Why I'm not a Physicalist - Four reasons for Rejecting the Faith

I wonder if this fellow while thinking deeply realizes the irony  of putting out this message while using electricity to send information through miles of cables across the internet using a device based upon quantum physics?

I wonder if this fellow while thinking deeply realizes the irony  of putting out this message while using electricity to send information through miles of cables across the internet using a device based upon quantum physics?

There isn't any irony at all, nothing he said is relevant to the facts you state.

It does reveal you likely didn't even listen to his arguments though.

There isn't any irony at all, nothing he said is relevant to the facts you state.

It does reveal you likely didn't even listen to his arguments though.

No I did not. Does he present something that's not been said before?

P.S. Reading the comments tells me he's said nothing new. 
Thanks for the Like.

No I did not. Does he present something that's not been said before?

P.S. Reading the comments tells me he's said nothing new. 
Thanks for the Like.

You have no refutations for his arguments, why does there need to be something new.

All these years and you still don't seem to understand what "materialism" or "immaterialism" mean...

And you're welcome. :-)

You have no refutations for his arguments, why does there need to be something new.

All these years and you still don't seem to understand what "materialism" or "immaterialism" mean...

And you're welcome. :-)

I care only in so far as to understand why some people do care. You tell me what you think I do not know.

Why should anyone care for his opinion? Presenting such videos is not going to change anyone's mind. Doing such is analogous to the debatevover which is better Star Wars or Star Trek. Some will think one is better than the other.

The problem I have with such statements is that they don’t get us very far. Observations of facts in nature though, *have* uncovered counterintuitive things about the way we were taught to understand the world, like quantum mechanics. which is genuinely different, and I reckon impossible to have got to directly, by simply chopping logic. It rather feels like sniping from the sidelines to me. Yes he’s right, there are problems with how we currently understand nature, but it’s the people who are making observations, taking measurements who are at least doing something to try and move us forward. You may not agree with them, but they are finding ways of joining up observations. I mean the observations are going to be correct, they won’t change, it’s the joining up that changes. The bigger the volume of information available, the more likely somebody is going to come along and generalise all the laws again.

You can see that QM is informational, that spacetime is the result of processing that information, that gravity is an effect that shows as some type of ordering of that information, and eventually the theories are all going to feedback into providing us with greater insight into ourselves.

Rather like a boat tacking into the wind, we’re going to have to keep going in a less than ideal direction until a course change is forced upon us. But what you can’t do is chuck out current theories until we have something better to replace them with. That is the fundamental misunderstanding I see here, yes he may have some good points, but does he actually have anything better which can replace the current theories. Stating that by dumping physical theories we can open up a world of possibilities is as much use as a chocolate fire guard, you simply don’t dump existing theories until you have something better to replace them with.

[Laird]

But what you can’t do is chuck out current theories until we have something better to replace them with. That is the fundamental misunderstanding I see here, yes he may have some good points, but does he actually have anything better which can replace the current theories.

I don't think he's advocating "chuck[ing] out current [scientific] theories" - one can reject physicalism without rejecting scientific theories, although you would probably have to take the position that scientific theories are an incomplete description of reality.

Whilst there the usual smattering of wordplay and pseudoprofundity, it is refreshing to hear the call for agnosticism. Other models of reality face perhaps even trickier counters than the ones presented above.

It’s also fun to back a horse though right?  :LOL:

Whilst there the usual smattering of wordplay and pseudoprofundity, it is refreshing to hear the call for agnosticism. Other models of reality face perhaps even trickier counters than the ones presented above.

It’s also fun to back a horse though right? 

"Pseudoprofundity" seems to be a particular niggle for you, Malf. Makes me wonder what you would consider as true profundity? Also what is its opposite: cynicism perhaps? I say that because it often seems to me that those who call themselves skeptics often don't know the line which separates skepticism from cynicism.