Physicalism is a factual truth-claim. It's the claim that the physical, which is mind independent, is ontologically more primitive than experience; that the physical supervenes on everything that is. Arguably this definition is too broad to be particularly meaningful... — Count Timothy von Icarus
If "the physicalist who is a methodological naturalist doesn't make truth claims about the nature of reality," then in what way is their position physicalist? — Count Timothy von Icarus
They may be. If they are factual truth-claims, then there are truth-maker facts to which they correspond. Thus, they're expressions of science, not philosophy.None of these are claims? — Count Timothy von Icarus
They may be. If they are factual truth-claims, then there are truth-maker facts to which they correspond. Thus, they're expressions of science, not philosophy.
"unless other ontologies can prove they are true, we should go with physicalism." Why is that ontology the default we need positive evidence to move away from? — Count Timothy von Icarus
In other words "faith" (Plantinga) :eyes: :rofl:The premises should be self evident truths of reason (or apparent ones). — Bartricks
These are not truths (re: philosophy), they are principles or criteria for determining – approximating – truths (re: science, history, politics, art, love). — 180 Proof
:up:I am satisfied that I have to assume humans are physical beings living in a physical world. And even if I were to make the leap of faith towards an idealist ontology, it changes nothing. I still need to earn money and be careful crossing the road, behaving as though physicalism is all there is. — Tom Storm
For my sake....what is scientific idealism? Single sentence kinda thing? — Mww
By realism I mean simply the idea that there is something "out there" which has a casual role in perceptions. — Count Timothy von Icarus
What "self-evident true premises" (A) do you believe Berkeley reasons from and to what sound truth-claims (B) do you believe Berkeley concludes? Specify those and I'll refute them.Try and refute Berkeleywithout assuming that materialism is true. — Bartricks
I say "almost", due to the fact that if realism, idealism and solipsism are understood to refer to grammatical stances, and if one is free to choose one's grammatical stance in accordance with one's circumstances, then the so-called "ontological commitments" that are entailed by these contrary positions can only refer to the state of mind and intentions of their asserters, in which case the public debate between realism and idealism amounts to psychological differences among the public that have no relevance to the empirical sciences at large. — sime
I still need to earn money and be careful crossing the road, behaving as though physicalism is all there is.
Anyhow, to come fill circle, I think the rationale for this sort of speculation, aside from being idle navel gazing, is that assumptions tied to our ontology bleed into our methodology and science whether we like it or not. This is probably even more true in we don't critically examine our ontology, but instead pick it up by osmosis, as a default. — Count Timothy von Icarus
If the existence of God / the physical nature of reality don't have any practical import, and if no evidence supports their being true over their not being true, wouldn't it make more sense to be agnostic? — Count Timothy von Icarus
There's an entire essay in this question, but to answer very briefly - I think 'eternal' is oversold for Platonic ideas and the like. It's more that they're non-temporal - that they don't come into or go out of existence - they're not temporally delimited or composed of parts. — Wayfarer
The evolution of h. sapiens is fairly well understood. But I share with Alfred Russel Wallace scepticism that the intellectual, artistic and creative faculties can be understood solely through the lens of evolutionary biology. — Wayfarer
How does that square with this statement from his interview:
The central lesson of quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out there in some preexisting space. As the physicist John Wheeler put it, “Useful as it is under ordinary circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld.” — Wayfarer
So, the corollary here would be "I believe in physicalism, but I don't know if physical reality exists?"
This seems different to me because it is a positive claim made in the absence of knowledge as opposed to a negative claim such as: "I don't believe in physicalism, but I don't know if it is true or not." — Count Timothy von Icarus
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.