Physicalism Redux

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.

PLEASE tell me you aren't one of the people who think philosophy doesn't make progress, cause that is just the most profound ignorance on the topic.

Also, science does have the upper ground. That's why here on the forum we look at things about parapsychology, scientific enquiry into some weirdness. We simply don't like physicalism, the philosophical position, that luckily isn't actually tied to science, only the current cultural norm of those who practice it. 

As for the crux of what I understood, I do know over time science slowly figures things out and explains them. I do believe that will happen in what's studied by parapsychology. But I also know, to beat a dead horse, that paradgim shifts happen when enough evidence accumulates to shift the current views. To me that's what's potentially going to happen with physicalism. So unless you take the stance of outright rejecting all parapsychology evidence, in which case I suppose we'll throw the PSI encyclopedia at you and you can start debunking each individual case or study on there, or you think that physicalism can explain all parapsychology evidence, in which case cool I'm excited to hear it, you've gotta take a step back like I said with Malf and go alright, I'll sit with the current view for now until enough comes up for me to change my mind.

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 feel like this is a bit harsh. People who believe in physicalism can still have meaning. I think even with an afterlife or god life still has primarily subjective meaning, I don't think a higher being is going around like Rick out of Rick and Morty like "you, small American child, the meaning of your life is to make pancakes I have dictated it"

But, I also agree that there's the brand of physicalists that makes their habit of rejecting everything unique or special about humanity and life, forcing the point that life is meaningless. Though I've noticed when normal people don't take them seriously they also tend to backtrack heavily into the "No life can have meaning you give it your own meaning please don't stop listening to us" side of things.

Not to mention the side that decides to reject philosophy, THAT always ends well.

I feel like this is a bit harsh. People who believe in physicalism can still have meaning.

It's not just me who thinks this, but a wide variety of materialist nihilists.

See Alex Rosenberg's Atheist's Guide to Reality.

I would imagine the ratio of materialists to non-materialists among scientists is similar to that of non scientists given that science cannot prove the non-existence of the non-material and also doesn't claim to be able to do so.

If you include Eastern Europe and Asia, that alone will probably end up ensuring the number of non-materialist scientists outnumber the materialist ones.

And when the number of materialist scientists in the Western world is dropping...

Well it seems me and Neuroscience PhD and New Atheist horseman Sam Harris are not only ones who haven't found a satisfactory explanation for Physicalism.

It's not just me who thinks this, but a wide variety of materialist nihilists.

See Alex Rosenberg's Atheist's Guide to Reality.

It's certainly held by a wide variety of people, but as we know here, just because a view is popular doesn't mean it's true. And, nihilism isn't even a popular opinion, unless you're feeling edgy. I'm pretty sure a large amount of atheists and physicalists aren't nihilists, or existentialists, they're just people doing people stuff minding their own business living a purposeful life.

Also Alex Rosenburg's atheist guide to reality is a scientism wankfest that's so egregious about it that even other atheists went jeez science ain't THAT great. As soon as someone starts going science is the only way to ALL knowledge you know to not take them seriously. Am I gonna listen to a physicist about particles? Sure. Am I gonna listen to a physicist about what nature walk I should go on, or what ethical position I should take on voting rights? Probably not. I think most people would agree with me on that point.

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

Does my observation not pertain to your philosophy?

But also reasonable is the request that you provide an explanation of how one goes from the fundamental unit of consciousness under any -ism 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

Does my observation not pertain to your philosophy?

But also reasonable is the request that you provide an explanation of how one goes from the fundamental unit of consciousness under any -ism 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 just someone who thinks Physicalism is false.

How consciousness as a fundamental in the universe becomes human minds is a different category of problem than the Something From Nothing problem Physicalism faces.

As Sam Harris notes:

To say “Everything came out of nothing” is to assert a brute fact that defies our most basic intuitions of cause and effect—a miracle, in other words.

Likewise, the idea that consciousness is identical to (or emerged from) unconscious physical events is, I would argue, impossible to properly conceive—which is to say that we can think we are thinking it, but we are mistaken. We can say the right words, of course—“consciousness emerges from unconscious information processing.” We can also say “Some squares are as round as circles” and “2 plus 2 equals 7.” But are we really thinking these things all the way through? I don’t think so.

Consciousness—the sheer fact that this universe is illuminated by sentience—is precisely what unconsciousness is not. And I believe that no description of unconscious complexity will fully account for it. It seems to me that just as “something” and “nothing,” however juxtaposed, can do no explanatory work, an analysis of purely physical processes will never yield a picture of consciousness.

However, this is not to say that some other thesis about consciousness must be true. Consciousness may very well be the lawful product of unconscious information processing. But I don’t know what that sentence means—and I don’t think anyone else does either.

If you have an explanation for how you get any consciousness and overcome what Sam Harris notes as the Something From Nothing Problem of Physicalism let me know. If you have one you've given in the past that you think is good feel free to paste it and I'll see if it can meet my satisfaction.

In fact because of this Something from Nothing issue I'd say Physicalism is less a true metaphysics and more a religious faith. I'm apparently not the only one who feels that way given the way Peter Sjöstedt-H titled his essay:

Why I am not a Physicalist: Four Reasons for Rejecting the Faith

If the idea that somehow, someday this Something from Nothing problem will be overcome is a tenet of the materialist evangelical faith that's fine but it's best to just say so. I believe everyone has a right to their religious belief but religious faith shouldn't be confused for rational argument.

But I think Sjöstedt-H's essay is pretty decisive, and personally I've yet to read anything or talk to anyone who can provide anything even close to a satisfactory challenge to it.

Also Alex Rosenburg's atheist guide to reality is a scientism wankfest that's so egregious about it that even other atheists went jeez science ain't THAT great. As soon as someone starts going science is the only way to ALL knowledge you know to not take them seriously. Am I gonna listen to a physicist about particles? Sure. Am I gonna listen to a physicist about what nature walk I should go on, or what ethical position I should take on voting rights? Probably not. I think most people would agree with me on that point.

I don't think Rosenberg is correct as to the nature of reality.

But I do think he is correct as to the implications of Physicalism - we're just a collection of physical entities (particles, maybe also fields) that are on a choiceless course to Oblivion.

Why I think it is immoral for materialist evangelicals - which comprise a good bit of the pseudo-skeptical movement - to proselytize their faith.

I really don't see how arguing for Physicalism - at least the kind the pseudo-skeptical evangelists advocate for - can be morally justified. But some people are just that selfish I guess, it's not enough they don't believe in God or souls or whatever, they have to spread their disbelief no matter the psychological damage it causes others.

I don't think Rosenberg is correct as to the nature of reality.

But I do think he is correct as to the implications of Physicalism - we're just a collection of physical entities (particles, maybe also fields) that are on a choiceless course to Oblivion.

Why I think it is immoral for materialist evangelicals - which comprise a good bit of the pseudo-skeptical movement - to proselytize their faith.

I really don't see how arguing for Physicalism - at least the kind the pseudo-skeptical evangelists advocate for - can be morally justified. But some people are just that selfish I guess, it's not enough they don't believe in God or souls or whatever, they have to spread their disbelief no matter the psychological damage it causes others.

I don't know if I completely agree, but I think it's a disservice to the skeptics we have here like Paul, Malf and Steve to lump them in with that lot. We need to make sure to draw the fine line between people who advocate physicalism like absolute wankers and regular people. 

I don't think any of the skeptics here would go yup guys, consciousness? Not actually real. Talk therapy? Load of shit doesn't work just take drugs until you feel better. Science? Completely explains ethics should only listen to it. Humanities? Aren't relevant should just ignore them only hard science exists.

I don't know if I completely agree, but I think it's a disservice to the skeptics we have here like Paul, Malf and Steve to lump them in with that lot. We need to make sure to draw the fine line between people who advocate physicalism like absolute wankers and regular people. 

I don't think any of the skeptics here would go yup guys, consciousness? Not actually real. Talk therapy? Load of shit doesn't work just take drugs until you feel better. Science? Completely explains ethics should only listen to it. Humanities? Aren't relevant should just ignore them only hard science exists.

Everything I've read and people I've talked to have convincingly argued that if Physicalism is true all those negative consequences follow through.

If there's some argument that shows Physicalism can be true but doesn't mean human life is completely worthless....well I've never seen anything I found satisfactory.

But people are welcome to post something in this thread and I'll see if it meets my satisfaction.