But maybe neurons are more than physical. Physical being an abstract description of them. — Marchesk
No, it means the natural world is more than the abstract stuff we model it with. Object Oriented Ontology would be another example. So would Aristotle's view of Platonism. — Marchesk
I don't think physicalism claims that the physical is abstract. — Janus
In those cases [psycho-somatic] a psychological (mental) cause has a bodily (physical) effect.
— Wayfarer
If what you call "psychological causes" are themselves physical, neuronal processes then your argument fails, and the mystery (or at least the one you're promoting) dissolves. In other words, your argument assumes what it purports to demonstrate. — Janus
It doesn't. But our saying the world is physical is reifying the abstract models (largely mathematical) we have and saying the world is that structure in some sense. — Marchesk
The effect then is purely due to the patient’s belief or expectation of a cure. — Wayfarer
....where is the mystery, beyond the fact... — Janus
It appeared to be what you had written. — Wayfarer
Physicalism and empiricism are different principles. — Wayfarer
Besides there are vast areas of conjecture in current physics which are beyond empircal verification in principle, such as the multiverse conjecture and string theory. — Wayfarer
Patients get sick, and are also sometimes cured, by what they believe. Placebos have a measurable affect on patients, even though they're physically inert. In those cases a psychological (mental) cause has a bodily (physical) effect. — Wayfarer
. One again arrives at the problem: we have a supposedly non-physical thing indirectly observed through its physical effects and its physical causes, just like a physical thing. What distinguishes it as non-physical, other than sheer insistence? — Kenosha Kid
One again arrives at the problem: we have a supposedly non-physical thing indirectly observed through its physical effects and its physical causes, just like a physical thing. What distinguishes it as non-physical, other than sheer insistence? — Kenosha Kid
And the placebo is only considered an anomaly in medicine because of its apparently non-physical nature. — Wayfarer
That is why the postulate of a non-physical thing or property is absurd. — Kenosha Kid
If it's physical, how so? — Marchesk
Which is why psycho-somatic effects ought not to exist. — Wayfarer
All that is evidence for the mind being a physical phenomenon, not to the contrary. — Pfhorrest
This is not logically sound. — Kenosha Kid
All we're dealing with is your refusal to believe that there are non-physical effects or things. — Wayfarer
I didn't read past this first sentence. — Kenosha Kid
I have explained my reasoning as to why non-physical things are either contradictory or meaningless — Kenosha Kid
Now granting that the ducks are physical, is the row physical? Do I have 4 physical things - 3 ducks and a row? Or 3 physical things - the ducks in a non-physical row? — unenlightened
Physical has been an expanding category for a long time. The things that are considered physical are really just the members of what is considered real, regardless of properties. The best case, it seems to me, is the one you are making where if it affects something physical than it is physical. Which ends up, it seems to me replacing properties with relations. That's fine, but then we are using a word with metaphysical property baggage when we are really referring to relations. And it's not just the exotic things like quarks that are exotic since everything is made up of exotic stuff that is not physical in the way we used the word about things like rocks and chairs and as opposed to spiritual or ideal. The problem I have with the word physical it is looks like it is taking a metaphysical stand when it isn't. Further we must assume that all that matters is the impingement on things that we already consider physical (despite whatever we my have found out about their make-up). Which ends up for me circular. Stuff impinges on other stuff. Fine. But real seems more appropriate. If we decide something is real it impinges or affects something else real. Calling this physical sounds like we are taking a stand against other substances. We're not. We are really taking a stand against Rationalism or some other epistemology. Or the idea of knowing purely transcendent stuff.Sure, and applies to everything. Everything behaves in this way: it couples to physical properties and is directly or indirectly observable. And since this meets the criteria of the physical, everything is physical, and nothing is non-physical. That is why the postulate of a non-physical thing or property is absurd. — Kenosha Kid
If you are right, what does it mean to talk of 'physical things', as distinct from just 'things'? — unenlightened
A row of ducks is a physical thing comprised of other physical things, — Kenosha Kid
What do we lose if we use a term without the metphysical baggage of physical in the name. Call it verificationism. Or justificationism. The category of what can be considered physical has been shifting in not only members by the qualities of members. If something is considered real by science then it is called physical even if it is not like anything else that was considered physical before. We could just eliminate what is at best now a metaphor and a misleading one. And then work with the same epistemology. I don't think the word has helped, but the methodologies have been very productive. — Coben
We are really taking a stand against Rationalism or some other epistemology. Or the idea of knowing purely transcendent stuff. — Coben
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.