Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 11:06 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:59 am
If the dynamics are not physical, then Physicalism is untrue.
We're not talking about whether physicalism is "true" or not. We're talking about possible views that people can have.
Well, unless you're encouraging incoherent views, or self-contradictory views, you'd have to say that Physicalism would have to be true to be worth believing, no?
If someone is a physicalist, they're not going to think that there's anything that's not physical. And that's the basic assumption here...
Yes, I see that. But logically, that would mean that a Physicalist would saying both that material things are "real," and that there are no "real" dynamics that are involved with the material things. If that's what they are saying, then it would seem that it's not even coherent.
So yeah, people can believe anything they want. They can believe in phrenology or alchemy or flying pigs...but I think we've got to limit our concern to things that are not self-contradictory or obviously irrational, no?
...this has nothing to do with whether their views are correct. ...
Incoherent views aren't even possibly
correct. So I don't know why we'd want to be discussing such things at all...unless we have a perverse interest in marvelling at how goofy people can be.
Again, a possible view is that THERE ARE NO GOVERNING DYNAMICS.
Well, if there are "dynamics" (i.e. movement or change of any kind) at all, then either they're "real" dynamics, or there's none at all. But empirically, things move and change, so how do we explain that?
It thus might be a "possible view," but it's only a "possible false view," and cannot possibly be true. It's not even self-consistent or coherent.
But it's a neat trick...you're calling whatever forces mobilize the "physical" stuff non-physical,
Holy cow you really, really are incapable of reading. I said nothing like that.
I'm sorry...I misunderstood. Did you not say there are physical "things," but that there are "no governing dynamics" of those things? But there are dynamics, manifestly.
So I'll have to ask again: how do you account for "dynamics" that are "not real"? And how if such exist, as obviously they do, then what are they if they are not "physical"?
Physicalists, by definition HAVE to say they're "physical," don't they? By definition, they have no other recourse, since they say "all real things are physical."