Physicalism and its implications

[Vinnie]

@Roy

As opposed to a supernatural deity with foreknowledge?

This may be a problem for theistic personalists who sometimes have to reincarnate God and resort to open-view theism. For classical theists, God is outside time. I do not pretend to know fully what that means but this is what we believe and where our metaphysical arguments and revelation in scripture lead us. You can dispute that but creation ex nihilo is understood to mean that time is one of the things dependent on God. Thus, God is viewed as existing in an eternal now. With this in mind, the foreknowledge objection fades away as a category error.

• God does not know what you will do before you do it, because God is not waiting around in the past. God is considered to be outside time in an undivided present and can passively observe choices.
• Foreknowledge is a category error. God has knowledge. He is observing you making your choice in your present, right now. It is only foreknowledge from our temporal perspective.
• The certainty of God’s knowledge comes from the reality of our choices, not the other way around.
• God is the primary cause of all things and that includes His sustaining our ability to choose freely (secondary causes). God’s supreme power doesn’t cancel our freedom, it is what guarantees it.

Vinnie

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

What exactly do we think physicalism means or implies? From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy I find:

Physicalism

First published Tue Feb 13, 2001; substantive revision Tue May 25, 2021

Physicalism is, in slogan form, the thesis that everything is physical. The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the thesis attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales, that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental. The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don’t deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don’t seem physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social, or mathematical nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are physical, or at least bear an important relation to the physical.

I don’t believe everything is physical but more importantly I don’t believe everything comes from physical things. I would contrast physical things with what is primarily psychological or mental. One might object that only beings who are physical have psychological or mental experiences but I can’t imagine how anyone could show that to be true.

Is there more to it than this? I reject the claim that the physical is ontologically primary. It might be, but as far as I can tell anyone who believes that does so on faith.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Vinnie

@Roy

Also, these are the same faulty objections you have to atheism, and they could apply equally well to many other concepts:

I handle gravity easily. In my mind it is self-defeating. It is also woefully inadequate at accounting for the most important things in life. It does well with mathematical abstractions and provides a framework or skeleton view of things. It provides no value, oughts or meaning to life. In fact, if gravity were true, there is no real reason to discuss it. Or not discuss it. Mindless atoms and brute force fields can never lead to value and meaning on their own. No matter how many bricks you stack in a circle, they will never just become a sphere.

You are confusing a part for a whole. Gravity is not woefully inadequate at accounting for the most important things in life. Gravity has nothing to do with them because gravity is not a worldview whereas physicalism/scientism/materialism is.

Gravity and physicalism are both descriptions of how reality works, and neither has anything to do with morals, values, ought statements and the like.

Saying that physicalism “*does not account for morals, values, ought statements, *” is in fact like saying that your fork is inadequate for mowing your lawn, because that’s not what physicalism is for.

@Vinnie

Gravity is a catchall phrase for a broad set of observations that that we are still trying to nail down.

So is physicalism.

@Vinnie

Physicalism purports that only material processes exist …

Gravity purports that all matter attracts all other matter.

@Vinnie

… and as I argued via analogy, no matter how many bricks you stack in a circle, they do not magically become a sphere.

Actually, they do, though it’s through gravity, not magic. If you stack 10^20 bricks in a circle, they will have enough mass that gravity will overcome your circular arrangement and the result will be a sphere.

But that’s just a minor aside in the same vein as ‘vomitorium’.

The point is that you object to worldviews that do not include anything about morals and behaviour (atheism, physicalism) because they do not include anything about morals and behaviour, without realising that they aren’t intended to, and you are in effect objecting to your fork because it doesn’t include a rotating blade.

@Vinnie

I have no need or desire to argue with people whose central evangelism rests on telling me and others there is no real purpose, meaning or value in the world.

Then you should stay out of discussions of atheism, materialism, physicalism and the like, because posting in them indicates that you do have that desire. Either that, or you want freedom to post your views while refusing to listen to the views of others - in which case [redacted].

@Vinnie

I use scientism, physicalism and materialism interchangeably.

An excellent technique for generating confusion and misunderstanding and ensuring not being taken seriously.

[rsewell (All Truth is God's Truth)]

@Vinnie

For those of us operating under hylomorphism where substances are composites of form and matter, color is very real.

I may not have been clear. Yes, color is real, even if red exists only in our minds. I do not know if that makes color a physical thing.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@seamitchell

But the answer isn’t “yes” to the first. It’s pretty plain to see that hatred does not bring thriving.

Then the substitution is invalid and doesn’t lead anywhere.

The originals, though, don’t have that problem. The statements made about physicalism and gravity work for both.

@seamitchell

Gravity, in my understanding, doesn’t really touch the issue of meaning and value. Most people don’t see it as having implications for those things. But I think physicalism would! It is addressing the very place where meaning and value are comprehended: the mind.

Right, but physicalism having implications on meaning and values isn’t a reason to reject it.

@seamitchell

I do understand what you mean by the “appeal to consequences” fallacy. I missed that part. Still, I wouldn’t say that what Vinnie is getting at is totally wrong. If physicalism (or, at least, reductive physicalism) does strip down value and meaning as being nothing ultimately important, then that isn’t a very livable framework—or, at the very least, we would have to live a lie to function as normal.

I don’t think we’d have to live a lie. We’d just have to find some other framework to use for living beyond physicalism.

[seamitchell]

@Roy

I don’t think we’d have to live a lie. We’d just have to find some other framework to use for living beyond physicalism.

Which is what I’m trying to get at in this thread. I’m having a difficult time seeing meaning and value as substantive things in the worldview of physicalism. There may be other frameworks, but how does one that embraces physicalism see them as anything more than useful mirages? I feel that, if I believed that electrical networks and chemicals were all that determined my aspirations, virtues, and beliefs about the world, I’d continually be convicted of that understanding even if I tried to “make” something livable out of it. I sincerely don’t understand how others can do it.

[Vinnie]

@Roy

Gravity and physicalism are both descriptions of how reality works, and neither has anything to do with morals, values, ought statements and the like.

Saying that physicalism “*does not account for morals, values, ought statements, *” is in fact like saying that your fork is inadequate for mowing your lawn, because that’s not what physicalism is for.

As a worldview

it does not. I made it big on purpose. That is what I am talking about. What are you going on about? If you simply mean scientific methodology we have nothing to disagree on. Nothing wrong with doing science as long as one understands the limitations of that method and that it only offers a framework view of the universe and does not give us the only true or real picture of things. When you turn science into scientism or embrace materialism or claim physicalism is all there is, you have now offered a worldview. One that is radically incomplete and misses what most people deem the most important things in life.

@Roy

Gravity purports that all matter attracts all other matter.

No it doesn’t. Newton purported that. Einstein said gravity is due to spacetime curvature. As John Archibald Wheeler said, “Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.” From our perspective it appears as if all objects with mass attract other objects with mass and we can model that as a force quite well mathematically. It is easy for two body problems and much less so for three. We don’t really know what gravity is on the deepest level with any certitude. What we have are lots of observations and mathematical models that make good predictions. GR seems to be at the top of the food chain at the moment but also may be an approximation.

@Roy

Actually, they do, though it’s through gravity, not magic. If you stack 10^20 bricks in a circle, they will have enough mass that gravity will overcome your circular arrangement and the result will be a sphere.

Not going to work. If you want to be this picky with an analogy, the bricks do not become a sphere. The bricks are destroyed once gravity gets beyond their compressive limit. Like any good hylomorphist would tell you, they lose their substantial form and are no longer a rigid, rectangular baked clay prism. It is the remains of bricks (clay dust or pebbles) that become a sphere. You can’t leap an infinite gulf via emergence when dealing with consciousness, values, morality and so on and that is the point of the analogy.

@Roy

Then you should stay out of discussions of atheism, materialism, physicalism and the like, because posting in them indicates that you do have that desire. Either that, or you want freedom to post your views while refusing to listen to the views of others - in which case [redacted].

I don’t recall Biologos being an atheist message board or the secular web. You choose to come to a message board aimed at reconciling Christian faith and science every day. I don’t go to r/atheism or the secular web. If someone genuinely thinks life is meaningless, I feel bad for them because they are not mentally healthy and humans cannot fully flourish without God. On an intellectual level, for the militant and argumentative type who spread this around, my thoughts are to go find a bridge. There is no need for such people to proselytize their emptiness outside of misery loving company. I responded here initially to theists because there are genuine seekers struggling with materialism and you chose to engage with my response (which you could have ignored) and I happily corrected your misunderstandings. You seem to be here to argue and nitpick with Christian theism.

Vinnie

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Vinnie

@Roy

Gravity and physicalism are both descriptions of how reality works, and neither has anything to do with morals, values, ought statements and the like.

Saying that physicalism “*does not account for morals, values, ought statements, *” is in fact like saying that your fork is inadequate for mowing your lawn, because that’s not what physicalism is for.

As a worldview

it does not. I made it big on purpose. That is what I am talking about. What are you going on about?

I’m talking about physicalism. The view that everything is physical, that there is nothing over and above the physical.

@Vinnie

When you turn science into scientism or embrace materialism or claim physicalism is all there is, you have now offered a worldview. One that is radically incomplete and misses what most people deem the most important things in life.

Correct! Physicalism (like atheism and materialism) is incomplete as a world view because it doesn’t provide morals or values or ‘ought’ statements. But that’s no grounds for rejecting it as part of a world view, only grounds for looking beyond it.

Just as your garden fork being incomplete as a lawn maintenance tool because it doesn’t come with a rotating blade isn’t grounds for discarding it, only grounds for supplementing it with a Speedicut.

@Vinnie

@Roy

Then you should stay out of discussions of atheism, materialism, physicalism and the like, because posting in them indicates that you do have that desire. Either that, or you want freedom to post your views while refusing to listen to the views of others - in which case [redacted].

I don’t recall Biologos being an atheist message board or the secular web. You choose to come to a message board aimed at reconciling Christian faith and science every day.

And you choose to talk about scientism, materialism and physicalism, when you not only don’t have to, but you don’t even distinguish them.

[Vinnie]

@MarkD

What exactly do we think physicalism means or implies? From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy I find:

I lump the three words in common speech: physicalism, materialism and scientism. Of course, if we want more nuance, the first two are about ontology (what exists) and the latter is about epistemology (how we know things).Physicalism is just an updated materialism that accounts for everything not being solid matter and the existence of fields and the like. The materialist says matter is all there is whereas the modern physicalist says the laws of physics govern all things. Everything is physical to both. Scientism says science is the only valid path to truth.

I have seen no real need in this thread to parse between these very similar worldviews.

[Vinnie]

@seamitchell

Which is what I’m trying to get at in this thread. I’m having a difficult time seeing meaning and value as substantive things in the worldview of physicalism. There may be other frameworks, but how does one that embraces physicalism see them as anything more than useful mirages? I feel that, if I believed that electrical networks and chemicals were all that determined my aspirations, virtues, and beliefs about the world, I’d continually be convicted of that understanding even if I tried to “make” something livable out of it. I sincerely don’t understand how others can do it.

I’m in the same boat as you. The correct answer to me is not to double down on physicalism and try to force fit a very non-physicalist faith into it, but to accept the fruits of physicalist methodology (e.g. science) because God made an ordered world and reject is as a worldview. Rejecting it comes easy for me. You seem to be entrenched in the modern view of matter. You have to go backwards to Aristotle. Form and Final causality are the answer.

Vinnie

[rsewell (All Truth is God's Truth)]

@Vinnie

When you turn science into scientism or embrace materialism or claim physicalism is all there is, you have now offered a worldview. One that is radically incomplete and misses what most people deem the most important things in life.

There seems to be this insistent emotive apologetic that materialists, at least if they are self aware, should be dour, angsty, locked in perpetual ennui and existential nihilism. I suspect, perhaps naively, that most everyone can appreciate a sunset, enjoy a concert, and love deeply, all for simply what they are.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@seamitchell

@Roy

I don’t think we’d have to live a lie. We’d just have to find some other framework to use for living beyond physicalism.

Which is what I’m trying to get at in this thread. I’m having a difficult time seeing meaning and value as substantive things in the worldview of physicalism.

That’s not surprising - they aren’t there.

@seamitchell

There may be other frameworks, but how does one that embraces physicalism see them as anything more than useful mirages? I feel that, if I believed that electrical networks and chemicals were all that determined my aspirations, virtues, and beliefs about the world, I’d continually be convicted of that understanding even if I tried to “make” something livable out of it. I sincerely don’t understand how others can do it.

I doubt many people do - they look at something else: humanism, or utilitarianism, or the golden rule, or Wicca, or their own subjective morality. Grounding your morals in physicalism is like mowing your lawn with a spade. It’s the wrong tool for the job.

[Vinnie]

@Roy

I’m talking about physicalism. The view that everything is physical, that there is nothing over and above the physical.

A worldview usually answers the following questions:

1. Ontology: What fundamentally exists?
2. Epistemology: How do we know what is true?
3. Anthropology: What is human nature?
4. Teleology: Is there a purpose or meaning to the universe?
5. Ethics: What is the basis for right and wrong?

Physicalism is the foundational metaphysical pillar (ontology) of philosophical naturalism. It is not a complete world view but it aggressively dictates answers to these other questions. The ontological claim “that there is nothing over and above the physical” is quite absolute and it is going to limit answers to all the other questions. Given reality consists of mindless particles, fields, and physical forces, grounding objective morality (moral realism) will be virtually impossible. Teleology is off the table because form and final, immaterial essences and final causality (goal directedness) do not exist. And so on and so on. Physicalism is a more than just a statement that only the physical exists. It is a totalizing premise that closes so many doors and leaves open so few, that for all practical intents and purposes, it is a worldview.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

@rsewell

There seems to be this insistent emotive apologetic that materialists, at least if they are self aware, should be dour, angsty, locked in perpetual ennui and existential nihilism. I suspect, perhaps naively, that most everyone can appreciate a sunset, enjoy a concert, and love deeply, all for simply what they are.

I would agree on all accounts. Yes, they should be. We know they aren’t. You suspect correctly. So I take it their materialism is utter BS as personally, I think you should be able to live under your worldview. If you cannot, it is disconnected from our experiences and detached from reality (which isn’t dictated solely by what’s in science manuals).

VInnie

[Sean_McGinty]

@Roy

It also isn’t what I wrote.

Okay, let’s take a look at the exchange

@Roy

@Sean_McGinty

But let’s keep going. At this point our thoughts aren’t about anything. They are just electrical transmissions going about the routine actions described by physics.

That doesn’t mean our thoughts aren’t things, and doesn’t mean our thoughts aren’t about things.

An electrical transmission is a physical thing. The Eiffel tower is a physical thing. So an electrical transmission that encodes an image of the Eiffel tower is a thing about a thing.

So, I concluded my argument that physicalism must deny intentionality by summing up with a statement that, under physicalism, we must say that our thoughts are merely electrical transmissions working in ways described by physics.

You then gave this response:

P1: An electrical transmission is a physical thing

P2: The Eiffel Tower is a physical thing

C: So an electrical transmission that encodes an image of the Eiffel Tower is a thing about a thing

Now, we could certainly read this as you making a bare statement that thoughts are about things. But, given that you wrote it in response to my position regarding intentionality within physcialism, and that you highlight the issue of “physical things” in your premises, I think it’s natural to read this as an attempted argument for why intentionality survives physicalism.

Let’s say that you didn’t intend the argument to have any connection to physicalism’s denial of intentionality (I’m not sure why then it would be relevant to my statements that you quoted, but putting that aside…). Is the argument even valid under a more pedantic reading? No, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The conclusion smuggles in notions of “encode”, “images” and “about” that are completely absent in the premises. Here’s the valid argument you can get with your starting premises:

P1: An electrical transmission is a physical thing

P2: The Eiffel Tower is a physical thing

C: Therefore an electrical transmission and the Eiffel Tower are physical things

True, but no one is arguing anything different.

“Anyway, no argument against your claim is needed because you have yet to produce a valid argument for it.”

Here is the argument, step by step:

P1: Intentionality exists

P2: If reductionalist physicalism is true, then everything is reducible to the physical

P3: Intentionality is not reducible to the physical

C: Therefore, reductionist physicalism is false

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Vinnie

@Roy

I’m talking about physicalism. The view that everything is physical, that there is nothing over and above the physical.

A worldview is usually answers the following questions:

1. Ontology: What fundamentally exists?
2. Epistemology: How do we know what is true?
3. Anthropology: What is human nature?
4. Teleology: Is there a purpose or meaning to the universe?
5. Ethics: What is the basis for right and wrong?

Then physicalism, which doesn’t answer all those questions, isn’t a worldview - yet you are rejecting it as if it was.

@Vinnie

Physicalism is a more than just a statement that only the physical exists.

False.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Sean_McGinty

P3: Intentionality is not reducible to the physical

Premise rejected.

[Sean_McGinty]

Okay, go ahead and show why it’s false

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

I don’t know that it is false, only that it might not be true. You’ve given no reason to think it is true.

It’s your premise. You get to defend it.

[knor (Kai)]

@seamitchell

This is very saddening to me, as I said in the other thread, I’m having a hard time grasping how a spiritual God can have a relationship with something physical, and how I can perceive him if I am physical in my entirety.

If He has created the ear, how could He not hear?
If He has created the mouth, how could He not speak?

Thinking about these questions is interesting but at the core, Christianity is practical and based on a relationship. If nothing in our life tells about a God that hears us then either the God does not exist, I am not connected to Him, or He decides to be quiet for some other reason. I do not know the details of how we are in connection with Him but I have experienced that He listens and answers in many ways. Not with words that my ears can hear (except through other humans) but in other ways. I guess this kind of experiences are subjective, like the experiences of a relationship are subjective.

If there is a practical experience of a relationship with God and that seems to work in practice (not just something imagined in my brains), it is easier to accept that I do not need to understand everything. I am not sure what happens between the death of my mortal body and the resurrection but I believe that there will be a resurrection and my personality or, at least, enough of it will be in the resurrection body. It is a matter of believing what has been told by those who received teaching from Jesus and were sent by Jesus himself - a matter of trust. I have decided to trust also Paul as a man who was sent by Jesus although he was not among the original disciples of Jesus.