Causal exclusion problem

[SelfSim]

Uh huh...then how did science determine the world was physical? On what grounds?

Well it helps to see that thus far, its not possible to conceive what the term reality means without a human mind doing that.
True mind independent reality is either: (i) completey nonsensical when one considers my above evidence based statement or (ii) just another belief.

A 'physically real world' is a model. Its either testable or untestable. Science's 'physically real world', (I prefer 'objectivelly real world'), is distinguished from any other kind, by way of beliefs (untestable) and the scientific method (the latter of which, involves objective testing).

Yeah, there's a difference between a scientific theory and the physicalist metaphysics in science. That's what this analysis is meant to uncouple, an assumption that natural causes and physical causes are one and the same thing. It seems that they're not, so where do we go from there?

'Natural causes' and 'physical causes', I think, is some folks' attempt to dissociate the scientific testing method from straight outright beliefs. The human mind's fingerprints are all over both beliefs and scientific testing, so in distinguishing between beliefs and the physical, its better to to just admit that and point to the objective testing method as the special distinction science brings to the table, from outright unevidenced, untestable beliefs.
Both require an active healthy human mind somewhere, to conceive .. and not some mind independent 'thing'.

Analysis is a kind of test. Which is what this is. Four empirically derived propositions that create a contradiction. Remove the metaphysical hypothesis and the contradiction goes away. Physicalism is a hypothesis, and this analysis seems to indicate that it's a false hypothesis. And the only change that needs to happen is to stop saying "physical" and just leaving it as "natural". This is a semantic issue, a test of word-concept relationships which seems to demonstrate that there is empirical warrant for denying the physicalist hypothesis.

My way also draws on semantic meanings expressed by human minds (along with the usage of the scientific mehthod).
Rather than the word 'physical' I'd recommend the term 'objective', which then provides a solid and consistent justification/basis for the scientific method to proceed.

What I mean by reality isn't really relevant here, because all I've done is a bit of semantic analysis. There's no speculation on my part, no need for me to define anything. Just 2 causal principles, 2 empirically derived propositions and an analytic process. What I've presented is a test of the physicalist hypothesis by seeing what happens to our observations if we remove it in a non-arbitrary way. It seems the success of science is purely in its methods afterall. What a shock.

I agree with the underlined part above.

 

[Fervent]

Well it helps to see that thus far, its not possible to conceive what the term reality means without a human mind doing that.
True mind independent reality is either: (i) completey nonsensical when one considers my above evidence based statement or (ii) just another belief.

Or both.

 

[Jerry N.]

I know the discussion has moved on, but the difference between the physical and the natural is quite simple. The physical does not include the spirit (or power) of life. The natural includes life or the life-force. I deal with animals, and a dead animal is only physical, but there is something more in a living animal. So far, science doesn’t understand the life-force, but it partly understands the physical.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I know the discussion has moved on, but the difference between the physical and the natural is quite simple. The physical does not include the spirit (or power) of life. The natural includes life or the life-force. I deal with animals, and a dead animal is only physical, but there is something more in a living animal. So far, science doesn’t understand the life-force, but it partly understands the physical.

Yes, there certainly is something different between alive and dead animals (even the "people" category). Metabolism.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

Yes, there certainly is something different between alive and dead animals (even the "people" category). Metabolism.

Plants metabolize, but do not have the nephesh chayah, the living soul, the breath of life, as do both human beings and animals.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Plants metabolize, but do not have the nephesh chayah, the living soul, the breath of life, as do both human beings and animals.

Prove it.

 

[BCP1928]

Plants metabolize, but do not have the nephesh chayah, the living soul, the breath of life, as do both human beings and animals.

Why not? They respirate.

 

[Jerry N.]

Metabolism only explains the chemical reactions. It can only be simulated in a lab, but not reproduced. Something dead cannot be brought back to life, and clinical death only applies to a few functions not the entire metabolic system.

My definition is lacking. A dead animal is still natural, because it once had a life force. So “natural” would have to include things that were once alive.

It is true that nephesh chayah (the breath of life) is only used for animals, but plants live and have some type of life force. An apple is natural because it was once alive.

Of course, one of the things needed is a definition of “life,” so that we can have a common ground to work from. I’m at a bit of a loss for a good definition, but I’m sure somebody else can give one.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I know the discussion has moved on, but the difference between the physical and the natural is quite simple. The physical does not include the spirit (or power) of life. The natural includes life or the life-force. I deal with animals, and a dead animal is only physical, but there is something more in a living animal. So far, science doesn’t understand the life-force, but it partly understands the physical.

This could be the definition of the difference the OP is using, but they won't explain their usage. I certainly wouldn't use that definition for "natural" as "life-force", "spirt", and "soul" (not all words you used, but closely related), fall clearly into what most people consider to be the "supernatural" (beyond, ie, not part of, the natural).

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

Why not? They respirate.

Sorry, I just did a review, I had forgotten how few translators have cared in these parts. Genesis 1:24 is one example of multiple. It's not "living creature", the word "creature" is not there. Instead it's "nephesh chayah", "living soul" or "soul [that] lives" word for word. Creatures that move of their own accord, are said to have living souls.

 

[Jerry N.]

This could be the definition of the difference the OP is using, but they won't explain their usage. I certainly wouldn't use that definition for "natural" as "life-force", "spirt", and "soul" (not all words you used, but closely related), fall clearly into what most people consider to be the "supernatural" (beyond, ie, not part of, the natural).

The life force, or whatever it is, seems to be supernatural, just like you wrote. I suspect that life itself is an overlap of the physical and metaphysical, just like people have been speculating for thousands of years. The question is whether it comes from God or is something else, and what it is. The problem is that we can’t reasonably deny it exists.

 

[SelfSim]

The life force, or whatever it is, seems to be supernatural, just like you wrote. I suspect that life itself is an overlap of the physical and metaphysical, just like people have been speculating for thousands of years. The question is whether it comes from God or is something else, and what it is. The problem is that we can’t reasonably deny it exists.

From the scientific viewpoint, all testable definitions of 'life' refer back to the observable behaviours of physical, complex organic chemistry. There's nothing metaphysical or supernatural about any of that.

As far as the so-called philosophical 'qualia' aspects are concerned, its also pretty clear that this is simply the product of the very high degree of complexity in the biochemical processes which ultimately underpin the functioning of the human mind.

 

[Jerry N.]

From the scientific viewpoint, all testable definitions of 'life' refer back to the observable behaviours of physical, complex organic chemistry. There's nothing metaphysical or supernatural about any of that.

As far as the so-called philosophical 'qualia' aspects are concerned, its also pretty clear that this is simply the product of the very high degree of complexity in the biochemical processes which ultimately underpin the functioning of the human mind.

The transition from life to death might be a scientifically observable event, but I will stick to the spiritual explanation until more proof is offered. If the complexity is the explanation, I don’t see how that helps disprove spiritual intervention. It is an old argument that doesn’t need to be rehashed again. My question is what is life as apposed to death.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I will stick to the spiritual explanation until more proof is offered.

So, you're going with the unproven and unprovable explanation until proof is offered that renders your unproven explanation disproved?

 

[SelfSim]

The transition from life to death might be a scientifically observable event, but I will stick to the spiritual explanation until more proof is offered.

A spiritual explanation is your belief.
Complex biochemical behaviours is not.

If the complexity is the explanation, I don’t see how that helps disprove spiritual intervention. It is an old argument that doesn’t need to be rehashed again.

Disproof would seem to be your own personal objective.
It isn't science's. Science discards untestable beliefs.

My question is what is life as apposed to death.

A change in state of complex functions.

'A Opposed' is a word you injected there. It denotes another underlying opinion, (which is probably traceable back your beliefs).

 

[Hans Blaster]

The life force, or whatever it is, seems to be supernatural, just like you wrote.

Then it is not part of the natural and the difference between "natural" and "physical" again becomes nothing, or undefined as of yet.

I suspect that life itself is an overlap of the physical and metaphysical, just like people have been speculating for thousands of years. The question is whether it comes from God or is something else, and what it is. The problem is that we can’t reasonably deny it exists.

We can, but I don't think that is the point of this thread. Cheers.

 

[Jerry N.]

So, you're going with the unproven and unprovable explanation until proof is offered that renders your unproven explanation disproved?

Yes

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes

Why? What's the motivation to believe unprovable stuff?

 

[Jerry N.]

Why? What's the motivation to believe unprovable stuff?

You ask this question on a Christian forum?

 

[Tinker Grey]

You ask this question on a Christian forum?

Yes, I do. I want to know. Are you going to answer?