Why Physicalism is Wrong

[QuantumT]

Physicalism is wrong because the act of seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling and tasting solidifies waves of potential into matter. Our senses are the measuring devices that collapses the wave function every second in our lives.

When you look at your screen, like right now, it is emitting photons. But if you leave your screen, and go to another room, it emits waves, not photons.

That is why physicalism is wrong.

[CH67]

From the onset, mental phenomena like thoughts or sensations should never be substantiated, i.e. be regarded as things (as does the author). Rather we are talking about (biological) abilities, e.g. the ability to consciously process a part of the sensory input or to speak or to perceive. Mind is no substance/thing because if it were, we would be awake and thinking all the time as even an only temporarily "mindless mind" or "consciousless consciousness" would be a logical (!) contradiction in itself. Narcosis and other clinical conditions clearly prove the one-sided dependency of psychological capabilities from sufficiently intact brain functions and there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the existence of mental phenomena (e.g. perception) in the absence of respective brain function. Thus while it is trivial to say that psychological abilities are not identical with physiological processes in brains, it is obvious that these abilities are part of the physical and biological world we are living in. To understand the development of these capabilities on the basis of brain functioning is now subject to Cognitive Neuroscience. The brain-mind problem is no longer a philosophical problem anymore but a scientific one. We overcame the concept of the élan vital to explain life or the phlogiston to explain warmth, and we are now overcoming substantiating concepts of soul, minds and consciousness in favor of complex physical processes and functions bearing these astounding psychological abilities of living systems. Physicalism changes the way we look at phenomena. Dualists, not materialistic monists are stuck in their own linguistic traps.

[CH67]

When you look at your screen, like right now, it is emitting photons. But if you leave your screen, and go to another room, it emits waves, not photons.
That is why physicalism is wrong.

Quantum physics shows effects of measuring systems, not conscious observation. There is no subjectivity or psychology in quantum physics. This is a deep but unfortunately common misunderstanding.

[QuantumT]

Quantum physics shows effects of measuring systems, not conscious observation. There is no subjectivity or psychology in quantum physics. This is a deep but unfortunately common misunderstanding.

It's rare to see so many ignorant claims in two sentences.
First: It's not called Quantum Physics, but Quantum Mechanics. Second: Measuring devices are an extension of human consciousness. Third: There's no misunderstandings, only disagreeing interpretations. Dismissing one interpretation is arrogant. But you can respectfully disagree, like I do with your claims.

"Hence it is clear that the space of physics is not, in the last analysis, anything given in nature or independent of human thought."
- Albert Einstein

[CH67]

Quantum physics shows effects of measuring systems, not conscious observation. There is no subjectivity or psychology in quantum physics. This is a deep but unfortunately common misunderstanding.

Measuring devices are an extension of human consciousness.

I agree that Quantum Mechanics is the proper term. Thanks for the kind reminder.

Consciousness is a feature of a (small) part of biological information processing but does not exist as a kind of substance and therefore cannot be extended, at least by measuring devices. (It would be better to only use the adjective/adverb conscious/ly.) If at all, we are talking about a role of knowledge in Quantum Mechanics but not of consciousness. Knowledge is objective. Measuring devices extend our senses (and memory) and therefore extend our possibilities to physically interact with our surroundings in a meaningful way. The idea of a quantum mechanical/physical theory of consciousness relies on deep misconceptions as regards both physics and the psychology of consciousness.

[jayjacobus]

Consciousness is a feature of a (small) part of biological information processing but does not exist as a kind of substance and therefore cannot be extended, at least by measuring devices. (It would be better to only use the adjective/adverb conscious/ly.) If at all, we are talking about a role of knowledge in Quantum Mechanics but not of consciousness. Knowledge is objective. Measuring devices extend our senses (and memory) and therefore extend our possibilities to physically interact with our surroundings in a meaningful way. The idea of a quantum mechanical/physical theory of consciousness relies on deep misconceptions as regards both physics and the psychology of consciousness.

I agree with most of this except how the biological information processing is perceived by consciousness is not known. Senses are representations that are processed by the brain. Consciousness perceives the senses. Even if consciousness is not a substance it seems likely that it is some sort of "device". Can the device be made of something other than matter? Yet calling consciousness "matter" is like calling computers "matter". Consciousness may be made of matter, but so what? It is what it does that defines it.

I don't like the word "consciousness" either. I prefer the word "soul" or some other more accurate noun.

[QuantumT]

Consciousness is a feature of a (small) part of biological information processing but does not exist as a kind of substance and therefore cannot be extended, at least by measuring devices. (It would be better to only use the adjective/adverb conscious/ly.) If at all, we are talking about a role of knowledge in Quantum Mechanics but not of consciousness. Knowledge is objective. Measuring devices extend our senses (and memory) and therefore extend our possibilities to physically interact with our surroundings in a meaningful way. The idea of a quantum mechanical/physical theory of consciousness relies on deep misconceptions as regards both physics and the psychology of consciousness.

Sounds like hair-splitting.
Let's call it "human though", like old Albert did.
No device is needed without "human thought". None can be made without. None can be used without. None can be read without.
A measuring device is both impossible (to come to exist) and useless, without "a mind" to make, operate and read it.
You dislike the word consciousness and the concept of psychology in QM. Fine. We can call it whatever you like

[QuantumT]

[Justintruth]

From the onset, mental phenomena like thoughts or sensations should never be substantiated, i.e. be regarded as things (as does the author). Rather we are talking about (biological) abilities, e.g. the ability to consciously process a part of the sensory input or to speak or to perceive. Mind is no substance/thing because if it were, we would be awake and thinking all the time as even an only temporarily "mindless mind" or "consciousless consciousness" would be a logical (!) contradiction in itself. Narcosis and other clinical conditions clearly prove the one-sided dependency of psychological capabilities from sufficiently intact brain functions and there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the existence of mental phenomena (e.g. perception) in the absence of respective brain function. Thus while it is trivial to say that psychological abilities are not identical with physiological processes in brains, it is obvious that these abilities are part of the physical and biological world we are living in. To understand the development of these capabilities on the basis of brain functioning is now subject to Cognitive Neuroscience. The brain-mind problem is no longer a philosophical problem anymore but a scientific one. We overcame the concept of the élan vital to explain life or the phlogiston to explain warmth, and we are now overcoming substantiating concepts of soul, minds and consciousness in favor of complex physical processes and functions bearing these astounding psychological abilities of living systems. Physicalism changes the way we look at phenomena. Dualists, not materialistic monists are stuck in their own linguistic traps.

Would you say though, that the these abilities to be conscious are not predicted or derivable from the standard model of physics for an arbitrary device? In other words, can we at least say that current physical laws will not predict a conscious ability no matter what the arrangement of standard particles is? They just predict another state vector in Hilbert space and we have the various operators that we could use to determine measurements. But there are not operators that would have as input the state of an arbitray set of physical particles as defined by the standard model of particle physics and have as output what its conscious abilities are. RIght?

[attofishpi]

Again, I don't believe qualia will be understood until, the receiving system is correlated into some comprehension that like electricity flowing between cathode and anode...qualia - 'sense', i believe is formed somewhere between the light and the dark energy\matter, the true backbone to reality..consciousness.

[Arising_uk]

First: It's not called Quantum Physics, but Quantum Mechanics. Second: Measuring devices are an extension of human consciousness. Third: There's no misunderstandings, only disagreeing interpretations. Dismissing one interpretation is arrogant. But you can respectfully disagree, like I do with your claims.

"Hence it is clear that the space of physics is not, in the last analysis, anything given in nature or independent of human thought."
- Albert Einstein

So if I rig up a candle above a vat of petrol in your house and it is triggered to drop into it by a detector measuring a photon from a timed light source you are saying that if you go away you won't come back to find your house burnt down?

[Arising_uk]

… But if you leave your screen, and go to another room, it emits waves, not photons.

Given what you say how do you know this?

[uwot]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Understanding the mathematics of QM is very tricky, but if you want to understand what actually happens (or at least conceptualise it) check out pages 13-31 https://willijbouwman.blogspot.com
Richard Feynman used to say that the most mysterious thing about QM is the double slit experiment. This is one way to conceptualise it (Can't remember who posted it first, but well done them.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ&t=304s
Anyone who is still profoundly shocked by quantum mechanics hasn't done their homework. Or is just easily shocked.

[QuantumT]

So if I rig up a candle above a vat of petrol in your house and it is triggered to drop into it by a detector measuring a photon from a timed light source you are saying that if you go away you won't come back to find your house burnt down?

It's being computed/processed like any other event. It's just not being visualized/taking shape, untill the observer arrives.

Given what you say how do you know this?

A logic conclusion based on the Double Slit Experiment.
I admit that it's daring and rare to put the DSE results into daily day activities, but nature is not limited to the lab, so obviously it must happens everywhere all the time.
I wish they would test it! But until they do, it's a logic conclusion.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Understanding the mathematics of QM is very tricky, but if you want to understand what actually happens (or at least conceptualise it) check out pages 13-31 https://willijbouwman.blogspot.com
Richard Feynman used to say that the most mysterious thing about QM is the double slit experiment. This is one way to conceptualise it (Can't remember who posted it first, but well done them.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ&t=304s
Anyone who is still profoundly shocked by quantum mechanics hasn't done their homework. Or is just easily shocked.

Well, Bohr said it when QM was new, 100 years ago. And the implications are still unknown to most people outside the community (to whom I assume he spoke the words).
If you're a physician, you don't walk around in awe of the miracle of life. It's taken for granted. But that doesn't make life less miraculous. Same goes for scientists and QM.

[Arising_uk]

It's being computed/processed like any other event. It's just not being visualized/taking shape, untill the observer arrives. …

So if no-one turns up you think your house wouldn't be burnt down?

A logic conclusion based on the Double Slit Experiment.
I admit that it's daring and rare to put the DSE results into daily day activities, but nature is not limited to the lab, so obviously it must happens everywhere all the time.
I wish they would test it! But until they do, it's a logic conclusion. …

It's not a logical conclusion, the logical conclusion according to your hypotheses is that you would have no idea what's happening whilst you're not there.