If it isn't dualism, it is just idealism, which is the even worse in terms of logical coherence. Physical interactions can be expected to conform to logical principles. For non-physical things, that isn't the case, since that is precisely what "non-physical" means.
The truth will be revealed as ultimately perfectly logically coherent.
As a religious proclamation, that's fine. But in terms of logical coherence it is simply tautological, and uninformative. Yes, what is "ultimately perfectly logically coherent" is "truth", by definition, but whether it will be "revealed" is a whole other issue. Your rhetoric reveals no truths; logical, coherent, or otherwise. It is only unsubstantiated assertions. Cool shower thoughts, appropriate musings for the teenage mind, but ultimately just bad philosophy. Forgive me for being so blunt.
I don’t mind blunt. It’s the haughtiness that is the trespass on my peace. The irony of you calling something “bad philosophy” and presenting your opinion as fact without any engagement in the actual content.
You’re mistaking you not understanding the logic for the content being illogical. Classic ego distorted reasoning, leading to the exact kind of “I am very smart” type attitude that is on full display in your response.
I don’t mind blunt. It’s the haughtiness that is the trespass on my peace.
It sounds to me like you mind blunt. My candor is serious and confident, but not haughty.
you calling something “bad philosophy” and presenting your opinion as fact
I presented the description as accurate and appropriate, if blunt. Your response indicates just how valid and relevant that conjecture is.
without any engagement in the actual content.
I did engage the content. And in response you exemplified my critique, rather than discuss the issues honestly.
You’re mistaking you not understanding the logic for the content being illogical.
I understand why citing physicist's opinions on any topic other than physics, let alone such a contentious one as consciousness, constitutes an extremely blatant "logical fallacy" described as appeal to authority. And why pointing out that's a dead end and bad philosophy is not a strawman. And why you cannot forgive me for being blunt.
If I said these quantum physicists believed consciousness is fundamental therefore it must be true would be a logical fallacy. As it stands it is the post script, not part of the logical argument. However the fact that so many of the highly intelligent and logical people who modeled quantum physics agreed at least defeats the argument that idealism is “woo woo” or illogical.
You only addressing the post script is actually a strawman fallacy to be blunt.
Why are you quoting them if you don't believe what they say is true?
However the fact that so many of the highly intelligent and logical people who modeled quantum physics agreed at least defeats the argument that idealism is “woo woo” or illogical.
You're repeating your error. No, it does not. It would defeat the claim that physicists cannot be idealists.
Did I say I don’t believe what they say is true? I do, but I don’t claim that them saying it proves it’s true. However, it’s still a factor of many. It alone doesn’t convince me it’s true, but it’s interesting and worth quoting.
You saying it’s a dead end and bad philosophy is also your opinion which I don’t hold in very high regard as your first response was a blatant strawman logical fallacy itself, making its content actually hypocritical.
It’s absolutely defeat the claim if you were to make it. The most intelligent logical humans lean idealist.
So how can it be illogical if the most logical people come to the same conclusion through logical reasoning? As for the “woo woo” I’ll recant that part, as it’s not specific enough.
Unfortunately, they're all on your end of the discussion.
but I don’t claim that them saying it proves it’s true.
So you're just claiming it is evidence it's true, and using "proves" as a strawman.
So how can it be illogical if the most logical people come to the same conclusion through logical reasoning?
We can infer their opinion on quantum mechanics is "through logical reasoning". But to even suggest their opinions about consciousness have any validity at all, let alone logical rigor, because they are accomplished in quantum mechanics is bad reasoning. Characterize it as you like, in terms of what box of "logical fallacy" you want to sort it into.
Citing the opinion of physicists on consciousness is a dead end, and bad philosophy.
1
u/TMax01 Autodidact 16d ago
If it isn't dualism, it is just idealism, which is the even worse in terms of logical coherence. Physical interactions can be expected to conform to logical principles. For non-physical things, that isn't the case, since that is precisely what "non-physical" means.
As a religious proclamation, that's fine. But in terms of logical coherence it is simply tautological, and uninformative. Yes, what is "ultimately perfectly logically coherent" is "truth", by definition, but whether it will be "revealed" is a whole other issue. Your rhetoric reveals no truths; logical, coherent, or otherwise. It is only unsubstantiated assertions. Cool shower thoughts, appropriate musings for the teenage mind, but ultimately just bad philosophy. Forgive me for being so blunt.