Is there a single shred of evidence against naturalism?

[Polymath257]

So you deny there is a hard problem of consciousness?

Yes. I deny that there is a hard problem there. There is a technical problem of getting the physical correlates of internals states, but there is no 'hard' problem in the sense that, say, Chalmers claims.

I agree that we have lost of information that allows us to move beyond the default of solipsism. Like, tons. It's what we call evidence, which is what I have been asking for from physicalists for years. "What made you move from solipsism to physicalism?" I can of cut the rest of this, as you seem to actually believe I'm trying to support solipsism in some way! (LOL!!!)

I have experiences. I notice patterns in those experiences. I make hypotheses about those patterns. I test those hypotheses with new observations. That is the scientific method.

The problem is defining what it means to be 'physical'. The *only* consistent way I know of is to define 'physical' to be those phenomena for which the scientific method works. The laws derived from that method are then called 'physical laws' or 'natural laws'.

So you believe there is more to nature than the physical world outside of us?

Well, *we* are part of the physical world. But we are not 'outside of us'. But no, I do not believe there is anything more to nature than the physical world.

So you did not understand the issue at all, that's alright. Can you make any argument for materialism at all that does not rely on the immaterial "you" to make sense? It would be arguing that "I don't exist" without ever wondering who is making the claim.

I don't find it inconsistent to imagine my own non-existence. In fact, I am quite sure that I did not exist 100 years ago. I am also quite sure that I will not exist 100 years in the future.

I know I have said this dozens of times and theres no hope you will ever comprehend it, but even if matter was all that existed originally, it is not something that has any effect on the problem of property dualism. You're literally saying "the existence of the immaterial is predicted by materialism, therefore the immaterial does not exist." Wut???

I can never remember the direction that supervenience goes, but my position is that if you had a *complete* description of the physical world, then you would also have a *complete* description of the mental world.

Damn, all that evidence of emotional control, self-regulation, placebos, positivity, etc and so on must be pseudo-science huh. Poor psychology.

As you would ay, wut???

Such aspects of our psychology are determined by the physical nature of our brains and how our minds are produced from that physical aspect.

Actually this is exactly the outcome of physicalism. I'm glad you realize its absurdity. So I guess I must ask again, can you provide any evidence of matter that does not require your own existence?

Of course. I did not exist 100 years ago. But matter did.

And mountains of evidence for the opposite, and all the serious philosophical problems with physicalism which are never addressed.

I havelearned that when a philosopher thinks there is a serious problem, it is usually that the philosopher doens't understand what is going on.

I'm guessing that not only can you not, but that you cannot even physically show me your OWN thoughts.

I am physically showing you my own thoughts right now. I am doing this via a communication mechanism based on computers.

Yeah, do you have subjective, inner experience?

Of course I do. I also believe, based on evidence, that this inner experience is produced by physical processes.

 

[1137]

Yes. I deny that there is a hard problem there. There is a technical problem of getting the physical correlates of internals states, but there is no 'hard' problem in the sense that, say, Chalmers claims.

So you can clear up issues of like property dualism I assume?

 

[Polymath257]

Another great refutation.

Thank you. If you want to go into more detail, I can. But the whole concept of 'forms' is problematic.

So it's a preconceived notion of yours that natural = physical?

Yes. It is sort of definitional.

Uh.... wut? You don't actually believe that do you?

Yes.

 

[Polymath257]

So you can clear up issues of like property dualism I assume?

What issues of property dualism?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

It point of fact, it cannot be. This is not merely because of the problems of the nature of objectivity at a fundamental physical level. It is because of the state of neuroscience in relation to cognition and consciousness research. Currently, we can't demonstrate that there exists a temporal vs. rate neural code, and consciousness research in neuroscience usually implicitly assumes dualism in e.g., Libet's famous experiments. Standard methods in neuroscience have shown statistically significant neuronal reactions to semantic stimuli by a dead fish.

If you get hit on the head......does it effect how you think?

 

[Ricktheheretic]

Is there any reason other than faith to believe in the soul, god, gods, pretty much any spiritual concept?

I used @1137 's thing to make my own thing. It's like hijacking a thread but instead of actually hijacking it we built a very similar thread right next door.

I posted almost the same thing on another thread.

What things are made of doesn't have to be just physical. Maybe there is something besides what science recognizes as physical that exists within our universe. Radio waves don't have the same qualities as other physical things, none the less they are a form of energy as recognized by physics.

Physical -
adjective
1.
of or relating to the body:
physical exercise.
2.
of or relating to that which is material:
the physical universe; the physical sciences.
3.
noting or pertaining to the properties of matter and energy other than those peculiar to living matter. Dictionary.com

What if some kind of "energy," or "substance" exists that we cannot perceive even through the most complex instruments? What if there is something that takes up space in our universe (like matter and energy) but physicists can't ever know about it? Would it be just a different form energy and thus physical? There are things bouncing around all the time that we can't perceive but that devices called radios and satellites pick up on.
One of my anti/heroes, Aleister Crowley, might have asked "what makes the acausal universe different from the causal universe?" What makes the "substance" or "stuff" that makes up the uncaused, uncreated "spiritual" universe different from the "substance" or "stuff" of the caused, created "physical" universe? According to Crowley everything occupies the same space. The acausal and causal universes exist together separated by a gap or "abyss." Thelemapedia: The Encyclopedia of Thelema & Magick | Abyss Just some ideas.

 

[Polymath257]

I posted almost the same thing on another thread.

What things are made of doesn't have to be just physical. Maybe there is something besides what science recognizes as physical that exists within our universe. Radio waves don't have the same qualities as other physical things, none the less they are a form of energy as recognized by physics.

Good so far.

Physical -
adjective
1.
of or relating to the body:
physical exercise.
2.
of or relating to that which is material:
the physical universe; the physical sciences.
3.
noting or pertaining to the properties of matter and energy other than those peculiar to living matter. Dictionary.com

All sorts of things wrong here.
1. What is a 'body'? Do electrons have a body?
2. Since we are defining 'physical', this is circular.
3. What distinguishes matter and energy? So, photons are not 'matter', but they definitely have 'energy'.

What if some kind of "energy," or "substance" exists that we cannot perceive even through the most complex instruments? What if there is something that takes up space in our universe (like matter and energy) but physicists can't ever know about it?

OK, first, what does it mean to 'take up space'? if it excludes other things from that space, then we can use that to detect it. So, to be undetectable with even the most complex instruments, it cannot exclude ordinary matter from a space.

But I would go even further. If this 'substance' interacts with ordinary matter, that interaction would be enough to detect it. We use the changes in ordinary matter to detect the new 'substance'. This is how most things are detected, by the way.

So, to be undetectable to even the most complex instruments would imply that there is NO interaction with ordinary matter.

But now, I have serious questions concerning what you mean for something like this to even 'exist'. Does it make any sense to say something exists that does not interact? I would say not.

So, your hypothetical 'substance' cannot exist by what I mean when I say 'exist'.

Would it be just a different form energy and thus physical? There are things bouncing around all the time that we can't perceive but that devices called radios and satellites pick up on.

And those radios and satellites can pick up on these things because those things interact with the radios and satellites. To negate any ability to detect also negates any interaction. And at that point, you have negated existence.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

Polymath257 said:
"OK, first, what does it mean to 'take up space'? if it excludes other things from that space, then we can use that to detect it. So, to be undetectable with even the most complex instruments, it cannot exclude ordinary matter from a space.

But I would go even further. If this 'substance' interacts with ordinary matter, that interaction would be enough to detect it. We use the changes in ordinary matter to detect the new 'substance'. This is how most things are detected, by the way.

So, to be undetectable to even the most complex instruments would imply that there is NO interaction with ordinary matter.

But now, I have serious questions concerning what you mean for something like this to even 'exist'. Does it make any sense to say something exists that does not interact? I would say not.

So, your hypothetical 'substance' cannot exist by what I mean when I say 'exist'."

Could I walk into a room full of radiation and not be hindered from moving around? Oxygen fills rooms and it is something I can pass through it. A radio wave could pass right through me, unhindered by my material body. Maybe an unseen "substance" doesn't exclude things from occupying it's space, or maybe it is easily moved away by things heavier than it. I would have to get out a book on physics to fully understand how stuff like energy "interacts" with other stuff. What I am proposing is something that cannot be seen , felt or perceived by any technology. Something like Einstein's ether, or on a psychic level whatever it is that makes up ghosts. I have heard of radio instruments picking up signals from the "spirit world," but I'm skeptical about such claims. I don't fully dismiss the occult however. But I think it would be more scientific than some people think it is. I don't think the "supernatural" has to be separate from the natural. This is just a speculation I have, maybe I'm wrong. Thanks for your response.

 

[Polymath257]

Could I walk into a room full of radiation and not be hindered from moving around?

There will be 'radiation pressure'. it is small, but it is there.

Oxygen fills rooms and it is something I can pass through it.

Yes, but it produces a detectable force on you as you do. This force can be enough to keep an airplane in the sky.

A radio wave could pass right through me, unhindered by my material body.

And yet, it is detectable easily enough by our instruments.

Maybe an unseen "substance" doesn't exclude things from occupying it's space, or maybe it is easily moved away by things heavier than it. I would have to get out a book on physics to fully understand how stuff like energy "interacts" with other stuff. What I am proposing is something that cannot be seen , felt or perceived by any technology.

In which case, what does it even mean to say it exists? Either it interacts or it doesn't. If it interacts, it can be detected through that interaction. If it doesn't interact in any way, then how can it be said to exist?

Something like Einstein's ether, or on a psychic level whatever it is that makes up ghosts.

Einstein eliminated the ether. And ghosts are figments of the imagination.

I have heard of radio instruments picking up signals from the "spirit world," but I'm skeptical about such claims. I don't fully dismiss the occult however. But I think it would be more scientific than some people think it is. I don't think the "supernatural" has to be separate from the natural. This is just a speculation I have, maybe I'm wrong. Thanks for your response.

And I think you are wrong. But once again, if the radio *was* picking up something, that *is* a detection, isn't it? If you see a ghost, that *is* a detection (and even a demonstration that ghosts interact with light). To be *completely* undetectable means there is no interaction at all. And that is equivalent to non-existence.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

I'll keep an open mind, it still seems like there could be something we don't know/maybe can't know and that science can't explain. Thanks for answering my posts.

 

[syo]

Is there any reason other than faith to believe in the soul, god, gods, pretty much any spiritual concept?

doesn't the universe need something immortal?

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

doesn't the universe need something immortal?

I can't think of any reasons off the top of my head for that to be inherently true. What would your reasoning be?

 

[syo]

I can't think of any reasons off the top of my head for that to be inherently true. What would your reasoning be?

everything in universe is mortal, meaning there is birth (chronically begining) and death (chronicaly ending). mustn't there exist something beyond time meaning immortal to create the mortals?

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

everything in universe is mortal, meaning there is birth (chronically begining) and death (chronicaly ending). mustn't there exist something beyond time meaning immortal to create the mortals?

no.... I can't say I think there has to be something immortal for that to happen.

 

[syo]

no.... I can't say I think there has to be something immortal for that to happen.

then what started everything?

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

then what started everything?

No Idea, I know about the big bang. Before that? Couldn't tell ya. Honestly wasn't too worried about it because I don't really see any reason to conclude it must of been God or gods.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

No Idea, I know about the big bang. Before that? Couldn't tell ya. Honestly wasn't too worried about it because I don't really see any reason to conclude it must of been God or gods.

If the universe is infinite couldn't there have been several "big bangs?" We know that all that we call the universe existed within time-zero billions of years ago, but what about further out into space? What about further than we can ever imagine? Couldn't some galaxies far out be the result of some other event besides our "big bang?" I'm not talking about other universes in other dimensions, I'm just saying "how do we know that all the stuff in infinite space came from the same place?" BTW couldn't there have been a "big bang" that happened billions of years before what we call the "big bang" that made a previous known universe that collapsed back into time-zero only to explode again? Friedrich Nietzsche seemed to believe in eternal reoccurrence, but I don't know if he thought about it on a cosmic level.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I posted almost the same thing on another thread.

What things are made of doesn't have to be just physical. Maybe there is something besides what science recognizes as physical that exists within our universe. Radio waves don't have the same qualities as other physical things, none the less they are a form of energy as recognized by physics.

Physical -
adjective
1.
of or relating to the body:
physical exercise.
2.
of or relating to that which is material:
the physical universe; the physical sciences.
3.
noting or pertaining to the properties of matter and energy other than those peculiar to living matter. Dictionary.com

What if some kind of "energy," or "substance" exists that we cannot perceive even through the most complex instruments? What if there is something that takes up space in our universe (like matter and energy) but physicists can't ever know about it? Would it be just a different form energy and thus physical?

What would make such a thing "not physical"?

Naturalists don't dispute that there are unknown things in the universe. The difference between the two positions is really this:

- naturalist: everything that exists should be viewed as one overall group of things, which we call "the natural" or "the physical".

- dualist: everything that exists should be viewed as two distinct groups of things: "the natural" and "the supernatural".

... but I've never been able to get someone who holds the second view to actually say what criteria they use to define the two groups.

There are things bouncing around all the time that we can't perceive but that devices called radios and satellites pick up on.

And when we find these things, we expand our understanding of the physical universe to include them.

The term "supernatural" only ever gets applied to things we don't understand or aren't sure actually exist. One the thing is established as real and understood, it stops being supernatural.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

What would make such a thing "not physical"?

Naturalists don't dispute that there are unknown things in the universe. The difference between the two positions is really this:

- naturalist: everything that exists should be viewed as one overall group of things, which we call "the natural" or "the physical".

- dualist: everything that exists should be viewed as two distinct groups of things: "the natural" and "the supernatural".

... but I've never been able to get someone who holds the second view to actually say what criteria they use to define the two groups.

And when we find these things, we expand our understanding of the physical universe to include them.

The term "supernatural" only ever gets applied to things we don't understand or aren't sure actually exist. One the thing is established as real and understood, it stops being supernatural.

I'd be of a third school of thought, one that says even "supernatural" things could be part of physical phenomena. What if something like the presence of a ghost could be picked up by a machine that reads radio signals? Wouldn't that be proof of ghosts? I'm not sure, but I hold an open mind to occult phenomena.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd be of a third school of thought, one that says even "supernatural" things could be part of physical phenomena.

So how do you decide what's "supernatural" and what isn't?

What if something like the presence of a ghost could be picked up by a machine that reads radio signals? Wouldn't that be proof of ghosts? I'm not sure, but I hold an open mind to occult phenomena.

So in this hypothetical scenario, ghosts exist and have physical effects that we can detect? Why wouldn't we just call ghosts "physical", then?