Physicalism Redux

Man now you know how we feel in the free will redux thread x_x

Also, instead of being snarky, it might be a good time to argue for your position?

A bit snarky and also true. My position is folks are too quick to assume the correct point of view are the views expressed on this forum and forums of like intent.

No one has an answer to Sci's question. I've a better question. Why do some argue the human mind requires special consideration and circumstances for it to exist? To rephrase the question: Why should a not conscious physical universe exclude it from creating the mind in the natural course of its life?

So if no one has answer it must mean Physicalism is false right?

Or are you saying that if I make the claim "Physicalism is false" then it is on me to provide an argument for why I think that?

No one has an answer to Sci's question. I've a better question. Why do some argue the human mind requires special consideration and circumstances for it to exist? To rephrase the question: Why should a not conscious physical universe exclude it from creating the mind in the natural course of its life?

I would say there is conceptual issues that are proving to be strong obstacles, like the hard problem of consciousness. There aren't really any ideas of how something like that will be overcome at the moment, unless you subscribe to something like IIT. Then there may be further obstacles, like physicalism's difficulty to explain parapsychology evidence, though I suppose you can leave that out because you dont believe it is valid. 

I would ask back why shouldn't consciousness have some special consideration, since it's so remarkably different from any of the traditional things we've studied in the universe?

A bit snarky and also true. My position is folks are too quick to assume the correct point of view are the views expressed on this forum and forums of like intent.

And this as well. What is the correct point of view to you, then, in regards to forum like these? What position should we take, in your opinion.

Man now you know how we feel in the free will redux thread x_x

Also, instead of being snarky, it might be a good time to argue for your position?

My position is simple. There are good pragmatic reasons to hold on to a physicalist view of reality. It may not be the ultimate model but appears flexible enough to absorb new discoveries (quantum etc). 

It's probably daft, but no dafter than the other models out there. I'm not taking it off the table just yet.

My position is simple. There are good pragmatic reasons to hold on to a physicalist view of reality. It may not be the ultimate model but appears flexible enough to absorb new discoveries (quantum etc). 

It's probably daft, but no dafter than the other models out there. I'm not taking it off the table just yet.

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".

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

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

Dammit Sci cmon you're better than that XD

So if no one has answer it must mean Physicalism is false right?

Or are you saying that if I make the claim "Physicalism is false" then it is on me to provide an argument for why I think that?

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

I would say there is conceptual issues that are proving to be strong obstacles, like the hard problem of consciousness. There aren't really any ideas of how something like that will be overcome at the moment, unless you subscribe to something like IIT. Then there may be further obstacles, like physicalism's difficulty to explain parapsychology evidence, though I suppose you can leave that out because you dont believe it is valid. 

I would ask back why shouldn't consciousness have some special consideration, since it's so remarkably different from any of the traditional things we've studied in the universe?

The real obstacle is the presumptions expressed.