What is Physicalism? | Philosophy Glossary

[@traceurGeorge]

How have I not stumbled upon your videos before?! I am a student and often refer to KZbin videos when writing essays for a quick recap on philosophical terms. These are amongst some of the best concise videos I've seen on KZbin, the majority being under 10 minutes too which is a great help. Instant sub from me!

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Thanks Ricky!

[@ToriKo_]

Cool vid. I’d love to see a vid on ur take on physicalism vs materialism

[@AtticPhilosophy]

As most contemporary philosophers use those terms, they’re interchangeable. “Physicalism” is the more modern term, “materialism” tended to be used earlier in the 20th century.

[@cordisp]

Just checked out a bunch of your videos--so good!

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Thanks!

[@krisztianunpronounceable]

I've just found the term to describe what I have believed for years!

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Great!

[@iainuts]

Hi Mark, thanks for all these terrific vids on PoM. You said physicalism is the view that … “all of the phenomena that we might be interested in ultimately boils down to physical phenomena.” Chalmer’s has suggested that phenomenal consciousness is a set (as listed in his book The Conscious Mind and paraphrasing here). It is the set of all phenomena that are characterized as being subjective in nature and are not objectively observable. If true, they are not accessible to science nor the scientific method which would require that we have the ability to objectively establish facts through testing or observation for example. Clearly, we would all agree that the mind (p-consc) depends on the physical but is that enough? If this phenomenon isn’t objectively observable, and if all physical phenomena can be explained using measurable, observable interactions then it seems we have a dilemma. Have you done a video on epiphenomenalism? Any thoughts? I believe Dennett suggests p-consc is an illusion so not a phenomenon. Is that correct? What are other ways out? Too much for a comment, I know. Best, Dave.

[@cosmicwakes6443]

Could mathematics also be considered a physical phenomenon as it is produced by the human brain? Mathematics couldn't possibly exist without humans exchanging ideas and concepts, and developing the field through the generations.

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Sure, talking and thinking about maths requires human mental activity, so if physicalism is true, it depends on physical events. That’s quite uncontroversial. What’s more controversial is whether the content of maths - the numbers and functions and sets themselves - are the products of human mental activity. That’s a highly controversial issue.

[@BecomingAPsych]

Clear thinking as always. Do you take physicalism to be a synonym or near synonym for materialism? And if so why have you preferred to use physicalism?

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Thanks! Yes, for most philosophers, ‘physicalism’ and ‘materialism’ mean the same in philosophy of mind. But ‘materialism’ has other uses, eg dialectical materialism, and ‘being materialistic’, and I don’t want to confuse the issue!

[@ericd9827]

How would you say that physicalism differs from materialism and naturalism?

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Physicalism = materialism in Phil mind. Naturalism is a bit broader and can be used for a methodology rather than an ontology - see next week’s video!

[@drchaffee]

What philosophical position(s) would be indicated if we imagined the brain as hardware and the mind as software?

[@AtticPhilosophy]

That’s the computational theory of mind, a big idea since the 80s, I guess. Hilary Putnam’s machine state functionalism was a big influence on this view.

[@drchaffee]

@@AtticPhilosophy Interesting! I am imagining this scenario as a vantage point from which to look at mental causation, positing that if software can tell hardware what to do without the hardware violating physics, then our minds can tell our brains what to do - also without violating physics. In this, I am also regarding software (or the mind) as being abstract in its essence. Basically, I'm contemplating a non-reductive dualism where the Abstracta have causal powers; where objects can possess both Concrete and Abstract properties; and where Abstracta and Concreta have a necessarily coemergent origin. I am also considering our "software minds" to have been fashioned by biological evolution - what I understand to be a "naturalist" view, as opposed to a "supernaturalist" view.. What flavor of Platonism is accepting of these propositions? (I'm trying to find a Philosophy of Mind book that squarely addresses this sort of thing - in other words, a book that isn't a zoo containing every Theory of Mind species in it! :) Does Computational Theory of Mind harbor any specific position with respect to dualism?

[@noeditbookreviews]

Reading a few books on the brain, it's pretty difficult to take dualism seriously in this age.

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Maybe, but it’s not as if contemporary dualists haven’t read those books too!

[@nitishgautam5728]

"materialism "is the only term which is accurate but scientist don't commit and say everything is made of matter , it's too specific statement, We don't know what matters is ... But we know at gross level what is physical things so I also believe that logically all of consciousness seems higher level user interface, in lower level consciousness is very complex nueral activity underlying all consciousness

[@AtticPhilosophy]

It’s a good question, ‘What is matter anyway?’

[@nitishgautam5728]

@@AtticPhilosophy According to physics matter is anything which occupies space and has mass ... So all elementary particles would be considered matter. It is the general word we use for representing macroscopic things .( I had not asked question 😅my sense of matter and physical thing is same , so i interchangeably use them)

[@glevaler6944]

Exist something like a 'philosophism'?

[@jay31415]

"Physicalism" is such a terrible name for this concept. It's resulted an endless series of pseudo-intellectual "debates", and it's always completely unclear what is being debated. E.g. "the philosophical zombie argument".

[@AtticPhilosophy]

The clear version is: everything depends on basic physical facts. What would you call the view?