tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post114796916433847278..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: On defining matter, and materialismVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1147989328343522702006-05-18T14:55:00.000-07:002006-05-18T14:55:00.000-07:00I think your characterization of physicalism (or, ...I think your characterization of physicalism (or, metaphysical naturalism) is good.<BR/><BR/>My naturalism is mainly a rejection of traditional supernaturalism, which allows for miracles and other events that would provide exceptions to the nomic closure of the natural world. However, if you were a traditional philosopher of science, it wouldn't be hard there from your characterization: every cause is associated with some law which tells you the relevant nomic associations that miracles, freedom, and the like would violate. <BR/><BR/>Despite the fact that we don't yet know the "fundamental" laws of physics (or if such things exist) I think it isn't particularly problematic. At the levels most interesting to both parties, things behave pretty classically (e.g., in brains, for instance, classical statistical mechanics is used to predict the electrical properties of neurons with great success, so we don't have to get our girdle in a knot over quantum wierdness. Most naturalists think that, at the very least, it is such electrical properties upon which mental properties supervene in terrestrial organisms).Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.com