Tag: Physicalism

The Modern-Day Boogeyman

I was recently watching a docuseries in which they talked about the Oracle of Delphi and all the subsequent oracles who were apparently successful until an earthquake brought the temple down where they would perform their prophecies.

According to the docuseries, scholars concluded that it was probably some natural form of gas (I forget the name of it) that emanated from underground that put the oracles into some kind of trance, and the chemical no longer existed for them after the temple was brought down. They didn’t say as much, but one can only assume this was their justification for why nothing paranormal had actually been happening.

Even though this sort of dialogue is extremely typical in academia, two things suddenly occurred to me while watching this. One, if we’re so sure that there can be no paranormal explanation for something/anything, why do we go through so much trouble desperately searching for a mechanistic explanation for anything? Why wouldn’t we just assume there’s some such explanation whether we’re aware of it or not, and leave it at that?

And two, so what if the Oracles of Delphi really were psychic prophets? Why do that and other such considerations bother us so much that we must always “solve the case” and come up with any explanation whatsoever that we can think of other than the paranormal?

These two things point to one thing: we’re playing a game with ourselves. To a mind that sees beyond the spirit of the times of their culture, there are many such societal or psychosocial games we collectively play with ourselves without even realizing it. They always have to do with the tension between what we’re conscious of about ourselves and what we’re not, and with what we are versus what we’re becoming, or perhaps sometimes versus where we’ve come from.

This particular game is rooted in our collective denial of a whole side of reality—indeed, the side that contains all the most beautiful, fascinating, meaningful, and uplifting aspects of life—following the Enlightenment, which is ingrained into us from such an early age and from so many directions that we don’t even realize we have this scientistic/physicalist/mechanicalist bent/bias.

We’re constantly trying to convince ourselves in order to keep up the charade, and we’ve hidden from the light by remaining physicalist for so long that the light of the spiritual has become dangerous and painful to us, and is therefore treated as the modern-day boogeyman.

Related posts: https://myriachromat.wordpress.com/2022/01/23/psychism/; https://myriachromat.wordpress.com/2018/04/13/notes-on-science-scientism-mysticism-religion-logic-physicalism-skepticism-etc/

On Evolution

Somebody in a Facebook group says this:

I don’t believe in evolution.

Rather, I accept the overwhelming evidence that supports evolution. It’s not a belief. It’s science.
The theory of evolution stands as one of the most well-supported scientific principles, backed by an overwhelming abundance of evidence. Fossil records and genetic studies all reinforce the fact that species evolve over time.

We can also literally observe evolution. We see it in fruit flies and many other short-lived creatures. It’s not something one has to “believe in.” You can literally watch it happen.

Despite this, the term “missing link” persists, often misused to suggest that evolution is riddled with gaps or unresolved mysteries.

In reality, scientists have discovered numerous transitional fossils, including early human ancestors such as Sahelanthropus tchadensis (6–7 million years old), Ardipithecus ramidus (4.5 million years old), and Australopithecus sediba (1.9 million years old). These fossils, among many many others, vividly illustrate the gradual development of species over time.

What’s more, no fossil has ever contradicted the theory of evolution. Among the vast number of fossils we’ve discovered (and there are many), not a single one has provided evidence that challenges evolutionary principles.

In fact, every fossil can be considered a transitional form, exhibiting traits shared with other species, further illustrating the gradual changes that occur over time.
We can debate how or why species evolve — natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, etc. — but we know species evolve

Here’s my response:

I’m so weary of people constantly denouncing belief or saying that the things they know/believe aren’t beliefs. Evolution may have overwhelming support behind it, and it may be true, but it’s still a belief. All we have are beliefs; some we just hold with certainty, which we call knowledge or truth, and they can also be more or less well-justified.

And your belief in evolution could be wrong, just like any of our beliefs. For example, can you prove you’re not a brain in a vat somewhere being fed a simulated reality that’s similar to some real external world except that it misleads you into thinking evolution is how species came to be? No, you can’t.

Furthermore, your belief in evolution is likely mostly true but false or misleading in certain crucial ways that make you closed to more-profound and beautiful truths about the world. For example, science can’t prove that the principles of random mutation and recombination, natural selection, etc. are sufficient to explain the fitness, diversity, and beauty of all the beings around us, or even the existence of consciousness. It’s possible, and I’d say likely, that there are more transcendental forces involved in addition to the principles we understand.

The refusal to accept the utility of beliefs or that one holds them is just hubris; people are just afraid to be associated with the possibility of being wrong.

See also https://myriachromat.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/knowledge-belief-doubt/.

On the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

Since I’m bored and since I want to show off my keen thought process, and since it gets harder and harder to think of new ideas to post about, I’ll post my response to this question on Facebook even though it’s a bit trivial in my eyes. At least it’s a bona fide academic issue. The question is…

From AI Copilot to keep it concise, accurate, and neutral.

The evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN) is a thought-provoking philosophical argument brought forth by Alvin Plantinga. The crux of this argument is that holding both naturalism (the belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, with no supernatural intervention) and evolutionary theory simultaneously leads to a sort of cognitive dissonance1.

Here’s a simplified version:

  1. Reliability of Cognitive Faculties: If both evolution and naturalism are true, our cognitive faculties (like perception and reasoning) have developed solely through natural selection aimed at survival, not necessarily at producing TRUE BELIEFS.
  2. Low Probability: Given this, Plantinga argues that it is improbable (or at the very least, inscrutable) that our cognitive faculties are reliable in delivering TRUE BELIEFS.
  3. Self-Defeating: Therefore, if you believe in naturalism and evolution, you have a good REASON TO DOUBT the reliability of your own cognitive faculties, which consequently gives you a REASON TO DOUBT the very belief in evolution and naturalism itself.

This argument raises interesting questions about the intersection of EPISTEMOLOGY (the study of knowledge) and evolutionary biology. What do you think of this argument? Does it spark any new thoughts or challenges for you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/…/Evolutionary_argument…

And here’s my answer.

I’ve heard this argument before, so it doesn’t spark anything new for me. While I don’t believe in so-called naturalism aka physicalism aka materialism (but I do believe in biological evolution, but I don’t think the process is entirely blind or entirely physical), I think the argument is fairly weak. The problem is that it’s very possible, likely even, that being cognitively apt at navigating our environment and such also leads to being able to infer true things about our environment. Simply speaking, wouldn’t it be easier/more likely/more efficient/more effective for the mind to navigate its environment if it holds true beliefs? In other words, there’s probably a strong correlation between which beliefs/models/etc. are useful/effective and which are true, because truth is inherently useful, and nontruth is misleading/misguiding.

Or, we can say that a mind capable of abstract, general thought/intelligence to the degree that humans have would, as a side effect, likely be able to infer the truth about things most of the time…especially since our intellect is not only skilled with respect to our environment, like the other animals’ minds more or less are, but it’s generalized and abstract, which means its being able to navigate its natural environment is just one relatively “arbitrary” or specific application of its general ability, so it should be equally adept at doing other things it sets out to do, such as inferring truths, or even creating the sophisticated, unnatural technology we see all around us, which is very unrelated or indirectly related to the natural environment we evolved in.

And the means we’d use to determine objective truth (if there can be said to be such a thing; see https://myriachromat.wordpress.com/2020/10/28/is-there-objective-truth/ and https://myriachromat.wordpress.com/2022/01/19/the-truth-is-not-out-there/) would be science, scientific instruments, scientific hypotheses/theories/laws/models, peer review, experimentation, prediction and observation, cross-validating observations via different senses and/or different scientific instruments, and scientifically or philosophically compensating for the known weaknesses and peculiarities of our own biological sensory apparatuses, brain processes, cognitive biases and propensity for logical fallacies, etc.

And thirdly, if the premise is true, then our entire notion of truth is necessarily fundamentally based in utility. In other words, there would be nothing that “truth” as far as we understand it—as far as everything we’ve ever thought of as being “true” goes—can mean other than that an idea is useful, so our models and beliefs we evolve or create for navigating reality would be more or less by definition “true.” I’ve written more about this point here: https://exalumen.blog/2024/08/13/on-pragmatism/.

Ps. You should “like” this post because I’m clearly a genius.

Argumentum ad Absurdum re Physical Reductionism

If the brain can give rise to consciousness, then any matter can give rise to consciousness, because for any material system, there is some frame of reference, however arbitrary and complex and twisted (and all frames of reference are ultimately arbitrary), under which the physical system appears to behave exactly as a brain does, because all positions and motions of atomic and subatomic particles are relative to other positions and motions.

All it takes is a possible frame of reference by which the particles are arranged in and behave in such a way that they give rise to consciousness to make the system conscious, as even the natural frame of reference that observes a brain behaving with the dynamic that it normally seems to (say, the frame of reference of a scientist studying a brain with some scientific apparatus) is arbitrary, unless you want to say that a conscious being has to occupy that frame of reference, but then an argument that consciousness is an emergent property of material would be an infinite regress.

That is, if you assume that our frame of reference is necessarily the one by which a conscious dynamic must operate, then you are assuming that a consciousness must exist having that reference frame of observation, and that consciousness must in turn have a consciousness that exists to validate the frame of reference by which its internal dynamics render a phenomenology, ad infinitum.

(It cannot be the consciousness in question that validates its own reference frame, because that would be to cause oneself to exist, and also we do not observe the submolecular motion involved in our own brains, so it must be another’s consciousness that validates the reference frame. (Granted, the conscious entities (humans) that comprise the reference frame in which other conscious humans are normally recognized don’t observe consciousness by observing submolecular action either, but by observing the physical dynamic on a more macroscopic scale—looking at facial expression and body language, listening to words, etc. However, reductionist theory does not say that consciousness is made up of the dynamic of observable motor command, which is why I appeal to a dynamic of subatomic particles wrt what supposedly composes consciousness.))

Of course, one could say that, in some equally strangely arranged frame of reference, a stereo system is a can opener. And yes, this would have little meaning because the stereo system could be anything from any arbitrarily arranged, complicated and convoluted frame of reference, and we, in our frame of reference, cannot possibly use it as a can opener, or garage door opener, or whatever. However, when I say that this item can (according to some reference frame) act as a brain, I am saying (according to the above argument, when we suppose that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain) that there is a phenomenology—a self; an experiencing entity—hidden in that stereo system, or actually, a countless number of phenomenologies, and they don’t need relative observers to feel, know, desire, perceive, etc. (whereas, e.g., a fork can be defined completely on a functionalistic basis).

Conclusion: either consciousness is everywhere, or consciousness is not a function of the brain and, more generally, cannot be reduced to any system of parts. Also, if consciousness can be reduced (and is everywhere), then every conscious system simultaneously has every possible phenomenology/inner experience.

Admittedly, I don’t know what the implications would be in regard to a non-reductionistic theory of mind being a function of the brain.