Any Defenses of Materialism?

[Koldo]

So evidently free will or volition (the ability to choose between available options) is not one of the physical somethings. I guess that's the end of physicalism.

Supervenience would explain the existence of 'free will'.
Unless you are talking about 'libertarianism' ( metaphysics, not politics ), which you would have to show to be true to prove 'physicalism' false.

BTW, how do physical objects produce something that is "additional or extraneous" (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/supervene?s=t ) to physical objects?

How can those dominoes depict a face ?

 

[Nous]

Still waiting for your examples.

Why are you waiting for me to do something? Nothing that I can do will help you to argue for physicalism.

If you were to treat it as scientific hypothesis ?
You would have to show objects with identical physical properties but with different mental properties ( or that the physical differences between similar objects don't account for the divergence in mental properties ).

You haven't been able to come up with a coherent, non-circular definition of "physical," have you?

And ? What if 'energy' is not a collection of physical objects ? In what way does that contradict 'Physicalism' ?

Then I repeat what I already said several times here, e.g., in #351:

. . . according to the definition of "physical body" given in the first sentence of the Wikipedia article that you linked to, the current theories and findings of physics demonstrate that the thesis of physicalism isn't true if "physicalism" means that everything consists of or supervenes on "physical bodies".

Obviously the thesis of "physicalism" can't be falsified until we get a non-circular definition of "physical". The Wikipedia article provides a non-circular definition of "physical body". I was using that term to define what "physicalism" means.

 

[Nous]

Supervenience would explain the existence of 'free will'.

Prove it. Be sure to cite your sources.

 

[Koldo]

Why are you waiting for me to do something? Nothing that I can do will help you to argue for physicalism.

You have yet to exemplify a 'deific object' and a 'deific theory'.
'Physical object' and 'physics theory' can be understood by the common usage of those terms. Therefore, they don't stand on equal grounds.

You haven't been able to come up with a coherent, non-circular definition of "physical," have you?

I will simplify the task: Show me two rocks with identical chemical composition. If one of them exhibits consciousness while the other doesn't that would ( essentially ) prove Physicalism false.

Then I repeat what I already said several times here, e.g., in #351:

. . . according to the definition of "physical body" given in the first sentence of the Wikipedia article that you linked to, the current theories and findings of physics demonstrate that the thesis of physicalism isn't true if "physicalism" means that everything consists of or supervenes on "physical bodies".

Obviously the thesis of "physicalism" can't be falsified until we get a non-circular definition of "physical". The Wikipedia article provides a non-circular definition of "physical body". I was using that term to define what "physicalism" means.

I think you are the one not getting it. I agree with the definition provided in the Wikipedia article. In what way does 'energy' contradict Physicalism ?

 

[Koldo]

Prove it. Be sure to cite your sources.

Free will has only been observed in individuals with physical bodies.
That's the "proof".

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Free will has only been observed in individuals with physical bodies.
That's the "proof".

No it hasn't.

The idea of freewill is a faith based premise, a religious idea. Freewill demands a disconnect between the observably causal nature of the universe and everything in it, and mankind.

All the data seems to indicate consciousness is in fact an observer rather than an actor.

 

[Koldo]

No it hasn't.

The idea of freewill is a faith based premise, a religious idea. Freewill demands a disconnect between the observably causal nature of the universe and everything in it, and mankind.

All the data seems to indicate consciousness is in fact an observer rather than an actor.

I am speaking in the compatibilist sense of the term.

 

[Nous]

You have yet to exemplify a 'deific object' and a 'deific theory'.
'Physical object' and 'physics theory' can be understood by the common usage of those terms.

What did Stoljar say about "physical object" and "physics theory"? My defense of pantheism did nothing but transfer the terms from Stoljar's argument for physicalism.

Show me two rocks with identical chemical composition. If one of them exhibits consciousness while the other doesn't that would ( essentially ) prove Physicalism false.

How does the fact that rock do not "exhibit consciousness" lead to the conclusion that the thesis of physicalism is true?

Delineate the premises that lead to such a conclusion.

I think you are the one not getting it. I agree with the definition provided in the Wikipedia article. In what way does 'energy' contradict Physicalism ?

I don't know how to be clearer about the point. It's you who is having the problem of not getting it.

If the thesis of physicalism means that everything consists of or supervenes on "physical bodies" (which are just matter, according to the definition in the Wikipedia article), then the thesis of physicalism is false, because energy is not matter, and matter is not primary to energy. Energy is a conserved quantity; matter is not.

 

[Nous]

Free will has only been observed in individuals with physical bodies.

And the ability of individuals to choose between available options is not accounted for by the laws that govern "physical objects" (Wikipedia definition).

 

[Nous]

Free will has only been observed in individuals with physical bodies.
That's the "proof".

No it hasn't.

So that's why you are unable to choose to accept a true statement and reject a false one.

 

[Nous]

So, there are 370 posts on this thread so far, and still no one has been able to articulate an argument in defense of materialism or physicalism.

 

[Koldo]

What did Stoljar say about "physical object" and "physics theory"? My defense of pantheism did nothing but transfer the terms from Stoljar's argument for physicalism.

"The basic idea is that the physical features of the world are like the dots in the picture, and the psychological or biological or social features of the world are like the global properties of the picture."

"Moreover, while ‘physicalism’ is no doubt related to ‘physics’ it is also related to ‘physical object’ and this in turn is very closely connected with ‘material object’, and via that, with ‘matter.’"

"It seems clear that our thinking about the physical is anchored in part in the ordinary idea of a physical object and in part in the idea of physics."

Just read the text.

How does the fact that rock do not "exhibit consciousness" lead to the conclusion that the thesis of physicalism is true?

Delineate the premises that lead to such a conclusion.

You have said it is impossible to falsify Physicalism. I am telling you how such a task could be accomplished.

I don't know how to be clearer about the point. It's you who is having the problem of not getting it.

If the thesis of physicalism means that everything consists of or supervenes on "physical bodies" (which are just matter, according to the definition in the Wikipedia article), then the thesis of physicalism is false, because energy is not matter, and matter is not primary to energy. Energy is a conserved quantity; matter is not.

Is energy either "the sort of property required by a complete account of the intrinsic nature of paradigmatic physical objects and their constituents or else is a property which metaphysically (or logically) supervenes on the sort of property required by a complete account of the intrinsic nature of paradigmatic physical objects and their constituents" ?
Yes, it is.

Do you seriously think something as trivial as 'energy', which is accounted by physics, would be ignored in Physicalism ?

 

[Koldo]

And the ability of individuals to choose between available options is not accounted for by the laws that govern "physical objects" (Wikipedia definition).

Are you talking about libertarian free will ?
If you can't prove that it actually exists, I see no point in going further into this point.
Can you?

 

[Koldo]

So, there are 370 posts on this thread so far, and still no one has been able to articulate an argument in defense of materialism or physicalism.

If I didn't have to write so many post trying to actually make you understand what Physicalism is, this wouldn't have taken so long. I can grant you that.

 

[Yerda]

So, there are 370 posts on this thread so far, and still no one has been able to articulate an argument in defense of materialism or physicalism.

I'm happy to accept that the arguments aren't always that compelling. Most philosophers seem to think dualism is a hopeless mess. Idealism is pleasing but clearly bonkers. If you were in desperate need of an ontological framework you'd probably have to go with physicalism as the alternatives are useless. Unless your desperate need is something like finding a reason to believe the mind survives death of the body.

 

[Nous]

"Moreover, while ‘physicalism’ is no doubt related to ‘physics’ it is also related to ‘physical object’ and this in turn is very closely connected with ‘material object’, and via that, with ‘matter.’"

Rather than engaging on Stoljar's free association exercise, the Wikipedia article you linked to simply defines "physical object" as matter. That eliminates the need to try to define the adjective "physical," which you haven't been able to provide a non-vacuous definition for anyway, and which no scientific discipline needs or defines.

And the thesis that everything consists of or supervenes upon matter is certainly false, according to modern physics.

You have said it is impossible to falsify Physicalism. I am telling you how such a task could be accomplished.

Obviously you haven't shown that any metaphysical thesis whose fundamental posit is defined by a circular definition can be falsified. Prove that my Stoljar definition of pantheism can be falsified.

Is energy either "the sort of property required by a complete account of the intrinsic nature of paradigmatic physical objects and their constituents or else is a property which metaphysically (or logically) supervenes on the sort of property required by a complete account of the intrinsic nature of paradigmatic physical objects and their constituents" ?

Define "physical".

P1: If the thesis that everything is or supervenes upon matter is true, then energy is or supervenes upon matter.
P2: Energy is neither matter nor supervenes upon matter.
C: Therefore, the thesis that everything is or supervenes upon matter is not true.

Modus tollens:

If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P.

 

[Nous]

And the ability of individuals to choose between available options is not accounted for by the laws that govern "physical objects" (Wikipedia definition).

Are you talking about libertarian free will ?
If you can't prove that it actually exists, I see no point in going further into this point.
Can you?

Yes, within minutes of posting my reply to Jaiket, I will happily demonstrate that I am able to choose to spell "physicalism" backwards, and I will choose to do so in purple.

 

[Nous]

If I didn't have to write so many post trying to actually make you understand what Physicalism is, this wouldn't have taken so long. I can grant you that.

State your argument by which you conclude that the thesis of physicalism is true.

 

[Nous]

I'm happy to accept that the arguments aren't always that compelling.

Is there an argument for materialism or physicalism that is sometimes kind of "compelling"? Or at least an argument that is sound? If so, state it.

 

[Nous]

msilacisyhp