Physicalism Redux

I'm just someone who thinks Physicalism is false.

How consciousness as a fundamental in the universe becomes human minds is a different category of problem than the Something From Nothing problem Physicalism faces.

As Sam Harris notes:


If you have an explanation for how you get any consciousness and overcome what Sam Harris notes as the Something From Nothing Problem of Physicalism let me know. If you have one you've given in the past that you think is good feel free to paste it and I'll see if it can meet my satisfaction.

In fact because of this Something from Nothing issue I'd say Physicalism is less a true metaphysics and more a religious faith. I'm apparently not the only one who feels that way given the way Peter Sjöstedt-H titled his essay:

Why I am not a Physicalist: Four Reasons for Rejecting the Faith

If the idea that somehow, someday this Something from Nothing problem will be overcome is a tenet of the materialist evangelical faith that's fine but it's best to just say so. I believe everyone has a right to their religious belief but religious faith shouldn't be confused for rational argument.

But I think Sjöstedt-H's essay is pretty decisive, and personally I've yet to read anything or talk to anyone who can provide anything even close to a satisfactory challenge to it.

I know you’re not going to like it, but if you can be open minded enough to consider that ‘something’ might just be ‘a different arrangement of nothing’ we might get past this problem.

It’s a tricky concept to wrap one’s head around, I grant you, but there is a certain neatness to it.

Do not push me further on this... I have literally nothing to add.

I know you’re not going to like it, but if you can be open minded enough to consider that ‘something’ might just be ‘a different arrangement of nothing’ we might get past this problem.

What do you mean?

1. So you agree then, if someone makes a claim they have to provide the argument for it.

2. Though it is curious that you don't allow philosophy...after all how does one have moral responsibility and personal achievement if every person is just a collection of particles on a crash course with Oblivion...

3. Seems like Physicalism means all human life is worthless.

1. Of course but it goes further than that. A position must be accompanied with factual evidence. If not, then it's just opinion.

2. Funny how many hold this same opinion physicalism = oblivion
Physicalism absolves one of moral responsibility.
As for morality it is subjective. I've cobbled some examples if you'd like to see. Seems such thinking lacks flexibility. 

3. 5 mass extinctions in Earth's history so far. 9 extinct human species. Sounds worthless doesn't it?

But this is a fallacy Steve.

Lots of scientific theories thought to hold the same "high ground" only to later be found as false or more aptly NOT predictive of future knowledge.

You aren't standing on a mountain top; its merely your perception that as you look out at the rest of us it "feels" like you are on higher ground.  You aren't.  You're in the muck with the rest of us who are trying to wrestle these things to the ground.

I agree there were scientific ideas that at one time were the best explanations for their time. But as better observations happen those theories where modified or discarded all together. 

Yes, we all are standing in the muck, but some are standing in a bit more. And the reason "you" are is such ideas that are expressed are neither modified or discarded.

Hmmm, it makes me wonder what scientists have to say...



It doesn't seem like scientists are exclusively physicalists....I mean nothing I've ever read has convinced me that Physicalism is true.

I am willing to suspend my belief that Physicalism is completely nonsensical - a view shared by Neuroscience PhD & New Atheist Horseman Sam Harris btw - if you can explain how matter that has no mental character ends up producing minds.

If you have already provided it, feel free to paste it here and we'll see if I find it satisfactory.

Wow, that's a long list of luminaries. Now this raises this question: How much weight should I give to a list of people expressing unscientific factless personal beliefs?  Btw, unbeknownst to the owner of that site, Einstein did not believe in God. If you would like to know what he thought read up on Baruch Spinoza.

Wow, that's a long list of luminaries. Now this raises this question: How much weight should I give to a list of people expressing unscientific factless personal beliefs?  Btw, unbeknownst to the owner of that site, Einstein did not believe in God. If you would like to know what he thought read up on Baruch Spinoza.

"There are still people, he remarked at a charity dinner during the War, who say there is no God. “But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views. There are fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics,” he said in 1940. Remind you of anyone?  

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/philo...eve-in-god

PLEASE tell me you aren't one of the people who think philosophy doesn't make progress, cause that is just the most profound ignorance on the topic.

Also, science does have the upper ground. That's why here on the forum we look at things about parapsychology, scientific enquiry into some weirdness. We simply don't like physicalism, the philosophical position, that luckily isn't actually tied to science, only the current cultural norm of those who practice it. 

As for the crux of what I understood, I do know over time science slowly figures things out and explains them. I do believe that will happen in what's studied by parapsychology. But I also know, to beat a dead horse, that paradgim shifts happen when enough evidence accumulates to shift the current views. To me that's what's potentially going to happen with physicalism. So unless you take the stance of outright rejecting all parapsychology evidence, in which case I suppose we'll throw the PSI encyclopedia at you and you can start debunking each individual case or study on there, or you think that physicalism can explain all parapsychology evidence, in which case cool I'm excited to hear it, you've gotta take a step back like I said with Malf and go alright, I'll sit with the current view for now until enough comes up for me to change my mind.

I am one of those. 

I don't reject most parapsychologic research. What I reject is the expressed confidence we are right.

I am one of those. 

I don't reject most parapsychologic research. What I reject is the expressed confidence we are right.

Right in relation to which opinions? I do think there are personally more valid ones than others.

"There are still people, he remarked at a charity dinner during the War, who say there is no God. “But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views. There are fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics,” he said in 1940. Remind you of anyone?  

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/philo...eve-in-god

Why, yes it does Tim. It reminds me of you.

Right in relation to which opinions? I do think there are personally more valid ones than others.

The opinions expressed by psi proponents. That is your prerogative.