How do you define "physical?"

[Gambit]

How do you define "physical?"

Merriam-Webster defines "physical" generally as "relating to the body of a person instead of the mind" or
"existing in a form that you can touch or see" and specifically as "of or relating to natural science," "of or relating to physics, " "characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics," or "having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature."

"Everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance." - Thomas De Quincey

In philosophy, physicalism is the ontological thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,[1] or that everything supervenes on the physical.[2] Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view. Both the definition of physical and the meaning of physicalism have been debated.

(source: Wikipedia: Physicalism)

Physicalism is closely related to materialism. Physicalism grew out of materialism with the success of the physical sciences in explaining observed phenomena. The terms are often used interchangeably, although they are sometimes distinguished, for example on the basis of physics describing more than just matter (including energy and physical law)

(source: Wikipedia: Physicalism)

Why is this relevant? Because I would contend that the majority of the "skeptics" or "nonbelievers" are materialists (or, at least, they believe they are) and the majority of "believers" are nonmaterialists (dualists or idealists).

 

[Ultimatum]

Why is this relevant? Because I would contend that the majority of the "skeptics" or "nonbelievers" are materialists (or, at least, they believe they are) and the majority of "believers" are nonmaterialists (dualists or idealists).

In other news, water is wet.
Physical = Material existence.

Theists look up to a higher power; a, as far as we are all concerned, nonmaterial power.
Most atheists do not look up to a higher power, so the only thing to look up to are material existences. ..Which makes more sense.

Evidence and proof: Atheist.
No evidence and no proof: Theist.

Take your pick..

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"Everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance." - Thomas De Quincey

Yes, being able to measure something seems like a good guide to "physical". Though you can also "measure" IQ.

 

[Quintessence]

That which is physical is that which can be directly measured and quantified by scientific methodology and whose metrics do not rest upon subjective constructs. Put another way, it is that which objectively exists regardless of human assessment and observation. Drawing upon Spiny Norman's post above, this means intelligence is not physical; it has no objective existence and cannot be measured without deciding an an idea for what it means. On the contrary, you can measure the length of something with no idea or concept of length as it has objective status.

I'd contend that pure materialism is impossible, given the pervasiveness of ideological constructs in human culture and society.

 

[apophenia]

Physical is the moving parts. Even just the moving.

Changing relationships. Of whatever.

I am reminded of a nice piece of language by Douglas Hofstadter -

"The soul is greater than the hum of its parts"

 

[Gambit]

In other news, water is wet.

But H20 is not necessarily so.

Physical = Material existence.

Okay, that's a start.

Theists look up to a higher power; a, as far as we are all concerned, nonmaterial power.
Most atheists do not look up to a higher power, so the only thing to look up to are material existences.

Most theists are nonmaterilists; most atheists are materialists.

Evidence and proof: Atheist.
No evidence and no proof: Theist.

Materialism is a metaphysical position, not a scientifically validated fact.

 

[Gambit]

Yes, being able to measure something seems like a good guide to "physical". Though you can also "measure" IQ.

But you cannot measure consciousness. If we could, then we would be able to determine if a bacterium was conscious.

 

[Gambit]

That which is physical is that which can be directly measured and quantified by scientific methodology and whose metrics do not rest upon subjective constructs. Put another way, it is that which objectively exists regardless of human assessment and observation. Drawing upon Spiny Norman's post above, this means intelligence is not physical; it has no objective existence and cannot be measured without deciding an an idea for what it means. On the contrary, you can measure the length of something with no idea or concept of length as it has objective status.

I'd contend that pure materialism is impossible, given the pervasiveness of ideological constructs in human culture and society.

That's what I would contend.

 

[Gambit]

Physical is the moving parts. Even just the moving.

Changing relationships. Of whatever.

I am reminded of a nice piece of language by Douglas Hofstadter -

"The soul is greater than the hum of its parts"

Mental states change. So, according to your definition, they would qualify as physical.

 

[apophenia]

Mental states change. So, according to your definition, they would qualify as physical.

Yes

 

[amorphous_constellation]

In other news, water is wet.
Physical = Material existence.

Theists look up to a higher power; a, as far as we are all concerned, nonmaterial power.
Most atheists do not look up to a higher power, so the only thing to look up to are material existences. ..Which makes more sense.

Evidence and proof: Atheist.
No evidence and no proof: Theist.
Edit
Take your pick..

Yeah but I had a thread asking atheists about dualism and they denied it. They didn't believe in the "mind," and generally called me an animist and theist among other things. Go ahead ask them, 99% would contend that the statement "relating to the body of the person instead of the mind" is incoherent. To them, it refers to body and mind, and the word "physical" is deconstructed from needing to indicate anything.

 

[apophenia]

In other news, water is wet.
Physical = Material existence.

Theists look up to a higher power; a, as far as we are all concerned, nonmaterial power.
Most atheists do not look up to a higher power, so the only thing to look up to are material existences. ..Which makes more sense.

Evidence and proof: Atheist.
No evidence and no proof: Theist.

Take your pick..

Evidence and proof of exactly what ?

All states can be considered physical. But who or what is 'experiencing' ? Does matter just experience itself ? There is no scientifically established explanation of why certain configurations of matter, such as organisms, experience states, as opposed to merely behaving the way they do because patterns of DNA self-replicated and evolved. Evolution explains the behaviour, but not the experience of the behaviour.

I am not proposing a scientific or mystical answer to that question.

I am not compelled to endorse either materialism as it is generally presented, with 'experience' as an emergent property, nor any religious or mystical notion. Such notions are also speculation.

So I must reject your dichotomy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not know, science does not know. Einstein spoiled it by his formula E= mc2. Now I wonder, what is physical and what is not physical.

 

[Gambit]

I do not know, science does not know. Einstein spoiled it by his formula E= mc2. Now I wonder, what is physical and what is not physical.

Agreed. The theory of relativity rendered materialism obsolete. Unfortunately, most materialists are unaware of this implication. Those who are have attempted to move the goal posts by relabeling materialism as physicalism, hoping no one would notice the slight of hand.

 

[Gambit]

Yes

Do you believe there is anything that is not subject to change?

 

[Quintessence]

That's what I would contend.

What about it do you content? Please note that in no way do I intend to imply that intangible aspects of reality do not have some relation to tangible ones. This is very often the case. It is obvious that a construct like intelligence has its basis in tangible reality, but the construct itself is not tangible.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you believe there is anything that is not subject to change?

Yes, energy, because change is its inherent property (Guna, attribute). For something which changes naturally, change will be when it stops doing so. Therefore, energy is not subject to change. A paradox, eh?

 

[Gambit]

What about it do you content? Please note that in no way do I intend to imply that intangible aspects of reality do not have some relation to tangible ones. This is very often the case. It is obvious that a construct like intelligence has its basis in tangible reality, but the construct itself is not tangible.

I think we might have a miscommunication here. I'm agreeing (not disagreeing) with you. If we define the physical as that which can be objectively measured, then we would have to classify subjective awareness as nonphysical because consciousness is not objectively measurable.

 

[Gambit]

Yes, energy, because change is its inherent property (Guna, attribute). For something which changes naturally, change will be when it stops doing so. Therefore, energy is not subject to change. A paradox, eh?

I believe you're attempting to say that change is the only constant.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Einstein spoiled it by his formula E= mc2.

No, he didn't. In classical physics, things like "energy" were treated the same as things like "work" and defined by similar equations. The mathematical equating of the energy (of a particular type) of system with matter is more a formal matter than one with a physical reality. Four quarters equal a dollar, but if you cut a dollar into four pieces you will not have four quarters.