that Physicalism 'is a vacuous thesis.'.

Yes, I noted that Stoljar's article makes clear that "'physicalism' is a metaphysical thesis in which its fundamental posit can only be given a circular definition. Therefore it is a vacuous thesis."

Did you mean you were unable to get anything meaningful from the definitions provided ?

That's correct. I do not "get anything meaningful" about a metaphysical thesis in which its fundamental posit can only be defined in a circular way. That is contrary to the scientific method.

Were you able to comprehend what was meant by physical theory and physical objects ? I have provided links to both terms in the wikipedia.

I didn't see those links. What were the definitions for "physical" in the Wikipedia?

What are the criteria by which to distinguish something that is "physical" from something that is not? (And why doesn't Stoljar know about these criteria?)

 

[Willamena]

Try reading it again. If anything material was shown to exist, then materialism would be shown to be false.

Thoughts and memories are immaterial. Thoughts and memories exist, regardless of which ontological model one may subscribe.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, I noted that Stoljar's article makes clear that "'physicalism' is a metaphysical thesis in which its fundamental posit can only be given a circular definition. Therefore it is a vacuous thesis."

That's correct. I do not "get anything meaningful" about a metaphysical thesis in which its fundamental posit can only be defined in a circular way. That is contrary to the scientific method.

Even if that was the case, I don't see the problem.
Using the sciences to infer knowledge rely on certain assumptions which you can't prove to be true.

I didn't see those links. What were the definitions for "physical" in the Wikipedia?

What are the criteria by which to distinguish something that is "physical" from something that is not? (And why doesn't Stoljar know about these criteria?)

Those are the links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_body

Can you understand what was meant by 'Physicalism' now ?

 

[Nous]

Can you understand what was meant by 'Physicalism' now ?

No. Define "physical" so that we can distinguish something that is "physical" from something that is not, and provide your defense that the thesis of physicalism is true.

 

[Willamena]

As for dualism(of the mind body sort), that's also not a necessity. You can categorize anything as a dualism. apples/non apples=dualism. Mind isnt a singular thing, there are many emergent properties that are totally seperate, yet affect our experience. Emotion(many types), self awareness(ego, I), internal vocalization(thinking), body awareness, subconscious mind, etc etc, and the physical experience can be similarly broken down. There is only dualism if you create one in your own mind.

You have expressed dualism when you suggest that the mind, which is a result of the brain, is not the brain it is a result of. Dual=two.

 

[Koldo]

No. Define "physical" so that we can distinguish something that is "physical" from something that is not, and provide your defense that the thesis of physicalism is true.

I think the most simple way to do just that is to define it as 'That which is not mental'.
Do you understand what is meant by 'Physicalism' now ?

 

[1137]

Not according to the definition of materialism that you have provided. perhaps you should have examined it a little closer?

Materialism makes no claim(within that definition) that the mind can be reduced from the brain(as I have already pointed out), only that mind is a result of brain. You are a result of your parents, you are not your parents. You can not be reduced to your parents. That mind itself is not material, but arises from material processes, is completely consistent with the definition that, again, you provided.

You aren't actually arguing against materialism, you are arguing against a very specific proposition(the mind can be reduced to the brain) that nobody actually made; not any definition, nor any proponent of materialism, nor anyone in this thread. You are effectively arguing against yourself.

As for dualism(of the mind body sort), that's also not a necessity. You can categorize anything as a dualism. apples/non apples=dualism. Mind isnt a singular thing, there are many emergent properties that are totally seperate, yet affect our experience. Emotion(many types), self awareness(ego, I), internal vocalization(thinking), body awareness, subconscious mind, etc etc, and the physical experience can be similarly broken down. There is only dualism if you create one in your own mind.

Incorrect. If matter is all that exists (materialism) then everything has to be reduced to matter. Thoughts can't exist as immaterial things and thus are seen as "dependent on the brain", despite 14 pages clearly showing this has no defense. But even if a mind emerged from matter, we still get dualism, because we are drawing a distinction between substance A and B.

 

[Nous]

I think the most simple way to do just that is to define it as 'That which is not mental'.

"Physical" means "not mental"? You're saying there are only two possible kinds of things--either "mental" or "not mental"? Define mental.

And "physicalism" is the thesis that everything that exists is "not mental"--i.e., that nothing is "mental"?

What have you done here but proven that "physicalism" is vacuous, is not premised on any coherent idea? Obviously you haven't been able to articulate any argument that concludes that the thesis of physicalism is true (that nothing is real but that which is "physical" or, as you now claim, "not mental"). Right?

 

[Koldo]

"Physical" means "not mental"? You're saying there are only two possible kinds of things--either "mental" or "not mental"? Define mental.
And "physicalism" is the thesis that everything that exists is "not mental"--i.e., that nothing is "mental"?

No. It is rather that everything is either physical or supervenes on the physical ( such as that which is 'mental' ).
The words 'physical' and 'mental' are being used in layman terms here. I am afraid trying to further explain the terms would lead me nowhere.

What have you done here but proven that "physicalism" is vacuous, is not premised on any coherent idea? Obviously you haven't been able to articulate any argument that concludes that the thesis of physicalism is true (that nothing is real but that which is "physical" or, as you now claim, "not mental"). Right?

I find no point in trying to posit an argument in favour of 'Physicalism' if, after all this time, you can't even understand what 'Physicalism' is.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Incorrect. If matter is all that exists (materialism) then everything has to be reduced to matter. Thoughts can't exist as immaterial things and thus are seen as "dependent on the brain", despite 14 pages clearly showing this has no defense. But even if a mind emerged from matter, we still get dualism, because we are drawing a distinction between substance A and B.

Sigh.

Again, not according to the definition you provided. Perhaps you should find a definition of the word that agrees with what you are saying?

"Matter is all that exists" is not an axiom of materialism, as per your(or any afaik) definition of the word.

 

[Nous]

No. It is rather that everything is either physical or supervenes on the physical ( such as that which is 'mental' ).
The words 'physical' and 'mental' are being used in layman terms here.

So your use of the adjective "mental" to define "physical" is also vacuous, undefinable?

I find no point in trying to posit an argument in favour of 'Physicalism' if, after all this time, you can't even understand what 'Physicalism' is.

I obviously do know what the definition of "physicalism" is. I quoted it above from Stoljar's article: "Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical."

It is a non-vacuous definition of the adjective "physical" that you haven't been able to provide or cite.

BTW, did you notice that the Wikipedia article "physical body" that you linked to does not contain a single citation whatsoever? I don't recall ever seeing another Wikipedia article that had no source whatsoever for its assertions.

Did you also notice that according to the defintion of "physical body" given in the first sentence of the article, the current theories and findings of physics demonstrate that the thesis of "physicalism" isn't true:

In physics, a physical body or physical object (sometimes simply called a body or object; also: concrete object) [citation needed] is an identifiable collection of matter, which may be more or less constrained by an identifiable boundary, [citation needed] to move together by translation or rotation, in 3-dimensional space.[citation needed]​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_body

Obviously "energy" is but one example of a phenomenon that isn't a "collection" of objects that have mass and volume (i.e., matter).

It isn't my fault that you are unable to defend the thesis of materialism or physicalism. It's because the thesis has been proven empirically false (in the first case) or is vacuous (in the second case).

 

[Quintessence]

This is a different question. But wherever a person draws their line for "the material", if they say that nothing exists beyond that line, a single thing beyond that line would prove them wrong.

The reason why I say all the paradigms are ultimately non-falsifiable is because regardless of the position taken, various evidences can be interpreted as supporting multiple paradigms. It is something I find rather fascinating. All the data can be made to fit whatever ontological philosophy one subscribes to. This is not atypical of ontology, really, as it deals with questions that must rest on various unverifiable assumptions. There's no proving these things wrong; they are perspectives one chooses to adopt... or doesn't. IMHO, the best "defense" of materialism is "this is the worldview I prefer, and I am going to use it. Deal with it."

 

[Nous]

All the data can be made to fit whatever ontological philosophy one subscribes to.

Obviously no one on this thread has been able to show that "all the data can be made to fit" the thesis of materialism or physicalism.

 

[Quintessence]

Obviously no one on this thread has been able to show that "all the data can be made to fit" the thesis of materialism or physicalism.

LOL... I don't think that's necessary. You have to do the think work for yourself with these philosophical questions. I can see how all the data can be made to fit materialism, in spite of not agreeing with that ontological philosophy. Don't need people to show me that, but I also spent way too much time thinking about stuff like this as a kid.