predictions. I also hinted at the fact that science is dominated by a philosophical view that, at its core, the universe is a lifeless sandbox – and things such as life, intelligence or consciousness are just by-products of complex swirling of inanimate matter and energy.
Which? You start off by saying there is no life, according to physicalism, and then go on to say that there is but it is merely emergent, which isn’t good enough...because?
Even if you could observe everything and find all patterns in the universe, you still need a philosophical framework to put it in context and to explain what’s inherently unobservable.
Yep. And physicalism is such a framework. If you think it is the wrong framework, you need to say why, not just note that it is a framework.
Even if everything is accounted for in the entire history, new, unexpected patterns could still emerge in the future.
Again that amounts to saying physicalism isn’t necessarily true , but most physicalists don’t claim that …they claim.something like “physicalism is the best metaphysical account for why science works at all”.
There are countless ways how God/creator/&?# could make reality appear “physicalistic” to us while in fact it would not be so.
Yes, but most of all.of them can be objected to on the grounds of parsimony.
So the only “special place” physicalism holds among philosophical views is that it introduces the least amount of “extra assumptions.” But that says nothing about its ultimate plausibility.
Yes, it does. There is a proof in probabilistic logic that the hypotheses with the fewest assumptions are more plausible.
Physicalism became perceived as something “more” than a belief. More or less consciously, it was touted as the most scientific, rational, logical, plausible and believable philosophy out there
something can be more than a belief , and less than a fact or necessary truth.
The fact that physicalism “filled a spiritual hole left by divorce from religion” explains why it became engrained as one of the unquestioned “dogmas” in scientific circles
Does it?.Maybe there is another explanation. You are making no attempt to consider the best arguments for physicalism. (BTW, the best argument against it is the Hard Problem of Consciousness, which you dont mention)
Physicalism also implies that all our decisions are fully determined by our previous conditioning – determinism –
No, physicalism doesn’t imply determinism… And determinism doesn’t imply hard determinism.
I am not the one originally making the claim that the experiments that proved non-locality of QM had profound implications on metaphysical and philosophical discourse.
Quantum physics is physics, so it can’t disprove physicalism.
I THANK YOU for this comment. It’s the discussion I wanted from LW. I’m terribly sorry for replying so late as I missed it!
You start off by saying there is no life, according to physicalism, and then go on to say that there is but it is merely emergent, which isn’t good enough...because?
I’m saying physicalism posits the universe as an inherently lifeless sandbox – that by default, it is not alive, and just churns matter and energy around. Never said it’s not good enough.
Yep. And physicalism is such a framework. If you think it is the wrong framework, you need to say why, not just note that it is a framework.
But that is exactly the point!
No, physicalism doesn’t imply determinism… And determinism doesn’t imply hard determinism.
You are right! I used the wrong word, I meant to use implicates – anyway, at that point I didn’t have all the pieces about determinism/physicalism crystallized but now I have the arguments laid out in my newest article.
So the only “special place” physicalism holds among philosophical views is that it introduces the least amount of “extra assumptions.” But that says nothing about its ultimate plausibility.
Yes, it does. There is a proof in probabilistic logic that the hypotheses with the fewest assumptions are more plausible.
This I see as the crux of all of this. Yes, we can invoke probabilistic logic and say physicalism, among all other interpretations, has a higher probability of being the correct one, because it has fewest extra assumptions. But the logical fallacy that I point to, is that this does not mean we should operate as it is the most likely explanation. As you say, there are many other arguments, interpretations, etc. – so what I’m saying is let’s not get stuck within a small physicalist-like space of possibility.
The way how this translates to practice is again best put in my new post here.
Which? You start off by saying there is no life, according to physicalism, and then go on to say that there is but it is merely emergent, which isn’t good enough...because?
Yep. And physicalism is such a framework. If you think it is the wrong framework, you need to say why, not just note that it is a framework.
Again that amounts to saying physicalism isn’t necessarily true , but most physicalists don’t claim that …they claim.something like “physicalism is the best metaphysical account for why science works at all”.
Yes, but most of all.of them can be objected to on the grounds of parsimony.
Yes, it does. There is a proof in probabilistic logic that the hypotheses with the fewest assumptions are more plausible.
something can be more than a belief , and less than a fact or necessary truth.
Does it?.Maybe there is another explanation. You are making no attempt to consider the best arguments for physicalism. (BTW, the best argument against it is the Hard Problem of Consciousness, which you dont mention)
No, physicalism doesn’t imply determinism… And determinism doesn’t imply hard determinism.
Quantum physics is physics, so it can’t disprove physicalism.
PS, what *is the logical fallacy in the title
@Gordon Seidoh Worley
Physicalism, like all metaphysical claims, can’t be proven finally, but can be argued for and against in various ways.
I THANK YOU for this comment. It’s the discussion I wanted from LW. I’m terribly sorry for replying so late as I missed it!
I’m saying physicalism posits the universe as an inherently lifeless sandbox – that by default, it is not alive, and just churns matter and energy around. Never said it’s not good enough.
But that is exactly the point!
You are right! I used the wrong word, I meant to use implicates – anyway, at that point I didn’t have all the pieces about determinism/physicalism crystallized but now I have the arguments laid out in my newest article.
This I see as the crux of all of this. Yes, we can invoke probabilistic logic and say physicalism, among all other interpretations, has a higher probability of being the correct one, because it has fewest extra assumptions. But the logical fallacy that I point to, is that this does not mean we should operate as it is the most likely explanation. As you say, there are many other arguments, interpretations, etc. – so what I’m saying is let’s not get stuck within a small physicalist-like space of possibility.
The way how this translates to practice is again best put in my new post here.