leibowde84
Veteran Member
You missed this part. Things like energy, electricity, light, space, gravity, etc. would be included as they all relate to and are concerned with matter.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is the default position in the mind-body problem?
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
I said that I would write a post the next day containing the name of King Lear's youngest daughter, and the next day I wrote a post with "Cordelia" in it. If my writing "Cordelia" had not been a voluntary act, an act of my free will, it would have been an inexplicable correct prediction of a complex involuntary bodily movement.
According to the definition of "physicalism" that you quoted, in which "physical" just means "material," the thesis of physicalism is unequivocally false according to the findings and theories of modern physics. The world does not consist merely of matter.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I only stated that WHEN IT COMES TO THE MIND BODY PROBLEM PHYSICALISM IS THE BEST DEFAULT POSITION!!! Geeze. How many times do I have to say it. I never suggested physicalism in general.
But, since "the material world" consists of a lot more than matter, you are wrong again. The material world also includes everything that involves, interacts, or has to do with matter.
How does that fact, if it is a fact, prove than anything I said is false?
You're the one who said "mind=brain". If "our current understanding of the brain does not include an explanation for the mind" (whatever you mean by that), then how does one decide that mind=brain?
By the way, where have you gotten your idea of "our CURRENT understanding of the brain"?
Prove it. Answer these questions that I already asked:
How does something "physical" (whatever you mean by that) in the brain supposedly create the ability of a person to choose between available options?
What is the something "physical" that supposedly creates the ability to choose between available options?
And given that you presumably cannot answer either of those questions except by "I don't know," why should anyone conclude that the thesis of physicalism is true (or that "the default position has to be physicalism")?
What is the something "physical" that supposedly creates the ability to choose between available options?
And given that you presumably cannot answer either of those questions except by "I don't know," why should anyone conclude that the thesis of physicalism is true (or that "the default position has to be physicalism")?
But I'm saying this:
All voluntary activities involve the brain, which sends out the motor impulses that control movement. These motor signals are initiated by thought . . .
Medical Encyclopedia - Function: Voluntary and Involuntary Responses - Aviva
If you disagree,then prove that those motor signals are not initiated by thought.
What do you mean? Physicalism is a metaphysical thesis, a thesis about the nature of reality. How can it apply only to the mind-body problem?
If the thesis of physicalism is true about the mind-body problem, in what region of the universe of the thesis of physicalism false? Let's have this discussion there.
Both materialism and physicalism are monist theses. In these theses, there isn't other stuff that is "non-physical" or "immaterial".
siti
Well-Known Member
That's just wrong - physicalism does not equal determinism.
And given that you presumably cannot answer the questions except by "something non-physical that we cannot observe" why should we conclude that the thesis of physicalism is not true?
One standard dictionary definition of "physical" is "relating to the natural sciences" - and in terms of "physicalism" that's exactly what it means. "Physical" simply refers to the natural aspects of the physical/material world - essentially matter and energy and their effects. That's what it means.
That's an incorrect interpretation of the word "material" and the concept of "materialism" - materialism is essentially synonymous with physicalism but physicalism has the advantage (to the scientifically literate) of being less limited etymologically and therefore less open to misinterpretation (sometimes deliberate) by those who want to support a non-physicalist viewpoint (or agenda).
No you don't - you were already correct.
That's more like it.
Physical refers to the natural world of matter and energy and the effects thereof. Physicalism is the idea that that is all there is...as I explained in another thread "physicalism is the claim that everything that exists is either physical or an effect arising from the existence, interactions and relationships among physical things".
Now we've got that out of the way - back to the main question of the OP. And I'm going to answer with a question...
If there was a "default position" would there still be a "problem"? Ok we might not still understand the entire process by which mind and body interact and inform each other - but we would know (assuming that we had the right "default position") "where" to look.
But here's the real problem with the options presented so far, as far as I can see...
1. Solipsism is really an extreme "mind-only" idealism - if we can explain the "mind" of our "self" only in terms of "mind" how far does that get us?
2. Idealism suffers the same problem and has no answer to the bigger problem of how "mind" produces such a persistent and compelling illusion of physical reality.
3. Dualism is kind of OK but there is (as far as I can see) no satisfactory explanation as to how "mind" and "body" can interact and influence one another - which is, of course, really just restating the "problem".
4. Physicalism may be the equivalent of the drunk searching for his lost keys under the lamppost not because that's where he lost them but because it is the only place where there is light. We have no idea that's where the answer to the "mind/body" problem will be found - but its the only place we have the tools to look for it.
On balance, I think we have to go with physicalism - and in the process, remain open to the possibility that not all the answers will be found there. On balance, I think the only truthful answer anyone could give at present is "I don't know" - but, on balance, I think the search should continue under the lamppost until we either exhaust all the possible physical explanations or (who knows?) actually find the key.
Last edited:
Cobol
Code Jockey
One equals the other when you throw in the speed of light squared.
All matter also shares the wave-particle duality. and we know that matter and energy are related.
There is more than one type of energy: Photon energy is material, Potential Energy is Immaterial. Heat energy, Electrical energy, gravitational energy..etc. Energy is immaterial in one form(wave) and material in another(photon packets).
Light is not *just* a wave, but a particle as well. light has no mass, so you might think of it as immaterial, however it does have momentum.
Regardless that it was voluntary and an act of free will, that was no prediction.
siti
Well-Known Member
Fundamentally there isn't "other stuff", but then idealism and solipsism are monist theses too, in which, fundamentally, there isn't other "stuff" that is "physical" or "material". All of them admit the possibility of emergence - in idealism the physical emerges (as a real expression of 'mind' or an illusory one) from the non-physical and in physicalism mind emerges from the relationships and interactions of physical matter/energy. Only dualistic theses admit the fundamental co-existence of mind and matter and they stubbornly refuse to answer the chicken and egg riddle of which (mind or matter) came first and fail miserably in providing an adequate explanation of how they (mind and matter) could possibly interact with each other. That is why there is a "problem".
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
leibowde84
Veteran Member
It is a fact. We do not know what will be discovered about the brain in the future. Just because we cannot currently explain the mind physically does not mean that it isn't a physical construct. My point is simply that we do not know enough about the brain to make this assumption.
My claim is that it is the default position. Until we understand exactly what the mind is (whether it is material or immaterial) and how it works, there is no reason to assume that it is not material. We just don't know enough yet.
Our understanding of neural activity is not nearly advanced enough to make a definitive decision that the mind will not one day be explained with neural activity.
My answer to all of these questions is that we don't know enough about the mind to decide that it is not material. If it isn't material and a product of the brain and the nervous system / our senses, what is it exactly?
Motor signals are initiated by thought. And, thoughts can absolutely be seen by neural activity in the brain.
james bond
Well-Known Member
From what I read, physicalism leads to some degree of determinism. I'm not sure how it can't. If there is no free will, then we have hard physicalism. If there is some free will, then we have soft physicalism. I don't think one can take determism out of what physicalism is and does. I can't even say that for methodological naturalism that determinism isn't a part either. There isn't a clear delineation with determinism and free will. In some cases, it appears that we can determine what will be the outcome with physicalism. For example, a child who was abused by violent parents will grow up to be abusive to their children. We can have different levels of determinism as well as indeterminism in both methodological naturalism and physicalism. Personally, I lean toward the soft argument.
I watched Sam Harris do a thought experiment on picking out a "random" city with an audience. I don't think he explained it well, but he said that if people did not think of a city as a possible choice, then we have to eliminate these choices. He mentioned Cairo, Egypt as an example of cities that few people think of. Afterward, he talked about word association as people may choose something they ate last night with the closest city associated with it. If they had a German dish, then they think of Berlin. If they ate pasta, they may say Rome. Much of it seemed to be that he was leading people to their answers. Basically, the choice of the majority was a big city. I didn't think this was a valid experiment. He could have just as well passed out a list of all the cities in a few countries and have people select the top 3. Maybe there will be common or popular answers to the question. This would be similar to the Family Feud game. Harris seemed to be saying this was determinism, but I didn't think it was valid. There could be some other factor going on for the choice. If someone would be choosing what to wear, then what income level could be a factor. Either way, I do not think the choice is determined by previous events, but we cannot rule it out as a cause. Thus, we have soft determinism. If it's a fair choice, then we should see the choices falling within a bell distribution which has both determinism and indeterminism as the answers.
Last edited:
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I never said that it is absolutely true. I said that it should be the default position, in my opinion. There is no reason to jump to the assumption of immaterial simply because certain aspects of the universe cannot be explained scientifically.
My issue is with how you are defining "material". Energy, for example, is certainly matter. But, it doesn't exactly have volume and mass per se. Obviously, though, it is still material. So is light, space, gravity, thrust, etc.
So, what in the universe is not "material" that we have direct, empirical evidence of?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Things like light, energy, physical forces (gravity), etc. and everything that interacts or affects matter would be included as "material". Your assumption that "material" must have mass and volume is simply incorrect.
siti
Well-Known Member
Perhaps, but I think it would be truer to say that some degree of determinism is apparent in the world - regardless of whether you imagine the world to be fundamentally physical, ideal, natural, dualistic...or whatever. Free will is subjectively apparent, but by no means objectively so. It may be no more than a persistent and convincing illusion based on the apparent coincidence of our own thoughts (whatever thoughts are) and actions. Not saying that's what I believe is going on - but it couldn't be ruled out - and from that POV I don't see how any of the physicalist, materialist, idealist, dualist or solipsist options have any advantage over the others. None of them provide an adequate account of free-will (or the lack of it).
james bond
Well-Known Member
First, by definition we have to have a subject for free will or something (artificial intelligence or a coin toss=indeterminism) that can make a choice. I think you're confusing free will vs that of subjective truth and objective truth. The argument for free will is, what you admitted, that determinism isn't the case. In other words, determinism is the illusion. For one, there are many objects that we cannot determine. For example, what is a day? What is the beginning of life? What is the end of life? What is a photon? What is pi? What is mathematics? What is an egg compared to a chicken? What is science? What is an atheist? What is a Christian? Most objects we can describe, but we cannot definitively say they exist. We just assume the empirical evidence is that which is true.
I heard one statement in quantum physics that "Photons follow all available paths." If this is true, then what is the number of paths? I think we can describe the path as planar, linear, wave form and distributed. We can't say that there are 100 paths that the photon will take. The end result is a nice wave, but we have to take reading of where the photon is in order to determine where the photon is likely to be in the next wave or two waves from now. We use a distribution theory. That does not mean that in reality that it took all possible paths even if we have a stream of photons for a given amount of time. The motion is that of a linear path, but in reality the photon is considered to be in a elliptical plane at a given time.
Morever, that which we describe that happens in the physical world using science is not determined. Science is not final even though we have laws, principles and theories. For example, all swans are white was true at one time, but it was falsified with the discovery of a black one. Nothing can travel faster than light. Is that determined? Or the speed of light is constant? What we find is that one photon is ahead of the pack. We find light is faster in a vacuum and slower in water.
What about objects that we can't get to? For example, the Pillars of Creation is 6-to-7 thousand light years away. We can't really determine where it is in spacetime or that it will exist hundred years from now. We cannot determine a person's decision whether to go to the picnic tomorrow or not if it rains before he makes the decision. The future is not determined.
Another argument is just because we find that determinism played a part does not mean that free will didn't. It could be the will that determined it.
For every decision that has been determined, then I can find another choice that was not determined. The mere fact that you eliminated this choice when I made it in the past does not mean I can't change my mind in the future or when I become aware of the new choice.
Then we have rules and procedures of law and business. If determinism were true, then whenever someone breaks the law or violates a business principle they are not responsible. Their actions were predetermined so they could not help themselves. This isn't the case.
Thus, the objectivity of determinism is that it is not true. Determinism can describe a subject's characteristics, but it does not describe a person's character and what would happen when faced with different circumstances.
There are all manner of reasons to reject physicalism. In the first place, according to the definitions given here, physicalism is just materialism, which we know is false. The findings and theories of physics make clear that empirical reality is not reducible to objects that have mass and volume.
Other definitions of physicalism are simply vacuous, or else do not do the work intended. To define physicalism as the thesis that everything that exists can be studied by the scientific method obviously does not rule out the existence of ghosts or the 9 circles of Dante's inferno. This is similar to (or a form of) Hempel's dilemma, in which the two most popular definitions of “physical” render physicalism either false or trivial: if one were to define “physical” in reference to the current “entities” of physics, then physicalism will surely be shown to be false tomorrow. If “physical” were defined on the basis of tomorrow's yet-known physics, it is a trivial or vacuous thesis, making “physical” a forever and inherently unknowable something-or-other.
Define "natural sciences". Or just see above.
Prove it. the definition of material
adjective
8. formed or consisting of matter; physical; corporeal:
the material world.
9. relating to, concerned with, or involving matter:
material forces.
Prove it.
the definition of predict
verb (used with object)
1. to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell:
to predict the weather; to predict the fall of a civilization.
verb (used without object)
2. to foretell the future; make a prediction.
1. to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell:
to predict the weather; to predict the fall of a civilization.
verb (used without object)
2. to foretell the future; make a prediction.
Hegel's objective idealism does not eliminate "matter." Consciousness is primary. Nothing Plato said indicated that he rejected the existence of matter.
False. Pluralism entails such "co-existence".