Physicalism Redux

Guys,

 I'm willing to suspend my belief that Physicalism is incoherent.

 I just need an explanation that shows how you get from matter that has no consciousness what-so-ever to conscious minds.

thanks,

Sci

Have you considered getting a degree in the field of neuroscience? Short of that keep abreast of what's occurring in that field of research.

Why do some argue the human mind requires special consideration and circumstances for it to exist?

The answer can maybe be best expressed in the form of two questions.

If awareness is a by product of the essentially physical process of information processing, then:

1.  Should we assume that an electric toaster is aware?

2.  If not, then how do we in concrete terms (not fuzzy speculation) define the difference between an electric toaster and a human brain that is sufficient to account for awareness?

When you truly understand these questions, then you will have the answer to your own.

I reckon that's a really fair position to take. So you prefer just to stick with the current norm and leave and weird counter evidence off to the side, until it piles up enough or becomes strong to come and make a change? I think physicalism is a very pragmatic position too, just that eventually it might have to be expanded, or changed for somethin like "Physicalism except for these couple things".

I think you are seeing the crux. As we learn more definitions change. What once was the work of "gods" now is understood to be the workings of nature.

I think you are seeing the crux. As we learn more definitions change. What once was the work of "gods" now is understood to be the workings of nature.

I think it's a combination of "understood" and "presumed" TBH.  So much of what is portrayed as proven fact is really no more than speculation from a physicalist bias.

The answer can maybe be best expressed in the form of two questions.

If awareness is a by product of the essentially physical process of information processing, then:

1.  Should we assume that an electric toaster is aware?

2.  If not, then how do we in concrete terms (not fuzzy speculation) define the difference between an electric toaster and a human brain that is sufficient to account for awareness?

When you truly understand these questions, then you will have the answer to your own.

Your question can be rephrased this way. Is an electric toaster alive or not? It's not. It's not because all life consumes energy to maintain itself. Turn off the electricity and the toaster still "lives" on. Deprive a living thing energy for long enough and it no longer lives.

I think it's a combination of "understood" and "presumed" TBH.  So much of what is portrayed as proven fact is really no more than speculation from a physicalist bias.

An often levied critique. Care to provide several examples?

It's up to you to support your position without resorting to philosophical proof.

So you're saying that when someone makes a claim, they have to provide evidence for it?

Your question can be rephrased this way. Is an electric toaster alive or not? It's not. It's not because all life consumes energy to maintain itself. Turn off the electricity and the toaster still "lives" on. Deprive a living thing energy for long enough and it no longer lives.

You did not understand the question.  The abstract concept "life" contains nothing concrete that defines a difference between an electric toaster and a human brain that effectively accounts for the existence of awareness.

An often levied critique. Care to provide several examples?

There's no point.  So many examples have already been provided in this forum just to be handwaved away with some fuzzy physicalist speculation.  I would be wasting my time answering this.

There's no point.  So many examples have already been provided in this forum just to be handwaved away with some fuzzy physicalist speculation.  I would be wasting my time answering this.

What I was asking of you is give some examples to see if such examples are speculative or mistaken for fact by average persons.