I would say the most compelling reason to be a physicalist is methodological and not ontological. We simply have only one valid methodological approach: naturalism.
Every advancement we have made into the truth has been empirical, even if it be done from an armchair, and never by educated guesses that are not grounded in empirical evidence. Likewise, it seems, historically speaking, that we assume something we don't understand is supernatural and then learn later it is perfectly natural--which I think counts in favor of methodological naturalism. — Bob Ross
The Platonic concept of Body/Soul integrity, as a harmonious interaction, is new to me.
I would say the most compelling reason to be a physicalist is methodological and not ontological. We simply have only one valid methodological approach: naturalism.
Every advancement we have made into the truth has been empirical, even if it be done from an armchair, and never by educated guesses that are not grounded in empirical evidence. Likewise, it seems, historically speaking, that we assume something we don't understand is supernatural and then learn later it is perfectly natural--which I think counts in favor of methodological naturalism. — Bob Ross
I don't think the direction this thread is headed is of much help in understanding physicalism, so I had walked away, but I will make a few comments by way of responding to you directly.
I don't think emergence can be well understood in either casual or evolutionary terms, but that rather it might better be understood as a different way of talking about something. See this post. — Banno
But it's not clear to me from what you have said, whether you accept or reject a preference for monolithic explanations.
SO I'm not at all sure where this leaves us.
I find the distinction between object/objective and subject/subjective quite intelligible. The main issue in the context of the discussion of physicalism is the emphasis on objects and objectivity, and also on what is measurable. The basis of scientific method is the identification of the measurable attributes of objects. That is what has been referred to as the 'supremacy of quantity'. Whereas states of being are qualitative by nature - they're characterised by feeling (among other things).That is the whole 'hard problem' issue in a nutshell. I don't think it is unclear. — Wayfarer
Not everything fits into one or the other category. Cognition, metacognition, meaning, truth, social institutions, and other things quite simply are neither one nor the other. — creativesoul
Plato has Socrates argue against the analogy in the Phaedo. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Thanks. But it's a useful metaphor anyway. I may have to disagree with Plato though, on the immortality of the Soul. I tend to think of it, not as a ghost, but as the immaterial (mental ; metaphorical) Self-Concept/Personality of a self-conscious being/body*1. Hence, they are harmonious in the sense of an abstract/concrete duet. But when the concrete aspect dies, the duet does not automatically become a perpetual solo, but perhaps could "exist" as a vague memory in another mind. Besides, how could that which was never visible "disappear", like the fictional Cheshire cat? On this topic, you could classify my compromised position as a Physicalist/Metaphysicalist or Realist/Idealist duet. Not exactly Strong Emergence, but co-existence.Just to clarify though, the body/soul - instrument/harmony analogy is Pythagorean, not Platonic. Plato has Socrates argue against the analogy in the Phaedo. It's in the context of Plato's arguments in favor of the immortality of the soul. Plato doesn't like the analogy because it would imply that the soul (harmony) must disappear when the body (instrument) is destroyed. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The framing of the problem is the problem. Body and soul are treated as if they are two things, with the former dependent on the latter. — Fooloso4
A lyre that is not in tune cannot play a tune in tune. The harmony is not what is played on the lyre it is the condition of the lyre, the proper tension of the strings in ratio to each other that allow it to play in harmony. A body that is not in tune cannot function properly. When it is far enough out of tune it cannot function at all. — Fooloso4
One might make the same argument about harmony, lyre and strings, that a harmony is something invisible, without body, in the attuned lyre, whereas the lyre itself and its strings are physical, bodily, composite, earthy and akin to what is mortal. Then if someone breaks the lyre, cuts or breaks the strings and then insists, using the same argument as you, that the harmony must still exist and is not destroyed...
If then the soul is a kind of harmony or attunement, clearly, when our body is relaxed or stretched without due measure by diseases and other evils, the soul must be immediately destroyed... — Plato, Phaedo
In order not to get too far off topic I will only say that Plato also gives us reason to doubt the argument provided. — Fooloso4
Can you show me the reasons given by Plato, to doubt the arguments presented by Socrates, as paraphrased above. — Metaphysician Undercover
I can't speak for , but I doubt he means to go beyond human limits into the realm of divine omniscience. Instead, perhaps we can "transcend" a common dictionary meaning of a word, simply by looking at its context from a different perspective. Philosophers do that all the time. For example, Nagel transcended the commonsense notion of human-animal differences (ensoulment) by asking us to imagine that we see the world from that animal's perspective. That's how we can "know" the mind of a bat. It's called a subjective "thought experiment" as contrasted with an objective "empirical" experience. :smile:I do not know what transcending a language construct could possibly mean. — creativesoul
Yes, but. Gods are supposed to be above the subjective/objective limitations of humans. So, for omniscient-objective divine beings there is no "hard problem" of the relationship between body & mind. Therefore, to be completely objective, you would have to "know the mind of god"*1.If you reject the subjective/objective dichotomy the hard problem looks very different. — creativesoul
Short answer begins here
A more adequate long answer here
It is clear from that thread that you disagree with my interpretation. If you wish to pursue this further please reopen that thread or begin a new one. — Fooloso4
Your quoted passages in the "short answer" are all before 92 in the text, — Metaphysician Undercover
If you wish to pursue this further please reopen that thread or begin a new one. — Fooloso4
This position, 'the soul is a harmony' is very much similar to the modern physicalist position which apprehends ideas, concepts, mind and consciousness in general, as something distinct from the physical body (as the harmony is distinct from the lyre), but insists that these are dependent on the physical body as properties of it, or emergent from it, like the harmony is dependent on the lyre. — Metaphysician Undercover
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-waves-synchronize-when-people-interactNeuroscientists usually investigate one brain at a time. They observe how neurons fire as a person reads certain words, for example, or plays a video game. As social animals, however, those same scientists do much of their work together—brainstorming hypotheses, puzzling over problems and fine-tuning experimental designs. Increasingly, researchers are bringing that reality into how they study brains.
Collective neuroscience, as some practitioners call it, is a rapidly growing field of research. An early, consistent finding is that when people converse or share an experience, their brain waves synchronize. Neurons in corresponding locations of the different brains fire at the same time, creating matching patterns, like dancers moving together. Auditory and visual areas respond to shape, sound and movement in similar ways, whereas higher-order brain areas seem to behave similarly during more challenging tasks such as making meaning out of something seen or heard. The experience of “being on the same wavelength” as another person is real, and it is visible in the activity of the brain.
The three arguments found at 92-94 provide a very good refutation of the theory of 'the soul as a harmony'. — Metaphysician Undercover
(92a)… our soul is somewhere else earlier, before she is bound within the body.
(92c)But see which of the two arguments you prefer - that learning is recollection or soul a tuning.
Regardless of what you think abut Socrates' arguments for the immortality of the soul — Metaphysician Undercover
“So it is natural for an attunement not to lead the elements it is composed of, but to follow them.” (93a)
(93b)“Now does this also apply to the soul so that, however slightly, one soul is more what it is than another? Is it more and to a greater extent, or less and to a lesser extent, a soul?”
(93c)“Now, what will any of those who assert that the soul is an attunement say that these things, virtue and the vice, in our souls are?
(93d)And, being neither more nor less an attunement, it is neither more nor less attuned. Is this the case?
(94b)What about this?” he asked. “Of all the elements in a person, is there anything else that rules, according to you, except soul, especially if it also possesses understanding?
(94e)Now, do you think he [Homer] wrote this in the belief that soul is an attunement, the sort of thing which is led by the affections of the body, rather than leading them and dominating them, as it is a far more divine entity than any attunement?
(88d)What argument shall we ever trust now?
(84c)Certainly, in many ways it’s still open to suspicions and counterattacks - if, that is, somebody’s going to go through it sufficiently.
Simmias says, 85e-86d:
One might make the same argument about harmony, lyre and strings, that a harmony is something invisible, without body, in the attuned lyre, whereas the lyre itself and its strings are physical, bodily, composite, earthy and akin to what is mortal. Then if someone breaks the lyre, cuts or breaks the strings and then insists, using the same argument as you, that the harmony must still exist and is not destroyed...
If then the soul is a kind of harmony or attunement, clearly, when our body is relaxed or stretched without due measure by diseases and other evils, the soul must be immediately destroyed...
— Plato, Phaedo — Metaphysician Undercover
My apologies for the continued derailment, but since MU is insistent and refuses to move this to another thread I will respond here.
The three arguments found at 92-94 provide a very good refutation of the theory of 'the soul as a harmony'.
— Metaphysician Undercover
I do not think that the argument that begins:
… our soul is somewhere else earlier, before she is bound within the body.
(92a)
and goes on to ask:
But see which of the two arguments you prefer - that learning is recollection or soul a tuning.
(92c)
provides the foundation for "a very good refutation". — Fooloso4
An attunement does not lead or follow the elements. The attunement is the condition of those elements. For the lyre this means the proper tension of the strings. For a person this means being healthy. The limits of the analogy are obvious, a lyre cannot tune itself. But we can act to maintain or improve our mental and physical health. — Fooloso4
Socrates then resorts to a bit of sophistry:
“Now does this also apply to the soul so that, however slightly, one soul is more what it is than another? Is it more and to a greater extent, or less and to a lesser extent, a soul?”
(93b)
A lesser attunement is still an attunement. One soul might be more in tune than another but both a well tuned and poorly tuned soul is still a soul.
“Now, what will any of those who assert that the soul is an attunement say that these things, virtue and the vice, in our souls are?
(93c)
They are like health and sickness, well tuned or poorly tuned, and in harmony or out of harmony.
And, being neither more nor less an attunement, it is neither more nor less attuned. Is this the case?
(93d)
No, that is not the case. It is well tuned or poorly tuned, and this allows for degrees. — Fooloso4
This is deliberately misleading. On the premise that the soul is an attunement then it is not one element of the attunement that rules, but rather the relation between those elements, the ratio and harmony of those elements that rules. When the person is well tuned, balanced and in harmony, he or she will rule themselves well, and if not then poorly. — Fooloso4
This begs the question. Socrates treats the soul and body as two separate and different things, the very thing the attunement argument denies. — Fooloso4
The passage from Homer is about Odysseus controlling his anger. Where is anger located within this separation? Is it an affection of the body or the soul? According to the division set in the Republic the source is the spirited part of the soul not the body.
If Odysseus is his soul then the example is not about being led by the affections of the body. — Fooloso4
Certainly, when one goes through the arguments sufficiently, it becomes clear why we should not accept them. — Fooloso4
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.