Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 6:54 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 8:00 pm
promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:34 pm
kinda off on the Spinz but point taken. No need to mince words. Here's a synopsis of Spinz's concept of 'mind'. Different enough from the Cartesian concept to be noted. But Spinz wuz your 'idealist' at the end of the day; 'the mind does not perish but something of it remains', etc.
2.1.1 Minds as bundles
Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, belief that it exists - and any theories based on its existence - are irrational. The end.
My problem with this argument or assertion is that the category 'physical' has been expanding through time. Anything that becomes considered real - in scientific consensus, is considered physical. If we look at the word 'physicalism' (or 'materialism' when it is used in a similar sense) it seems to be making an ontological claim about substance. But I don't think this actually holds anymore. Currently 'things' like massless particles, fields, particles in superposition, for example, are all considered physical. I don't think this matches up with what the word originally meant. (and phenomena like 'being in superposition' are no longer posited as restricted to infinitesmal particles...)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... xperiment/
For your position to be meaningful there would need to be a process whereby evidence would come in for something and it could possibly be considered non-physical. I believe science should not be considered a physicalist methodology. It's really a verificationist methodology, but I think due to the history of conflict with the church, say, and other sets of beliefs, it has seemed necessary to take an ontological stand, whereas, in fact scientists in practice just try to find real phenomena and understand them.
If some early 20th century naturalist was told that right now millions of neutrinos are coursing through his body with contacting it, he or she might well think that science, should he or she believe the person speaking from the future is asserting that non-physical things have been discovered. And neutrinos are more physical that some other 'things' in the traditional sense of that word 'physical'.
So, to rule out a phenomenon because it seems or is asserted to be non-physical, it seems to me, is jumping the gun. To ask for evidence, especially if the other person expects you to believe them, is only logical and rational. As it would be if someone asserted X, that is physical, exists, if one is not aware of any evidence backing this up.
If we look at the history of science, up into the early 70s it was professionally dangerous to assert that animals were conscious experiencers with intentions, and other cognitive subjective qualities. The problem of other minds coupled with old prejudices made this taboo. And it is very hard to demonstrate the internal life of anyone including animals. Yet, animal trainers, pet owners, animists, indigenous people, pagans and many others worked with the rather rational assumption that animals did have internal lives, etc. Then there was a shift in the model.
I am NOT arguing that consciousness is non-physical. What I am saying here is that it is not irrational per se to believe in things one is not, at a certain point in time (which is always where we are) able to demonstrate to others or the scientific community.
Other examples are rogue waves and long-distance elephant communication - which could have been seen as attributing elephants with non-physical powers. Only changes in technology led to these phenomena being verified.
One can have rational reasons for believing something that cannot be demonstrated with scientific rigor to others.
To demand that others believe does get an onus.
The trick with morality is that I don't think we experience it in the way for example native Africans experienced the long-distance communication between elephants. Even ghosts are not experienced the way morals are experienced, if they are. Black boxing for a moment the existence of ghosts, if one sees and hears things, one is undergoing something empirical. One may or may not be misinterpreting a phenomenon, but one is experiencing something. I don't think the same thing can be said for morals.
I think a phenomenological investigation of what one experiences when one experiences morality would not be pleasing for moral realists.
Thanks. I'd like to pick out some of the things you say. And this was my assertion: 'Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, belief that it exists - and any theories based on its existence - are irrational.'
1 'My problem with this argument or assertion is that the category 'physical' has been expanding through time.'
Agreed. And that's meant the gaps/spaces for the supposed non-physical have been closing.
2 'For your position to be meaningful there would need to be a process whereby evidence would come in for something and it could possibly be considered non-physical. I believe science should not be considered a physicalist methodology. It's really a verificationist methodology, but I think due to the history of conflict with the church, say, and other sets of beliefs, it has seemed necessary to take an ontological stand, whereas, in fact scientists in practice just try to find real phenomena and understand them.'
My condition is 'pending evidence'. And natural scientists do as you say - they try to find 'real phenomena' - which is physical evidence. So I think 'methodological naturalism' is the correct name for the scientific method - assuming at least a near-synonymy between naturalism, materialism and physicalism - which I know can be disputed. I don't understand what you think 'evidence...that could possibly be considered non-physical' could be. That we believe, or have believed, a phenomenon to be non-physical isn't evidence that it is non-physical - obviously.
3 'So, to rule out a phenomenon because it seems or is asserted to be non-physical, it seems to me, is jumping the gun. To ask for evidence, especially if the other person expects you to believe them, is only logical and rational. As it would be if someone asserted X, that is physical, exists, if one is not aware of any evidence backing this up.'
Again, there's no ruling out here. My point isn't that the non-physical can't exist. It's precisely the asking for evidence that makes the enquiry logical and rational.
4 'If we look at the history of science, up into the early 70s it was professionally dangerous to assert that animals were conscious experiencers with intentions, and other cognitive subjective qualities. The problem of other minds coupled with old prejudices made this taboo. And it is very hard to demonstrate the internal life of anyone including animals. Yet, animal trainers, pet owners, animists, indigenous people, pagans and many others worked with the rather rational assumption that animals did have internal lives, etc. Then there was a shift in the model.'
My point is that there's no evidence - so far, and to my knowledge - that the 'internal life' of anything is non-physical - that it has a non-physical cause or explanation.
5 'I am NOT arguing that consciousness is non-physical. What I am saying here is that it is not irrational per se to believe in things one is not, at a certain point in time (which is always where we are) able to demonstrate to others or the scientific community.'
Absolutely. Loads of scientific advance comes from pushing the boat out, hypothesising and exploring possibilities.
6 'One can have rational reasons for believing something that cannot be demonstrated with scientific rigor to others.'
Maybe here's the rub - and the condition 'cannot' seems critical to me. Can you give an example?