Could psi have a materialist explanation?

To point out the ridiculousness of insisting any model of reality should be insulated from new findings.

This. ^^^ 

I was under the impression that "isms" like "physicalism" propose that even those things which intuitively don't seem to be physical will be found to be physical (or to supervene on the physical) upon more detailed investigation, not that the definition of "physical" will change with the wind. 

On the other hand, our intuitions about what we regard as physical can be expected to change with the wind, given that we have already discovered that they are woefully misbegotten. Solid matter is almost entirely empty space, for example. And, as Steve pointed out, empty space turns out to be physical, with some decidedly weird properties. 

When we talk about new findings getting folded into an "ism", it seems to be more about updating our perceptions than updating the "ism". But even so, what's wrong with updating models of reality? I don't understand the complaints - first the complaint is that science is unbending and dogmatic, and then the complaint is that it is too willing to change?

Linda

This. ^^^ 

I was under the impression that "isms" like "physicalism" propose that even those things which intuitively don't seem to be physical will be found to be physical (or to supervene on the physical) upon more detailed investigation, not that the definition of "physical" will change with the wind. 

On the other hand, our intuitions about what we regard as physical can be expected to change with the wind, given that we have already discovered that they are woefully misbegotten. Solid matter is almost entirely empty space, for example. And, as Steve pointed out, empty space turns out to be physical, with some decidedly weird properties. 

When we talk about new findings getting folded into an "ism", it seems to be more about updating our perceptions than updating the "ism". But even so, what's wrong with updating models of reality? I don't understand the complaints - first the complaint is that science is unbending and dogmatic, and then the complaint is that it is too willing to change?

Linda

I think the crux is those two isms don't appeal to humans sense of self importance. That's my take when I hear human consciousness is fundamental or Humans are part of God's grand plan or there has to be more to life than living then death...

On the other hand, our intuitions about what we regard as physical can be expected to change with the wind, given that we have already discovered that they are woefully misbegotten. Solid matter is almost entirely empty space, for example. And, as Steve pointed out, empty space turns out to be physical, with some decidedly weird properties. 

Linda

Rather than intuitions of what is metaphysically - physical, let's just say "things that are physical are measured either as materials or as energy".  Empty space is decidedly not material, by its definition as empty.  So how does "empty space" have energy?  

This situation is a natural outcome of an Informational Realism point of view.  Instead of an uncaused cause (spontaneous energy); the prior cause of ZPE is not physical - it's informational - as virtual photons.  They are there persisting in a stochastic or probabilistic state.  These virtual photons are potential energy - not active on their own.  These are photons structured to become active in some configuration to come, hence virtual.

Information states exist probabilistically and catalyze manifest physical states.  These states of information exist prior to all manifestation - hence they are part of the casual chain.

 The uncertainty principle requires every quantum mechanical system to have a fluctuating zero-point energy greater than the minimum of its classical potential well. ... Virtual particles spontaneously flash into existence at every point in space due to the energy of quantum fluctuations caused by the uncertainty principle.

I think the crux is those two isms don't appeal to humans sense of self importance. That's my take when I hear human consciousness is fundamental or Humans are part of God's grand plan or there has to be more to life than living then death...

You have always seemed to really struggle with the notion that someone might think there's something more to the Universe and its contents than a colossal, random cosmic accident for reasons other than pure emotion or ego. It's in and of itself an incredibly arrogant (and shallow/startlingly lacking in critical thinking) position you take by suggesting so.

This. ^^^ 

I was under the impression that "isms" like "physicalism" propose that even those things which intuitively don't seem to be physical will be found to be physical (or to supervene on the physical) upon more detailed investigation, not that the definition of "physical" will change with the wind. 

On the other hand, our intuitions about what we regard as physical can be expected to change with the wind, given that we have already discovered that they are woefully misbegotten. Solid matter is almost entirely empty space, for example. And, as Steve pointed out, empty space turns out to be physical, with some decidedly weird properties. 

When we talk about new findings getting folded into an "ism", it seems to be more about updating our perceptions than updating the "ism". But even so, what's wrong with updating models of reality? I don't understand the complaints - first the complaint is that science is unbending and dogmatic, and then the complaint is that it is too willing to change?

Linda

I think most likely the point is that suggesting that things will ultimately "turn out to be physical" (whatever that means) doesn't really tell us anything. Something that we on this forum and our modern scientific and philosophical counterparts now might consider "physical" could be far narrower or more strict in scope than, say, 100 or many more years from now. 

So saying it'll all turn out to be physical or explicable in terms of "science" doesn't move the needle one way or the other really. It doesn't lend any credibility to either the proponent or skeptical side of things.

I think most likely the point is that suggesting that things will ultimately "turn out to be physical" (whatever that means) doesn't really tell us anything. Something that we on this forum and our modern scientific and philosophical counterparts now might consider "physical" could be far narrower or more strict in scope than, say, 100 or many more years from now. 

So saying it'll all turn out to be physical or explicable in terms of "science" doesn't move the needle one way or the other really. It doesn't lend any credibility to either the proponent or skeptical side of things.

What does saying “it is all mind” tell us?

You have always seemed to really struggle with the notion that someone might think there's something more to the Universe and its contents than a colossal, random cosmic accident for reasons other than pure emotion or ego. It's in and of itself an incredibly arrogant (and shallow/startlingly lacking in critical thinking) position you take by suggesting so.

I don't think human consciousness is fundamental to reality. I don't think there's a special purpose for humanities existence and were not specially created. I don't think this universe revolves around us. That is not arrogance Dante it's humility. I've heard or have seen implied on this forum and Skeptiko those very unyielding sentiments diametrically opposed to what I've wrote and you have the gall to call me arrogant LOL  My god, even the taxonomic name used to identifying our species speaks to our perceived self importance. Like many other paranomalists you have a severe myopic ability to see another's point of view. It's a short coming many paranomalists have.

I think most likely the point is that suggesting that things will ultimately "turn out to be physical" (whatever that means) doesn't really tell us anything. Something that we on this forum and our modern scientific and philosophical counterparts now might consider "physical" could be far narrower or more strict in scope than, say, 100 or many more years from now. 

So saying it'll all turn out to be physical or explicable in terms of "science" doesn't move the needle one way or the other really. It doesn't lend any credibility to either the proponent or skeptical side of things.

Don't BS. You know what physical - ism means.

I don't think human consciousness is fundamental to reality.

What a strawman...

He wasn't even suggesting that ~ Consciousness, with a capital C, is fundamental to Reality, not any specific form of specialized consciousness, but That which underlies all consciousness. It is That which is a mystery that we've never come close to solving, no matter one's stance on what consciousness is. No form of consciousness is superior to another, because it's all just unique perspectives of reality in the end.

What a strawman...

He wasn't even suggesting that ~ Consciousness, with a capital C, is fundamental to Reality, not any specific form of specialized consciousness, but That which underlies all consciousness. It is That which is a mystery that we've never come close to solving, no matter one's stance on what consciousness is. No form of consciousness is superior to another, because it's all just unique perspectives of reality in the end.

You've grossly have missed the point.