Rich said:
"There are as many varieties if physicalism as there are off Buddhism. I would say physicalism is a point-of-view that declares everything is physical, but then again this is my POV of physicalism". — Rich
You're right in that the term is used loosely and is but one category of beliefs.
— noAxioms
The way I've heard it distinguished (sometimes, not necessarily) is that Materialism involves what Ossipoff is denying: that material is fundamental, and that the existence of the material is thus some sort of what is being called a brute fact.
Physicalism just say's we're physical things, that people are built of the material and nothing immaterial. It does not necessarily assert that the physical is fundamental, or even objectively existent.
— Michael OssipoffHow does Physicalism explain why there's this physical world which, according to Physicalism, is Reality itself. ... independently, fundamentally-existent.,.
Materialism would perhaps care to address that question, but your question assumes that there is something, physical or not. So how do you explain that there is whatever you assume there is?
It seems to be a contingent truth
Well, for one thing, the fact that Skepticism (the metaphysics that I propose) explains it.
Is there something "brute" about the system of facts that I enclosed in asterisks, above? — Michael Ossipoff
"Is there something "brute" about the system of facts that I enclosed in asterisks, above?": — Michael Ossipoff
Rich says:
— Rich
Yes. They are a list of ambiguous terms...
that describe a supposedly other list of ambiguous terms...
each of which would be a brute fact
The issue with your metaphysics is that it is a laundry list of ambiguous brute facts.
A more unbiased summary of somebody else's view I've never read.Mystical Spiritual Mumbo-Jumbo Physicalists:
Some Physicalists, believing in the mind as a separate metaphysical substance, try too explain away what they've fictitiously posited and believe in, by saying that mind is something that "supervenes" on the brain (Actually there's nothing to do that "supervening"), or in terms of epiphenomena, or by the mumbo-jumbo of emergent phenomena.
All of that is mystical, spiritual, fictitious balderdash. — Michael Ossipoff
I cut most of the meat out, because the statement began with "there are" which is sort of my point. The rest I actually kind of get, and approve more than you know, despite the fact that we seem to have built such different towers on such similar foundations.Yes, here's what there is:
******************************************
There are hypothetical systems of hypothetical facts
...
Not so. If there were no facts, then the fact above simply would not be. That's not even a paradox.It has been asked, "Where are there these facts?
Someone answered:
If there were no facts, then the fact that there are no facts would be a fact.
Well, how about an extra-corporal distributed holographic memory-repository, made of quanta consisting of Mind?
Why is there that extra-corporal distributed holographic memory-repository made of quanta consisting of Mind? — Michael Ossipoff
.Mystical Spiritual Mumbo-Jumbo Physicalists:
.
Some Physicalists, believing in the mind as a separate metaphysical substance, try too explain away what they've fictitiously posited and believe in, by saying that mind is something that "supervenes" on the brain (Actually there's nothing to do that "supervening"), or in terms of epiphenomena, or by the mumbo-jumbo of emergent phenomena.
.
All of that is mystical, spiritual, fictitious balderdash. — Michael Ossipoff
.A more unbiased summary of somebody else's view I've never read.
.Off-point of me to comment, but you seem to dislike similar assessments of your own views. Just sayin..
.Yes, here's what there is:
.
******************************************
There are hypothetical systems of hypothetical facts
...
.I cut most of the meat out, because the statement began with "there are" which is sort of my point.
.The rest I actually kind of get, and approve more than you know, despite the fact that we seem to have built such different towers on such similar foundations.
.It has been asked, "Where are there these facts?
If there were no facts, then the fact that there are no facts would be a fact.
You replied:
.Not so. If there were no facts, then the fact above simply would not be.
That's not even a paradox.
It has no frame in which it has meaning, so the potential truth of it doesn't exist either.
That's my take anyway.
Well, how about an extra-corporal distributed holographic memory-repository, made of quanta consisting of Mind?
Why is there that extra-corporal distributed holographic memory-repository made of quanta consisting of Mind? — Michael Ossipoff
It's an idea, that all it is. — Rich
So is Skepticism. But your idea is an idea that calls for an explanation, and doesn't have one.
...a brute-fact.
And the reason I use it is because all the pieces of the puzzle fit nicely.
If you wish for me to identify all if the unexplainable brute-facts in your metaphysics...
..., simply create an unambiguous list of all of the facts that you rely on and I'll explain why there are anything but inevitable but rather are a product of your own personal belief system which you may share with others. My guess is you have very strong beliefs which is why you considered them facts.
simply create an unambiguous list of all of the facts that you rely
But the suggestion that we're nothing more than the animal, just what we appear to be, is obviously by far the simplest suggestion. — Michael Ossipoff
Biology and natural-selection give us a pretty good description and explanation of the animal that we all are. — Michael Ossipoff
There are literally nob facts. Just pieces of a puzzle that I've observed that sort of fit together. This is what I believe philosophy is all about. A detective game that is constantly uncovering new clues. As with some French philosophers, I am much more interested in discovering and understanding than I am with being right. — Rich
What observation, experiment or experience doesn't fit the idea that we're all just the animal, and nothing more...without any extra-corporal component? — Michael Ossipoff
— Rich
Is this one of your brute-facts?
You have to describe all this is animal, all that is extra-corporeal, and I'll let you know what I think of this brute-fact.
If you wish for me to identify all if the unexplainable brute-facts in your metaphysics, simply create an unambiguous list of all of the facts that you rely on and I'll explain why there are anything but inevitable — Rich
I really can't address your idea until you unambiguously lost all of the brute-facts. There appear to be quite a bit based upon what I've read.
So is Skepticism. But your idea is an idea that calls for an explanation, and doesn't have one.
...a brute-fact.
But the suggestion that we're nothing more than the animal, just what we appear to be, is obviously by far the simplest suggestion. — Michael Ossipoff
What observation, experiment or experience doesn't fit the idea that we're all just the animal, and nothing more...without any extra-corporal component? — Michael Ossipoff
If you wish for me to identify all if the unexplainable brute-facts in your metaphysics, simply create an unambiguous list of all of the facts that you rely on and I'll explain why there are anything but inevitable but rather are a product of your own personal belief system — Rich
with respect to a pair of binary operations such as the operations of multiplication and division. — Michael Ossipoff
It's such a huge list — Rich
Surely you don't expect anyone to begin a separate discussion of each one?
As I said before happy with your list.
And don't worry if no one reads all of it
with respect to a pair of binary operations such as the operations of multiplication and division — Michael Ossipoff
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.