Physicalism Redux

So you're saying that when someone makes a claim, they have to provide evidence for it?

I know you're not obtuse. And you know the answer.

You did not understand the question.  The abstract concept "life" contains nothing concrete that defines a difference between an electric toaster and a human brain that effectively accounts for the existence of awareness.

What I was implying is there is no difference.

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

I think this is an entirely reasonable request.

But also reasonable is the request that you provide an explanation of how one goes from the fundamental unit of consciousness under idealism to full-blown human consciousness. Or perhaps you'd assert that each full-blown consciousness is a fundamental. But then how is a new one created?

~~ Paul

What I was implying is there is no difference.

Ok, so (and let's be clear, I am not trying to prove anything - I am agnostic myself on this issue I just think the query is a valid reason to not be certain about a physical origin of awareness)  do you think that to query a physical origin of awareness is a bad idea or a legitimate one, given that we cannot find any concrete fact to distinguish between a brain and a machine with regards the existence of awareness?  Or to put it more simply, can you now see why people explore these ideas and look at alternative options to the physicalist position.  I think a physical origin  is a theoretical possibility, I just cannot find any logic to justify it as a philosophical position.  To me at least, the evidence seems to point the other way - but "seems to" is of course, not proof.

I think you are seeing the crux. As we learn more definitions change. What once was the work of "gods" now is understood to be the workings of nature.

Steve's promissory note: have faith in science for what it can not answer today it will answer tomorrow.

He HATES the faith word, but he is as much an acolyte of physicalism as your local priest is of Catholicism.  I think its a perfectly fine position to take, but not when you fool yourself into thinking you are on the philosophically higher ground.  (Which Steve doggedly believes he does.)

Steve's promissory note: have faith in science for what it can not answer today it will answer tomorrow.

He HATES the faith word, but he is as much an acolyte of physicalism as your local priest is of Catholicism.  I think its a perfectly fine position to take, but not when you fool yourself into thinking you are on the philosophically higher ground.  (Which Steve doggedly believes he does.)

Is there a philosophy that does not require a promissory explanation of consciousness?

~~ Paul

I know you're not obtuse. And you know the answer.

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

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...

Seems like Physicalism means all human life is worthless.

I think this is an entirely reasonable request.

But also reasonable is the request that you provide an explanation of how one goes from the fundamental unit of consciousness under idealism to full-blown human consciousness. Or perhaps you'd assert that each full-blown consciousness is a fundamental. But then how is a new one created?

~~ Paul

I'm not an Idealist, so best thing is to find one and ask them.

Steve's promissory note: have faith in science for what it can not answer today it will answer tomorrow.

He HATES the faith word, but he is as much an acolyte of physicalism as your local priest is of Catholicism.  I think its a perfectly fine position to take, but not when you fool yourself into thinking you are on the philosophically higher ground.  (Which Steve doggedly believes he does.)

Paul had a very good reply in post 36. In a sense I do think science has the higher ground because of all of the advances it has made revealing nature's mysteries. If only philosophy could progress in such away.

Is there a philosophy that does not require a promissory explanation of consciousness?

~~ Paul

Of course not.  Point is that promissory notes aren't scientific.