Physicalism Refuted

[KCfromNC]

I just found several things about your definition curious. First, that it was "common." Where did you come by this "common" definition, what other definitions for "empty" do you use, and how am I to know which one you are using at any given moment? I asked this question in my last post, and it remains unanswered.

Sorry my answer wasn't the one you hoped to get to your leading question.

But now it's obvious that it's not something (i.e. it "excludes anything else").

Yes, saying it's something excludes other things. That's far different than basing a definition solely on what something is not without telling us what it is. The latter seems to be the case for the non-physical. Heck, the non-physical doesn't even have a name other than not-something else. That's far different that what I gave.

You tell me. It's your bucket. I've never seen a non-physical bucket, so I can't imagine what it might be made of.

OK, then we agree that since no one knows what non-physical stuff even is, it's perfect reasonable to reject it.

 

[sandwiches]

I understand why you might think that, but no, I wouldn't say it makes the possibility more real. Whatever is, is. I'm just hoping it will help clarify.

If we're using a useless term (physical), then I have no idea what it is that you are denying when you deny the existence of the non-physical. It doesn't help to switch to terms like "spirit" or "mind." What is it you're denying when you deny the existence of the spiritual, or the transcendence of the mind? I honestly have no idea.

OK. Let me rephrase this and ask some question because I am genuinely confused:
If I use the word physical to mean anything that we can interact with, at least in principle, then what? How does this affect the existence of ghosts, spirits, the "mind-body problem," etc?

If I stop using the word "physical" at all, then what? How does this affect the existence of ghosts, spirits, the "mind-body problem," etc?

And finally, what does "physical" and "physicalism" mean to you?

 

[sandwiches]

OK, then we agree that since no one knows what non-physical stuff even is, it's perfect reasonable to reject it.

Yea, I'm pretty lost as to what idea is being pushed here, exactly.

Resha claims we can't define what the physical is, yet there is supposed to be something more than it. More than what, exactly?

 

[Resha Caner]

OK, then we agree that since no one knows what non-physical stuff even is, it's perfect reasonable to reject it.

If this reply means we're now free to assume whatever we want despite what was said in the post, then I'm guess I'm free to assume you get my point and just don't want to admit it.

 

[Resha Caner]

OK. Let me rephrase this and ask some question because I am genuinely confused:
If I use the word physical to mean anything that we can interact with, at least in principle, then what? How does this affect the existence of ghosts, spirits, the "mind-body problem," etc?

If I stop using the word "physical" at all, then what? How does this affect the existence of ghosts, spirits, the "mind-body problem," etc?

And finally, what does "physical" and "physicalism" mean to you?

OK, I'll say it again. It is important because this insistence that the physical is "anything that we can interact with" creates an absolute exclusion principle that would force me to reject tautologies. It would force me to propose something absurd like, "The spiritual are those things we interact with which we can't interact with." Not gonna do that.

Ridicule my foolishness all you want, I see no point in the conversation until we have a definition of physical that we can both work with.

If people here were honest, I suspect many would admit they've never really tried to define physical before and it turns out to be much harder than they suspected. But, well ...

And, just so we're clear. I was up front that in the beginning this was a new conversation for me and I needed time to put the pieces together. In that regard, this has been useful for me. Those pieces are starting to materialize and the emerging definition of non-physical is not that it is "not something." However, just as a definition implies its opposite, so do the defintions of physical and non-physical contain aspects that imply at least a partial exclusion of the other.

Resha claims we can't define what the physical is, yet there is supposed to be something more than it. More than what, exactly?

I never said that. I said the definitions offered here have problems. I offered that there are alternative definitions based on the paper by Markosian, to which no one replied.

 

[sandwiches]

OK, I'll say it again. It is important because this insistence that the physical is "anything that we can interact with" creates an absolute exclusion principle that would force me to reject tautologies. It would force me to propose something absurd like, "The spiritual are those things we interact with which we can't interact with." Not gonna do that.

Why would it force you to do that? We can either interact with something or we can't. Simple.

Ridicule my foolishness all you want, I see no point in the conversation until we have a definition of physical that we can both work with.

I and many have told you how we define "physical" and you've rejected it. So, since YOU are the one who claims there can be or is something more than what you call "physical," then you must explain what you mean.

If people here were honest, I suspect many would admit they've never really tried to define physical before and it turns out to be much harder than they suspected. But, well ...

And, just so we're clear. I was up front that in the beginning this was a new conversation for me and I needed time to put the pieces together. In that regard, this has been useful for me. Those pieces are starting to materialize and the emerging definition of non-physical is not that it is "not something." However, just as a definition implies its opposite, so do the defintions of physical and non-physical contain aspects that imply at least a partial exclusion of the other.

I never said that. I said the definitions offered here have problems. I offered that there are alternative definitions based on the paper by Markosian, to which no one replied.

Can you link these definitions because I don't remember seeing them in any of your replies to me.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why would it force you to do that? We can either interact with something or we can't. Simple.

I tried. I honestly did. And I don't see what is so hard to understand about it. But, if you still don't get it then our only hope is that some 3rd party did understand it and can provide a better explanation than I have.

What's kind of cool (at least to me) is that these issues came up and then I later found them expressed in the literature as well - not exactly as I'm stating it here, but similar. For example:

Problem of mental causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Why the Exclusion Problem Seems Intractable, and How, Just Maybe, to Tract It by Bennett, Nous, 2003.

Causation and Mental Causation by Kim in Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Mind by McLaughlin & Cohen, Blackwell, 2007.

I and many have told you how we define "physical" and you've rejected it. So, since YOU are the one who claims there can be or is something more than what you call "physical," then you must explain what you mean.

I tried.

Can you link these definitions because I don't remember seeing them in any of your replies to me.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7643809-5/#post60163077
http://www.christianforums.com/t7643809-6/#post60171012

 

[sandwiches]

I tried. I honestly did. And I don't see what is so hard to understand about it. But, if you still don't get it then our only hope is that some 3rd party did understand it and can provide a better explanation than I have.

What's kind of cool (at least to me) is that these issues came up and then I later found them expressed in the literature as well - not exactly as I'm stating it here, but similar. For example:

Problem of mental causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Why the Exclusion Problem Seems Intractable, and How, Just Maybe, to Tract It by Bennett, Nous, 2003.

Causation and Mental Causation by Kim in Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Mind by McLaughlin & Cohen, Blackwell, 2007.

I tried.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7643809-5/#post60163077
http://www.christianforums.com/t7643809-6/#post60171012

I read the linked posts and a few articles on the subject and, while I won't go into the many objections I have to many (if not most) of the claims and "problems" perceived by many on the subject, I will try to stick with the subject of the OP: The physical.

Now, let's assume for a moment that I concede and agree that there is some apparent disconnect between what we know of the mind and what we know of the body. How is this related to the whole discussion of what is physical and what isn't?

Or... let's assume that I concede that no definition of what "physical" is has been sufficient or I agree with your definition of the word (that it can be at rest.) How does this relate to spirits or the body-mind problem?

I am REALLY trying to understand all this because it seems fascinating to me but this almost seems like we're looking for solutions which have no problem to begin with. I feel now like someone invented words for differences which they perceived between ideas or concepts, at the time; maybe even some conceptual disconnect they couldn't surpass.

It's like if someone had invented the word "opuki" for all things which fly because they couldn't explain how they could fly and they called "non-opuki" those that do not fly. Then, when someone came along and explained how flying works, some people are still asking, "Well, how do you know that there isn't opuki involved in a bird's or a bat's wings when they fly? I don't agree with your definitions of non-opuki because it now covers everything that exists. It's a meaningless term, now. So, why do you deny the opuki? How does the flapping of the wings of an animal translate to them ACTUALLY flying (the wing-flight problem, as it is known)?"

 

[razeontherock]

Why would it force you to do that? We can either interact with something or we can't. Simple.

You probably can't interact with the realm of the Spirit. I can.

I and many have told you how we define "physical" and you've rejected it. So, since YOU are the one who claims there can be or is something more than what you call "physical," then you must explain what you mean.

The realities do not change with our definitions, neither will our verbiage absolutely reflect truth. Physical needs to be thought of more in terms of concrete, rather than "anything we can interact with." On that continuum of concrete, spirit might be thought of as abstract. Your thinking that we need to define it properly is what is being expressed in my tagline, by Freodin. (See if you can make sense out of that)

 

[sandwiches]

You probably can't interact with the realm of the Spirit. I can.

OK. So, the "spirit realm" can be interacted with, at least in principle.

The realities do not change with our definitions, neither will our verbiage absolutely reflect truth. Physical needs to be thought of more in terms of concrete, rather than "anything we can interact with."

Why?

On that continuum of concrete, spirit might be thought of as abstract. Your thinking that we need to define it properly is what is being expressed in my tagline, by Freodin. (See if you can make sense out of that)

I have no idea what this means. Can you explain it differently?

 

[razeontherock]

OK. So, the "spirit realm" can be interacted with, at least in principle.

Yes. (In fact you might say it is interacted with by principle, but I digress) This is why Resha was objecting to the definition of physical as being anything we can interact with. Can we interact with numbers? They're not physical, but abstract representations of physical things. What makes Spirituality difficult to express, is that physical things are a representation of it.

I have no idea what this means. Can you explain it differently?

Thought can be defined as existing along a continuum, ranging from concrete to abstract. Both are valid, and each have their place. If we were to make this analogous to the topic at hand, then physical would clearly be on the end of concrete, and spiritual would be on the end of abstract.

To relate this to the comment by Freodin in my tagline, just because we're not aware of the realm of the Spirit, doesn't make it go away. We just unwittingly wind up dismissing it if we neither understand nor perceive it.

 

[KCfromNC]

If this reply means we're now free to assume whatever we want despite what was said in the post, then I'm guess I'm free to assume you get my point and just don't want to admit it.

Yes, your point is that you're trying everything you can to back away from having to describe what the non-physical is, because as you said, you "can't imagine what it might be made of".

 

[KCfromNC]

I am REALLY trying to understand all this because it seems fascinating to me but this almost seems like we're looking for solutions which have no problem to begin with. I feel now like someone invented words for differences which they perceived between ideas or concepts, at the time; maybe even some conceptual disconnect they couldn't surpass.

I think you're pretty close here. People have a gut feel that certain things are magical. It used to be life - there was a magical spark that made life somehow inherently special and different from non-life. Biology and organic chemistry pretty well put a stake through the heart of that idea.

Conscious is the same - people are really impressed with consciousness because it's (somewhat) unique to humans, so obviously is must be more than just normal biology at work. Again, science is telling us differently, but people still cling to the idea that there's some magic spark there that makes us unique special snowflakes compared to the rest of reality. They can't quite figure out a credible reason to believe this, though, so you get all sorts of mental gymnastics invented to support their gut feel that there's some magic hiding there.

If there was a straightforward objection and understanding of what that super-secret sauce was, we'd have seen it before. Instead, as you say, there's lots of ink spilled trying to find a solution to a problem that isn't there in the first place - except in our wish that consciousness remain somehow special and separate from normal biology.

The extension of this idea to the belief that god(s) are also special because they operate outside of science is left as an exercise to the reader.

 

[KCfromNC]

To relate this to the comment by Freodin in my tagline, just because we're not aware of the realm of the Spirit, doesn't make it go away.

But if we're unaware of it, it's impossible to make any truthful statements about it. Sure, we can guess, but that's unlikely to provide any useful information.

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

Well I'll assume its identical for now.

By "identical" I don't mean equality in spatio-temporal location. If that were the case then of course your thought and the thing thought about would not be identical. But there is another kind of identity which refers to the same being, but not necessarily to the same mode of being. So something can be identical, but it can also be explained or expanded by two mutually exclusive modes or attributes: such as that of thought and extension, respectively.

If I see a candle, then that thought of 'candle' is identical to the actual candle beyond my mind. If not then how could it refer to that external reality? If you say its only a representation, then what makes that representation any better than any other representation in your mind? Why not some other representation to stand in for the candle? But then the representation would not be the candle (i.e, things like necessary and sufficient conditions would be thrown to the wayside)! So, there is identity, like it or not.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm not sure what to say, because I think we're just going to recycle what's already been said. Though you conceded (for the sake of argument), your example is not a concession. The example still assumes we have a full explanation - not full as in 100% accurate, that's not what I mean, but full as in a working model that duplicates some of the significant activities we ascribe to humans - a robot that could write a critical review of The Hunger Games, giving unsolicited commentary on the artistic merits of the literature and the film, pondering the moral and spiritual implications, assessing the cultural symbols that prompted it and the impact it will have on the way people view said symbols.

Does the lack of this robot prove a mind-body problem? No. Does it mean there possibly is one? Yes. But we've been over that.

... let's assume that I concede that no definition of what "physical" is has been sufficient or I agree with your definition of the word (that it can be at rest.) How does this relate to spirits or the body-mind problem?

It depends on who is answering and what they're answering about. For a vitalist, a transcendent mind is key to their world view. While I might consider a transcendent mind a possibility, I'm not really that hung up on it.

Spirit is more important to my view. The Bible claims spirit (the Spirit, i.e. God) can do things we can't do. So, many people ponder what it is about spirit that allows it to do what we can't. Birds can fly and we can't (I mean that in the sense of flight unaided by a machine). In philosophical terms that is due to a "birdness" we don't possess. This "birdness" can be described scientifically in terms of aerodynamics.

In the same way, philosophically, God has a spiritual nature we don't have. Can that be described scientifically? Personally, I don't think so. But I won't stop people from trying. Maybe it will be fruitful for them to struggle with the problem.

Now, let's assume for a moment that I concede and agree that there is some apparent disconnect between what we know of the mind and what we know of the body. How is this related to the whole discussion of what is physical and what isn't?

I just saw John McLaughlin interview two physicists (who were pitching their new book). McLaughlin asked them if they thought intelligence could develop from dark energy (or dark matter). There was an instant, emphatic no. But they didn't really have a good reason why. Maybe there is one and it was beyond the scope of the interview, but the reply came across to me as pompousnous (Oh, what a silly question, old man) rather than a considered reply.

I thought it was an interesting question. I mean, why not? We don't even know what dark energy & matter are yet. We just assume there must be something there because it explains certain things about the universe. So how can we rule out the possibility that some intelligence exists somewhere within this undefined thing?

The same issue applies here. By my definition a photon would be non-physical (and maybe neutrinos if we ever get accurate enough to know them better, and maybe tachyons if we ever establish them as more than hypothetical). So, could intelligence form in something made completely of photons? Would it be inferior, equivalent, or superior to our intelligence? IOW could it do things we can't?

And the question extends on to the other characteristics of the non-physical that we haven't even gotten close to discussing.

Maybe you find all of that pointless. After all, in your mind we already have an explanation of everything human. But, we're not going to have any grasp on what nature the spiritual has that we don't until we successfully tackle issues of physical/non-physical.

I won't go into the many objections I have

Why not? As far as I'm concerned you can list as many objections as you please.

 

[The-Doctor]

sorry what was the original question again?...I'll stick with yes ok.

 

[Resha Caner]

sorry what was the original question again?...

I'm not sure, but I think it had something to do with a butcher, a baker, and ... who was the 3rd guy?

 

[KCfromNC]

I just saw John McLaughlin interview two physicists (who were pitching their new book). McLaughlin asked them if they thought intelligence could develop from dark energy (or dark matter). There was an instant, emphatic no. But they didn't really have a good reason why. Maybe there is one and it was beyond the scope of the interview, but the reply came across to me as pompousnous (Oh, what a silly question, old man) rather than a considered reply.

I thought it was an interesting question. I mean, why not?

In science, there's usually a lot more necessary to consider a question than "why not?" The standard it a bit higher than "not impossible, in theory". It's not up to other people to give reasons to disprove something there's no reason to believe in the first place. Expecting otherwise is just attempting to shift the burden of proof.

Maybe that's different in philosophy, but I'd think it's a pretty straightforward concept.

We just assume there must be something there because it explains certain things about the universe.

Drawing inferences from observation of the natural world isn't an assumption.

So how can we rule out the possibility that some intelligence exists somewhere within this undefined thing?

We can't, but then again we can't rule out that invisible underpants gnomes are pretending to be gods, either.How much time do dualists spend pondering that idea? Not a lot, I'd imagine - and that's reasonable, just like it's reasonable to reject similar idle speculation about unknown undefined stuff maybe leading to something magical we can't quite explain.

But, we're not going to have any grasp on what nature the spiritual has that we don't until we successfully tackle issues of physical/non-physical.

Yes. For example, one issue is a lack of a concrete idea of what the non-physical is. Not what maybe it might be, if we assume lots of stuff about things we know we don't know much about. Not a laundry list of things it isn't. Not a redefinition of perfectly natural phenomenon as non-physical. But an actual useful definition of what the non-physical actually is.