Neuroscience and free will

I would have suggested differently although Sciborg is far better read in philosophy than I am. I thought that panpsychism puts consciousness alongside matter and energy/forces as fundamental whereas physicalism denies any physical reality for mind.

Physicalism but’s no arbitrary limits on nature, or the properties of its constituents.

Physicalism but’s no arbitrary limits on nature, or the properties of its constituents.

Other than that nature has to be physical (by definition). I think the Wikipedia contributor seems to disagree with you according to the quote I posted above (far be it from me to suggest that Wikipedia gets everything right, however).

Again from the Wiki entry on Panpsychism:

Panpsychists and dualists agree that mental properties cannot be reduced to physical properties.

Other than that nature has to be physical (by definition). I think the Wikipedia contributor seems to disagree with you according to the quote I posted above (far be it from me to suggest that Wikipedia gets everything right, however).

Again from the Wiki entry on Panpsychism:

As per usual the limits are put on physicalism by its opponents.

Also from wiki:

“it turns out that panpsychism or panprotopsychism is true, then such a non-materialist understanding of the physical gives the counterintuitive result that physicalism is, nevertheless, also true since such properties will figure in a complete account of paradigmatic examples of the physical.”

As per usual the limits are put on physicalism by its opponents.

Also from wiki:

“it turns out that panpsychism or panprotopsychism is true, then such a non-materialist understanding of the physical gives the counterintuitive result that physicalism is, nevertheless, also true since such properties will figure in a complete account of paradigmatic examples of the physical.”

Do you have a link to that Wikipedia page? I couldn't find the quote on the panpsychism page.

It’s on the page for physicalism.

It’s on the page for physicalism.

Ok, I think you were being a bit naughty with context there, malf. Here's the full paragraph from which you quoted:

While the force of Hempel's dilemma against theory-based conceptions of the physical remains contested,[14] alternative "non-theory-based" conceptions of the physical have also been proposed. Frank Jackson (1998) for example, has argued in favour of the aforementioned "object-based" conception of the physical.[15] An objection to this proposal, which Jackson himself noted in 1998, is that if it turns out that panpsychism or panprotopsychism is true, then such a non-materialist understanding of the physical gives the counterintuitive result that physicalism is, nevertheless, also true since such properties will figure in a complete account of paradigmatic examples of the physical.

So your point is made from a note about an objection to an alternative proposal. Hardly definitive. Also, I doubt whether a "non-materialist understanding of the physical" carries much weight among physicalists. It seems to me to be a contradiction in terms.

Ok, I think you were being a bit naughty with context there, malf. Here's the full paragraph from which you quoted:


So your point is made from a note about an objection to an alternative proposal. Hardly definitive. Also, I doubt whether a "non-materialist understanding of the physical" carries much weight among physicalists. It seems to me to be a contradiction in terms.

Where do you think the objection is faulty?

Where do you think the objection is faulty?

Jackson noted that "if it turns out that ..." (again, he was speculating, not defining physicalism). Then he goes on to describe what he calls a "non-materialist understanding of the physical". Don't you, as a physicalist, see that as a contradiction of physicalism rather than, as he suggests, merely counterintuitive?

Anyhow, to be clear, what does physicalism mean for you? (And I suggest that, following your answer, we limit further discussion because, again, this is veering away from the topic of the thread).

---

Jackson noted that "if it turns out that ..." (again, he was speculating, not defining physicalism). Then he goes on to describe what he calls a "non-materialist understanding of the physical". Don't you, as a physicalist, see that as a contradiction of physicalism rather than, as he suggests, merely counterintuitive?

Anyhow, to be clear, what does physicalism mean for you? (And I suggest that, following your answer, we limit further discussion because, again, this is veering away from the topic of the thread).

I’m fine with the wiki entry. Clearly physicalists don’t deny that mental processes and conscious experiences happen, so...