Is there a single shred of evidence against naturalism?

[CogentPhilosopher]

You want a citation that physicalism, the position that only the physical word exists, cannot believe in the nonphysical?

You want proof that you inner experience is not physical, while you cannot allow my physical access to yours in any way? You think that physical monism and non-physical monism are not mutually exclusive, which also rejects the law of identity?

Actually address what I said point by point instead of trying to restate what I said to fit your agenda.

 

[1137]

Actually address what I said point by point instead of trying to restate what I said to fit your agenda.

I addressed everything, it's just absurd. I've already linked you to physicalism in the past, which explained why physicalists must believe, by definition, all is physical. I also offered you the perfect out, a super easy way to show once and for all the mind is physical. If we have no way to physically access it, why should we assume it is physical? And finally, I pointed out that your "false dichotomy" objection was basically calling the law of identity a false dichotomy, which is obviously silly.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So you deny there is a hard problem of consciousness?

Basically, yes.

The very fact that you think the other thread was anything beyond asking physicalists for evidence... I truly am embarrassed for you.

Quit your childish posturing. You're not impressing anybody.

Anyways, so far we have 2 solid "no"s and everything else is either being discussed or refuted. Anyways, I do get tired of these arguments so I've been speeding up the process a bit. Can you send me a picture of your inner experience, or in some way let me taste, touch, see, smell, hear, or otherwise experience it directly? Yes or No?

No. But how does that suggest anything "non-physical" involved?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I addressed everything, it's just absurd. I've already linked you to physicalism in the past, which explained why physicalists must believe, by definition, all is physical. I also offered you the perfect out, a super easy way to show once and for all the mind is physical. If we have no way to physically access it, why should we assume it is physical? And finally, I pointed out that your "false dichotomy" objection was basically calling the law of identity a false dichotomy, which is obviously silly.

Why should we assume that the spiritual exists?

 

[1137]

Basically, yes.


Quit your childish posturing. You're not impressing anybody.


No. But how does that suggest anything "non-physical" involved?

You don't understand how the non-physical is involved with something you cannot show me in any physical way...?

 

[1137]

Why should we assume that the spiritual exists?

Can you quote where I stated the spiritual exists?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You don't understand how the non-physical is involved with something you cannot show me in any physical way...?

Just because you can't demonstrate something directly doesn't mean it isn't a purely physical phenomenon. That's a claim you have to demonstrate.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Can you quote where I stated the spiritual exists?

Im am going to define a god as a spiritual being.

So prove it exists.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I understand this, and solipsism is the default position.

Actually, since the very first reaction between one thing and another, physically, chemically, electrically, neurologically, etc. , I have always thought that solipsism was a completely inane position.

 

[1137]

Im am going to define a god as a spiritual being.

So prove it exists.

I don't agree with that definition, and I've already asked if you want to debate my position, which is an entirely different topic to this thread.

Actually, since the very first reaction between one thing and another, physically, chemically, electrically, neurologically, etc. , I have always thought that solipsism was a completely inane position.

I agree we can reject it, rejecting default positions is kind of the point.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I don't agree with that definition, and I've already asked if you want to debate my position, which is an entirely different topic to this thread

So you don't like it when someone tries to Strawman you and try to make a discussion one-sided?

You are a hypocrite.

 

[1137]

So you don't like it when someone tries to Strawman you and try to make a discussion one-sided?

You are a hypocrite.

You didn't straw man me, you simply stated something I disagree with. You keep trying to insult me, but I've offered around five times to debate you, even one on one, about Setianism. It's not my fault you think "evidence for physicalism" and "debate Setianism" are some how identical topics.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

You didn't straw man me, you simply stated something I disagree with. You keep trying to insult me, but I've offered around five times to debate you, even one on one, about Setianism. It's not my fault you think "evidence for physicalism" and "debate Setianism" are some how identical topics.

I frankly don't care if you believe in Setianism. I care that you keep trying to make pseudological claims.

 

[1137]

I frankly don't care if you believe in Setianism. I care that you keep trying to make pseudological claims.

Like what?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Like what?

Google burden of proof.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

A physicalist, by defnition, must believe that the mind is reducible to and identical with the brain, or "mind is what the brain does." Something separate and immaterial, like the mind as it seems to exist, cannot be, for that defeats the entire purpose of physicalism. Either you believe the mind is reducible to the physical brain and are a physicalist, or you accept that the two are different and become some kind of dualist.

When you go for a run, does that run become a wholly different entity?

Well yeah, solipsism is the default position, but that doesn't mean I believe it is correct. The entire point of a default position is how we reject it, such as with evidence of a world outside of our mind, of other conscious beings besides ourselves, which both push against solipsism. Of course we can never "prove" solipsism is incorrect, but we can realize the unlikelihood and and impractical nature of the position.

You missed the point. All of it.
Solipsism is not the 'default' position. The default position is neutrality, which also means a lack of position on a given issue. From there it is up to the standards of evidence of a given subject to formulate an opinion, and of course, not all brains have evolved with equal capacity.

Haha, think of the irony next time you accuse me of dodging questions.

But I didn't dodge it, I guess you didn't understand the answer. I'll put it a different way;
I don't know enough about the world to even speculate about what the totality of everything looks like. What we have to go on so far is naturalistic science, as nothing else thus far has provided any sort of tangible results.

Luckily I read ahead instead of wasting my time, as I've never seen you actually admit the absurdity of your position. You literally reject an entire field of objective, confirmable science in order to hold on to your beliefs. There's really nothing to laugh at this time, that's utterly pathetic.

My opinions vis a vis your pseudoscience of choice are neither here nor there.

 

[1137]

Google burden of proof.

You cannot list these pseudo-logical claims I supposedly made?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

You cannot list these pseudo-logical claims I supposedly made?

Yeah because I'm pretty sure this site has a character limit per post.

Look up what the Burden of Proof is please.

 

[Willamena]

Ok, for the gallery, and the masochists -

First, solipsism isn't the default position, it's a ludicrously outlandish position, and here is why;
We understand how senses work. The mechanisms are understood to us, and they report exactly as we would expect if there was a physical, external world. Each individual serves as a running experiment to test that theory, and the results are overwhelmingly conclusive. Literally billions of redundant, independent tests.

Correct. Solipsism is not a default position in any sort of capacity. To think that is like claiming that the 2-D Flatland is the default of our 3-D real-world experience. The moment spatial dimensioning kicks in, you have a person acknowledging the existence of something other than 'in the mind.' Solipsism is a thought experiment, nothing more.

A physicalist, by defnition, must believe that the mind is reducible to and identical with the brain, or "mind is what the brain does." Something separate and immaterial, like the mind as it seems to exist, cannot be, for that defeats the entire purpose of physicalism. Either you believe the mind is reducible to the physical brain and are a physicalist, or you accept that the two are different and become some kind of dualist.

There is an alternative: that the 'separateness' of the mind is a thought conjured by that mind, and believed. Earlier someone suggested that we (some of us) operate "as if" the world were real. Well, we also operate "as if" the mind is something separately real.

Obviously idealism is superior as it doesn't need either "as if." It's reductionism that is the real culprit: eliminate reductionism and live in the moment, and all this need for one of man's philosophical theories to be the root cause of another's, or vice-versa, vanishes like the smoke it is.

Well yeah, solipsism is the default position, but that doesn't mean I believe it is correct. The entire point of a default position is how we reject it, such as with evidence of a world outside of our mind, of other conscious beings besides ourselves, which both push against solipsism. Of course we can never "prove" solipsism is incorrect, but we can realize the unlikelihood and and impractical nature of the position.

If you defer to the child to determine a "default" for a position, the child's position is the furthest from solipsism. Of all humanity the child lives the most in the world, without a thought to a separate 'me,' or mind that is 'me.'

 

[jonathan180iq]

"Magic invisible people or forces." Of course if I call you out on your pathetic insult you'll simply insist that these words somehow were not condescending! Anyways... Let's just cut to the chase shall we? Please send me an image of your thoughts.

Be offended or not - it doesn't matter much. The fact remains that supporters of the supernatural position are, more often than not, referring to magic, invisible people or forces. Let me explain what I mean.

• Magic = Covers any supernatural process or ability
• Invisible = They've never been seen, quantified, or substantiated in any way outside of faithful claims
• People or Forces = they are human-like deities or currently undiscovered universal forces

I would challenge you to show me how those are inaccurate statements.

As for an image of my thoughts, I can refer you to the very words that you're reading right now. I can alos hook myself up to any manner of brain wave monitoring device and you can physically observe, in real time, which parts of my brain become more active depending on what I'm thinking or how I feel about something. You can listen to the words that I speak, were we in close enough proximity for the sound waves of my voice to reach your ears... There are any number of ways in which I can express my thoughts to you, and you are well aware of them. While you may have a problem with the claim that these are physically thoughts, they are at the very least evidences of thoughts existing.

Now, contrarily, do you have any validating or substantiating method for supporting your counter position? Can you show me, in any form other than simply saying so, that Gods exist, or that supernatural events occur?

Ok I see the issue, you confuse non-physicalists with with those who believe there is nothing physical at all. There are two things that need to be pointed out at least. First of all, do you have any access to or evidence for these "things surrounding you" without relying on immaterial, inner experience such as thoughts? Second, you can easily not be a physicalist but still believe there is a physical world.

Are we not discussing whether or not there is a "single shred of evidence for the physical/material"?
And to answer the question of evidence that "things" exist outside of the self, I'll again point out that the physical model of existence is the only one that offers testable and repeatable shared experiences that offer the ability to predict future outcomes and events. That fact alone should be the deciding factor between whether or not it's valid. Do you have ANYTHING to support the opposite position, which may accept the physical world but also adds a layer of something else?