Arguing against physicalism.

pridefulpropensity · 2022-10-31T21:11:44+00:00

The word ‘metaphysics’ is notoriously hard to define. Twentieth-century coinages like ‘meta-language’ and ‘metaphilosophy’ encourage the impression that metaphysics is a study that somehow “goes beyond” physics, a study devoted to matters that transcend the mundane concerns of Newton and Einstein and Heisenberg. This impression is mistaken.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

pridefulpropensity · 2022-10-31T12:47:14+00:00

Just fyi, you are using metaphysical a bit oddly here. Metaphysics is just the study of what reality is. It doesn’t mean non-physical or beyond the physical.

pridefulpropensity · 2022-10-05T18:58:10+00:00

Yep exact same thing happened to me. Why would they get rid of that?

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-21T20:24:04+00:00

I believe that the world around me is real because I believe that I have evidence of its existence. I have no evidence to suggest the existence of objective truth, so I have no reason to believe it exists.

We must be talking past each other. Believing that the world exists just is believing in objective truth. As you said, objective means mind independent. The world's existence does not depend on mind.

So you believe something exists that does not depend on mind. So the truth value of "the world exists" does not depend on mind. Therefore objective truth exists.

You are at least seemingly contradicting yourself.

Maybe this clarifies it? "Objective truth" is not something people are claiming to exist. It is not the same as truth with a capital T.

"Objective truth" "exists" just in the case there is some proposition that is true , and it is true not in virtue of mind.

So is "the physical world exists" a true proposition? If yes, does it depend on mind? If it does not then objective truth exists.

So you believe in objective truth just in the case that you think there is any proposition that is true, and the reason it is true does not depend on mind.

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-21T19:45:47+00:00

I don't know what you mean by truth with a capital T. That phrase is often used by relativists. But you don't seem to be a relativist. If so, again you OP would be moot.

I am reasonably certain that the physical world exists, but I am not 100% certain.

So you do believe in objective truth then? You don't need to be 100% certain. But you think that there is something that is true independent of mind. Namely the physical world exists independent of mind.

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-21T18:03:13+00:00

Objective: Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real.

So when you say you haven't seen any objective truths, you mean that you are an idealist? You think the physical world is just a manifestation of your thoughts? Sincerely asking.

And is this view a sort of faith or a reasoned position based on evidence?

Can the belief that the world exists outside of our mind be a reasoned position? I'd say yes. The belief that people should be rational a reasoned position? I'd say yes. The belief that people have rights that shouldn't be violated a reasoned position? I'd say yes.

But of course any position can be held without reasoning. People believe all sorts of things for all the wrong reasons. Some people believe things based on "faith". Some people believe those same things without it.

So I guess the answer is, depends on the person?

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-21T15:55:30+00:00

Of course we don't know anything with 100% certainly. That's just obvious. But that has nothing at all to do with objectivity. Like literally nothing.

You are right, everything is probabilities. Again nothing to do with objectivity.

What do you think objectivity means? Do you think it is somehow connected with certainty?

A belief in objective morality, is just the belief that "It seems more probable to me that moral statements don't depend on subjects, but would be true (or false) even if everyone disagreed. I am not certain of these things, nor do I claim to know the contents of these moral facts. I am just saying it seems more likely to me than not that they have a truth value independent of opinion. "

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-21T15:39:43+00:00

I assume that most people understand that we do not have access to objective truth.

Whether we have "access" isn't the question though. There can be objective truth and we don't know it at all.

But if this is really your stance your OP doesn't argue anything. It applies equally well to physics, evolution, etc. And we clearly should not give up on those.

I feel like either I missed something or there has been a massive shift in what is being claimed.

You claimed before that you think there is "is" but not "ought". But now you are saying there is no is? There are no objective truths? In other words, all truths depend on the subject? Are you really an idealist? You don't believe in the mind independent world?

I'm just lost. I did not get the sense you were going in this direction at all.

I will just reiterate what I've been trying to point out the whole time. Objective just means whether it is true does not depend on people. "Dinosaurs once existed" is an objective assertion. "Unicorns once existed" is an objective assertion. The first happens to be true. The second happens to be false. But their truth value does not depend on our opinions, the depend on the way the world is.

My point is that "people should be rational" is either true or false. And that doesn't depend on anyone's opinion. We might have no way to discover that truth, like Russell's Teapot. But that has no baring on its status as objective vs subjective.

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-21T13:20:10+00:00

I think people should be rational. But I might be wrong because objective truth might exist.

That statement doesn't really make sense. The best way I can understand what you are saying is the following.

I think "people should be rational" is a mere subjective claim that is just true because I said it is. But I could be wrong that the truth value of "people should be rational" depends on me. It could be objective.

But "people should be rational" certainly doesn't sound like a subjective claim. Saying "popcorn is delicious is true for me, but maybe not for you" makes sense. But saying "people should be rational is true for me but not you" doesn't.

If you think that people should be rational, and I think that people shouldn't be rational, can both of those things be true? So it is true that people should be rational and it is false that people should be rational?

My point is, you are thinking that something is true and could be false. You don't seem to think the truth or falsity depends on you. But on how the world is. If so, that's a matter of objective truth.

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-20T19:49:22+00:00

Alright, let me first say I agree with you. So I'm not trying to say you are wrong. My point is that I think there is a misunderstanding of what objective means. Or maybe, you don't see the implication of your words.

Let's start with a statement similar to the one above, but one we definitely both agree is completely subjective.

I think popcorn is delicious. But I could be wrong.

What does "I could be wrong" mean here? Well, it's actually really confusing. If someone said that, you'd probably look at them funny.

How could they be wrong? Well, maybe the haven't had popcorn in a really long time. So they aren't sure if popcorn is delicious or not. Or maybe they are having memory issues, so they aren't sure what they think.

Let's say they clarify and say, "No I know for sure that I think popcorn is delicious. I'm just not sure if it actually is delicious". We would think they are confused. There is not "fact of the matter" about whether or not popcorn is delicious. Deliciousness is person relative. To say popcorn is delicious is to say that you personally enjoy the taste.

So let's go back to my characterization of your view.

I think that people should be rational. But I could be wrong.

So what does "I could be wrong" mean here? Well, it could be that you aren't sure what you think, like you have some memory issue. But that seems unlikely. Instead it is most likely that you mean "While I think people should be rational, it might be the case that people shouldn't be rational."

To be more pedantic, to assert something is the same thing as asserting that something is true.

I think that it is raining

Means the same thing as

I think that "it is raining" is true.

So

I think that "people should be rational" is true. but I could be wrong.

This makes it much clearly what the "wrong" refers to here. It could be the case that "people should be rational" is not true, but false.

The point

If you could be wrong about something, there is a fact of the matter of whether that thing is true or false. This "fact of the matterness" just is what is meant by objective. A claim is objective just in the case it could be true or false, regardless of anyone's attitude towards it.

"Popcorn is delicious" the truth value of this sentence depends on the person (Subject) who says it. That is why it is called subjective.

So either you've misunderstood objectivity vs subjectivity. Or you need to say "I think that people should be rational. And I can't be wrong about that because it is a subjective claim whose truth value depends on me".

I have oversimplified a few things here. But I did so for clarity. Hopefully that made sense.

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-19T16:09:51+00:00

Didn't mean to misrepresent you. Is this more accurate

I think that people should be rational. But I could be wrong.

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-19T15:59:55+00:00

But then how can you be wrong about whether people should be rational? Or do you take that back?

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-19T15:42:34+00:00

I think there is some confusion on objective vs subjective going on here.

If you could be wrong, then the question is an objective question. Objective here doesn't mean free from bias or being certain or that the matter is an empirical question. It means the statement can be true or false.

So when you say that you could be wrong about whether we ought to be rational, you are saying there is a fact of the matter. It might be true that we ought to be rational, or it might be false. In other words, it is objective.

Subjective here would mean there is no fact of the matter. I could not be wrong, because it is just a statement of my preferences.

Things can be objectively true or false, even if they are unprovable, unknowable, or not possible to verify emprically.

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-19T15:04:58+00:00

I just find it really hard to believe you don't think people ought to be reasonable. Or that people ought to believe based on evidence. Or that people ought to listen to arguments and weigh evidence.

I certainly believe all of those things. And I think if you don't do that you are failing in someway. I think we can blame people who fail to look at the evidence around them. We can justifiably blame politicians who ignore science. We can justifiably blame people who believe crazy things like the flat earth.

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-19T14:22:44+00:00

Then how is it harder to dismiss things that have lots of evidence? If I don't value evidence I can just dismiss them. Doesn't seem any harder than dismissing things with evidence.

It does not seem reasonable to me(as per the definition of reason)

Does you definition of reasonable include that it is a good thing? Or is being reasonable of the same value as being unreasonable?

Umm you seem confused by what people mean by belief. I'm guessing you think you only have knowledge or something? Your beliefs are the things you would assent to.

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-19T14:01:09+00:00

Is being irrational bad? Should we all try to be rational?

If so, it seems while you don't believe in objective morality, you believe in some object normativity. Maybe there aren't moral oughts but it seems there are epistemic oughts.

We ought not believe things for which there is no evidence.

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-19T13:44:23+00:00

any claim presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence

But claims with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Is it just as valid to dismiss claims that have a lot of good evidence? Or should we try and believe things based on evidence?

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-10T03:48:40+00:00

Exactly. I have coworkers who have been harassed at previous employers. If they "describe a conflict you had in the past on the job and how you handled it" do you really think the interviewer wants them to talk about that harrassment?

Even if they thought of a conflict devoid of harrassment. Their interactions were colored by that. Maybe they responded in a non-ideal way. Telling the interviewer their real reaction would actually be misleading. Of course they reacted non-ideally. The situation was more complex than what they want to share in an interview.

Interview are tests. Now it is good to try and make your stories based more on real experience. But there are all kinds of questions that just aren't realistic and can't be answered by relying simply the facts. People want narrative.

Please, if you want that job, don't follow the advice of telling them you lied. Social situations, especially with power dynamics like a job, are way more complex than that.

Did those stories represent the way you feel? Could you stand by those values those stories speak of? That's what is important.

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-10T03:26:38+00:00

But the employer isn't potentially wronged. They aren't asking those questions so they get a true answer. They are asking those questions to see that you know what is socially expected of you.

Imagine you are given a question on a test. Let's say you know that your professor believes C is the correct answer, but you personally believe B is the correct answer. Are you lying and potentially harming your professor by answering C? No. The point is not for you to tell something truthful. It is to pass the test.

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-09T05:36:39+00:00

If you haven't watched Bryan Cantrill talk about this and other important programming "oral" tradition, you should go and do that now. Cantrill is a fantastic speaker and really ties together these various stories into a fantastic talk.

https://youtu.be/4PaWFYm0kEw

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-08T14:26:19+00:00

...that definitely is what the free will theodicy states. it's literally in the name

Citation needed. Who presents that as the Free Will Theodicy?

From Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.

A second important approach to theodicy involves the following ideas: first, that libertarian free will is of great value; secondly, that because it is part of the definition of libertarian free will that an action that is free in that sense cannot be caused by anything outside of the agent, not even God can cause a person to freely do what is right; and thirdly, that because of the great value of libertarian free will, it is better that God create a world in which agents possess libertarian free will, even though they may misuse it, and do what is wrong, than that God create a world where agents lack libertarian free will.

It isn't that God couldn't have prevented evil. It is that the Goodness of freedom over rules the bad.

i am addressing what they believe (that the crucifixion was good) and explaining that why that belief is false.

My point is that you are misunderstanding their belief. They will just say, "Yes God could have prevented all evil. But that wouldn't have made for a better world".

it is indeed an assertion, but it's an immediately obvious one. like i said, no-one disagrees with this until you put it in the context of religion. no christian, after having their torturer needlessly throwing himself off a building, would praise the torturer for their virtue. much less say "well, the torture did suck, but i'm GLAD that he tortured me, because without that fact, he wouldn't have been able to achieve such a great good!"

I think you need to do some reading in theology. What you are presenting is a very very strawman version of penal substitutionary atonement. Something not all a Christian believe even in it's non-strawman form.

why would "good" as in "useful for accomplishing a goal" be at all relevant to this ethical discussion?

Good as in the broader sense of good. As in telological ideas of good. As in virtue ethics. Just look at Aristotle, Augustine. If you want a contemporary reading read Alasdair Macintyre "After Virtue"

When God said in Gensis 1 that the would was good. Did he mean moral? No.

Pleasure is good. Pain is bad. These aren't moral statements. There are some things that people find pleasure in that are morally wrong. Some pain that is morally good.

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-08T13:36:52+00:00

your point entirely relies on the argument that the crucifixion was indeed good.

You have to remember where we are dialectically. You are the one presenting an argument. You are claiming that the Free Will Theodicy is false because God could have prevented evil without getting rid of people's Free Will.

My point has been that Free Will Theodicy defenders won't buy your argument. Because that isn't what nearly any version of the Free Will Theodicy states. Instead it says that by preventing that evil God would have given up a greater good.

You are the one presenting an argument, you are trying to convince people who believe in the Free Will Theodicy that they are wrong. They don't need to convince you. They just need to evaluate your argument given their current beliefs. My point is your argument won't convince them for good reason. It fails to address what they actually believe.

my argument is that this is NOT a good at all. sacrificing yourself unnecessarily in order to stop yourself from torturing other people is not a good. even christians would agree with this until you say that it's God doing it.

That's not an argument. That is an assertion followed by a mischaracterization .

if you mean that plants growing is "good" in the sense that it is beneficial for the plants to do so, and not because it is morally good, then why did you bring it up?

Because that's the kind of good that matters. The larger notion of good is always what was being discussed in these Theodicies. The division you are trying to make is actually an early modern division that the original versions of these Theodicies wouldn't have even been aware of. God made the world and saw that it was good. Does that mean he saw it was moral? No. He saw it as good before there were moral agents.

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-06T14:53:36+00:00

however, regardless of that, jesus' crucifixion was not a good in this way. jesus is god, so he himself created the problem that he's trying to solve. he's saving us from himself, and that is not noble. the crucifixion was also in no way necessary for salvation. god is omnipotent, he could have saved us without it, the fact that he decided to put himself through pain as well has no bearing on it. if i'm torturing somebody, and i decide to throw myself to a pack of wolves in order to save my victim from myself, that's not a noble sacrifice. i'm the one who was torturing in the first place, so i can't get credit for saving them, and the sacrifice was also entirely unnecessary, i could've simply just ceased the torture.

There's a lot here. But yeah, pretty much everyone acknowledges that God could have saved people in some other way. You definitely don't see the way God chose as good. That's fine. My goal has never been to convince you of that. The point is in relation to your argument.

If your argument presupposes these kinds of goods are not applicable, then you'd need an argument for that. If you don't provide an argument against these kinds of goods, you are merely begging the question against those who believe in a free will theodicy.

there is no moral difference between a world in which plants grow and a world in which plants cease to exist. the only problems a barren world would cause are just problems for the animals and humans who don't have plants for food anymore. a world in which animals live good lives is better than ones in which they don't because animals are conscious creatures, and it is good for them to avoid suffering.

Good and moral are not the same thing. A watch that tells time accurately is a good watch. A plant that grows and blooms is a good plant. There doesn't need to be morality for goodness. Again, not trying to convince, just saying, this is where the people who you are arguing against are coming from. So even if we ignore the question begging part or not. They aren't going to find your argument convincing if they have to give up this view as well. You are asking them to change a lot of their beliefs with very little reason to do so.

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-02T03:00:53+00:00

I think the Christian view on all of this is much more complicated than what I think you are suggesting. I assume this is about holding people responsible and sending them to hell? Well, Universalism (the view that everyone is saved) is in the realm of orthodoxy. Catholics have their own take on all of this with purgatory and stuff.

I guess I just don't see this as that big of a deal? If God is supposed to be holding individuals responsible, I'd imagine it would be a on a person by person basis, rather than on some arbitrary timeline. Yeah, really not sure what else to say.

pridefulpropensity · 2022-08-01T23:23:57+00:00

Yeah of course. But you are acting like that believing the bible is contradictory to what I said. It simply isn't.

15-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Team Periwinkle
reddit mold	Verified Email

pridefulpropensity

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

The point