How is that you believe there is no formal method for justification of physicalism yet you claim to be a physicalist? — m-theory
Man I don't have ability to link you to any author who has made formal arguments for physicalism. — m-theory
You should probably browse the entire article or skip to the references and begin browsing there for examples of the tradition of physicalism and formal logic. — m-theory
Do you think we are passive conduits of experience to our self, that the act of presentation is something that we only can experience as an observer. Or do you think that our experiences are representative and that we are in some sense responsible for what we experience as that which we represent to our self. — Cavacava
When physics predicts results that have not been empirically verified it is because these predictions exist as a result of the formal logic.
This was what lead to the acceptance of GR in particular, the formal logic predicted things that were eventually empirically verified.
It more like a two way street.
We make formal logic models, and then verify them from observation and vice versa. — m-theory
According to the "Integrated Information Theory" of consciousness, robots are conscious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory — Michael Gagnon
I've seen definitions of physicalism which state that, roughly, everything which exists is either physical or supervenes on the physical. So, intentional (i.e. content-laden) mental states needn't provide a serious problem to physicalism, provided said states are understood to supervene on the physical.I genuinely cannot figure out how physicalism overcomes this problem since intentional content is one of the things most apparent to us and it is clearly not physical. — Rawrren
I don't see how this follows. Solipism is the belief or thesis that one's own mind is the only existing mind in the world. That you are certain that you have mental states (and thus a mind) in no way rules out that someone else may be a solipsist (it would only certify that they are incorrect in their solipsist belief).You mean there is no objective method. Subjectively, I know that mental phenomena exist, because I experience it. That's how I can know with certainty that nobody else can be a solipsist, to the extent one takes solipsism seriously. — Marchesk
I am not particularly acquainted with the various flavors of supervenience (indeed, I already consider it to be a logical relation, so I'm not sure what distinction "logical supervenience" holds). Could you give an outline of Chalmers's position? Presumably, in order for his view to provide a problem for physicalism, he holds that mental states are "strongly emergent" from physical states, else the point is moot (I'm also not sure what "non-reductive" means here. Much philosophical confusion seems to have arisen over issues of whether A is "reducible" to B.).Yeah, but what exactly does it mean to supervene? According to Chalmers, physicalism require logical supervenience, which rules out strong emergentism and nonreductive forms of physicalism. — Marchesk
Could you give an outline of Chalmers's position? — Arkady
Physicalism is true iff everything is logically necessitated by physicis, — Marchesk
The first problem with this is that physicalism doesn't require a belief in (strong) determinism. One can be a physicalist and believe that some events are acausal or ontologically probabilistic. — Terrapin Station
Sure, but they need to be entailed by physics, — Marchesk
What does "entailed by physics" mean exactly? You're not saying something about the science of physics per se, are you? And otherwise, what does it mean to say that it needs to be entailed by the physical world? — Terrapin Station
I'm referring to what the metaphysical doctrine physicalism requires. — Marchesk
How about referring to it, then, rather than referring to referring to it? In other words, how about saying what it means exactly? — Terrapin Station
It means exactly the same thing as saying that everything is made of XYZ. — Marchesk
So an answer would have to fit "x is entailed by physics just in case _______" and the blank would be whatever the explanation is of what the phrase means. — Terrapin Station
No, it means that if you knew everything about physics, — Marchesk
That's saying something about the science of physics per se, isn't it? — Terrapin Station
It's saying something about the nature of the physical world, — Marchesk
ton of things after all, couldn't it? And that could be the case no matter how we progress with our social practices that count as that science. — Terrapin Station
I understand that physicalism attempts to be successful in explanation the location of intentional states (e.g. thoughts/"I think") via whatever route it takes, behaviourism, functionalism etc. but what I can't understand is how a physicalist overcomes the location or even causation of intentional content (e.g. ... that a box is 2 x 2cm).
Jesus man, this isn't that difficult of a concept. Is everything made up of the stuff of physics, or not? — Marchesk
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.