The language of physicalism: A conceptual review of physicalist ontology (original) (raw)
Related papers
2018
This paper aims at exposing a strategy to organize the debate around physicalism. Our starting point (following Stoljar 2010) is the pre-philosophical notion of physicalism, which is typically formulated in the form of slogans. Indeed, philosophers debating metaphysics have paradigmatically introduced the subject with aid of slogans such as "there is nothing over and above the physical", "once every physical aspect of the world is settled, every other aspect will follow", "physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical". These ideas are very intuitive but they are, of course, far from being a satisfactory metaphysical conception of Physicalism. For that end, we will begin with the definition of physicalism as the thesis that everything is physical, following Stoljar, we should be able to respond to one central question: how to interpret the physicalist claim that everything in physical.
Physicalism: The Philosophical Foundations
Philosophical Books, 1996
i.e. souls. A broader defence of the coherence of the notion of the soul (so understood) unfolds with a determined effort to take on the difficulties traditionally associated with the idea of body-soul interaction, and with the demands to vindicate the notion of soul by providing adequate criteria of individuation and persistence. Appendix 1 concerns the abstract-concrete distinction. The overview taken there is notable in standing apart from almost every recent view in conceiving the distinction as at once important, exhaustive, exclusive and rather straightforwardly drawn. The intriguing proposal is, swiftly, that concreteness is constituted by instantiating a category that could have an instance that has spatial or temporal parts, and abstractness is nonconcreteness. Appendix 2 offers a defence of an Aristotelian account of continuous space and time and their (respective) parts.
Open Journal of Philosophy
Physicalism, if it is to be a significant thesis, should differentiate itself from key metaphysical contenders which endorse the existence of platonic entities, emergent properties, Cartesian souls, angels, and God. Physicalism can never be true in worlds where things of these kinds exist. David Papineau, David Spurrett, and Barbara Montero have recently developed and defended two influential conceptions of physicalism. One is derived from a conception of the physical as the non-mentally-and-non-biologically identifiable. The other is derived from a conception of the physical as the non-sui-generis-mental. The paper looks at the resources available to those conceptions, but argues that each is insufficient to yield a conception of physicalism that differentiates it from key anti-physicalist positions. According to these conceptions, if we lived in a world full of things that clearly cannot be physical, we would still live in a physical world. Thus, such conceptions of physicalism are of little theoretical interest.
The Indefinability of the Physical
Physicalism in the philosophy of mind is, most simply, the view that mental states, conscious thought and so on, are properly explained in terms of physical things and their interactions. That is, that there does not exist some immaterial, non-physical mind that is somehow an independent entity from the physical body of the person. The opposing view, dualism, is perhaps the more intuitive notion that minds are distinct non-physical entities from our bodies but are in some way crucially attached and related to them. There are then, as to be expected, many different competing views within each of these two camps, but the general dualism-physicalism distinction is seen to be pretty clear cut. However, when it comes to defining physicalism more precisely, that is, to outline precisely what things count as physical and just how they could be considered to adequately account for the not obviously physical, some troubling problems quickly emerge. The present paper will argue for a re-conception of the physicalist-dualist distinction and present physicalism as indefinable as a philosophical thesis.
Philosophers have traditionally treated physi-calism as an empirically informed metaphysical thesis. This approach faces a well-known problem often referred to as Hempel's dilemma: formulations of physicalism tend to be either false or indeterminate. The generally preferred strategy to address this problem involves an appeal to a hypothetical complete and ideal physical theory. After demonstrating that this strategy is not viable, I argue that we should redefine physicalism as an interdisciplinary research program seeking to explain the mental in terms of the physical that encompasses the physical sciences, the psychological and brain sciences, and philosophy. Redefining physicalism in this way improves upon previous reconstructive accounts while avoiding the indetermi-nacy associated with orthodox forms of futurist physicalism.
Physicalism and ontological holism
Metaphilosophy, 1999
The claim of this paper is that we should envisage physicalism as an ontological holism. Our current basic physics, quantum theory, suggests that, ontologically speaking, we have to assume one global quantum state of the world; many of the properties that are often taken to be intrinsic properties of physical systems are in fact relations, which are determined by that global quantum state. The paper elaborates on this conception of physicalism as an ontological holism and considers issues such as supervenience, realization of higher-order properties by basic physical properties, and reduction.
Physicalism without identity Artigos / Articles Physicalism without identity 1
Trans/Form/Ação, 2020
This paper presents and discusses the most influential attempts to characterize physicalism without postulating relations of identity between the physical and the prima facie non-physical. The first section deals with a possible criticism that these attempts are misguided, since they contradict the physicalist slogan "everything there is physical." In the second section, I elucidate the different formulations of the physicalist supervenience claim, and argue that none of them consists in an adequate characterization of physicalism. Three reasons are given in favor of this conclusion: their compatibility with forms of dualism (or pluralism); the fact that the supervenience relation is left unexplained; and Kim's causal exclusion argument, which asserts that merely supervenient entities (i.e., ones that are not in identity relations with strictly physical entities) must be epiphenomenal. The third section presents the general features of another identity-independent attempt to characterize physicalism, namely realization physicalism. According to this view, tokens of prima facie non-physical types are realized by tokens of strictly physical types performing functional roles that specify the nature of the former. The third section also shows how realization physicalism deals with the objections that make physicalist supervenience claims inadequate for characterizing physicalism.
Multi-Descriptional Physicalism, Level(s) of Being, and the Mind-Body Problem
2022
The main idea of this thesis is multi-descriptional physicalism. According to it, only physical entities are elements of our ontology, and there are different ways to describe them. Higher-level vocabularies (e.g., mental, neurological, biological) truly describe reality. Sentences about higher-level entities are made true by physical entities. Every chapter will develop multi-descriptional physicalism or defend it from objections. In chapter 1, I will propose a new conceptual reductive account that conceptually reduces higher-level entities to physical entities. This conceptual reductive account combines resources from Heil’s truthmaker theory and either a priori physicalism or a posteriori physicalism. In chapter 2, I apply this conceptual reductive account to various debates. Physicalism, the multiple-realisability argument, the prototype theory of concepts, and truthmaker explanations will be discussed. In chapter 3, I will argue that a major aim of metaphysics should be to discover which entities are fundamental and explain why they suffice for the existence of derivative entities. In chapter 4, I will propose a new way to explain why sentences apparently about composite objects are true even though there are no composite objects. It combines resources from Cameron’s truthmaker theory and van Inwagen’s paraphrase strategy. In chapter 5, I will argue that the intuition that the mind and the body are very different does not show that the mind is distinct from the body. This intuition can be explained away by mentioning our dispositions to give non-physical explanations when we are ignorant of physical facts. In chapter 6, I will examine two arguments for the existence of a metaphysically independent level, and I will argue that only a modified version of one of them succeeds. I will argue that methodological principles support the view that there is a metaphysically independent level.