Physicalism

[Zosimus]

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

Next.

If that's your argument, then humans will never have all physical knowledge because they will never squeak ultrasonic waves, detect a passing insect in flight, and know that it is edible.

 

[Chany]

If that's your argument, then humans will never have all physical knowledge because they will never squeak ultrasonic waves, detect a passing insect in flight, and know that it is edible.

Yes. We would never know what it is like to be a bat. We can use our imagination to create an imaginary scenario of what is might like to be a bat, but we can never actually know what it is like to be a bat. Basically, you seem to be complaining that humans can never be omniscient, which doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

 

[cloudyday2]

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?

Physicalism doesn't claim that an ordinary scientist can understand sex with Salma Hayek; it only claims that a theoretical super scientist can understand sex with Salma Hayek. The fact that I don't remember how to solve high school algebra problems doesn't imply that a high school algebra student can't solve those problems.

 

[Chany]

Zosimus is of the opinion that we have to know everything to know anything.

I sure hope that is a poor paraphrase of an infallibilist position on epistemology. Otherwise... I don't think they would have a leg to stand on.

 

[The Cadet]

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

No, actually I don't. Whether or not Mary's thoughts belong to physical reality (they do, we can measure them in a brain scanner) has nothing to do with any hypothetical idealized state of physics.

 

[sfs]

* If physicalism is false, then there are non-physical elements such as qualia.

You've got the order of inference backward, but okay.

* 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.

Irrelevant and misleading. A world in which qualia are real still admits of a complete causal physical description of a person experiencing qualia and acting on them, without referencing the qualia themselves, so no causal power need be attributed to them.

* 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.

Even if non-physical things like qualia (or mathematical truths, for example) are postulated to exist, it is a complete non sequitur to conclude that non-physical beings with intentions and creative abilities may exist. Because I can experience the color red, it does not make it reasonable to believe that leprechauns exist.

* 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.

You have conflated two of your claims. First, you claimed, "If life did not arise spontaneously from non-life, then the most reasonable belief is that life was created by a non-physical entity." You need to provide an argument showing that that belief is the most reasonable; simple assertion accomplishes nothing. Second, you claim that if it is true that the most reasonable belief is that life was created by a non-physical being, then "Darwinism and its surrounding theories (the modern evolutionary synthesis) are uncompelling theories." That conclusion does not follow from its premise. How compelling Darwinism is as a scientific theory is independent of how life arose. In fact, your argument is not only invalid, but your conclusion is false: Darwinism was compelling (i.e. it compelled belief among those who study biology) even when Darwin formulated it in terms of a Creator being the cause of life.

 

[Gene2memE]

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, conscious experience is subjective to the individual. How does that provide a counter-example to physicalism?

Not that I agree with either the position, or your supposition that most or all atheists subscribe to it, but I'd like to see how subjectivity renders physicalism moot.

Also, I think the though experiment is flawed. If Mary truly did possess "all physical knowledge" of red and roses, witnessing a red rose would not be a learning experience. She already possess ALL possibly knowledge about the subjects.

 

[crjmurray]

So, conscious experience is subjective to the individual. How does that provide a counter-example to physicalism?

Not that I agree with either the position, or your supposition that most or all atheists subscribe to it, but I'd like to see how subjectivity renders physicalism moot.

Also, I think the though experiment is flawed. If Mary truly did possess "all physical knowledge" of red and roses, witnessing a red rose would not be a learning experience. She already possess ALL possibly knowledge about the subjects.

Seriously? Do we really have to point this out?!?!?!

 

[DogmaHunter]

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).

I have no such "belief".

Meaning: I don't necessarily consider that to be a "true-ism".

Rather, I'ld say that that is what the evidence seems to be suggesting.
We don't have, for example, evidence of "non-physical" objects.

It is my claim that this is false.

So, you DO have evidence of "non-physical" objects?
This should be interesting. Can you share this information?

Imagine, if you will, a super-scientist far in the future named Mary.

Hmmm. Why do I need to use my imagination?
Nevermind, I'll give this a chance. Don't have a good feeling about it though..

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.

Let's pause here......

If she knows ALL THE PHYSICAL FACTS, how can it be that she sees this thing 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.

That she didn't know ALL THE PHYSICAL FACTS.

Since previous to this time Mary had all physical knowledge, what she has learned is a non-physical truth. Accordingly, physicalism is false.

No. Clearly, she didn't know all the physical facts...
Trying to define a red rose as a non-physical thing is quite stupid.

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.

Since when is light not a physical phenomena?

 

[Jan Volkes]

It may well be that a future, complete physics will define God as part of the natural, physical world.

God or anything anyone can ever imagine.

It may well define anything as being part of the physical world but it will never actually be part of the physical world.
There is a difference.

Why can't religious people just have faith and believe? why do they always feel the need to make their imaginings come to life?

 

[whois]

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.

invalid argument.
mary could not possibly "know everything there is to know" and then discover something she didn't know.

 

[Zosimus]

Yes. We would never know what it is like to be a bat. We can use our imagination to create an imaginary scenario of what is might like to be a bat, but we can never actually know what it is like to be a bat. Basically, you seem to be complaining that humans can never be omniscient, which doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

One needn't be omniscient to know everything there is to know about a bat. Unless, of course, you think that the number of things to know about a bat is infinite.

 

[Zosimus]

Physicalism doesn't claim that an ordinary scientist can understand sex with Salma Hayek; it only claims that a theoretical super scientist can understand sex with Salma Hayek. The fact that I don't remember how to solve high school algebra problems doesn't imply that a high school algebra student can't solve those problems.

Again, this claim puts you on the horns of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hempel's_dilemma

Since you cannot know what a future idealized super scientist can know, you cannot know that a super scientist could not know that God existed and might not classify God as part of the physical world.

 

[Zosimus]

No, actually I don't. Whether or not Mary's thoughts belong to physical reality (they do, we can measure them in a brain scanner) has nothing to do with any hypothetical idealized state of physics.

I think that you're "resolving" the problem by denying it and/or confusing it with the so-called "easy" problem of consciousness.

What we are talking about is the "hard" problem of consciousness (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness#Formulation_of_the_problem )

"It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does."

---------------------
Humans, after all, are not zombies. We do not march through life in a mechanical
predeterministic way. As Steven Harnard points out (see http://cogprints.org/1601/6/harnad95.zombies.html )
"Quarks, like consciousness, cannot be observed directly, but there are many things that follow from quarks' existing or not existing, and those things can be observed. Does anything follow from the existence of consciousness, that would not follow just as readily if we were all Zombies who merely acted exactly as if they were conscious?...

"So we will assume, instead, that consciousness is not an autonomous force, but some property or aspect of the ordinary physical forces we already know. If so, then it is incumbent on anyone who thinks he can tell the Zombie from the real thing that he be able to say what this property is. This is a notoriously difficult thing to do; in fact, I'm willing to bet it's impossible, and will even say why:

"
(1) How could you ever determine whether that supposition -- that that's the property that distinguishes conscious things from unconscious ones -- was correct? That's the other-minds problem again.

But now let's suppose that the supposition -- that that's the property that distinguishes conscious things from unconscious ones -- was, miraculously, true, even though there was no way we could know it was true:

(2) In what, specifically, would its truth consist? What is it that something would lack if it lacked consciousness yet had the property you picked out? For if you pick anything other than consciousness itself as the thing it would lack if it lacked that property that was supposed to be the determinant of consciousness (which would be a bit circular), then one can always say: why can't it have that property without the consciousness? And no one has even the faintest inkling of what could count as a satisfactory answer to that question."

(emphasis added)

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

This is incredible bad philosophy.

 

[Zosimus]

Even if non-physical things like qualia (or mathematical truths, for example) are postulated to exist, it is a complete non sequitur to conclude that non-physical beings with intentions and creative abilities may exist. Because I can experience the color red, it does not make it reasonable to believe that leprechauns exist.

I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Leprechauns are defined as diminutive sprites that can be physically seized and held and that, if someone is successful in physically overpowering the leprechaun, the creature will reveal the secret hiding place of its treasure. Thus, you are conflating physical (but never observed creatures) with non-physical qualia and/or a non-physical Supreme Being or, more generically, non-physical forces (such as God's spirit) that can have real effects on physical matter. The two are quite different.

You have conflated two of your claims. First, you claimed, "If life did not arise spontaneously from non-life, then the most reasonable belief is that life was created by a non-physical entity." You need to provide an argument showing that that belief is the most reasonable; simple assertion accomplishes nothing. Second, you claim that if it is true that the most reasonable belief is that life was created by a non-physical being, then "Darwinism and its surrounding theories (the modern evolutionary synthesis) are uncompelling theories." That conclusion does not follow from its premise. How compelling Darwinism is as a scientific theory is independent of how life arose. In fact, your argument is not only invalid, but your conclusion is false: Darwinism was compelling (i.e. it compelled belief among those who study biology) even when Darwin formulated it in terms of a Creator being the cause of life.

Here you have entered into an argument that I consider intellectually dishonest. It is often claimed that Darwinism is separate from the theory of abiogenesis, but this is untrue. Darwinism in general, and the theory of common descent in particular, can be true if (and only if) it can be demonstrated that life arose spontaneously once and only once from non-life. If abiogenesis is common enough to occur multiple times, then the claim that all life shares a common ancestor is de facto false. Similarly, if God created life, then one must suppose that God limited himself to one solitary act of creation and then let Darwinism take over. This is an unrealistic assumption. Once one accepts the existence of a creator, Darwinism becomes an unnecessary hypothesis.

 

[Zosimus]

So, conscious experience is subjective to the individual. How does that provide a counter-example to physicalism?

Not that I agree with either the position, or your supposition that most or all atheists subscribe to it, but I'd like to see how subjectivity renders physicalism moot.

Also, I think the though experiment is flawed. If Mary truly did possess "all physical knowledge" of red and roses, witnessing a red rose would not be a learning experience. She already possess ALL possibly knowledge about the subjects.

No, your assumption is that since she possesses all physical knowledge, that she possesses all knowledge. The argument is designed to logically lead to the conclusion that there is a knowledge that Mary will gain, a knowledge not based in the world that scientists typically define as physical. It's inescapable that Mary learns something, although some have argued that what Mary learns is not something she could be expected to know, even were physicalism true. For example, a person could know every physical fact about a chair without necessarily knowing that it was called a chair and without knowing that it had the purpose of providing a resting place for a biped's buttocks in times of tiredness. These facts, although reasonable, do not by themselves refute the idea that Mary has learned something new (unless, of course, you are claiming that Mary's knowledge of what it is like to see red is determining, for example, the purpose of red).

No, the crux of the problem is illustrated by this: Imagine that we have a super scientist who can read the physical states of our brains and know every physical thing about them (by virtue of his technology) while you are thinking of a green car and I am thinking of a red one. Even if we assume that he knows that we're thinking about cars (Let's say God whispers the answer into his ear) how will he determine that you are thinking of a green one whereas I am thinking of a red one?

Yet you have no difficulty in stating that you were thinking of a green car. Accordingly, if a scientist with a complete knowledge of all physical facts about your brain cannot tell whether you were thinking of red or green, but you can do so without any trouble at all, then this poses a problem for a purely physical account of human consciousness.

 

[Zosimus]

Trying to define a red rose as a non-physical thing is quite stupid.

No one is trying to define a red rose as a non-physical thing. The point is that knowing that a red rose exists is not the same as actually seeing one.

Do you claim, for example, that a highly skilled male obstetrician knows what it's like to give birth because he knows all physical facts about the process by mere virtue of having studied the dilation process, the chemicals released into the brain, etc. although he has never personally had a vagina, nor had one dilate, nor had to push a baby through one?

Since when is light not a physical phenomena?

No one is claiming that light is not a physical phenomenon. Phenomena is the plural of phenomenon.

 

[Zosimus]

invalid argument.
mary could not possibly "know everything there is to know" and then discover something she didn't know.

It is your argument that is invalid because my argument does not contain the phrase "know everything there is to know." I claimed that she knew all physical facts. Since she discovers a new fact upon seeing a red for the first time, it follows that this is not a physical fact.

 

[Zosimus]

This is incredible bad philosophy.

Yes. So abysmally bad that it is right in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/

P.S. Did you mean "incredible" or "incredibly?"