2023-06-15, 11:44 PM
(2023-06-13, 12:10 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]So really things like the Hard Problem, and Materialism needing a logically impossible Something-From-Nothing miracle to produce consciousness, are due to how Physicalists insist "physical" has to mean no mental aspects.
To requote Peter Sjöstedt-H:
Quote:It is often expected that a position be defined before it be rejected. In the case of physicalism, however, a reason for rejecting the position is the fact that it cannot be properly defined. This ambiguity in the meaning of “physicalism” is brought out through what is known as Hempel’s Dilemma, named after its formulation by philosopher Carl G. Hempel,[1] though it was in fact formulated earlier by Herbert Feigl.[2] The dilemma: it seems that the meaning of physicalism can be grasped through either of two horns. The first horn is exclusive belief in the phenomena of current physics, such as matter-energy, space-time, the fundamental interactions, and so on. The problem herewith is that such a belief is highly unlikely to be true. This is in part because we can witness the constant change of physics through history, realizing that our current state of understanding is but a moment within this history and thus, by pessimistic induction,[3] we realize that physics is likely to continue changing. Secondly, as is well known, the current state of physics cannot be final due, in particular, to the inconsistency between general relativity and quantum mechanics. Thirdly, as will be seen below, the role of the mind in current physics is undetermined.
Thus a self-proclaimed physicalist might therefore instead embrace the second horn of the dilemma: belief in the phenomena of a future, ideal physics. Yet there are two chief problems with this alternative. Firstly, how could one believe in physicalism if one did not know what that was? One may almost as well profess one’s adamant belief in drallewertism. Secondly, it may turn out that a future physics would include mentality amongst its fundamental elements. But because physicalism, as material monism, is as such opposed to dualism (one where mind and matter are equally fundamental), such a possibility would seem to contradict the current understanding of physicalism. As a result of this implication, many self-proclaimed physicalists add a “no-fundamental-mentality” condition to the meaning of physicalism to preclude such a possibility.[4] However, one cannot determine the future direction of physics, thus physicalism, by advancing ad hoc exclusionary clauses to suit one’s current preferences. It may well be that a future physics will be contrary to “physicalism,” as understood in such current exclusionary terms.
You quote at length this text that says physical and nonphysical is not clearly defined. I agree. Physical and nonphysical are not clearly defined. They have different meanings to different people.
So you cannot simply say your mind is nonphysical and hope we understand what you are saying. What do you mean when you use that word?
Likewise when you say the mind in nonmaterial. That word can have many meanings. ( see https://www.bing.com/search?q=+nonmateri...cc=0&ghpl=) Which meaning are you using? What are you even saying?
You might as well tell me the mind is xyzxyzous as say it is nonmaterial or nonphysical. What do those words mean?
After pulling out the nonmaterial card, you use it as a get out of jail free card.
You state problems that some people see with physical consciousness. Are their conclusions valid? You never try to make their arguments. You just tell us that somebody says this about physical or material things. Then, for my views, we hear the equivalent of, "Lock them up!" Then, for your view, you pull out your get-out-of-jail-free card and declare victory.
First, you have not shown that arguments against the physical are valid. If valid, you have not proven that your get-out-of-jail-free card trumps anything.
Heck, maybe I should just say brains are teaofeawogheriwaous, and anything teaofeawogheriwaous can trump any argument you make, so therefore brains are conscious. That's basically the same thing as the argument you keep making.