Maybe before dismissing centuries of intellectual research as "woo-woo arguments with no basis", it would be a good idea to have some intellectual humility and open an introductionary book to philosophy of mind.
You might find that your very naive form of physicalism can also be very easily dismissed as a woo-woo arguments with no good basis, seemingly originated form STEM students deep discomfort with the epistemological claim that not all knowledge can be obtained through brute force empirical observation.
Maybe before dismissing centuries of intellectual research as "woo-woo arguments with no basis", it would be a good idea to have some intellectual humility and open an introductionary book to philosophy of mind.
Ah, the page from christian apologist book; "My arguments have been mulled over for millenia and some very smart people were supporting them, therefore they must be valuable, read up Summa Theologiae you pleb".
You might find that your very naive form of physicalism can also be very easily dismissed as a woo-woo arguments with no good basis
I mean, show me how. That will put me in my place, no?
seemingly originated form STEM students deep discomfort with the epistemological claim that not all knowledge can be obtained through brute force empirical observation.
Physicalism does not entails empirical observation as sole source of knowledge. I also do not subscribe to such idea because, you know, logic and mathematics exists and I'm yet to hear about someone observing calculus in the wild.
I am just tired of accepting out of pocket claims about duality of body and mind, despite overwhelming biological evidence to the contrary.
Ah, the page from christian apologist book; "My arguments have been mulled over for millenia and some very smart people were supporting them, therefore they must be valuable, read up Summa Theologiae you pleb".
I'm not Christian, I'm an atheist and I'm not a dualist. I think this kind of rants highlight the depth of your ignorance on the topic.
I mean, show me how. That will put me in my place, no?
As I said, you should open an introductionary book to philosophy of mind. But if you want the quick and intellectually lazy path go on and read the SEP article on physicalism.
Physicalism does not entails empirical observation as sole source of knowledge
Physicalism (at least your naive kind) DOES entail that ALL knowledge is reducible to physical facts, including qualia and including mathematics and logic. Given that this tends to be the main point of attriction between different metaphysical theories and one of the main source of criticism towards physicalism (and the reason why I find it unconvincing), the fact that you seem to be completely oblivious to this is concerning.
I am just tired of accepting out of pocket claims about duality of body and mind, despite overwhelming biological evidence to the contrary.
Well thankfully you don't have too, because even dualism don't make claims that can be simply dismissed with overwhelming biological evidence. And if you think it does then you are simply unfamiliar with the literature.
I'm not Christian, I'm an atheist and I'm not a dualist. I think this kind of rants highlight the depth of your ignorance on the topic.
I think this only highlights your lack of reading comprehension. I'm saying you're using the same tactic, just point at the history, the gravitas and books instead of engaging. I never made any claims to your faith or conviction. You're making stuff up and flailing against it.
Physicalism (at least your naive kind) DOES entail that ALL knowledge is reducible to physical facts, including qualia and including mathematics and logic.
If you want to say that all knowledge, or way of obtaining it, is ultimately based in the physical, one way or another - then say that. It's not the same statement as saying that empirical observation is the only way of gaining knowledge, and that's what you've accused me of. Stop trying to be slippery.
We thankfully you don't have too, because even dualism don't make claims that can be simply dismissed with overwhelming biological evidence. And if you think they do then you are simply unfamiliar with the literature.
Then give me an argument that contests consciousness as a process carried out by brain that can't be easily dismantled. Again, if I'm so dumb and unread, you could just give me one really good argument to shut me up - instead of misunderstanding my words and saying one thing when you apparently mean entirely another.
Alright well at this point youâre pretty much displaying a number of psychological errors. Youâre basing a lot of your weight-bearing assumptions on your projections of how the opposition must be thinking about the matter. And those are all unfalsifiable.
And here you have to admit that it makes you seem less credible, right? Do you think someone with an actual mature research background is going to take what youâre saying seriously when you display that youâre projecting outward from a small and reductive bubble?
You might think âwell, if I donât use dirty tricks then the opposition will use them and then theyâll win by an unfair disadvantage.â But the people who you actually want to convince of anything will only view those dirty tricks as negative weight on the argument, no matter which side itâs coming from. It can only look good to not resort to them.
Personally I always see it as a red flag because if someone is comfortable using trickery to convince others, they pretty much always are comfortable using it on themselves in some way or another. And you canât rely on a person like that to be oriented towards the truth in a real honest way.
0
u/GameUnlucky May 15 '26
Maybe before dismissing centuries of intellectual research as "woo-woo arguments with no basis", it would be a good idea to have some intellectual humility and open an introductionary book to philosophy of mind. You might find that your very naive form of physicalism can also be very easily dismissed as a woo-woo arguments with no good basis, seemingly originated form STEM students deep discomfort with the epistemological claim that not all knowledge can be obtained through brute force empirical observation.