What Defines the Essence of the Physical in Philosophy?

[JoeDawg]

You need to look at it in context. I said in the same post: "It seems to me that the movement from sensory experience to the identification of objects is one purely of (evolutionary) convenience and has no real foundation." Why do you ignore this?

I didn't ignore it, I have stated that I think you are mixing different things together. You talk about sensory experience and then switch to ontology.

I showed you the part where I believe you are doing this.

This isn't a gotcha game. You keep telling me I'm misunderstanding you, fine, that's true, I don't understand what you're saying, and I'm telling you why. If criticism is not something you can handle, then yes, you're wasting both of our time.

 

[baywax]

Why do we feel the need to preserve the physical in philosophical thinking when it is not immediate in the way first-person experience is? Is it because we feel sensory experience alone can not explain the world we perceive?

It seems to me that the movement from sensory experience to the identification of objects is one purely of (evolutionary) convenience and has no real foundation.

I am not denying the causative potential of 'something' that we class as physical. I am questioning the reality of the essence we ascribe to it by way of 'physical'.

I will go out on a limb and define the 'essence' of physical as persistent identity through time. I am happy to hear other suggestions, but note I am after a definition that warrants the inclusion of 'physical' as an ontological category. For example, one might suggest that the physical is actual because objects have 'substance' (though this would require further elaboration).

The concept of "physical" is the result of evolution. As the evolution of cerebral ganglia took place (perhaps starting with simple chemical sacs in a cell) it was the "phenomenon of stimulus" (caused by interaction between the ganglia and the environment) that began to shape what we perceive as "the physical" today.

There have always been specific results associated with specific stimuli and they have remained somewhat constant and predictable and so the nature of this consistency has been termed "physical" by one of the animals on the planet that has large amounts of neurons.

If "physical" is nothing more than a figment of our imagination, our "imagination" is an event and the event is a result of stimulus or acts as a stimulus in our perceived environment. This is what brought Descartes to declare how he exists because he thinks (and he is aware of thinking).

So, in effect, although your question is "what is physical"? it could be "what is "dirt?"... or "what is "tree?"... and the basic and fundamental answer will always be the same... "physical" is a word we use to describe our experience with a specific stimulus.

 

[Chronos]

Death is a pretty compelling example. Dead scientists tend not to publish new papers.

 

[baywax]

Death is a pretty compelling example. Dead scientists tend not to publish new papers.

If a dead scientist didn't publish a paper, would anyone notice? Are you sure you have the right thread? ;')

 

[octelcogopod]

and the basic and fundamental answer will always be the same... "physical" is a word we use to describe our experience with a specific stimulus.

I agree with you, because in the end we cannot understand the physical beyond what our senses tell us.
Our understanding of this physicality we sense, will always be at mercy of ou r senses, but at the same time our senses are probably all physical, which means you'd have to look outside yourself to see the true physical, which would again just be another viewpoint and not the "true" physical right?

But, just because we can't really see anything from outside our senses, doesn't mean the physical isn't there in its unobserved form.
And that's where things get complicated I think, because in theory nothing exists if its not perceived, but the moment it's perceived it becomes only the filtered viewpoint, not the true essence of what it "is" right?

 

[baywax]

I agree with you, because in the end we cannot understand the physical beyond what our senses tell us.
Our understanding of this physicality we sense, will always be at mercy of ou r senses, but at the same time our senses are probably all physical, which means you'd have to look outside yourself to see the true physical, which would again just be another viewpoint and not the "true" physical right?

But, just because we can't really see anything from outside our senses, doesn't mean the physical isn't there in its unobserved form.
And that's where things get complicated I think, because in theory nothing exists if its not perceived, but the moment it's perceived it becomes only the filtered viewpoint, not the true essence of what it "is" right?

Yes, we have this biased method of perceiving "what is physical" because our senses were established by physical means. "Getting outside" our senses is a conceptual process that relies heavily upon our physical nature, so this is a cunundrum that can only be surmounted with intellect. And intellect is also a physical process. Some people will tell you to "feel" outside of the physical. "Feel the essence, feel the spirit" of an occasion or even "feel" the non-physical aspect of a situation. Well, I'm sorry to point out that "feeling" is a descriptor with regard to the physical senses and these senses are stimulated by physical stimuli so what is it we are really feeling... in this case? Certainly not a non-physical event.

However, you know we'll never find out, but, people have pointed to non-physical causes for things that are physical. The research into quantum mechanics may or may not be related to that idea. For now, it appears to be up to the imagination to come up with probable answers to what is and what isn't physical.