4 ms·

None of your postulates are accurate or well-defined. --I don't know what 'physicalism' means. --Mainstream science doesn't even claim to know what consciousn

None of your postulates are accurate or well-defined. --I don't know what 'physicalism' means. --Mainstream science doesn't even claim to know what consciousness is, let alone what it can be reduced to. --Science does not operate on the principle of causation. The point is to make falsifiable predictions that can, when verified, be considered as evidence that your hypothesis for how things work might just be how they work. There is just so much we don't know. Using science to justify some new-agey claptrap about determinism is just malfeasance.

amasad 9y ago
>None of your postulates are accurate or well-defined. >--I don't know what 'physicalism' means. Is "well-defined" a codeword for "I don't understand"? Physicalism is as well-defined of a concept as anything can be. >--Mainstream science doesn't even claim to know what consciousness is, let alone what it can be reduced to. Since you don't understand what is "physicalism" I don't think you're going to get this point. The idea is that everything is reduced to elementary physical structures. Therefore nothing can be extra-physcial, super-natural or otherwise. I.e. non-dualist. Therefore the mind must be reduced to physical structures. >--Science does not operate on the principle of causation. So is there anything that is uncaused? When the scientist constructs an experiment do they think "oh what if the billiard ball moved without cause?". >There is just so much we don't know. Using science to justify some new-agey claptrap about determinism is just malfeasance. Actually "new-agey" thought tries to do the exact opposite: save dualism and free will.
- tacomonstrous 9y ago
  >The idea is that everything is reduced to elementary physical structures. Therefore nothing can be extra-physcial, super-natural or otherwise. I.e. non-dualist. Therefore the mind must be reduced to physical structures. I understand that some people claim this to be a definition, but that hardly makes it one. What's 'extra-physical'? To do this, you must first define what boundaries physicality has. I don't think there is any good definition to be offered here without begging the question. >So is there anything that is uncaused? When the scientist constructs an experiment do they think "oh what if the billiard ball moved without cause?". A scientist has a model for certain phenomena that can be verified experimentally. One can call this causality, sure, but that it leads inexorably towards determinism seems far from clear to me. >Actually "new-agey" thought tries to do the exact opposite: save dualism and free will. I have no opinion on the question of 'free will' as you frame it. Is it part of the human condition that one's circumstances have a large role to play in how life proceeds? Certainly! I'm just against the view that science has anything to say about it.
  - amasad 9y ago
    >I understand that some people claim this to be a definition, but that hardly makes it one. What's 'extra-physical'? To do this, you must first define what boundaries physicality has. I don't think there is any good definition to be offered here without begging the question. I get that this question can be recursively applied. It's children's favorite game -- to keep asking "what is ____?". I'm going to guess that you disagree with philosophy as a whole and will keep questioning if anything philosophers discuss is well-defined. If that's the case why are we then discussing philosophy? EDIT: you can also say "I disagree with physicalism" or "I'm a dualist". But saying all those things are not well-defined is merely a cop-out.
    - tacomonstrous 9y ago
      We can discuss philosophical notions, but then we are discussing philosophy and not science. I just have a distaste for bringing science into a discussion where it can be finagled into whatever one finds convenient for the matter at hand.

amasad 9y ago

>None of your postulates are accurate or well-defined. >--I don't know what 'physicalism' means. Is "well-defined" a codeword for "I don't understand"? Physicalism is as well-defined of a concept as anything can be. >--Mainstream science doesn't even claim to know what consciousness is, let alone what it can be reduced to. Since you don't understand what is "physicalism" I don't think you're going to get this point. The idea is that everything is reduced to elementary physical structures. Therefore nothing can be extra-physcial, super-natural or otherwise. I.e. non-dualist. Therefore the mind must be reduced to physical structures. >--Science does not operate on the principle of causation. So is there anything that is uncaused? When the scientist constructs an experiment do they think "oh what if the billiard ball moved without cause?". >There is just so much we don't know. Using science to justify some new-agey claptrap about determinism is just malfeasance. Actually "new-agey" thought tries to do the exact opposite: save dualism and free will.

tacomonstrous 9y ago
>The idea is that everything is reduced to elementary physical structures. Therefore nothing can be extra-physcial, super-natural or otherwise. I.e. non-dualist. Therefore the mind must be reduced to physical structures. I understand that some people claim this to be a definition, but that hardly makes it one. What's 'extra-physical'? To do this, you must first define what boundaries physicality has. I don't think there is any good definition to be offered here without begging the question. >So is there anything that is uncaused? When the scientist constructs an experiment do they think "oh what if the billiard ball moved without cause?". A scientist has a model for certain phenomena that can be verified experimentally. One can call this causality, sure, but that it leads inexorably towards determinism seems far from clear to me. >Actually "new-agey" thought tries to do the exact opposite: save dualism and free will. I have no opinion on the question of 'free will' as you frame it. Is it part of the human condition that one's circumstances have a large role to play in how life proceeds? Certainly! I'm just against the view that science has anything to say about it.
- amasad 9y ago
  >I understand that some people claim this to be a definition, but that hardly makes it one. What's 'extra-physical'? To do this, you must first define what boundaries physicality has. I don't think there is any good definition to be offered here without begging the question. I get that this question can be recursively applied. It's children's favorite game -- to keep asking "what is ____?". I'm going to guess that you disagree with philosophy as a whole and will keep questioning if anything philosophers discuss is well-defined. If that's the case why are we then discussing philosophy? EDIT: you can also say "I disagree with physicalism" or "I'm a dualist". But saying all those things are not well-defined is merely a cop-out.
  - tacomonstrous 9y ago
    We can discuss philosophical notions, but then we are discussing philosophy and not science. I just have a distaste for bringing science into a discussion where it can be finagled into whatever one finds convenient for the matter at hand.