(2017-11-02, 11:14 PM)Iyace Wrote: [ -> ]Is ethics physical?
For the sake of the conversation I'm going to say "no".
(2017-11-03, 01:11 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]For the sake of the conversation I'm going to say "no".
The definition of physicalism:
- the doctrine that the real world consists simply of the physical world.
(2017-11-03, 01:22 AM)Iyace Wrote: [ -> ]The definition of physicalism:
- the doctrine that the real world consists simply of the physical world.
In that definition is a "doctrine" a physical thing? IMO no, it's a human label. Similarly, ethics is a label we apply to descriptions of behaviour types. See my earlier comment about making a category error.
Unless you can convince me that there is a source of common ethics that apply to everyone, everywhere at all times, you've painted yourself into a corner.
(2017-11-03, 01:49 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]In that definition is a "doctrine" a physical thing? IMO no, it's a human label. Similarly, ethics is a label we apply to descriptions of behaviour types. See my earlier comment about making a category error.
Unless you can convince me that there is a source of common ethics that apply to everyone, everywhere at all times, you've painted yourself into a corner.
Ethics is a label we apply to a set of EXPECTED behaviors, not behaviors themselves. And your second sentence proves my point. If you can’t point to an objectively shared common set of ethics or tell me how ethics arises from physical mechanics, and ethics, like most mental phenomena, cannot be measured or directly observed, then the case that they are constructed as higher order patterns by physical mechanation is incomplete. So there clearly ARE things that exist that’s cannot be pinned down to physical machinations, which refutes physicalism.
If you want to start defining things that are clearly non physical as physical, then physicalism doesn’t mean anything insomuch that it can never be wrong. My point is that the idea that physicalism is a valid premise is refuted by the very fact that we have consciousness and an inner life. This is why people like Denett fight so hard to prove it doesn’t exist.
Edit: also, I’m not assuming you’re supporting a physicalist position, and a lot of what I’m saying isn’t directed to the things you’ve said. They’re more a generic critique against traditional physicalism.
(2017-11-03, 01:59 AM)Iyace Wrote: [ -> ]Ethics is a label we apply to a set of EXPECTED behaviors, not behaviors themselves.
Meh
Quote:And your second sentence proves my point. If you can’t point to an objectively shared common set of ethics or tell me how ethics arises from physical mechanics, and ethics, like most mental phenomena, cannot be measured or directly observed, then the case that they are constructed as higher order patterns by physical mechanation is incomplete. So there clearly ARE things that exist that’s cannot be pinned down to physical machinations, which refutes physicalism.
I don't think ethics really "exist in the real world" at all in the way you're describing, so are unable to pose a threat to a physicalist position.
Quote:If you want to start defining things that are clearly non physical as physical, then physicalism doesn’t mean anything insomuch that it can never be wrong.
At least it has something in common with Bernardo's Idealism.
Quote:My point is that the idea that physicalism is a valid premise is refuted by the very fact that we have consciousness and an inner life.
There's the rub. Is there a separate consciousness outside of the biological systems doing their thing... But you appear to be asserting a brute fact here.
Quote:Edit: also, I’m not assuming you’re supporting a physicalist position, and a lot of what I’m saying isn’t directed to the things you’ve said. They’re more a generic critique against traditional physicalism.
I get that, and I'll play along
But one of the major postulates here is that the brain can still give rise to the unphysical mind, physicalism can be wrong, and idealism/post Mortemsurvival still be false. It’s not tied down either way, it just makes it less likely if physicalism is wrong ( which I believe it clearly is ).
(2017-11-03, 03:54 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Meh
I don't think ethics really "exist in the real world" at all in the way you're describing, so are unable to pose a threat to a physicalist position.
At least it has something in common with Bernardo's Idealism.
There's the rub. Is there a separate consciousness outside of the biological systems doing their thing... But you appear to be asserting a brute fact here.
I get that, and I'll play along
Biological process can give rise to conciousness, and it still doesn’t mean that conciousness is physical. Only physicalism postulates that.
(2017-11-03, 04:32 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Ok, it's a philosophical position. I don't need to go any further.
Correct. It’s a metaphysical position that I’m railing against.
(2017-11-03, 04:21 AM)Iyace Wrote: [ -> ]But one of the major postulates here is that the brain can still give rise to the unphysical mind, physicalism can be wrong, and idealism/post Mortemsurvival still be false. It’s not tied down either way, it just makes it less likely if physicalism is wrong ( which I believe it clearly is ).
You keep using the phrase ‘give rise to’ and it leads you astray. The physicalist model I’m presenting sees the mind as physical; it simply is the millions of biological processes (that we know are occurring) doing what they do. Consciousness isn’t separate from those processes. It feels like you have a inner life and it appears to benefit the species for individuals to construct a narrative that has their character in the leading role. However, try as we might, nobody has yet discovered a Cartesian Theatre.
(2017-11-03, 05:43 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]You keep using the phrase ‘give rise to’ and it leads you astray. The physicalist model I’m presenting sees the mind as physical; it simply is the millions of biological processes (that we know are occurring) doing what they do. Consciousness isn’t separate from those processes. It feels like you have a inner life and it appears to benefit the species for individuals to construct a narrative that has their character in the leading role. However, try as we might, nobody has yet discovered a Cartesian Theatre.
But see, it’s clearly not. You’re only categorizing the mind as physical because of physicalism, when it clearly displays no physical attributes. It cannot be independently measured, and the contents of such cant be guaranteed to even exist at any time. You have to take into assumption that it does exist for brain process. Like I have to assume you actually have an inner life and conciousness, because there’s no way for me to physically measure it. Just hand waving off that distinction doesn’t work.