Naturalism and Materialism: Two Different Things

[Kurieuo]

All Materialists are Naturalists.
Not all Naturalists are Materialists.
I see it as just an important point to clarify.

[Storyteller]

I only have a vague idea what both of those are.

[Kurieuo]

I only have a vague idea what both of those are.

Don't worry Annette, most people pretend they know what they are.
Ultimately people decide according to their bias what Naturalism means.

[patrick]

Strict materialism doesn't make sense to me. I haven't heard a reasonable way to handle consciousness with that model.

Naturalism seems fine, but it often sounds just like "anti-supernaturalism" which is kinda unnecessary if we can agree to not accept theories that have no explanatory power.

[Kurieuo]

Strict materialism doesn't make sense to me. I haven't heard a reasonable way to handle consciousness with that model.

Naturalism seems fine, but it often sounds just like "anti-supernaturalism" which is kinda unnecessary if we can agree to not accept theories that have no explanatory power.

Yes, you hit on what I was meaning about people defining "Naturalism" according to their bias.
For many, they'd also attempt to define according to their Materialist/Physicalist worldview, that "Naturalism" only describes that which is material or physical. And yet, we don't really know what belies such. Why do we have "the physical" and what undergirds such? What do I mean...

Take for example if we existed in a virtual reality. We see material in our world that we identify as a rock. However, what we see as a simple rock is actually a bunch of polygons with textures and perhaps certain physics applied (weight, hardness, how it breaks apart, etc). Ultimately all this is reduced to binary code, that is, just numbers, 1s and 0s.

Binary code

binary.jpg (30.12 KiB) Viewed 1965 times

Yet, to us existing in the virtual reality, we'd not think that the rock is a bunch of 1s and 0s (well perhaps some more deeper thinkers might), because what we see and experience is a rock that looks a certain way, feels hard, weighs a certain weight and is part of the "natural" environment we just accept is "physical". Right? Who'd ever be crazy enough to think that 1s and 0s (math) was what our "physical/material" world was founded upon...

Here we see then, that to know what the "natural world" consists of, kind of requires knowing what the reality of existence is on the most foundational levels. Science, kind of just works with what is there. There's no "more than meets the eye." The natural world, for many, is what they physically sense in a direct and immediate way.

HOWEVER, tides really are changing on that, well I think they are. Reading Thomas Nagel's Mind and Cosmos, a relatively short book, kind of gives a look into a different type of "Naturalism". A teleological form that goes back to Aristotle. Where for example, "nature" had some direction and end goals. Perhaps for example, something like understanding what creatures need to survive in their environment and evolving such within them.

Nagel talks of the Universe possessing an immaterial aspect. Like we have physical laws apart of the natural fabric, he believed there are like "laws of consciousness" to be explored too. Science, he believes or hopes, should be able to work it out. Like we have ToE describing the physical, something similar for consciousness, morality and the like.

So, Nagel rejects Materialism and Physicalism because such cannot explain everything we know to be true, namely consciousness. If you don't know why, then dig into the mind and body discussion. Nagel still considers himself a Naturalist, because he believes the "natural fabric" is made of more than what is physical.