Renaming the "Skeptic vs. Proponent Discussions" subforum

Have you ever laid out your own philosophical/ideological/metaphysical/ontological/whatever position anywhere? You claim not to identify with that label, which of course is your right, but I'm not sure where and how exactly it fails to describe you. Some of the sorts of questions I'd be interested in seeing answered somewhere (maybe in a new thread in the "Member Introductions" forum?) are:

• What is your position on consciousness aka the mind-body or "hard" problems?
  
• If not physicalist/materialist, then how would you generally describe your ontological views?
  
• Do you believe that any anomalous (psi, etc) phenomena exist or could exist? Which ones, and why or why not?
  

Also: though you and I have (had) our differences, if you ever feel physically threatened by any member here, please, in addition to letting the relevant authorities know, be sure to inform the admins here.

Yes. I usually say it as "methodological naturalism is useful."

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...1#pid21261
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...2#pid21432
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-u...2#pid14502

I can elaborate on any of those points in the linked threads.

Linda

Or, even though "Skeptic" may have been co-opted more broadly as "materialist-physicalist-atheist who rejects the paranormal", it's not like anyone here identifies with that label, nor are people like that showing up here (this site doesn't seem to attract skeptics, regardless). Everybody here seems to know what it's for. Who are you worried about confusing?

Linda

When I wrote this post, it referred to "Skeptic" as co-opted by some of those who adopt the name. That was wrong. The problem is that it has been co-opted by opponents to mean "materialist-physicalist-atheist who rejects the paranormal."

If dropping "Skeptic" from the name would save us from tiresome rants like Valmar just dropped, I'm all for that.

Linda

[Laird]

I can elaborate on any of those points in the linked threads.

It would be helpful if you did - that is, shared your answers to my questions - because, curiously enough, materialists/physicalists would also take the position that "methodological naturalism is useful", so we are no closer to working out how you distinguish yourself from that group.

I'm sorry, but this is such a blatant inversion of the reality, that I can't help but respond.

You physicalists are the ones who have co-opted the "skeptic" label to hide behind, so that you can pretend at being impartial and dispassionate. It's a rejection based on a dogmatic belief that everything is derived from matter and physics ~ and absolutely nothing else. A Divine Foot most absolutely can't be allowed in the door, so to speak, because otherwise, your whole belief system would shatter apart.

You, because you're very blatantly a physicalist, despite your squirming and obvious attempts at wordplay throughout your many posts. It's too obvious ~ to the point that any attempts at saying that you are impartial only make you look worse.

Not only "skeptic", but also "rational". There's nothing remotely rational about your deeply emotional and dogmatic religiously devout belief in physicalism.

/tired, irritated rant

Very accurate post !

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-u...9#pid25369
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-u...1#pid25371

Linda

[Laird]

So far, Linda, I've seen nothing that's really challenged the idea that you're a materialist/physicalist based on the positions you take in discussions. I've given you a chance, by asking you some key questions, to outline your actual beliefs so as to contrast them against the beliefs of physicalism/materialism, and instead you responded tersely and so as to reveal little to nothing about those beliefs. I guess, then, that many of us here on the forum are going to be left saying, "Hmm, she waddles like a duck, she quacks like a duck, and she avoids the opportunity to show us how/why she's not a duck, so...".

The only relatively interesting thing that I picked up on is that in one of the posts you originally referenced, you wrote parenthetically that 'if consciousness were fundamental, that would be one of [the things that would be too weird to call "material"]'. This shows that you're open at least in theory to the possibility of consciousness being fundamental, which (consciousness as fundamental) is incompatible with materialism/physicalism. However, as a dualist, I'm open in theory to the possibility of idealism being true - but I'm still a dualist, just as it seems likely that your "default" ontology is materialism/physicalism even though you're not comfortable identifying as a materialist/physicalist.

Interesting, too, along these lines, is that in that same post you identified as a "non-immaterialist". Remove the double negative and what are you left with...?...

Perhaps, then, you're simply less "rabid" about physicalism than, say, somebody like Steve001, who fits the co-opted definition of "skeptic" to a tee...

Immaterialists vs. Non-Immaterialists?

[Laird]

"Some of my best friends are non-immaterialists".

Anti-non-immaterialism may be an idea whose time has come. If we can only work out what it means.