Physicalism

[Zosimus]

It is commonly believed by most (or perhaps all) atheists that everything is physical. That is to say that reality consists only of material objects, such as atoms, molecules, etc., and physical phenomena that can be measured (such as nuclear forces, electromagnetic radiation, etc). It is my claim that this is false.

Imagine, if you will, a super-scientist far in the future named Mary. She lives at a time when all physical facts are known and all scientific knowledge has been gained. She lives in a black-and-white room, eats black and white food, and learns all the physical facts by watching a monochrome monitor. When at last she has proved that she knows all the physical facts, she is released from her room where she sees a red rose for the first time.

Now Mary knows all about roses and about red. She knows about cones and rods in the eye, the optic nerve, the neurons involved, the manner in which all of these things work. Yet when she sees the red rose, she learns something new. She learned what it's like to see something red. Since previous to this time Mary had all physical knowledge, what she has learned is a non-physical truth. Accordingly, physicalism is false.

Given that at least one non-physical thing is known to exist, the qualia of red, we can deduce that other non-physical things and knowledge may also exist. Accordingly, no physical description of the universe can ever be complete and physics will never be able to describe all that is.

 

[crjmurray]

It is commonly believed by most (or perhaps all) atheists that everything is physical. That is to say that reality consists only of material objects, such as atoms, molecules, etc., and physical phenomena that can be measured (such as nuclear forces, electromagnetic radiation, etc). It is my claim that this is false.

And we'll all be very excited to see you back that up.

 

[Zosimus]

And we'll all be very excited to see you back that up.

Once again you err.

The above argument is the same argument made by Frank Jackson in his 1982 article Epiphenomenal Qualia. Jackson states, "It seems just obvious that she will learn something about the world and our visual experience of it. But then it is inescapable that her previous knowledge was incomplete. But she had all the physical information. Ergo there is more to have than that, and Physicalism is false."

It is considered an improvement on the What Is it Like to Be a Bat? argument, which also refutes physicalism.

 

[crjmurray]

Once again you err.

The above argument is the same argument made by Frank Jackson in his 1982 article Epiphenomenal Qualia. Jackson states, "It seems just obvious that she will learn something about the world and our visual experience of it. But then it is inescapable that her previous knowledge was incomplete. But she had all the physical information. Ergo there is more to have than that, and Physicalism is false."

It is considered an improvement on the What Is it Like to Be a Bat? argument, which also refutes physicalism.

That's nice but as I said, we're waiting for you to back up your initial statement. Edge of our seat and whatnot.

 

[Willtor]

It is commonly believed by most (or perhaps all) atheists that everything is physical. That is to say that reality consists only of material objects, such as atoms, molecules, etc., and physical phenomena that can be measured (such as nuclear forces, electromagnetic radiation, etc). It is my claim that this is false.

Imagine, if you will, a super-scientist far in the future named Mary. She lives at a time when all physical facts are known and all scientific knowledge has been gained. She lives in a black-and-white room, eats black and white food, and learns all the physical facts by watching a monochrome monitor. When at last she has proved that she knows all the physical facts, she is released from her room where she sees a red rose for the first time.

Now Mary knows all about roses and about red. She knows about cones and rods in the eye, the optic nerve, the neurons involved, the manner in which all of these things work. Yet when she sees the red rose, she learns something new. She learned what it's like to see something red. Since previous to this time Mary had all physical knowledge, what she has learned is a non-physical truth. Accordingly, physicalism is false.

Given that at least one non-physical thing is known to exist, the qualia of red, we can deduce that other non-physical things and knowledge may also exist. Accordingly, no physical description of the universe can ever be complete and physics will never be able to describe all that is.

So, this is philosophy. Maybe right, maybe not. But this forum is for Creation and Evolution discussion.

 

[Zosimus]

Since we all agree that physicalism is false, it follows that there must be a non-physical reality. As such, it is unnecessary to postulate that life arose spontaneously from non-life. If life did not arise spontaneously from non-life, then the most reasonable belief is that life was created by a non-physical entity. If that is true, then Darwinism and its surrounding theories (the modern evolutionary synthesis) are uncompelling theories.

QED

 

[Willtor]

Since we all agree that physicalism is false, it follows that there must be a non-physical reality. As such, it is unnecessary to postulate that life arose spontaneously from non-life. If life did not arise spontaneously from non-life, then the most reasonable belief is that life was created by a non-physical entity. If that is true, then Darwinism and its surrounding theories (the modern evolutionary synthesis) are uncompelling theories.

QED

That doesn't follow. Why should the existence of a non-physical reality preclude abiogenesis?

 

[sfs]

Since we all agree that physicalism is false, it follows that there must be a non-physical reality. As such, it is unnecessary to postulate that life arose spontaneously from non-life. If life did not arise spontaneously from non-life, then the most reasonable belief is that life was created by a non-physical entity. If that is true, then Darwinism and its surrounding theories (the modern evolutionary synthesis) are uncompelling theories.

QED

None of the steps in your argument follow from what precedes them. ) If physicalism is false, then it does not follow that there must be a non-physical reality that can cause physical events. If it is not necessary to postulate that life arose spontaneously from non-life, it does not imply that life did not arise spontaneously from non-life. If life did not arise spontaneously from non-life, then there is no obvious reason why creation by a non-physical entity is the most reasonable belief -- based on what reasons? (Other possibilities would include eternal existence, spontaneous introduction from some other physical universe and a temporal loop. There may be arguments showing that these are less reasonable, but you haven't made any of them.) If life was created by a non-physical entity, then the modern evolutionary synthesis remains just as compelling as it did before, since the theory depends not at all on where life came from.

Not one step was a valid argument.

 

[essentialsaltes]

"It seems just obvious that she will learn something"

Well there's a potent argument for you.

 

[The Cadet]

It is commonly believed by most (or perhaps all) atheists that everything is physical. That is to say that reality consists only of material objects, such as atoms, molecules, etc., and physical phenomena that can be measured (such as nuclear forces, electromagnetic radiation, etc). It is my claim that this is false.

Imagine, if you will, a super-scientist far in the future named Mary. She lives at a time when all physical facts are known and all scientific knowledge has been gained. She lives in a black-and-white room, eats black and white food, and learns all the physical facts by watching a monochrome monitor. When at last she has proved that she knows all the physical facts, she is released from her room where she sees a red rose for the first time.

Now Mary knows all about roses and about red. She knows about cones and rods in the eye, the optic nerve, the neurons involved, the manner in which all of these things work. Yet when she sees the red rose, she learns something new. She learned what it's like to see something red. Since previous to this time Mary had all physical knowledge, what she has learned is a non-physical truth. Accordingly, physicalism is false.

Given that at least one non-physical thing is known to exist, the qualia of red, we can deduce that other non-physical things and knowledge may also exist. Accordingly, no physical description of the universe can ever be complete and physics will never be able to describe all that is.

I reject the premise that Mary knows or could know all physical facts, as I see no reason to believe that the knowledge of what it's like to experience or be something is non-physical, or could reasonably be defined as non-physical. True, Mary has no immediate access to the knowledge without pursuing it and experiencing it herself, but it is still electrical impulses within her brain.

Since we all agree that physicalism is false, it follows that there must be a non-physical reality. As such, it is unnecessary to postulate that life arose spontaneously from non-life. If life did not arise spontaneously from non-life, then the most reasonable belief is that life was created by a non-physical entity. If that is true, then Darwinism and its surrounding theories (the modern evolutionary synthesis) are uncompelling theories.

QED

This is a complete mess of non-sequiturs, as sfs pointed out.

 

[Chany]

A bit anecdotal, but my first year philosophy professor told me that Frank Johnson actually stopped supporting this argument. He never said what argument caused him to do this, but he said we can make an educated guess as to which argument did it. I cannot find my notes, though, so I can't recall the argument. I know one of them is the "propositional knowledge vs. experiential knowledge" Cadet brought up, but I cannot remember if it was the one of the two arguments we discussed. Probably locked away with the rest of my notes in my "do not open til next semester" college stuff.

Also, the existence of abstract Platonic objects (non-physical, non-mental existing objects) does not indicate theism, though it helps it case. Try again.

 

[cloudyday2]

If Mary had all that knowledge including the state of her brain, then she could deduce how seeing the rose would feel without having seen it (assuming that this feeling is mostly deterministic).

 

[cloudyday2]

It also seems like the argument is begging the question. It assumes there is a "feeling" or "experience" of seeing the rose that can't be understood from reading a science textbook, and then it uses this assumption to prove that there are things that transcend science.

 

[Zosimus]

None of the steps in your argument follow from what precedes them. ) If physicalism is false, then it does not follow that there must be a non-physical reality that can cause physical events. If it is not necessary to postulate that life arose spontaneously from non-life, it does not imply that life did not arise spontaneously from non-life. If life did not arise spontaneously from non-life, then there is no obvious reason why creation by a non-physical entity is the most reasonable belief -- based on what reasons? (Other possibilities would include eternal existence, spontaneous introduction from some other physical universe and a temporal loop. There may be arguments showing that these are less reasonable, but you haven't made any of them.) If life was created by a non-physical entity, then the modern evolutionary synthesis remains just as compelling as it did before, since the theory depends not at all on where life came from.

Not one step was a valid argument.

* If physicalism is false, then there are non-physical elements such as qualia.
* Qualia have an effect on the physical world. Someone who knows what it's like to see color is more likely to paint his or her room in color than one who merely has a complete knowledge of all the physical facts about color, the eye, and how visual stimulae are processed by the brain.
* Since non-physical things exist and are known to have an effect on the physical world, it is not unreasonable to believe that undiscovered non-physical things may also exist and may also be able to influence the physical world.
* You claim that I need to show that life could not have always existed or that life did not merely get introduced here by some other physical universe. However, this argument is specious because a) since my only claim was that Darwinism is an uncompelling theory as there are alternate theories that are more likely to be true, it is not on me to prove that non-physical intervention in the physical world is more likely than an introduction of physical life from an alternate universe but rather on you to demonstrate that Darwinism is a compelling theory; and b) most of your supposed refutations do nothing to refute the claim; for example, the claim that life merely arrived from an alternate physical universe only postpones the question because then we have to determine how that life came about.

 

[Zosimus]

I reject the premise that Mary knows or could know all physical facts, as I see no reason to believe that the knowledge of what it's like to experience or be something is non-physical, or could reasonably be defined as non-physical. True, Mary has no immediate access to the knowledge without pursuing it and experiencing it herself, but it is still electrical impulses within her brain.

In order to make that assertion, you must resolve Hempel's dilemma, which is as follows:

If physicalism is defined with reference to the current state of physics, then physicalism is false because the current state of physics is known to be both incorrect and incomplete.

However, if physicalism is defined with reference to a future, idealized state of physics in which physics is both correct and complete, then the definition of physical is trivial because who can predict what future physics will contain? It may well be that a future, complete physics will define God as part of the natural, physical world.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#HemDil

 

[Zosimus]

It also seems like the argument is begging the question. It assumes there is a "feeling" or "experience" of seeing the rose that can't be understood from reading a science textbook, and then it uses this assumption to prove that there are things that transcend science.

I think you are missing the point. To make it clearer, let us assume that we are talking not about a human investigating a human but about an alien investigating a human. Let us assume that some alien captures an astronaut. This alien is so advanced that the alien has a machine that lets it determine all physical facts about anything that is placed under the machine. However, the alien does not have eyes as we do. In fact, The alien navigates his way through his world much as a bat does, by emitting a series of high-pitched squeaks that echo back to his ears so that he knows much about the world around him.

Would the alien have any reason to believe that the astronaut has a consciousness? Or would the alien believe that the human mind is merely a deterministic maze of circuits no different from that in a computer. Yet, we know that we have consciousness because we experience it. We have no way of deducing that from our understanding of the physical aspect of our brains.

Or do you think that if the astronaut were looking at a display that is midpoint in what you and I would commonly call "red" that the alien would be able to determine that by using his machine, which gives him all physical facts? Would the alien, who has never seen anything at all, much less color, know what it was like to see red just from consulting a machine that tells it all physical facts about the human brain?

Do you think that knowledge of all physical facts would permit the alien to distinguish between a human who was looking at the color blue rather than the color green?

http://www.newdualism.org/papers/L.BonJour/BonJour-MARTIAN.pdf

 

[cloudyday2]

I think you are missing the point. To make it clearer, let us assume that we are talking not about a human investigating a human but about an alien investigating a human. Let us assume that some alien captures an astronaut. This alien is so advanced that the alien has a machine that lets it determine all physical facts about anything that is placed under the machine. However, the alien does not have eyes as we do. In fact, The alien navigates his way through his world much as a bat does, by emitting a series of high-pitched squeaks that echo back to his ears so that he knows much about the world around him.

Would the alien have any reason to believe that the astronaut has a consciousness? Or would the alien believe that the human mind is merely a deterministic maze of circuits no different from that in a computer. Yet, we know that we have consciousness because we experience it. We have no way of deducing that from our understanding of the physical aspect of our brains.

Or do you think that if the astronaut were looking at a display that is midpoint in what you and I would commonly call "red" that the alien would be able to determine that by using his machine, which gives him all physical facts? Would the alien, who has never seen anything at all, much less color, know what it was like to see red just from consulting a machine that tells it all physical facts about the human brain?

Do you think that knowledge of all physical facts would permit the alien to distinguish between a human who was looking at the color blue rather than the color green?

http://www.newdualism.org/papers/L.BonJour/BonJour-MARTIAN.pdf

O.k. I guess I don't get it. It still seems like the proof assumes that physicalism is false, because it assumes the alien could not fully comprehend the astronaut through physical examination.

To understand "red" you simply need to understand that it is a name for a region in the visible spectrum of light and that red might trigger various psychological reactions based on things that appear red - blood, lips, fire, etc. You might also need to understand that artists have complimentary colors and so forth.

Here is an artist who was born blind. He was able to understand "red" and paints better than I can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eşref_Armağan
Here is one of his paintings:
http://www.lisa.gerda-henkel-stiftung.de/binaries/content/3857/full_test4_800x600.jpg?t=1363465576

 

[Larniavc]

Since previous to this time Mary had all physical knowledge,

Then she would have seen red; or she would not have had all physical knowledge.

Next.

 

[crjmurray]

Then she would have seen red; or she would not have had all physical knowledge.

Next.

Did....did we actually have to spell that part out?

 

[Zosimus]

O.k. I guess I don't get it. It still seems like the proof assumes that physicalism is false, because it assumes the alien could not fully comprehend the astronaut through physical examination.

To understand "red" you simply need to understand that it is a name for a region in the visible spectrum of light and that red might trigger various psychological reactions based on things that appear red - blood, lips, fire, etc. You might also need to understand that artists have complimentary colors and so forth.

Here is an artist who was born blind. He was able to understand "red" and paints better than I can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eşref_Armağan
Here is one of his paintings:
http://www.lisa.gerda-henkel-stiftung.de/binaries/content/3857/full_test4_800x600.jpg?t=1363465576

All right, but I don't see how that's relevant. The artist did not come to a knowledge of how to use red in a painting by studying how neurons process the color red or the nature of cones and rods. He came to an intuitive understanding of the quale of red by thinking about qualia with which he had experience such as what it's like to eat spicy food or what it's like to smell cedar wood.

Thus, I consider your argument more a point in favor of anti-physicalism than a refutation thereof.

Do bats hear in color? What say you? https://richarddawkins.net/2013/07/...-bats-hear-in-colour-with-polish-translation/

Would you really argue that you know what it's like to have sex with Salma Hayek because you have read about dopamine reactions in a book? If you say yes, then why do so many people feel uncomfortable talking to a Catholic priest about marriage problems as he's celibate and supposedly has never had a relationship much less sex?

How would two lesbians react to a man who said, "Of course I know what it's like to have lesbian sex all night long. I'm a world-class neurologist." How would you convince those two girls that the neurologist really does know exactly what it's like?

How would you answer a man who assured you that he knows what it's like to be tortured to death because he's studied the pain response in the brain for more than 30 years. Would you agree with him?