From: x@x.org   
      
   On 8/4/24 13:37, D wrote:   
   > What are 3 arguments in favour of physicalism?   
   >   
   > 1. The Success of the Natural Sciences   
   > One of the strongest arguments for philosophical physicalism is the   
   > overwhelming success of the natural sciences in explaining and   
   > predicting phenomena in the universe. Physicalism posits that everything   
   > that exists is either physical or dependent on physical processes. The   
   > advancements in fields such as physics, chemistry, and biology have   
   > consistently demonstrated that complex phenomena can be understood   
   > through physical laws and theories. For instance, neurological studies   
   > have shown correlations between brain states and mental states,   
   > suggesting that consciousness arises from physical processes in the   
   > brain. This empirical success lends credence to the idea that all   
   > aspects of reality, including mental phenomena, can ultimately be   
   > explained by physical science.   
   >   
   > 2. The Principle of Parsimony (Occam’s Razor)   
   > Philosophical physicalism aligns with the principle of parsimony, often   
   > referred to as Occam’s Razor, which states that one should not multiply   
   > entities beyond necessity. In other words, when faced with competing   
   > hypotheses about the nature of reality, one should prefer the simpler   
   > explanation that requires fewer assumptions. Physicalism offers a   
   > unified framework where all entities are understood as physical or   
   > reducible to physical properties. By contrast, dualistic or   
   > non-physicalist theories introduce additional entities (such as souls or   
   > non-physical minds) without sufficient justification. Thus, adopting a   
   > physicalist perspective minimizes ontological commitments and adheres to   
   > a more straightforward understanding of existence.   
   >   
   > 3. The Argument from Causal Closure   
   > The causal closure of the physical domain is another compelling argument   
   > for philosophical physicalism. This principle asserts that if a physical   
   > event has a cause, then it must have a sufficient cause within the realm   
   > of physics; no external non-physical causes can intervene in this causal   
   > chain. If mental events could causally influence physical events (as   
   > suggested by dualistic theories), it would imply that there are   
   > non-physical interactions occurring within a fundamentally closed system   
   > governed by physical laws. However, since all observed interactions   
   > conform to known physical laws without invoking non-physical   
   > explanations, this supports the view that everything—including   
   > consciousness—is ultimately rooted in physical processes.   
      
   Yes, evil is a parasitism of the good.   
      
   First of all, there is semantics.   
      
   You shift phenomena like chaos and non-determinism to mean   
   'we are always right'   Nothing violates 'our laws'.   
      
   Then if it is simple, say that it is wrong.  Newton is wrong.   
   Only strange people who jump down black holes and people   
   who kill magical Schroedinger cats are 'true'.  Modern physics   
   would make Occam puke.   
      
   Then of course, only elite people can know what is true.  Following   
   the senses is 'rationalization'.   
      
   Then of course it progresses to the worship of Cupid and Psyche.   
   Psyche was the wife of Cupid in the Greco-Roman tradition, and   
   the word 'psyche' can be translated as meaning 'soul'.  But the   
   article of faith of the modern religion or belief system or   
   pseudoscience is that minds undergo a health or disease process   
   similar to the bodies of plants and animals.  If an elite person   
   calls someone 'mentally diseased' then you no longer have to   
   reason with someone because you can totally reject mind and ideas.   
   So 'science' is not actually the worship of nuclear weapons.   
   But wait, maybe it actually is,  And the people who want to   
   be killed with nuclear weapons, all live in 'democracies'   
   even though they would probably vote against being killed   
   with nuclear weapons if given the chance.  'Science' is not   
   'Satan'?  In the actual world, it is reasonable to say that   
   good gradually mutates into evil simulating good.  Look at the   
   last election.  You have one of the candidates call another   
   something like 'senile', and he dropped out of the race.  He   
   was probably not drugged by foreign agents during a debate,   
   but because 'sanity' or 'mental health' are not philosophically   
   flawed concepts, than those statements were generally considered   
   to be 'true' based upon a belief system called 'psychology'.  Look   
   at how this thread is drifting.  You get the opponents of   
   physicalism to accept psychological terms like 'ego', then of   
   course if they accept that, you get to win because you call   
   your opponents 'insane'.  Yet it has nothing to do with reason   
   at all, because once you call your opponents 'insane' then   
   you can appear to win because your arguments get the illusion   
   of 'reason'.  Let's face it, this may very well be a short   
   summary of the triumph of 'physicalism'.  But you will not   
   face it however.  Taking off the masks is not allowed.   
   Well, you know it might be possible that the 'laws of   
   physics' do exist.  I think that truth and goodness   
   may be viable absolutes, but it is often standard to   
   take something less than that and argue it into something   
   grotesque.  That might also exist with the terms 'physical   
   laws' or 'laws of nature'.   
      
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDQEJ06QoRs   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)