Is it that the focus given to physicalism is due because it is truly central to philosophical discourse, or is it just an accident that occurred by coincidence due to the interests of the forum's userbase? — Kuro

I can only take a guess. Physicalism/materialism is an interesting view in metaphysics and philosophy of the mind -- it is anti phenomenology and idealism. So given this brief description, your argument could take you very far as there's enough material (no pun intended) there to support your argument.

My hunch is that the mind is in the spotlight so to speak in the scientific community - there's frenetic research ongoing in neuroscience, aimed at unravelling the mysteries of the mind, an enterprise equivalent in importance to space exploration (I'm fairly certain that a cost comparison between the two should vindicate my claim). Does anyone have hard data, figures, stats, to support this?

I've not been here for a long of time, but I can't help myself but notice the sheer abundance of focality given to the discussion of physicalism/materialism vs rival positions (idealism, dualism, etc) in this forum, whether it's with regards to the philosophy of mind or ontology in general. — Kuro

Physicalism of various stripes is the default in modern secular culture. Its assumptions are widely embedded even in many people who don’t know what the word means. So it’s a natural subject of debate.

(is physicalism) truly central to philosophical discourse — Kuro

Of course not. It is possible to engage in philosophical discourse that does not have physicalism as its subject. Physicalism is central to a philosophical discourse iff physical objects are contained in its predicates.

This question, this one, this one, this one, this one, or not to forget this one or this one. All asked within 2 weeks. Conspicuous! Seems a popular subject. Why would that be?

My hunch is that the mind is in the spotlight so to speak in the scientific community - there's frenetic research ongoing in neuroscience, aimed at unravelling the mysteries of the mind, an enterprise equivalent in importance to space exploration (I'm fairly certain that a cost comparison between the two should vindicate my claim). Does anyone have hard data, figures, stats, to support this? — Agent Smith

Good point! What kind of telescope is needed to observe dark mind matter or energy?

Is it that the focus given to physicalism is due because it is truly central to philosophical discourse, or is it just an accident that occurred by coincidence due to the interests of the forum's userbase? — Kuro

Physicalism of various stripes is the default in modern secular culture. Its assumptions are widely embedded even in many people who don’t know what the word means. So it’s a natural subject of debate. — Wayfarer

I think what Wayfarer says makes sense. For many, physicalism/materialism is the philosophy of science, reason, and common sense.

Is it that the focus given to physicalism is due because it is truly central to philosophical discourse, or is it just an accident that occurred by coincidence due to the interests of the forum's userbase? — Kuro

Also - welcome to the forum. I've looked through some of your other posts. You write well.

Is it that the focus given to physicalism is due because it is truly central to philosophical discourse — Kuro

Yes it is.The battle Materialism vs Idealism is the Major Philosophical Event. Imo, this question is in the core of human nature since its very beginning.

At the end it's the crossroad where all (or almost all) philosophical debates meet. Idealism is the hope for something Transcedental. For something "more" to exist(whatever that "more" could be). Materialism on the other hand, is merely based on facts,and that's why has an "advantage" on that fight. But idealists will never give up fighting for their hope so easily. Unless science brings something unquestionable one day.
Even materialists I think deep inside them have the very same hope also. To be proven wrong at the end.

Such a fight is normal to attend most philosophical thinkers. I would buy a ticket also.

Materialism on the other hand, is merely based on facts,and that's why has an "advantage" on that fight. But idealists will never give up fighting for their hope so easily. Unless science brings something unquestionable one day. — dimosthenis9

It's a fact that bare facts don't exist. Even elementary particles need other particles to gain identity. Add to this the bare fact that the internal identity of those basic structures of nature can never be known apart from assimilating them to our own internal reality, and it becomes clear, like a shape in the fog rising above it in the bright blue moonlight, that both the ideal and the material, through interaction, are mutually shape-shifting.

This question, this one, this one, this one, this one, or not to forget this one or this one. All asked within 2 weeks. Conspicuous! Seems a popular subject. Why would that be? — EugeneW

Yeah, true. That's suspect -- all within 2 weeks. But, again, I think the allure of physicalism/materialism is that it is easy to grasp, and therefore easier to talk about. You have a strong foundation with physicalism. I mean, at least the rebuttal you're up against are manageable.

Even elementary particles need other particles to gain identity. Add to this the bare fact that the internal identity of those basic structures of nature can never be known apart from assimilating them to our own internal reality — EugeneW

And that's exactly one of the main gaps in materialism, where idealists arguments throw their punches at.

Is it that the focus given to physicalism is due because it is truly central to philosophical discourse, or is it just an accident that occurred by coincidence due to the interests of the forum's userbase? — Kuro

I think this focus is simply science-induced and because in this focus the soul-like qualities of nature are burnt with the relentless shining of a once liberating Enlightenment, a strong reaction has to be expected from the contra side of the schism and destruction caused. The other side of the medal mostly resides on the dark side of the light that's sent out by the bright star classes of the sciences. But that side exists, and people feel that. It can't be ignored and it's a matter of time before the dark side will be turned to show its splendid and untouched face to shine in a light so sublime that its first reaction is to turn back to darkness. But it will show itself again. Timid, luring, yet determined.

Good point! What kind of telescope is needed to observe dark mind matter or energy? — EugeneW

It appears we're taking the mind for granted. The emphasis is on using it instead of studying it (NASA budget for 2020 was $20 billion while only $10 billion was spent on neuroscience). I haven't checked the the expenditure on AI (artificial minds) or how much money is involved in religions that have advanced meditative practices, for instance Buddhism and possibly Hinduism (Raja Yoga).

Most of us, myself included, I imagine are not professional philosophers. Ontology is the thing you're going to think of when you start thinking of metaphysics. For me, modality, universals, parts and wholes, propositions, etc. were all less apparent issues than "what is," at first. Later, I started to realize those other questions are sort of essential for answering the former question.

Physicalism is the dominant ontology of our day. Everyone had science in school, so it's sort of a default understanding of "how the world works." To be sure, there are plenty of scientists who don't embrace physicalism, but by far the most common view you see in the sciences is physicalism.

I think part of why it is such a big topic is that physicalism is a very successful idea, and explains a lot of things. I think the other, more problematic issue, is that it's easy to think a lot of philosophical questions have been "solved" by physical sciences, because an answer can be formulated to many "big questions," in terms of "well, X is actually just Y scientific phenomena." However, often, on closer analysis, Y turns out to be rather undefined. It's also easy to mistake complexity for correctness; I certainly make that mistake.

NASA budget for 2020 was $20 billion while only $10 billion was spent on neuroscience — Agent Smith

"Only" 10 billion? For such a small volume it's relative an infinite amount!

I think part of why it is such a big topic is that physicalism is a very successful idea, and explains a lot of things. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In fact it explains nothing. That's only part of the rhetoric and propaganda used, to pull the non-believers over the borderline and fool the children's minds.

The very act of you writing that the idea is successful proofs the trickery to lure you in worked.

"Only" 10 billion? For such a small volume it's relative an infinite amount! — EugeneW

I might've forgotten my math lessons there. I was looking at it from a relative standpoint. As an absolute amount, $10 billion is a lot! :smile:

I wish they spend that on my neurons! Could ask a fair fee!

while only $10 billion was spent on neuroscience — Agent Smith

none of which might have any bearing on philosophy of mind, as such. The major applications of neuroscience are medical and therapeutic. (Well, leaving aside Neuralink.)

My guess would be that this debate is the equivalent of a festering religious war or dispute, attracting the kind of fanatic energy and never-ending attention typical of religious wars and disputes. The issue of the mind and its relationships to matter is laden with other questions about God, gods, 'ghosts in the machine' -- that would why materialists are often reluctant to acknowledge themselves as mindful. They are afraid of the possible implications. Likewise the idea of the mind as a mere mechanism, as an evolution-honed capacity, appears odious to God believers, even to those (the majority) agreeing with evolution.

It is also an important historical debate. The late 19th and 20th century are when materialism became a dominant political reality, with capitalism, communism and later fascism. We are still learning how to live without gods. It's been a rocky ride.

none of which might have any bearing on philosophy of mind, as such. The major applications of neuroscience are medical and therapeutic. (Well, leaving aside Neuralink.) — Wayfarer

Sad but true. If the products of the mind (rockets, spaceships, the James Webb Space Telescope) are so marvelous, imagine how amazing the mind must be! We're distracted. The creations can't be more beautiful/grander than the creator, oui?

Whoops, posted in the wrong thread.

If I had to guess, its a need for people to think they're better than the physical animals they are. People want to feel special, immortal, and see their dead friends and loved ones again. If we're all physical, all that goes away. We're just here, then we're not. A lot of people don't want to believe that, so they seek for outlooks on humanity that allow us to surpass the material world.

If I had to guess, its a need for people to think they're better than the physical animals they are. — Philosophim

That humans are different to animals is not a matter of opinion. We show capabilities and attributes that no animal can come close to, I don't see how this can be glossed over or ignored.

As to the sense in which humans are physical, that depends on what physical means. And if the definition of physical is a matter for physics, then at this time it's wide open.

If the products of the mind (rockets, spaceships, the James Webb Space Telescope) are so marvelous, imagine how amazing the mind must be! — Agent Smith

Humans alone can peer into the realm of the possible and brings things back from it.

My guess would be that this debate is the equivalent of a festering religious war or dispute, attracting the kind of fanatic energy and never-ending attention typical of religious wars and disputes. — Olivier5

It is a facet of the 'culture wars', no question about that. But it is actually momentous. As to whether it's fanatical, there are fanatics on both sides of the divide, but there are fanatics to be found in other areas of life apart from this one.

It’s an age-old battle. The idea that things can be measured and detected is anathema to those who posit things that cannot be measured or detected, so it’s good to defend the principle at any chance we get. More than this, learning to value what is there rather than what isn’t is an important task of philosophy.

If the products of the mind (rockets, spaceships, the James Webb Space Telescope) are so marvelous, imagine how amazing the mind must be!
— Agent Smith

Humans alone can peer into the realm of the possible and brings things back from it. — Wayfarer

How true.

If I had to guess, its a need for people to think they're better than the physical animals they are.
— Philosophim

That humans are different to animals is not a matter of opinion. We show capabilities and attributes that no animal can come close to, I don't see how this can be glossed over or ignored. — Wayfarer

Certainly, we are the smartest animals we know of. But we share many traits with animals as well, and I don't see how this can be glossed over or ignored. There is nothing beyond your brain and body. It is a wish and desire that we are more than that, nothing more.

Certainly, we are the smartest animals we know of. But we share many traits with animals as well, and I don't see how this can be glossed over or ignored. There is nothing beyond your brain and body. It is a wish and desire that we are more than that, nothing more. — Philosophim

I'm not disputing the facts of evolution, but h. sapiens realises horizons of meaning which are completely unavailable to other creatures. In fact I don't really understand why this is something that has to be argued for, when the differences between h. sapiens and other species seems to blindingly obvious.

Interestingly, this is where Alfred Russel Wallace – co-discovered of natural selection – broke with Darwin. In his essay Darwinism Applied to Man, he summarises all of the ways in which the physical traits of h. sapiens can be traced back through our simian forbears, saying

I fully accept Mr. Darwin's conclusion as to the essential identity of man's bodily structure with that of the higher mammalia, and his descent from some ancestral form common to man and the anthropoid apes. The evidence of such descent appears to me to be overwhelming and conclusive. Again, as to the cause and method of such descent and modification, we may admit, at all events provisionally, that the laws of variation and natural selection, acting through the struggle for existence and the continual need of more perfect adaptation to the physical and biological environments, may have brought about, first that perfection of bodily structure in which he is so far above all other animals, and in co-ordination with it the larger and more developed brain, by means of which he has been able to utilise that structure in the more and more complete subjection of the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms to his service.

But this is only the beginning of Mr. Darwin's work, since he goes on to discuss the moral nature and mental faculties of man, and derives these too by gradual modification and development from the lower animals. Although, perhaps, nowhere distinctly formulated, his whole argument tends to the conclusion that man's entire nature and all his faculties, whether moral, intellectual, or spiritual, have been derived from their rudiments in the lower animals, in the same manner and by the action of the same general laws as his physical structure has been derived.

This is what he then proceeds to argue against, referencing mathematical ability as a leading illustration. Regrettably, being Victorian, the essay is full of references to 'savages' but if you allow for the anachronisms I think it still stands up reasonably well.

I'm also not quoting that as an appeal to authority - only to illustrate that the typical neo-darwinist view, which you seem to swallow, is one amongst a number of possible interpretations.

There is nothing beyond your brain and body. — Philosophim

Nothing, apart from the ability to weigh and measure the Universe. Amazing, the things you can pick up chasing wildebeest.

We put chips in monkeys' brains and they died. That's how far along neuroscience is. Barbarism.