Is there a single shred of evidence against naturalism?

[CogentPhilosopher]

This is a key understanding here. What we model reality to be, which we then act upon, is in fact us interacting with our metaphors to describe reality. You said it right there, "It is best to act as if it is real". As-if statements are metaphors. Naturalism, is a metaphor, just as much as theism is.

When you assume that how you think about reality defines what reality is in itself, you are making the same error of thinking as those before you historically who imagined as they looked up at the night sky that gods were up there. They interacted with it "as if" it were real, and it served a true and genuine model of reality for them to operate within. You look up at the night sky at the tent you see, the model of reality you superimpose upon it, is a scientific one. You imagine that the "evidence" we have that supports our models actually defines it's genuine and true nature, just as the ancients saw gods. They had their supports as well.

It's all metaphor. It's all "as if" it were reality. And as such, when they function for those who use that language, they are valid, even if less or more useful depending on the requirements.


What you perceive in reality in fact will be limited by the models of reality you use and engage with. As an example, if you don't know how to see a "ghost" because you've never encountered one, if you saw one your mind would not allow it because there is no mental model of one you could associate it with. What your mind would see might be "an old woman", or something it could try to connect it with. So, to others where that was part of their mental 'vocabulary', they would see it.

In other words, even if you were looking straight at it, you might not see it because your mind disallowed it.


If you have an experience that does not fit your current mental models of truth and reality, that becomes a reason to explore beyond them.

You and I must have very different definitions of the word metaphor.

Basically I am saying that observable reality might be real and might not but whether it is or not it is best to act as if it is real.

I see no reason or need to do so for anything else.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Neurological and anthropological reasons. They are not at all convincing from an epistemological perspective, but they sure seem to explain why the concepts came to exist.

I know these are the likely origins of the ideas, but would it still not require faith to actually buy into them?

 

[LuisDantas]

I know these are the likely origins of the ideas, but would it still not require faith to actually buy into them?

Good question. I don't know how often people truly buy into them.

Very often, it seems to suffice not to be willing to confront those who do.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Good question. I don't know how often people truly buy into them.

Very often, it seems to suffice not to be willing to confront those who do.

It seems like a thread worthy discussion to be sure.

 

[1137]

I've never seen "razor sharp" used as a synonym for "ironical" before. Ah, the endless flexibility of semantics.

Insult over evidence or reasoning? Must be #atheistlogic !

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Insult over evidence or reasoning? Must be #atheistlogic !

And the irony train chugs on.

Choo-choo!

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Insult over evidence or reasoning? Must be #atheistlogic !

Do you have any mirrors where you live?

 

[1137]

Do you have any mirrors where you live?

It's like you can sense when I need cheering up. Thanks my friend!

 

[Tabu]

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.

Experience ,is the reason .
My personal experience is that spirituality ,and belief in the inherent goodness of all souls, brings peace, positivity and happiness.
The peace and power gained through connecting with God in a soul conscious state ,by which one is able to overcome with ease the most disturbing and distressing situations in life with positivity is reason enough for my belief in the soul and Supreme Soul.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

It's like you can sense when I need cheering up. Thanks my friend!

There you go, thanks for cementing my point. You often deflect with insults or attempts at mockery. For you to accuse others of this shows an acute lack of self awareness.

 

[1137]

No, it doesn't.


Conciousness is unquestionably the result of physical, natural processes. What makes conciousness so particular to you that it cannot be a physical process itself?

So you deny there is a hard problem of consciousness?

Refuted. Also your paragraph provided no evidence.

It's about three pages of people pointing out the flaws in the OP and your reasoning.

Fascinating indeed.

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

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.

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 don't like the term "naturalism" in this sense, as it seems to imply physical = natural, which puts the cart before the horse"
Of course what is physical is natural, because it occurs , demonstrably, within the natural world. However, the assertion that everything natural must be physical is not necessary, nobody is making it, so it can be disregarded.

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

The axiomatic self
This is not a problem for, and is indeed predicted by and necessary to materialism.

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.

-property dualism
Emergent properties are predicted by materialism

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???

-two way causality
That the mind can cause anything is not in evidence. That the mind is an observer phenomenon is equally as likely, if not more so.

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

Oh wait, the guy rejecting an entire field of science definitely has the burden of prood.

-the absurd claim that we can be more certain of matter than our own existence.
A claim that nobody is making.

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?

-"The fact that we cannot, in any direct, scientific, physical way access the internal experience of a single thing outside ourselves, rather clearly suggests that these things are not physical. "
Again, not a problem if consciousness is an emergent effect.

So you're clearly an emergent dualist who will simply never admit it, I've thought so before. In fact I became that same position due to some of our previous arguments.

-"And physicalism has not come close to finding any magical mechanism by which consciousness comes from unconscious material."
No, but there are mountains of evidence that brain states effect consciousness. Counter evidence pending.

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

It may be the first assumption - but it's quickly washed away shortly after infancy when we realize and recognize that other beings do, in fact, exist independent of ourselves.

The fact that all of these similar creatures, typing out words on very similar devices at this very moment, reciting opposing individual thoughts to our own, should be pretty solid evidence that solipsism is a very juvenile position.

I'm glad you said this, and I agree solipsism can be argued against, thats what you do to the default position if you wish to move away from it. But to quote you again, you said "typing out words on very similar devices at this very moment, reciting opposing individual thoughts to our own, should be pretty solid evidence that solipsism is a very juvenile position." Can you show me these individual thoughts in any physical way, as you could show me their devices, the words on their screen, etc? I'm guessing that not only can you not, but that you cannot even physically show me your OWN thoughts.

Says the man who just typed these words on a keyboard (or touchscreen).

I suggest that all anti-materialists take a good hard look at all of the things that currently surround them, wherever they are, and consider what those things are made of...

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.

So can you prove that anything else exists?

Yeah, do you have subjective, inner experience?

There you go, thanks for cementing my point. You often deflect with insults or attempts at mockery. For you to accuse others of this shows an acute lack of self awareness.

I love you too, bro.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Yeah, do you have subjective, inner experience?

Which are caused by neural impulses and hormones in my body? Yes.

 

[1137]

Which are caused by neural impulses and hormones in my body? Yes.

That's actually an assumption of physicalism, and also only really harms a substance-dualist position. Brain and mind do not to be from separate substances to be categorically different.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

That's actually an assumption of physicalism, and also only really harms a substance-dualist position. Brain and mind do not to be from separate substances to be categorically different.

No it's not an assumption, it can be objectively demonstrated.

Who said the brain and mind are the same thing?

I'm saying that the brain allows for the sentience to come out of non-sentient matter.

 

[1137]

No it's not an assumption, it can be objectively demonstrated.

Who said the brain and mind are the same thing?

I'm saying that the brain allows for the sentience to come out of non-sentient matter.

To be a physicalist, the brain as something physical and the mind must indeed be the same thing. It seems you are beginning to understand the non-physicalist position.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

To be a physicalist, the brain as something physical and the mind must indeed be the same thing.

How about you actual address my point instead of trying to put words into other people's mouths as a strawman.

Oh and here is the thing. If believing in the mind makes you not a physicalist, then guess what? Atheist naturalists are not physicalist like you asserted.

Thank you for defeating yourself.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

@1137

"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!!!)"

You posited that solipsism should be the "default" position, and you weren't kidding. I shredded that.
What you think I believe is not interesting to me.

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

I believe we have come far, but have much further to go. I think beliefs based on guesswork and wishful thinking are counterproductive, and intellectually treasonous.

"So you did not understand the issue at all, that'salright. 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"

There is no immaterial me, I don't share your spiritual beliefs. I am the meat and bones and brain typing this.

"You're literally saying "the existence of the immaterial is predicted by materialism, therefore the immaterial does not exist." Wut???"

I'm not sure you know what literally means. Not what you think. Anyway, I wasn't saying that figuratively either. One can only wonder how you draw some of these conclusions...

"So you're clearly an emergent dualist who will simply never admit it, I've thought so before. In fact I became that same position due to some of our previous arguments"

Only to the extent a belief in the reality of causality makes me an "emergent dualist"

"And mountains of evidence for the opposite"

So you have mountains of evidence that brain states do not affect consciousness? Let's have it then.

As an aside, the irony of accusing me of deriding science because I largely reject psychology as pseudoscience (which it patently is) while thumbing your nose at neurobiology (an actual science) was not lost on me.

 

[1137]

How about you actual address my point instead of trying to put words into other people's mouths as a strawman.

Oh and here is the thing. If believing in the mind makes you not a physicalist, then guess what? Atheist naturalists are not physicalist like you asserted.

Thank you for defeating yourself.

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.

@1137
You posited that solipsism should be the "default" position, and you weren't kidding. I shredded that.
What you think I believe is not interesting to me.

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.

I believe we have come far, but have much further to go. I think beliefs based on guesswork and wishful thinking are counterproductive, and intellectually treasonous.

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

As an aside, the irony of accusing me of deriding science because I largely reject psychology as pseudscience (which it patently is) while thumbing your nose at neurobiology (an actual science) was not lost on me.

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.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

A physicalist, by defnition, must believe that the mind is reducible to and identical with the brain, or "mind is what the brain does."

Citation please.

Something separate and immaterial, like the mind as it seems to exist,

Proof please.

that defeats the entire purpose of physicalism.

You do not get to strawmen the purpose that everyone has for adopting a position.

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.

False dichotomy logical fallacy.

 

[1137]

Citation please.


Proof please.



You do not get to strawmen the purpose that everyone has for adopting a position.



False dichotomy logical fallacy.

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?