The physical world, the ordinary stuff with which we are most familiar, like rocks and trees and tables and chairs, is stuff in the middle of that spectrum: those are abstract structures that we suppose are a part of the abstract structure that is our world, on account of (and held to account by) our concrete experiences. — Pfhorrest
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. — EricH
your John Wheeler Participatory Universe post reminded me of it, — Pfhorrest
It is that Wheeler’s ‘participatory universe’ challenges materialism, because it places ‘the observer’ in the picture (‘the observer’ being the participant in question.) So this introduces ‘mind’ as fundamental, but not as an objective factor. It is fundamental because of its participation. — Wayfarer
But you can’t get behind that, or outside of that, so as to see what it is; it is not a ‘that’, an object of analysis, because it is always ‘what is analysing’.
Whereas, in your post, I feel as though you are trying to treat everything - mind included - as object. — Wayfarer
It's not that far a leap to just continue with the principle that all subjects are also objects (minds are things), or even that all objects are also subjects (every thing "has a mind", at least in a sense), and so that object and subject are just different perspectives on the same (if you prefer)- beings, or entities, or whatever you'd like to call them. — Pfhorrest
There are standard procedures for ruling out hallucinations and these are invariably scaled-up versions of the normal act of perceiving; people, more people, instruments, more instruments, you know the deal but the bottom line is the entire exercise is nothing but the act of perceiving just ramped up. — TheMadFool
It seems that physicalism is either false or circular. — TheMadFool
I have thought of something to say. It is that Wheeler’s ‘participatory universe’ challenges materialism, because it places ‘the observer’ in the picture (‘the observer’ being the participant in question.) So this introduces ‘mind’ as fundamental, but not as an objective factor. It is fundamental because of its participation. But you can’t get behind that, or outside of that, so as to see what it is; it is not a ‘that’, an object of analysis, because it is always ‘what is analysing’. — Wayfarer
So this introduces ‘mind’ as fundamental, but not as an objective factor. It is fundamental because of its participation. But you can’t get behind that, or outside of that, so as to see what it is; it is not a ‘that’, an object of analysis, because it is always ‘what is analysing’. — Wayfarer
I think there really is a basic difference between objects and subjects. It’s an ontological distinction, and that not everything has or is a mind. I think your perspective arises from internalising the abstract view of physics - as treating everything as a point within a mathematical matrix. But what that doesn’t allow for, is the reality of suffering, which can’t be represented abstractly or converted into mathematical co-ordinates. Ballpoint pens and lumps of granite don’t have minds, animals and humans do, and the latter are also capable of reason.
The point I take from Wheeler’s observation is that it’s an acknowledgement of the role of the observer. Science has been forced to make that acknowledgement, for reasons I’m sure you know. But you can’t ‘get behind’ that - the role of the observer is acknowledged but there’s nothing in the mathematics that models it. That’s why it’s a turning point in science - it’s because hitherto, it was believed science was seeing the world ‘as it truly is’ as if in the absence of any observer. That is what has been called into question. — Wayfarer
The reason why the mind must be immaterial, posited by ancient philosophers like Aquinas, is that only by being completely separate from the material, can the mind know all material existence. If any aspect of the mind is material, it will taint our understanding of the material, as looking through a tinted glass taints our ability to see the true colour of things. — Metaphysician Undercover
The point I want to get to, it that the notion of physicalism is still important for how we make sense of the world. The physical came first, and life grew out of that. — ChatteringMonkey
I, like other searchers, attempt formulation after formulation of the central issues and here present a wider overview, taking for working hypothesis the most effective one that has survived this winnowing: It from Bit. Otherwise put, every it — every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes or no questions, binary choices, bits.
It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe. — J A Wheeler, Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links
Actually, Wheeler says not. He said that 'it' - a physical object - comes from 'bit' - binary choices, yes/no questions:
I, like other searchers, attempt formulation after formulation of the central issues and here present a wider overview, taking for working hypothesis the most effective one that has survived this winnowing: It from Bit. Otherwise put, every it — every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes or no questions, binary choices, bits.
It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.
— J A Wheeler, Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links
Wheeler's 'delayed choice' thought experiment also poses huge challenges for realism. See this article for an account.
Besides, where did 'the physical' originate? Complex matter, such as carbon and the other heavy elements, were the product of stellar explosions. But the formation of stars are in turn dependent on the existence of the fundamental constraints which governed the formation of the Universe, and it's impossible to say what the source of those constraints are, or if they're simply 'brute fact'. — Wayfarer
I think a more common version of physicalism just brackets that question altogether, and is only committed to the notion that we need to test our ideas to empirical data about the world. — ChatteringMonkey
That is what is called 'methodological naturalism' which is perfectly fine. It doesn't make any claims about the world in general - but then, it probably also has no need to post to philosophy forums. — Wayfarer
But physicalism is not that - physicalism is the 'thesis that everything is, or supervenes on, the physical'. It is the presumption of many people - maybe the majority! - in that having taken God out of the picture, then what you have left is a universe 'governed by' the laws of physics. If it can't be accounted for in those terms, then it isn't real, or it doesn't exist. It is the philosophy of modern scientific secular culture. — Wayfarer
What I'm pointing out, is that, if not God, at least mind has now been re-introduced to the picture by physics itself. — Wayfarer
So my view is that modern, or should we say post-modern, science, really undermines physicalism altogether. Of course a lot of people are going to disagree with that, but note this: those physicist 'public intellectuals' like David Deutsche and Sean Carroll who are most vocally wed to physicalism, are also advocates for 'many-worlds' and multiverse interpretations of physics. And I say, that's because physicalism can't accomodate the paradoxes of quantum physics without introducing such ideas. — Wayfarer
The point I want to get to, it that the notion of physicalism is still important for how we make sense of the world. The physical came first, and life grew out of that. In fact life developed this ability precisely to be able to affect the physical for its goals... to extend its physical life and reproduce physical life. — ChatteringMonkey
I thought it was more because intellect, nous, is what grasps the forms and the final cause, the senses receive the material impression as per sensible and intelligible form. — Wayfarer
all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe
— Wayfarer (quoting Wheeler)
Which is pretty much what I was saying. — Pfhorrest
We could understand physicalism as a scientific realism such as "our best scientific theory of the world tells us as much as we know about reality". We could also states that object such a consciousness doesnt exist. And then we have a complete — Nzomigni
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.