[Buddha-l] Re: Physicalism (was Re: Emptiness)

[Bill Kish]

Bill:
> Also, in the view of physicalism you are drawn to, does it make
> sense to distinguish mental properties from physical properties ?

Richard:
> No.

As I'm sure you know, and as I am beginning to discover, there is
quite a variety of physicalims to choose from.  Recently I have
been trying to learn more about something called non-reductive
physicalism.  To quote Brian McLaughlin:

"The idea that there is a tenable doctrine of non-reductive
physicalism currently enjoys considerable popularity.  Such 
a doctrine is supposed to be non-reductive in that it entails 
that there are mental properties and that no mental property 
is a physical property; and it is supposed to be a kind of
phyiscalism in that it entails that mental properties are 
realized by physical properties." (Erkenntnis 67:149-172)

As you seemed to resist equating mind and body even within a
physicalist framework, I thought the physicalism you were
interested in might be something close to the non-reductive
physicalism McLaughlin speaks of above.  And as I don't think 
you have ever fully articulated your views on physicalism on 
BUDDHA-L, I thought I would try and get you to dive into the
details a bit more.

Richard:
>I'm glad you stated my attitude toward physicalism correctly. 
>I am drawn to it. I grew up in a household in which physicalism
>was the prevailing dogma, and I feel perfectly comfortable
>thinking in physicalist terms. But I see huge problems with 
>this view, as I do with all the alternatives. In the absence of
>compelling reasons I switch sides, I stick with my childhood
>prejudices and am quite happy that other people stick with 
>theirs.

Fair enough. If there weren't huge problems everywhere and on all
sides, there wouldn't be much to talk about. 

---------
Bill Kish 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com