The Materialism/Physicalism Con

#1
I've been dancing around this point for a while but the fact as that as soon as something is perceived within the physical system, materialists simply claim that it is therefore physical. And since there is no standard state way to directly perceive non-physical well . . . . . lol
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#2
I've been dancing around this point for a while but the fact as that as soon as something is perceived within the physical system, materialists simply claim that it is therefore physical. And since there is no standard state way to directly perceive non-physical well . . . . . lol
If you don't think that everything we perceive is either physical or mental, then you're a dualist. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but of course a monist is going to define everything that interacts with the physical as physical, or everything that interacts with the mental as mental.

I don't think this line of questioning will get us anywhere until we can prove that something must be physical or must be mental. As in a logical proof.

~~ Paul
 
#3
I've been dancing around this point for a while but the fact as that as soon as something is perceived within the physical system, materialists simply claim that it is therefore physical. And since there is no standard state way to directly perceive non-physical well . . . . . lol
It's kind of strange considering that a.) The physical is 99.9999999 empty space and b.) it can only be mentally perceived. We have no way of knowing whether the physical even exists without the mental. As far as we can know, the physical is 100% dependent on the existence of life.
 
#4
If you don't think that everything we perceive is either physical or mental, then you're a dualist.
Another example of a lack of basic comprehension. Set aside things like physical/non-physical, it's that you almost always seem to not understand expressed concepts clearly. You attempt to fit things into what you know best and so often fail. It's as if someone would post "The plant is in the blue pot" and you'd respond with "trees do better in the open ground."
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#5
Another example of a lack of basic comprehension. Set aside things like physical/non-physical, it's that you almost always seem to not understand expressed concepts clearly. You attempt to fit things into what you know best and so often fail. It's as if someone would post "The plant is in the blue pot" and you'd respond with "trees do better in the open ground."
Why do you insist on accusing me of not comprehending, but then never try to clarify what you said? Don't you realize that it makes you appear not to understand what you're talking about?

You expressed no deep concept. You said:

"... but the fact as that as soon as something is perceived within the physical system, materialists simply claim that it is therefore physical. And since there is no standard state [sic] way to directly perceive non-physical well . . . . . lol"

Why would a physicalist think that anything was nonphysical? Why would an idealist think that anything was physical? If a physicalist perceives some new sort of thing, then s/he will try to work it into the physicalist model. If the person is a scientist, then s/he will try to find theories to explain it. Even if it is something "not physical," such as an emotion, s/he will still try to explain it using underlying biological theories. If it turns out to be really strange, then s/he will invent quantum mechanics.

Let me ask this: How is this physicalist "con" any different from the idealist con?

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#6
It's kind of strange considering that a.) The physical is 99.9999999 empty space and b.) it can only be mentally perceived. We have no way of knowing whether the physical even exists without the mental. As far as we can know, the physical is 100% dependent on the existence of life.
Only if you believe that the universe did not exist until there was life. I would be careful to distinguish the perception of the universe from the existence of the universe. Indeed, though, it is tempting to think that there is nothing but human consciousness (solipsism). However, then we cannot explain why the trees in my yard are consistent from one viewing to the next. So we have to invent a global consciousness, unknown and unperceived, that maintains the trees when no one is looking. One way or the other, there is something more than human consciousness and we have no reason to insist that it is consciousness-like.

~~ Paul
 
#7
I've been dancing around this point for a while but the fact as that as soon as something is perceived within the physical system, materialists simply claim that it is therefore physical. And since there is no standard state way to directly perceive non-physical well . . . . . lol
Quantum information, the wave function, vacuum flux, space time, fields.
Information is not matter or energy and matter is exicitations within feilds that are not made of matter, alas matter does not create matter.

It is physicalism now, so if something such as nothing eg. Space time, happens to be warped by matter and then the curved nothing then dictates the behaviour of matter. With something acting on nothing, curving the nothing to act on the something then it is all honkey doorey. Heh, the physical laws themselves are not physical. Matter follows laws it does not create them.

What was the explanatory power of materialism again? What is it explaining again?
 
#8
Why do you insist on accusing me of not comprehending, but then never try to clarify what you said?
HFS!! How many times are you going to ask ,me the same thing? Because I get annoyed at constantly diverting from the topic at hand into explaining basic stuff at the comprehension level. Based on my OP you respond "you're a dualist." Whaaat?? No offense, but that's just stupid stuff. And then to respond to you means spending time on that stupid stuff. Either you willfully divert conversations or ??? Either way, I'm not doing that dance.
 
#9
Only if you believe that the universe did not exist until there was life. I would be careful to distinguish the perception of the universe from the existence of the universe. Indeed, though, it is tempting to think that there is nothing but human consciousness (solipsism). However, then we cannot explain why the trees in my yard are consistent from one viewing to the next. So we have to invent a global consciousness, unknown and unperceived, that maintains the trees when no one is looking. One way or the other, there is something more than human consciousness and we have no reason to insist that it is consciousness-like.

~~ Paul
So close, yet so, so far away.
 
#10
Only if you believe that the universe did not exist until there was life. I would be careful to distinguish the perception of the universe from the existence of the universe. Indeed, though, it is tempting to think that there is nothing but human consciousness (solipsism). However, then we cannot explain why the trees in my yard are consistent from one viewing to the next. So we have to invent a global consciousness, unknown and unperceived, that maintains the trees when no one is looking. One way or the other, there is something more than human consciousness and we have no reason to insist that it is consciousness-like.

~~ Paul
Your posts are like the most basic level talking points aimed at whatever the topic is at hand. It's fucking boring and stupid. Why are you here?
 
#11
Only if you believe that the universe did not exist until there was life. I would be careful to distinguish the perception of the universe from the existence of the universe. Indeed, though, it is tempting to think that there is nothing but human consciousness (solipsism). However, then we cannot explain why the trees in my yard are consistent from one viewing to the next. So we have to invent a global consciousness, unknown and unperceived, that maintains the trees when no one is looking. One way or the other, there is something more than human consciousness and we have no reason to insist that it is consciousness-like.

~~ Paul
I can kinda relate to that train of thought, though it isnt that easy. How do we know that there is more then human consciousness? Everything i percieve is in consciousness. That various objects around me dont move just like that could be a image created by consciousness. Since i cant percieve things outside of my consciousness i cant prove that. Every test that we conduct and everything others tell me is something that i percieve in consciousness. It could be that you are all just constructs of my mind or that we are all just a large network of connected minds. Im not willing to pick one of those options right now - its just that these are just as likely as a objective world outside of consciousness. And since we only percieve things in consciousness, why would i rule out those possibilities? I cant test the claim that theres something outside of my perception - i know though that i percieve things.
 
#12
If you don't think that everything we perceive is either physical or mental, then you're a dualist. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but of course a monist is going to define everything that interacts with the physical as physical, or everything that interacts with the mental as mental.

I don't think this line of questioning will get us anywhere until we can prove that something must be physical or must be mental. As in a logical proof.

~~ Paul
I think I prefer ther terms 'internal' and 'external', with my body somewhere between the two, and I can't conceive of an either/or, You need both. Neither exists without the other.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#13
I can kinda relate to that train of thought, though it isnt that easy. How do we know that there is more then human consciousness? Everything i percieve is in consciousness. That various objects around me dont move just like that could be a image created by consciousness.
But you are not conscious of them all the time. Why are they consistent?

Since i cant percieve things outside of my consciousness i cant prove that. Every test that we conduct and everything others tell me is something that i percieve in consciousness. It could be that you are all just constructs of my mind or that we are all just a large network of connected minds. Im not willing to pick one of those options right now - its just that these are just as likely as a objective world outside of consciousness.
There is an objective world outside of consciousness, where objective means "not generated by my consciousness." The question is whether that world is maintained by some other kind of consciousness or maintained physically.

And since we only percieve things in consciousness, why would i rule out those possibilities? I cant test the claim that theres something outside of my perception - i know though that i percieve things.
I wouldn't rule out the possibility at all. But I wouldn't rule out physicalism, either.

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#14
I think I prefer ther terms 'internal' and 'external', with my body somewhere between the two, and I can't conceive of an either/or, You need both. Neither exists without the other.
Philosophers would argue whether the internal and external are of the same kind, or whether they are different kinds (dualism). I'm not sure how we can actually know.

~~ Paul
 
#15
I can kinda relate to that train of thought, though it isnt that easy. How do we know that there is more then human consciousness? .
I think I prefer ther terms 'internal' and 'external',
These responses are examples of the only reason I don't put that guy on ignore. He derails threads. Though both your responses are thoughtful and valid, they are geared at something he brought up. Something that, as usual, has only a tenuous connection the the topic of this thread. So he gets to do what he always does, derail the topic-at-hand and spin silly about his basic concept du jour.
 
#17
I've been dancing around this point for a while but the fact as that as soon as something is perceived within the physical system, materialists simply claim that it is therefore physical. And since there is no standard state way to directly perceive non-physical well . . . . . lol
Where are you coming from Saiko? What's your metaphysical starting point here?
 
#18
But you are not conscious of them all the time. Why are they consistent?


There is an objective world outside of consciousness, where objective means "not generated by my consciousness." The question is whether that world is maintained by some other kind of consciousness or maintained physically.


I wouldn't rule out the possibility at all. But I wouldn't rule out physicalism, either.

~~ Paul
Oh humans are always conscious (my pov i guess...^^). Those are just several different types of consciousness. You do percieve things while you sleep (otherwise you wouldnt wake up from noises and stuff like that). And when we stick to materialism/physicalism and its explanatations im also capable to percieve things while im "unconscious". That would explain some OBE's and stuff like that.

And well, if i would want to be bold about it: Why wouldnt it be consistent? If my mind would be everything that exists then it would have been capable to create this whole world that i percieve all the time. It would already have created the concepts of time and space. Being consistent with it should be easy then :)

Its alteast your pov that there is a world outside of consciousness. Im not so sure about that. We humans dont know as much about those things as we would like to. Sadly.

Of course, physicalism is also a possibility. But just like the systems im describing, physicalism is pretty much unproveable. The whole thing is a great topic to discuss for hours and hours - we wont get any answers though. No one will.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#20
Oh humans are always conscious (my pov i guess...^^). Those are just several different types of consciousness. You do percieve things while you sleep (otherwise you wouldnt wake up from noises and stuff like that). And when we stick to materialism/physicalism and its explanatations im also capable to percieve things while im "unconscious". That would explain some OBE's and stuff like that.
But I don't think we would want to say that we are sufficiently conscious to maintain the entire world. After all, things happen all the time that we were not conscious of, nor did we dream them.

And well, if i would want to be bold about it: Why wouldnt it be consistent? If my mind would be everything that exists then it would have been capable to create this whole world that i percieve all the time. It would already have created the concepts of time and space. Being consistent with it should be easy then :)
But you don't remember doing that, so how do you know you did? Even if it is "you" doing everything, some of the things are done nonconsciously, or objectively. So how do you know it was you doing it?

Its alteast your pov that there is a world outside of consciousness. Im not so sure about that. We humans dont know as much about those things as we would like to. Sadly.
It seems to me there is a world outside my consciousness by definition. Otherwise I would be conscious of everything.

Of course, physicalism is also a possibility. But just like the systems im describing, physicalism is pretty much unproveable. The whole thing is a great topic to discuss for hours and hours - we wont get any answers though. No one will.
I agree.

~~ Paul
 
Top