A computer can be programmed to assert that it thinks. Doesn't make it so. Descartes was starting from what he knew for sure, which is that he thinks. — Kenosha Kid
recisely as much as the empirical sciences. We cannot put spacetime curvature under a microscope: we infer it from indirect evidence, i.e. observations of its effects. This is actually true of all observations. You have no direct observation of your chair: it is all interpretations of effects. — Kenosha Kid
We use such machines all the time, and class an observation to be a reading of their outputs. — Kenosha Kid
Real has no implicit substance claim. Of course for a physicalist they will be synonyms (not assuming you are) but i think at this point 'physical' looks like a metaphysical claim when used in physicalism, but it's not. Or if it is, it has problems since the epistemology that generates it is not making that metaphysical claim. It just offers a route to deciding if things are real without a care whether they are physical or not. And hence things are now considered real without mass or extension, for example.To my mind real and physical are as natural synonyms as moral and ethical. — Pfhorrest
It just offers a route to deciding if things are real without a care whether they are physical or not. — Coben
Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the thesis attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales, that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental. The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don't deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don't seem physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are either physical or supervene on the physical. — Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
If all atoms turn out to be fuzzy local excitations of omnipresent fields does that mean even rocks aren't physical?) — Pfhorrest
It's claiming something about everything that is real, rather than a particular thing. If it if real, then it will be like X. But it need no not be like x. The physical (which I would prefer to call the real) is an expanding set in science, as I said earlier, not just in terms of new members, but in terms of what qualities the thing need have or doesn't have.)What does "physical" mean in that sentence? What is the metaphysical claim that (I presume you mean) empiricism isn't caring about there? — Pfhorrest
exactly my point, but it sure sounds like it is saying more. Because it did mean more, openly for a long time, whether used by dualists or monists disagreeing with them. It included claims about substance. And since there is no reason not to just use real or empirically real (though the latter sounds like it is leaving the door open for other types of real) I think it should be dropped.I can't think of what "physical" might even mean besides "empirically real", — Pfhorrest
As far as air, as far as I know that was always included in the physical.other than absurd guesses that don't even track natural usage of the word like "solid". (E.g. is air non-physical unless it turns out to be made of tiny solid billiard ball atoms bouncing around? If all atoms turn out to be fuzzy local excitations of omnipresent fields does that mean even rocks aren't physical?)
Perhaps this is a cop out, but I think it's good one: Haven't we (or hasn't philosophy) already been through the mess of this mental/physical game? It's all (actually) physical! It's all (actually) mental! But for this 'actually' to work in either direction requires bending 'physical' or 'mental' beyond recognition. — f64
This is why we need a rigorous definition as to what constitutes an "observation". — Metaphysician Undercover
It seems like the modern trend back toward monism is simply a failure of our institutions to teach solid metaphysical principles. — Metaphysician Undercover
All of this confirms my initial reaction - when it comes to metaphysicas there is no agreement on even the most basic concepts. — EricH
An observation is a recording of data about a system. — Kenosha Kid
"Solid metaphysical principles"? Talk about a contradiction in terms. — EricH
All of this confirms my initial reaction - when it comes to metaphysicas there is no agreement on even the most basic concepts. — EricH
But I try to keep an open mind - I am out on the forum to learn new things - so perhaps I am wrong. If there are any solid metaphysical principles that should be taught, then clearly all (or most) meta-physicians should agree upon them, yes? So what are these principals? — EricH
The resolution to this dilemma, developed by Plato and Aristotle, is dualism. Hence the great rise in Christian dualism. — Metaphysician Undercover
I have many more important things to do with my life than to make sense of incoherent nonsense.A very significant amount of effort and hard work is required to make sense of what appears to be incoherent nonsense at first glance. — Metaphysician Undercover
I cannot assert this with 100% certainty, but I have a high level of confidence that - at best - metaphysics is a form of poetry in which people attempt to express vague feelings of, umm, well - and here I get stuck - I'm not quite sure what it is they're trying to express. I get that you are dissatisfied with the notion that everything (whatever "everything" means) is explicable in terms of a physical reality (AKA physicalism). But once you get beyond the physical, language falls apart - there are no clear definitions and you end up with a word salad - and no two people can agree on anything.So it appears to me, that what you are lacking is confidence in your own capacity to judge metaphysical principles. — Metaphysician Undercover
Don't let my carping stop you folks. If believing this stuff helps you with your life then who am I to stop you? It seems harmless enough in the scheme of things.I have found a way into it, through the contemplation of Platonic realism, . . . . and it’s given me a perspective from which to read the subject. — Wayfarer
So it appears to me, that what you are lacking is confidence in your own capacity to judge metaphysical principles. — Metaphysician Undercover
I cannot assert this with 100% certainty, but I have a high level of confidence that - at best - metaphysics is a form of poetry in which people attempt to express vague feelings — EricH
we cannot simply assume that the apparatus comprises a system — Metaphysician Undercover
Not necessarily, that's the point. When the apparatus is faulty, or in some way deficient in its capacity to be what it is supposed to be, it cannot be said to be a system. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is because a "system" is an artificial thing designed for a purpose. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, it is. It is a system in an undesirable state, but it is still a system. — Kenosha Kid
A carbon atom is a system of fermions. — Kenosha Kid
I'm not quite sure what it is they're trying to express. — EricH
But once you get beyond the physical, language falls apart - there are no clear definitions and you end up with a word salad - and no two people can agree on anything. — EricH
I cannot assert this with 100% certainty, but I have a high level of confidence that - at best - metaphysics is a form of poetry in which people attempt to express vague feelings of, umm, well - and here I get stuck - I'm not quite sure what it is they're trying to express. — EricH
But once you get beyond the physical, language falls apart - there are no clear definitions and you end up with a word salad - and no two people can agree on anything. — EricH
This is a failure to adhere to a rigorous definition of "system", — Metaphysician Undercover
You mean your typically esoteric definition? I wouldn't class that as a failure. It's important to have consensus in language. Adhere to that and you will make fewer communication errors. Since I introduced the word into the convo, you can take it as read that I mean it in the normal sense of interacting parts comprising a whole, not whatever arbitrary definition you insist upon after the fact. — Kenosha Kid
The problem here is that we're talking about the reliability of scientific observations, not the capacity for common vernacular. In science, "system" has a very specific definition involving boundaries, such that any "whole" which you are talking about is defined by its boundaries. If the boundaries of the proposed "whole" are really unknown, or nonexistent, and the observer applies systems theory in interpretation, which pretends that the nonexistent boundaries are there and known, in order to treat what is observed as a "system", then obviously the observations will be unreliable. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.