Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists

On 21 Mar, 23:47, j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins) wrote:
someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 21 Mar, 00:13, j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins) wrote:
someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 20 Mar, 23:44, j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins) wrote:
someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 20 Mar, 21:24, j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins) wrote:
someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Their ideas rely on it being plausible that there is only the
physical.

An article on this issue can be found
athttp://www.answernot42.com/index.html

It would be interesting to hear any defences that those phyicalist
evolutionists have on this forum.

M:  An argument isn't just contradiction.
A:   It can be.
M:  No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements
intended to establish a proposition.
A:   No it isn't.
M:  Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A:   Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M:  Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A:   Yes it is!
M:   No it isn't!
A:   Yes it is!
M:  Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the
automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

I hear you have quite famous philosophers in Australia, two of which,
David Chalmers, and Place, were mentioned in the article. Would you
care to attempt to provide a counter for physicalism against the
arguments in the article? Some on this site have suggested that a post
doctoral research fellow like yourself would be able to. Whereas I
suspect you attempted to substitute comedy, for a reasoned counter
because you hadn't got one. Would you care to show us who was right?

I like David Chalmers (Ullin Place was a bit before my time) and think
that he does what he does with flair. However, his "hard problem" is, in
my view, merely verbal. There is no reason to think, if one is a
physicalist, that there has to be a qualitative aspect apart from merely
having a perspective on the world. So the rest of the argument fails to
compel me.

Moreover, I know many "evolutionists" who think there *is* a qualitative
aspect to the world, and who are often substance dualists. Not many, to
be sure, but enough that *that* argument fails.

Monism or "Australian materialism" was the standard topic of my first
year in philosophy - there's a reason why it's called *Australian* -
Jackson, Armstrong, Mackie and so on were teaching in Australian
universities in the 60s and 70s. Should I be impressed more by the fact
that Chalmers is Australian than that they were?

If you want to discuss introductory philosophy of mind, do so with your
tutor or lecturer. The essay is at that level, and I have enough
undergraduate essays to deal with.

Now if you have something you want to discuss, lay out each claim in a
single post and we might talk. I think I can defend physicalism for
everything except realism about universals.

As of yesterday I am a fixed contract lecturer, not a postdoc, but I
think I'll leave the label in the sig - too much trouble.

(sorry missed out a bit, so reposted.

Well then could you provide a counter to where the article claims to
show the conception that if in principle, the physical state of
reality were known, and any rules in terms of the physical which
governed interactions within reality were also known, the change in
state of reality over time (the behaviour) could be explained, is
false.

Could you rephrase that? I don't see what the claim is. Are you saying
that if we knew the state of things completely we couldn't predict the
outcomes? Why?

Since you claim that this is merely introductory stuff, you should
have no problem, after all, what if it was one of your students that
put it to you. You seem to have invested time responding, so why not
simply give the counter argument that you imply you could easily do?
If your level is such that you weren't in agreement with what such a
basic argument suggest, yet when presented with it, could provide no
counter, should you really be accepting the money for the contract?

No need to get nasty. If you want to engage ideas, don't insult your
disputant.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

I wasn't simply saying that you couldn't predict the outcomes, I was
saying that the article shows the conception to be false, such that
you wouldn't be able to explain the outcomes (not a question of
whether it was deterministic, and so even conceptually predictable).

1. Why? I'm not going to read your essay - it's too incoherent. Give
reasons here.

2. So what? Must a physicalist be a strict laplacean determinist?

I'm surprised you asked why, since you had already judged the article
to be so basic, yet it seems that you haven't even read it. Though I
must say to declare something that you haven't read to be merely
introductory stuff, and way below the level you are at does seem
slightly pompous. So I'm not sure which way to take it, did you read
it and yet not understand how the claim was reasoned, or did you just
make a declaration without reading it?

I tried but it was too much effort for too little payoff. Learn to write
philosophy essays if you are going to continue doing it.



Regardless, given you dispute what it claims, aren't you able to point
out where the flaw is in the reasoning? I would certainly be grateful
if you would spare the time to do such a thing, and look forward to
reading any counter argument you could offer.

Just as soon as you provide the reasoning, I will discuss it.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."


The reasoning is provided, it is sitting on a website. Are you saying
that if I cut and pasted the article here, you'd answer it, or are you
saying that you wouldn't because you'd just state it was
incomprehensible? Would you tell me the parts you couldn't comprehend?
If you would, then you could simply do that with the article on the
website, and I'll update it for you, and republish. If you wouldn't,
then should I judge that to be the calibre of your counter?

Alternatively would it be ok for me to examine you on physicalism, and
for you to attempt to defend it? Obviously it isn't for you to be
asking me questions back, as this might result in the questions posed
to you being avoided by means of continuous distraction from the
questioning. You state you could defend physicalism, care to give it a
go, if as you say you can't understand the article? You would be free
to examine me on an alternative to physicalism afterwards

(P.S. I certainly wasn't saying the physicalist had to be a
determinist, laplacean or otherwise. My point was that it was worded
so as the physicalist would only have to explain, not predict (with
its deterministic implications) as you had suggested. Explaining
allows random behaviour, as it can be explained as random behaviour)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
    ... A:   No it isn't. ... but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.' ... care to attempt to provide a counter for physicalism against the ... There is no reason to think, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
    ... A:   No it isn't. ... It's not just contradiction. ... care to attempt to provide a counter for physicalism against the ... governed interactions within reality were also known, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
    ... A:   No it isn't. ... It's not just contradiction. ... care to attempt to provide a counter for physicalism against the ... governed interactions within reality were also known, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
    ... but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.' ... care to attempt to provide a counter for physicalism against the ... I'm not going to read your essay - it's too incoherent. ... Just as soon as you provide the reasoning, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
    ... but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.' ... physicalism for everything except realism about universals. ... I'm not going to read your essay - it's too incoherent. ... Just as soon as you provide the reasoning, ...
    (talk.origins)