• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ontological materialism vs. physicalism

Rusty_the_boy_robot

Unregistered
R
Rather then continue posting my question in the materialism thread I decided to start a new thread with the hope that my question could be answered by an educated person.

When I was in schooling long ago I learned materialism as:

1) The definition of the universe is such that all things that exist exist within the universe.
2) If 'it' exists then 'it' can be percieved or rendered to such a state that 'it' can be percieved.

But on another thread I am told that 'true' materialism is:

1) There is only one susbstance in the universe and that substance is physical.


So which is it? The second one (so-called 'true' materialism) has also been called physicalism. The first one has been called ontological materialism, but if we are having an ontological argument how can we have ontological materialism and some other kind of materialism (the second definition).


Thanks for any help.

Also, if the second definition is called materialism what is the first one actually called?

And what is ment by "physical" in the second definition?



Sorry for all the questions but I am no longer in schooling and have not enough of any time to do my own research any longer!

Thanks,
 
Hi Rusty,

Stimpson J Cat posted the following definition here:

Physicalism starts with the assumption that reality is describable in terms of logical rules, and that these rules can be determined from our observations. The term "material" or "physical" is used simply to refer to these observable characteristics from which our model of reality is constructed.
Click to expand...

Hope this helps! (I've been meaning to dig out this out for a while to add it to my Big Book of Everything).
 
Hmm. Thank you for the reply. I'm having difficulties with these two definitions. Perhaps it is time for a trip to the library.

The Stimpson J. Cat definition of physicalism is extremely similar to the definition of materialism I have been using.

Now I'm growing more confused, but hopefully will be sorted out shortly!
 
Note that Stimpy's definition effectively removes even the possibility of dualism. I.E. if it effects the "physical world" it is "physical".

"Matter makes consciousness" leads to "science" & better weapons of war.
 
Not really. I've found most dualism to be greatly misunderstood. Dualists don't like it when people ask about their definitions because it makes Dualism look less likely.

For example,

Physicalism starts with the assumption that reality is describable in terms of logical rules, and that these rules can be determined from our observations. The term "material" or "physical" is used simply to refer to these observable characteristics from which our model of reality is constructed.
Click to expand...

The premise here is:

1) Reality is describable in terms of logical rules.
2) All logical rules are capable of being determined through observation.

and one definition:

1) Physical is a term that refers to observable characteristics from which our model of reality is construed.

Let us discard the definition. We are left with 1) the assumption that reality is describable in terms of logical rules. We have no reason to doubt that, and many reasons to accept it. And 2) All logical rules are capable of being determined through observation. Again you cannot prove this wrong, and I have never heard any reason to doubt it.

Dualism simply states that the mind and body operate under different rules. It doesn't say that the mind doesn't operate under any rules. If we believe in Dualism and Physicalism then we assume that the mind operates under logical rules and that these logical rules are capable of being determined through observation.

Is that not what psychology/sociology is all about?
 
hammegk said:


The pertinent question is "who are you, and what are you all about?".
Click to expand...

Well I'm Rusty (theboyrobot) and I'm about to get off of work.

Good day!
 
Personally I am just watching this. I do not distinguish between physicalism and materialism.

www.dictionary.com :

physicalism :

The view that all that exists is ultimately physical.
n : the doctrine that matter is the only reality [syn: materialism]

materialism :

Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

monism :

The view in metaphysics that reality is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system.
The doctrine that mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being.

realism :

Philosophy.
The scholastic doctrine, opposed to nominalism, that universals exist independently of their being thought.
The modern philosophical doctrine, opposed to idealism, that physical objects exist independently of their being perceived.
 
UndercoverElephant said:
Personally I am just watching this. I do not distinguish between physicalism and materialism.

www.dictionary.com :

physicalism :

The view that all that exists is ultimately physical.
n : the doctrine that matter is the only reality [syn: materialism]

materialism :

Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

monism :

The view in metaphysics that reality is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system.
The doctrine that mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being.

realism :

Philosophy.
The scholastic doctrine, opposed to nominalism, that universals exist independently of their being thought.
The modern philosophical doctrine, opposed to idealism, that physical objects exist independently of their being perceived.
Click to expand...

Again with those it appears the real problem appears with the definition of physical. Otherwise the prior definitions are compatible with these.

I just thought, before I leave, I would point out that I am playing devils advocate to some extent.

I do believe in a type of dualism, I believe it is called phenomanal (?) dualism. It has been too long since I have studied :( . If I have remembered it correctly it is:

1) The agent and the body exist under seperate sets of natural laws. (and hence the agent cannot be explained by the same laws)
2) The agent can directly affect the body.
3) Nothing under that set of natural laws that affect the body can have a direct affect on the agent.

The agent is usually thought of as 'the mind' but I assert that it is different in certain ways.
 
Rusty,

Not really. I've found most dualism to be greatly misunderstood. Dualists don't like it when people ask about their definitions because it makes Dualism look less likely.

For example,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physicalism starts with the assumption that reality is describable in terms of logical rules, and that these rules can be determined from our observations. The term "material" or "physical" is used simply to refer to these observable characteristics from which our model of reality is constructed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The premise here is:

1) Reality is describable in terms of logical rules.
2) All logical rules are capable of being determined through observation.

and one definition:

1) Physical is a term that refers to observable characteristics from which our model of reality is construed.

Let us discard the definition. We are left with 1) the assumption that reality is describable in terms of logical rules. We have no reason to doubt that, and many reasons to accept it. And 2) All logical rules are capable of being determined through observation. Again you cannot prove this wrong, and I have never heard any reason to doubt it.

Dualism simply states that the mind and body operate under different rules. It doesn't say that the mind doesn't operate under any rules. If we believe in Dualism and Physicalism then we assume that the mind operates under logical rules and that these logical rules are capable of being determined through observation.

Is that not what psychology/sociology is all about?
Click to expand...

The question is, in what sense is the above system dualistic? What does it mean to say that the body and mind operate under different rules? As long as they interact with each other, those interactions must be described according to rules as well. So where is the distinction between mind and body? Which rules are "mental" and which rules are "physical"?

The distinction is arbitrary. Under such a system, your dualism is logically equivalent to monism. It is only a semantic distinction.

do believe in a type of dualism, I believe it is called phenomanal (?) dualism. It has been too long since I have studied . If I have remembered it correctly it is:

1) The agent and the body exist under seperate sets of natural laws. (and hence the agent cannot be explained by the same laws)
2) The agent can directly affect the body.
3) Nothing under that set of natural laws that affect the body can have a direct affect on the agent.

The agent is usually thought of as 'the mind' but I assert that it is different in certain ways.
Click to expand...

There are many problems with the above scenario. First and foremost is, which observable characteristics of the universe are you attributing to this "agent", and why? I know of no aspects of the mind, or consciousness, that cannot be clearly shown to be subject to effects from the body.

And of course there is the above issue of the separate laws. If there is any interaction at all, even one-way, then the laws that describe those interactions cannot be "purely physical" or "purely mental".

If reality is split into two subsets which are truly governed by distinct natural laws, then those two subsets can not interact with each other in any way. If the two subsets of laws are not distinct, then you have monism. Arbitrarily dividing reality up into different subsets does not change the logical relationships between the elements of those sets.

Dr. Stupid
 
Stimpson J. Cat said:
...Arbitrarily dividing reality up into different subsets does not change the logical relationships between the elements of those sets.

Dr. Stupid
Click to expand...

Or as we used to say "obvious to the meanest intelligence".

Problem I do have is what does Win see that I don't? Or is he really a monist just jerking our chains?
 
hammegk said:


Problem I do have is what does Win see that I don't? Or is he really a monist just jerking our chains?
Click to expand...

Win wants to be able demonstrate that materialism is false without forcing an acceptance that mysticism is true.

edited :

I think that every philosopher worthy of the title "philosopher" understood the ultimate nature of Reality - understood the "perrenial philosophy". But they also understood that it was neccessary to present it in a way that people could understand it and accept it. The point was not "what is truth?" but "How best can I help the largest number of people to get closer to the truth?"
 
Who said: "What can be seen is not the Path; what can be spoken is not the Truth".?
 
hammegk said:
Who said: "What can be seen is not the Path; what can be spoken is not the Truth".?
Click to expand...

Could have been Buddha. Could have been Jesus. But it was probably Lao Tse.
 
Stimpson J. Cat said:
Rusty,



The question is, in what sense is the above system dualistic? What does it mean to say that the body and mind operate under different rules? As long as they interact with each other, those interactions must be described according to rules as well. So where is the distinction between mind and body? Which rules are "mental" and which rules are "physical"?
Click to expand...

I don't know what Rusty has in mind but there could be 2 sets of rules, one physical one mental, describing human behaviour. For example if I got up and poured myself a glass of water you might be able to explain why I did this in terms of environmental stimuli and physical processes within the brian. These might be the physical rules. The mental rule in this case would be that I simply felt thirsty.
 
hammegk said:


Or as we used to say "obvious to the meanest intelligence".

Problem I do have is what does Win see that I don't? Or is he really a monist just jerking our chains?
Click to expand...


Win is a property dualist. Our minds operate according to physical rules although the mind is distinct, albeit ontologically dependent, on the brain.
 
The One called Neo said:


...Our minds operate according to physical rules although the mind is distinct, albeit ontologically dependent, on the brain.
Click to expand...

Which imo is another statement -- using the Stimpy definition of "material" -- that dualism makes no sense.

I admit I may well be missing something here Win (and you?) are comfortable with, although I'd say UE's comment is more the way I currently see it.

Anyway, thanks for the responses. :)
 
Neo,

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Rusty,

The question is, in what sense is the above system dualistic? What does it mean to say that the body and mind operate under different rules? As long as they interact with each other, those interactions must be described according to rules as well. So where is the distinction between mind and body? Which rules are "mental" and which rules are "physical"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know what Rusty has in mind but there could be 2 sets of rules, one physical one mental, describing human behaviour. For example if I got up and poured myself a glass of water you might be able to explain why I did this in terms of environmental stimuli and physical processes within the brian. These might be the physical rules. The mental rule in this case would be that I simply felt thirsty.
Click to expand...

This just reinforces my argument. In order for both sets of rules to be true, one must necessarily be reducible to the other. If you truly got up and poured yourself a glass of water because you were thirsty, and the rules describing your actions in terms of environmental stimuli and physical brain processes are also correct, then it necessarily follows that either the fact that you were thirsty was a purely physical phenomenon (materialism), or the physical processes involved were somehow reducible to mental states (Idealism). Either way you have some form of monism.

Dr. Stupid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom