“Physical stuff” can’t do this and that - a false Dichotomy

Off to a slow start today, right? I used the quote to present my own position to David (our David). I'm sure if (our) David was interested in the position of David Chalmers he would ask explicitly about it or create a new thread to discuss it.

Sorry, but you appeared to be presenting Chalmers' position. Maybe make it clearer next time.

Still, you do actually seem to lean towards Physicalism in some ways, when you're not seemingly flip-flopping.

Off to a slow start today, right? I used the quote to present my own position to David (our David). I'm sure if (our) David was interested in the position of David Chalmers he would ask explicitly about it or create a new thread to discuss it.

I would frame what I think David Chalmers was saying thus:

We have reached a point in time when we understand enough about the physical world to realise that it can't in itself explain what consciousness can do - thus Materialism is implausible.

All the other alternatives are routinely dismissed because they clash with Materialism, but we have run out of options. Therefore we need to 'normalise' our various measures of plausibility, and realise that all those options are on the table.

Given that, I want to choose Dualism. I choose it because it is closest to common sense, and because it allows us to interpret a vast amount of data that is otherwise hard/impossible to explain - such as DC's own Hard Problem!

I also think that until science actually studies non-material options in depth, we don't have enough information to choose between the alternatives once Materialism has been excluded. E.g. anything that can be explained by Dualism can also be explained by Idealism.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, often science doesn't need the BEST theory so much as it needs the theory that works best in the sense of Occam's Razor.

Science works best by slowly evolving.

David

Wouild you explain that?

Imagine a game where you have day/night cycles, but they occur within the span of 12 hours in the real world.

So the program of the game is maintaining the day/night cycle - in fact all change in the game is managed by the program.

Now, if in that game, someone makes a simulation, it’s dependent on the time passage of the game AND the time passage in the real world.

This can’t go to infinity, because then the dependencies for the passage of time are infinite which would mean they can never be resolved. It’s like an infinite recursion that never throws an error, but also doesn’t let the programs progress their time cycle.

I agree that an idealist can speak of the "physical", but the "physical" for an idealist is vastly different than the "physical" of a physicalist or a dualist.
For the latter two there exists an objective reality independent of an observer. For the idealist "objective reality of physical properties" does not exist.
This is actually a hotly contested question. I recommend reading the following blog post by Bernardo Kastrup which is quite interesting in relation to this discussion:  

My unfortunate attempt at debating Tim Maudlin ~ Bernardo Kastrup, PhD, PhD

At the fundamental level of the Ground there is disagreement. But nevertheless Kastrup’s first major book, IIRC, was Why Materialism is Baloney.

The “matter” Kastrup says cannot produce consciousness is, in Idealism, that which is in consciousness but is not conscious itself. 

The issue remains the Physicalists naming themselves incorrectly, trying to gain validity for their faith by pretending they are following physics. As @Valmar  notes we’re forced to use the term “physical” in this erroneous way.

I would frame what I think David Chalmers was saying thus:

We have reached a point in time when we understand enough about the physical world to realise that it can't in itself explain what consciousness can do - thus Materialism is implausible.

All the other alternatives are routinely dismissed because they clash with Materialism, but we have run out of options. Therefore we need to 'normalise' our various measures of plausibility, and realise that all those options are on the table.

Given that, I want to choose Dualism. I choose it because it is closest to common sense, and because it allows us to interpret a vast amount of data that is otherwise hard/impossible to explain - such as DC's own Hard Problem!

I also think that until science actually studies non-material options in depth, we don't have enough information to choose between the alternatives once Materialism has been excluded. E.g. anything that can be explained by Dualism can also be explained by Idealism.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, often science doesn't need the BEST theory so much as it needs the theory that works best in the sense of Occam's Razor.

Science works best by slowly evolving.

David

I agree, and would add that Dualism appears to be the best philosophy of mind at least considering the criterion of Occam's principle of parsimony of explanations, where the other philosophical candidates have to be twisted and have many additional explanatory hypotheses added (many more than with Dualism) to explain the large amount of stubbornly existing but inconvenient to some other philosophies paranormal data. This data demonstrating the separability of mind and soul from the physical brain and body. This is in a way strongly suggesting that there is an immaterial mind or soul that can separate from the brain and body to then make verifiable (veridical) observations of the physical world and also spiritual worlds, and then reentangle with and reinhabit the physical brain which appears to be its normal way of manifesting in the physical.

In short, a large body of paranormal evidence indicates that Dualism seems very much to be the De Facto way the world actually works in human embodiment- the actually lived-in world of sentient intelligent humans mostly living in-body, except where a real separation between body and brain, and the Mind or soul, is occasionally revealed by paranormal phenomena like NDEs that are by far best explained by Dualism.

This argument naturally extends to another even vaster area of evidence for Dualism in human existence and life - the practically necessary, absolutely essential De Facto Dualistic operation of the world of human high technology, where the economy and social organization intimately depends on there being at the human size and dimensional scale an exact and always repeatable separation between the mental and the physical, especially where this applies to the mechanics and physical science of our technological machinery, which totally depends on the operation of the laws of physics and mechanics to be followed exactly. And of course this is also the De Facto practically essential Dualistic way everyday interactions of people with each other and the physical world are conducted.
 
It is all of this that has to be overcome philosophically in order to nominate one of the other philosophy of mind candidates for the winner. Of course this argument may be sneered at by the philosophers, since it isn't purely philosophical and theoretical, but instead delves into the realm of physical evidence, which seems to be generally held in low regard by the philosophers. 

But in my opinion, evidence always trumps theory. Dualism is the De Facto way the world works, and must at least be plausibly incorporated into any supposedly universal philosophy of mind, where perhaps for instance something Mind-like is the ultimate single substance of reality, even though the world actually works 99.9% according to Dualism.

A note of cynicism!

I feel that science would have found a way to circumvent the endless discussion of different alternatives to physicalism if it were not for the fact that most scientists feel deeply uncomfortable with this subject. They naturally feel happier if they feel that all the alternatives to Materialism are hopelessly flawed.

I'm not saying that they all do this consciously - though some may - they just want to keep science pure - rather as people often delay telling their kids some of the earthier of life's truths as long as possible.

David

I would frame what I think David Chalmers was saying thus:

We have reached a point in time when we understand enough about the physical world to realise that it can't in itself explain what consciousness can do - thus Materialism is implausible.

All the other alternatives are routinely dismissed because they clash with Materialism, but we have run out of options. Therefore we need to 'normalise' our various measures of plausibility, and realise that all those options are on the table.

Given that, I want to choose Dualism. I choose it because it is closest to common sense, and because it allows us to interpret a vast amount of data that is otherwise hard/impossible to explain - such as DC's own Hard Problem!

I also think that until science actually studies non-material options in depth, we don't have enough information to choose between the alternatives once Materialism has been excluded. E.g. anything that can be explained by Dualism can also be explained by Idealism.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, often science doesn't need the BEST theory so much as it needs the theory that works best in the sense of Occam's Razor.

Science works best by slowly evolving.

David

Indeed. For this level of reality which we inhabit, Dualism is the most intuitive fit.

For the ultimate reality that we don't know meaningfully anything about? Well, we cannot meaningfully assign any stance as being better or worse, because we first need to know enough, and when we know almost nothing, we can summarily say almost nothing in turn, except to acknowledge and accept the limits of knowledge. Of science, even, as it is only applicable to this physical reality.

Physicists say they understand time? Okay... but I think they're getting rather out of their depth there, because when people can, on say DMT, experience what feels like 1,000 years with 15 minutes passing in this physical reality, something is simply rather off about what we think our understanding of time, of reality, is. Physics cannot explain time, or what time really is.

Maybe we need a science of time...

I agree, and would add that Dualism appears to be the best philosophy of mind at least considering the criterion of Occam's principle of parsimony of explanations, where the other philosophical candidates have to be twisted and have many additional explanatory hypotheses added (many more than with Dualism) to explain the large amount of stubbornly existing but inconvenient to some other philosophies paranormal data. This data demonstrating the separability of mind and soul from the physical brain and body. This is in a way strongly suggesting that there is an immaterial mind or soul that can separate from the brain and body to then make verifiable (veridical) observations of the physical world and also spiritual worlds, and then reentangle with and reinhabit the physical brain which appears to be its normal way of manifesting in the physical.

In short, a large body of paranormal evidence indicates that Dualism seems very much to be the De Facto way the world actually works in human embodiment- the actually lived-in world of sentient intelligent humans mostly living in-body, except where a real separation between body and brain, and the Mind or soul, is occasionally revealed by paranormal phenomena like NDEs that are by far best explained by Dualism.

This argument naturally extends to another even vaster area of evidence for Dualism in human existence and life - the practically necessary, absolutely essential De Facto Dualistic operation of the world of human high technology, where the economy and social organization intimately depends on there being at the human size and dimensional scale an exact and always repeatable separation between the mental and the physical, especially where this applies to the mechanics and physical science of our technological machinery, which totally depends on the operation of the laws of physics and mechanics to be followed exactly. And of course this is also the De Facto practically essential Dualistic way everyday interactions of people with each other and the physical world are conducted.
 
It is all of this that has to be overcome philosophically in order to nominate one of the other philosophy of mind candidates for the winner. Of course this argument may be sneered at by the philosophers, since it isn't purely philosophical and theoretical, but instead delves into the realm of physical evidence, which seems to be generally held in low regard by the philosophers. 

But in my opinion, evidence always trumps theory. Dualism is the De Facto way the world works, and must at least be plausibly incorporated into any supposedly universal philosophy of mind, where perhaps for instance something Mind-like is the ultimate single substance of reality, even though the world actually works 99.9% according to Dualism.

Dualism makes the most intuitive and logical sense for this level of reality that we inhabit as incarnate entities ~ for science, even.

However... for the ultimate reality, Dualism is ultimately meaningless, as there is no notion of physicality or mentality as we understand them at that level. There are simply questions, without answers, as the ultimate reality is beyond our knowledge or comprehension. I've had the mere privilege of having the most surface level glimpse into the unknown through deep psychedelic experiences, and I am left feeling like I understand less than I did before, in the face of the incomprehensible.

Given that you defer to, if I remember correctly, creation by fiat, by a creator, then would that not make your position one of Neutral Monism? Mind and matter cannot be base substances, as they were created by a neutral entity that is neither, whatever its identity.

The mystical aspects of Taoism, Brahman and Judaism have tried to describe this for a long time ~ that there exists a Dualism within a Monism within... something entirely indescribable, usually deferred to as Emptiness or Nothingness. The Wuji of Taoism, Brahman itself being seen as infinite and also nothingness, the Ain of the Kabbalah.

I have recently been considering the idea of fractals... what if... the soul is technically an infinite entity, and because there are many souls, many infinities. Thus... what we think of as Emptiness or Nothingness is just the realm of the soul. Thus, the soul itself is a manifestation of something yet greater, in another fractal layer. Maybe you can see where my mind is trying to go with this, but it quickly becomes too much to comprehend, due to lack of knowledge of anything beyond this reality.

More interestingly... within these mystical traditions, the Duality, the Monad, the... Emptiness or what-have-you, all technically exist within the same... "space", so to speak, and simultaneously.

Like a... cell, perhaps.

I feel like I'm far off into rambling territory at this point, and maybe off-topic, even, so I shall cease here, heh.

Physicists say they understand time? Okay... but I think they're getting rather out of their depth there, because when people can, on say DMT, experience what feels like 1,000 years with 15 minutes passing in this physical reality, something is simply rather off about what we think our understanding of time, of reality, is. Physics cannot explain time, or what time really is.

Maybe we need a science of time...

AFAIK physics leaves the account of the Now, of lived time, out of their equations.

This was noted by Einstein and more recently by Smolin who is big on rejecting the idea that our experience of time is merely illusory as the Block Universe would suggested. (Though there's Ellis' Growing Block theory that tries to reconcile lived time and physics time.)

AFAIK physics leaves the account of the Now, of lived time, out of their equations.

This was noted by Einstein and more recently by Smolin who is big on rejecting the idea that our experience of time is merely illusory as the Block Universe would suggested. (Though there's Ellis' Growing Block theory that tries to reconcile lived time and physics time.)

I agree. There’s no clear understanding of what time is in physics.