BothAndBlog Forum

Best Arguments for Physicalism

My usual spiel, physicalism (a version of materialism) doesn't really have a good definition anymore, because there's nothing which can sensible be made that physicalism can be opposed to. — Manuel

I suppose you mean that modern Physicalism is more inclusive than ancient Materialism (Atomism). It's intended to include the full-range of modern science : especially chemical substance and dynamic causation ; hence covers the major categories of empirical Science : Chemistry (matter) and Physics (energy), along with their sub-categories : biology, geology, astronomy, etc. So, anything "opposed" to Physicalism would be implicitly classified as Pseudoscience. Yet, the "hard" sciences do omit the "soft" sciences of Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, and Politics. All of which are closer to Philosophical (theoretical) than to Empirical (experimental) methodologies. Are they also pseudosciences?

On a philosophy forum, the Physicalism label is usually contrasted with Idealism or Spiritualism, or Pseudoscience-in-general. The primary distinction is that "Physics" is Natural Science, whereas "Spirit" is Supernatural Superstition. Yet in reality the line between them is blurry. For my own discussions, I prefer dualistic Physicalism to monistic Materialism because it is more inclusive : tangible Matter and invisible Energy. Unfortunately, the physical concept of Energy is also acceptable to modern Paranormalists, Spiritualists and Ghost Hunters, who seek for evidence of their spiritual quarry with technology designed to detect physical energy and spooky forces. Is that what you mean by "doesn't have a good definition anymore"?


Physicalism :
This includes not only material objects, but also energy, forces, and physical laws. In summary, while materialism asserts that everything is made up of material substance, physicalism goes further to claim that everything can be explained by physical entities and their properties.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-m

But the problem is, you’re still regarding ‘it’ as a phenomena, as something that exists. But consciousness is not ‘something that exists’, it is the ground of experience. Now, certainly, consciousness can be treated as a phenomena, as something that can be studied and understood - that is what cognitive science and psychology deal with. But I think the ‘hard problem’ argument is not addressed to that - it is about the meaning of being (‘what it is like to be….’), which is not an objective phenomenon. — Wayfarer


As you implied, the key to your differences with ↪creativesoul is in divergent definitions of "To Be / To Exist". A typical dictionary definition says that "To Exist" means Objective Reality, which seems to exclude Subjective Ideality. Reality is taken to be what the physical senses sense, and implicitly denies what metaphysical Reason infers, often by analogy, not experiment. Yet physical science could not function without inferences of that which is not apparent to the 5 senses, including invisible Energy, known only by deduction from its effects on matter.

I suspect (infer) that Kant coined the term "Noumenon" with such to-be-or-not-to-be debates in mind. The term tries to make Ideas seem like merely a different kind of Phenomenon, which exists in a nonphysical/metaphysical sense. That's also why I have recently been emphasizing the scientific relationship between causal Energy and intentional Mind. But it still sounds like non-sense to some.

However,there is also such a thing as top-down causation which mitigates against purely physicalist explanations of consciousness. — Wayfarer

FYI, in Terrence Deacon's book Incomplete Nature, he discusses Emergence and Downward Causation. He explains, "downward causation . . . is in this sense not causation in the sense of being induced to change . . . but is rather an alteration in causal probabilities". He also says, "supervenience is in many respects the defining property of emergence, but also the source of many of its conceptual problems".

One way to think of Supervenience is to note that Emergence follows a series of changes as an unforeseen development, due to statistical Uncertainty (probability), as in Quantum theory. That may be why ↪wonderer1 erroneously assumes that you are denying physical Reality, when you are merely asserting the existence of non-physical Ideality --- as supervenient upon reality --- and noting that --- perhaps due to human intention*1 --- causation can flow both ways.


*1. Entention : An intention is a mental state in which the agent commits themselves to a course of action.
"The natural sciences must exclude ententional explanations, whereas the so-called special sciences*2 cannot" ___ Deacon, Incomplete Nature
Note --- Philosophy is, in this sense, a Special Science.

*2. Special sciences :
Special sciences are those sciences other than fundamental physics. In this view, chemistry, biology, and neuroscience—indeed, all sciences except fundamental physics—are special sciences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_sciences

Not according to Brian Greene:

The explanation of uncertainty as arising through the unavoidable disturbance caused by the measurement process has provided physicists with a useful intuitive guide… . However, it can also be misleading. It may give the impression that uncertainty arises only when we lumbering experimenters meddle with things. This is not true. Uncertainty is built into the wave structure of quantum mechanics and exists whether or not we carry out some clumsy measurement. As an example, take a look at a particularly simple probability wave for a particle, the analog of a gently rolling ocean wave, shown in Figure 4.6. — Wayfarer

This quote raised a strange & confusing possibility in my mind, that may or may not be provable. Greene's illustration of quantum Uncertainty*1 notes that the "particle" being sought is not in any particular place, but "spread out" throughout the universe. In other words, non-local. So, it seems that the fundamental problem is not a mental state (uncertainty) in the mind of the observer, but a Holistic state (eternity) in the really-real world. Ironically, the reductive scientist is looking for a particle where there is nothing particular. This sounds like the drunk looking for his lost keys under a street light, because that's where the light is.*3

From direct sensory experience with the human-scale macro world, we have learned to expect things to be local & particular & changeable. But, when scientists experiment with the quantum foundations of the world, their artificial sensors return the appearance of a non-local & holistic & a-causal BlockWorld*4. In such a world all reasoning would be circular (non-linear). So, which is true : our common-sense ever-changing linear-logic reality, or an eternal state of Potential from which we sample statistical contingencies? What does this possibility say about Physicalism?


*1. Quantum Uncertainty :
Philosophers of science have long associated the claim that observations or experimental results in science are in some way theory-laden with a logical/epistemological problem regarding the possibility of scientific knowledge: reasoning from theory-laden observations may involve circularity. . . .
Measurement results depend upon assumptions, and some of those assumptions are theoretical in character. . . . . Our analysis shows how the evaluation and deployment of uncertainty evaluation constitutes an in practice solution to a particular form of Duhemian underdetermination[*2] that improves upon Duhem's vague notion of “good sense,” avoids holism, and reconciles theory dependence of measurement with piecemeal hypothesis testing.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8120301886
Note --- Theories tend to become beliefs to be verified, or if not provable, to be accepted as ever-pending facts. Accepting quantum Uncertainty as a brute fact of life, allows us to "avoid" the logical conclusion of Holistic (non-reductive) foundation of Reality.

*2. Underdetermination :
In the philosophy of science, underdetermination or the underdetermination of theory by data (sometimes abbreviated UTD) is the idea that evidence available to us at a given time may be insufficient to determine what beliefs we should hold in response to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination

*3. Why quantum mechanics favors adynamical and acausal interpretations such as relational blockworld
We articulate the problems posed by the quantum liar experiment (QLE) for backwards causation interpretations of quantum mechanics, time-symmetric accounts and other dynamically oriented local hidden variable theories. We show that such accounts cannot save locality in the case of QLE . . . . In contrast, we show that QLE poses no problems for our acausal Relational Blockworld interpretation of quantum mechanics, which invokes instead adynamical global constraints to explain Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) correlations and QLE. We make the case that the acausal and adynamical perspective is more fundamental and that dynamical entities obeying dynamical laws are emergent features grounded therein.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9808000592
Note --- This source is over my head. But it seems to be arguing that Einstein's hypothetical timeless & changeless & placeless Block Universe may be more real (in some strange sense) than the dynamic particular world that our senses interpret as Reality.

*4. EINSTEIN'S ETERNAL BLOCK WORLD

It's the nature of that existence which is the philosophical conundrum — Wayfarer

Precisely! The enigmas of quantum physics are Ontological, not Physical. Waveforms & wavefunctions are subjective metaphors, not objective things. They offer material analogies (water waves) to symbolically represent unseen causes of observed effects (wave-like behavior in aether-like empty space).

Some posts in this thread focus on scientific Physicalism beliefs about quantum queerness, and miss the philosophical Metaphysicalism notions about the fundamental nature of Being. Obviously, an objectively observable material form is necessary for Real existence. But beliefs & ideas having no physical form, can only be "observed" by imagination, and possess only Ideal existence.

The worldview of Physicalism (matter + energy) seems to deny the existence & meaning of immaterial Ideas (mind) that don't seem to be either of those types of real things. Perhaps a perspective of BothAnd Meta-physicalism could combine Real & Ideal into a single monistic über-Ontology, where the prefix doesn't mean "Supernatural", but "Beyond" or "Holistic" or "Comprehensive" : more-than the sum. For example, a quantum particle is both Real (physical) and Virtual (mental or mathematical).


Physicalism, Dualism, and Idealism :
The debate between physicalists, dualists, and idealists is often presented as an ontological one—a debate over what exists. Very roughly, physicalists hold that everything is physical, dualists hold that some things are physical, and some are mental, while idealists hold that everything is mental.
https://academic.oup.com/book/26763/cha ... m=fulltext
a day ago

Waveforms & wavefunctions are subjective metaphors, not objective things. — Gnomon
Seems to me that these concepts transcend the division between subject and object - which you actually posit here:
a quantum particle is both Real (physical) and Virtual (mental or mathematical) — Gnomon — Wayfarer

The concepts & language in Explanation, Idealism, and Design may be way over my head. So, I only read the Abstract. But you may be able to make sense of it.

When I said a sub-atomic particle is both Real and Virtual, I wasn't making a counter-factual or profound statement. It was just an expression of my personal BothAnd philosophy, wherein both material objects and mental concepts are included in my Holistic worldview. I suppose you could say that it "transcends" our conventional divisions between mental & material Reality, as in Brain/Mind categories.

For example, I accept the scientific/mathematical definition of sub-atomic particles as a practical tool for understanding physics. Yet the waveform itself is not a particle, but a metaphorical representation of a particle's mathematical properties. Ironically, if taken literally, Physicalism might omit philosophical metaphors from its definition of Reality. Which is OK by me. I simply put such non-things into the category of "Ideality". Is that a legitimate word?

PS___ I don't think UFO's are alien spacecraft in Reality, but I accept that the notion of alien visitations is a popular belief in Ideality.

Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system. . . .
This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

...can anyone set out clearly what emergence is? — Banno
On my view emergence makes the most sense when used to refer to a naturally occurring (evolutionary) process that began long before language use emerged. — creativesoul

Emergence is a Holistic concept, that doesn't make sense from a Reductive perspective, such as Physicalism. Hence, it is sometimes dismissed as anti-science, although Emergence is essential to the 21st century sciences of Systems and Complexity.

Emergence :
Emergence is a continuous process that appears to be sudden only because the mind reaches a tipping-point of understanding between an old meaning and a new meaning, causing a conceptual phase-change from one logical category to another.

Holism, reductionism and emergence :
Emergence is the opposite of reduction. Holism is the opposite of separability.
The difference is subtle, but emergence and reduction are concerned with concepts, properties, types of phenomena, being deducible from other (lower level) ones, while holism is concerned with the behaviour of parts being independent from relational aspects, or their pertaining to a whole.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... -emergence
Note --- Holistic properties are top-down phenomena that emerge from collective interrelations within an integrated unified System.

A Test of Emergence :
This chapter illustrates how the concept of emergence has become a great attention grabber due to the striking behaviors demonstrated in artificial life experiments. Emergence has been called upon conveniently whenever the unexpected intrudes into the visual field of the experimenter, consequently requiring or justifying an economy of explanation. This abuse of the term will eventually devalue its significance and put the concept of emergence itself under a bad light.
https://academic.oup.com/mit-press-scho ... m=fulltext
Note --- Unexpected results may result from erroneous expectations. Physical Emergence happens regardless of your presumptions.

Emergence is a continuous process that appears to be sudden only because the mind reaches a tipping-point of understanding between an old meaning and a new meaning, — Gnomon
As if all emergence results from a tipping point between an old meaning and a new one. — creativesoul

Not necessarily "all" transformations. The quoted phrase was not referring to the physical Emergence, but to how it appears to the observer. The "tipping-point" trope is about an epistemological event in the mind, not a physical occurrence in the world. I assume that most physical emergences (e.g. phase changes) occur unobserved, unremarked, and unrecorded, hence unsurprising.

Emergence is what's going on when such knowledge is being formed. — creativesoul

Yes, the awareness of physical emergence usually comes as a surprise, due to its suddenness and unexpectedness. The intermediate steps between before & after states of phase change may be masked by "Noise" (chaotic information), giving the appearance of a causal gap. To some observers it may seem to be magical ("presto!"). For example, exponential Cosmic Inflation in 10−33 seconds from nothing to something could be described as a surprising "Phase Transition", or as a "Miracle".

Tipping Point in Physics :
In discussions of global change, the term tipping point has been used to describe a variety of phenomena, including the appearance of a positive feedback, reversible phase transitions, phase transitions with hysteresis effects, and bifurcations where the transition is smooth but the future path of the system depends on the noise at a critical point.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0705414105

We're working from very different linguistic frameworks. For one, you're drawing a distinction between minds and the world in such a way that minds are not in the world. On my view, there is no emergence without some physical elemental constituent(s). — creativesoul

Yes, but an emergent immaterial function (Mind) from a mundane material substrate --- after 10B years of lifelessness & 13B years of mindlessness --- is a novel & unique phenomenon in the evolution of the near-infinite cosmos ; hence worthy of philosophical & linguistic distinction. If the phenomenon of Mind was not in & of this mundane world, I would not be here to talk about it. So, the metaphorical "distinction" is between the clay and the sculpture ; not between this world and one of many alternative universes.

Moreover, it's the job of philosophers to study the software, not the hardware or wet-ware ; the cathedral, not the stones or the scaffolding. Hence, my use of language appropriate for a philosophical forum. I'm sure you can find neurology forums that will use the linguistic framework you prefer.


Understanding complexity in the human brain
The human mind is a complex phenomenon built on the physical scaffolding of the brain
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170818/

On my view, there are no purely immaterial things (although I may be able to be pursuaded to see things otherwise). On your view there is. It's a matter of methodological approach. The differences between our two views are so stark that we may not even be talking about the same things despite using the same words.
For example...
When you use the term "mind", what are you referring to such that it does not consist - in part at least - of biological machinery? — creativesoul

As you implied, we seem to have different vocabularies : e.g. materialistic Scientism & wisdom Philosophy. But, I haven't said anything about "purely immaterial things", yet you seem to interpret the word "Mind" as-if it refers to a Soul or Ghost*1. For the record, I have no experience of a Mind without a Body (ghost). Instead, I define the human Mind as the primary Function of the human Brain. Technically, a "function" is not a thing-in-itself, but a causal relationship between inputs & outputs, as in the information processing of a computer. The biological Brain is a machine, but the psychological Mind is a process, a function : the creation of Meaning.

You may also interpret my use of Aristotelian "metaphysics" in terms of Catholic "theology". Philosophically, the Brain is physical (objective quantifiable matter + energy), but the Mind is meta-physical (subjective qualitative matterless meaning). That's a philosophical distinction --- Quanta vs Qualia --- going back to Aristotle*1. But you may be influenced by the anti-philosophy notion that "Metaphysics" means "religious beliefs". For me, it merely means "non-physical" or "immaterial" (i.e. mental)*2. Can you see or touch an Idea or a Feeling? If not, that's because it's Meta-physical (read -- non-physical). Philosophers don't study material objects, but they do examine the immaterial functions of material brains.

You won't understand my philosophical language from a scientific perspective. But that doesn't mean it's anti-science. Instead, my thesis returns "Science" to the broader meaning of the ancient Greeks : both Physics and Metaphysics. Both Material and Mental. Both Objective Things and Subjective Ideas about Things.The common denominator is Generic Information. Not the empty meaningless 1s & 0s of Shannon's data-containers (registers), but the intellectual content of communication.

Metaphysical Ideas, feelings & beliefs are indeed immaterial, but they are not "pure", because they are inextricably linked to a material substrate. Just as information processing requires a biological or mechanical computer, meaning-making and self-knowing requires an information-processing organ. But Generic Information is both Biology & Life and Brain & Mind. That statement won't make sense without an understanding of General Metaphysics*4 and Generic Information*5.

For philosophical purposes, I do study Mind as a separate topic from Brain. But I've never seen a Ghost walking around without a Body, or a meaningful Mind functioning without a mechanical Brain. Could you be persuaded to view the Mind/Body problem from a Philosophical perspective?


*1. Mind/Body Problem :
Philosophers and scientists have long debated the relationship between a physical body and its non-physical properties, such as Life & Mind. Cartesian Dualism resolved the problem temporarily by separating the religious implications of metaphysics (Soul) from the scientific study of physics (Body). But now scientists are beginning to study the mind with their precise instruments, and have found no line of demarcation. So, they see no need for the hypothesis of a spiritual Soul added to the body by God. However, Enformationism resolves the problem by a return to Monism, except that the fundamental substance is meta-physical Information instead of physical Matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page15.html

*2. Special Metaphysics :
The philosophical science of Metaphysics is essential to my worldview, because, unlike Physics, it allows us to study the immaterial aspects of our reality, such as Qualia (properties) and Ideas (meanings).
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page74.html

*3. Physics & Metaphysics :
Two sides of the same coin we call Reality. When we look for matters of fact, we see physics. But when we search for meaning, we find meta-physics. A mental flip is required to view the other side. And imagination is necessary to see both at the same time.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

*4. General Metaphysics :
“General metaphysics, also referred to as Ontology, is the study of being or existence and is in line with Aristotle’s conception of metaphysics. Special Metaphysics, on the other hand was divided into three disciplines; cosmology, rational psychology, and natural theology. While general metaphysics was concerned with being at a broad, fundamental level, special metaphysics addressed more specific questions concerning existence. Topics addressed within special metaphysics included such things as immortality, freedom of the will, and the mind body problem.”
https://academyofideas.com/2013/06/intr ... taphysics/

*5. Generic Information :
Originally, the word “information” referred to the meaningful software contents of a mind, which were assumed to be only loosely shaped by the physical container : the hardware brain. . . . . So now, Deacon turns the spotlight on the message rather than the medium.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page26.html