Refutation of physicalism

[Age]

You went wrong in writing the words you wrote, instead of just saying you agree with my position.

I agreed with your position when I said human beings come to opposite conclusions to each other.

That was not my position, you absolute weirdo.

So, when you wrote and claimed;
I came to the opposite conclusion

'now' you are claiming that 'that' was not your position, at all, right?

Also, what 'we' have here is an ongoing prime example of why it took human being so, so long, in the past, to find and work out how to get to the actual Truth of things, exactly.

For example, look at how long it is taking this one to realise that I was just agreeing with it, while at the same time just pointing out some things that these human beings would .do, back in the days when this was being written.

[Flannel Jesus]

I agreed with your position when I said human beings come to opposite conclusions to each other.

That was not my position, you absolute weirdo.

So, when you wrote and claimed;
I came to the opposite conclusion

'now' you are claiming that 'that' was not your position, at all, right?

You are so miraculously fucking confused.

If you think my position, when I said that, was "beings, back then, would come to the exact opposite conclusion about things", you don't know how to read English well enough to even participate here.

[Atla]

If I don't use Occam's razor then I have an infinite amount of explanations for anything, and any argument has 0% chance of being correct.

I'll give you some advice: try to analyze the arguments using reason and logic.

Best regards

I did, that's why I said that according to the razor yours is just another dime a dozen dualist idea. Why you dualists think that you have it figured out when you just keep repeating the same irrational idea of dualism with small variations, is genuinely beyond me. This isn't against you, I see this for the 100th time.

[Age]

I am a physicist

Do you go to work and get paid as a classified "physicist", or are you just a human being with a tendency to just 'look at' all things as though every thing is physical or in other words are you a human being being who just believes every thing is physical?

and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain

you have not so far up to here in this thread been able to explain this. So, when will you?

Also, will you provide us with a link to this purported claimed 'our scientific knowledge'?

If no, then why not?

and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological .

But, you do not have to explain that the origin of 'mental activity' is result from physical or biological bodies and/or processes.

This is just blatantly obvious, and irrefutable, anyway.

Is there a human being here who thinks or believes that the origin of so-called 'mental experiences', or 'mental activity', is not physical/biological?

If yes, then why?

My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations).

Are you aware that 'proving' some thing, which only then 'implies' some other thing is not, really, noteworthy, at all.

Obviously, if some thing only 'implies' some other thing, thing just as simply and easily 'it' could also 'imply' something else, as well.

So, I will here, now, suggest that you get back to us when you have some thing, which proves some actual thing, and not just some implied thing.

Also, why does the existence of 'consciousness', itself, imply, to you anyway, that there is an 'indivisible unphysical element', in human bodies, which you say are usually called 'soul' or 'spirit'?

1. Why can the so-called 'indivisible unphysical element', within human bodies, not just be 'consciousness', itself? After all, there is not one of you human beings who can cut open a human body and find a 'consciousness', which then you could cut up into smaller divisible physical pieces/elements', anyway,

2. How do you even define the words 'consciousness', 'soul', and 'spirit' here, exactly?

[Age]

That was not my position, you absolute weirdo.

So, when you wrote and claimed;
I came to the opposite conclusion

'now' you are claiming that 'that' was not your position, at all, right?

You are so miraculously fucking confused.

Okay.

If this is what you believe is true, then 'I', to 'you', must be 'this', right?

If you think my position, when I said that, was "beings, back then, would come to the exact opposite conclusion about things", you don't know how to read English well enough to even participate here.

But, I never ever to began to think such a thing as this.

Why have you presumed that I did?

Could it be possible that, just maybe, it is 'you' here who is somewhat confused about what has happened, and occurred, here?

Or, is this not a possibility in 'your world', nor in 'your view' of things, here?

[Age]

If I don't use Occam's razor then I have an infinite amount of explanations for anything, and any argument has 0% chance of being correct.

I'll give you some advice: try to analyze the arguments using reason and logic.

Best regards

I did, that's why I said that according to the razor yours is just another dime a dozen dualist idea. Why you dualists think that you have it figured out when you just keep repeating the same irrational idea of dualism with small variations, is genuinely beyond me. This isn't against you, I see this for the 100th time.

And, it could also said, and written,, 'Why you "nondualusts" think that you have 'it' all figured out, when you just keep repeating the same irrational idea of 'nondualism' with small variations, is beyond others', as well.

And, said, and written, with nothing at all other than with as 'belief' as you have and are holding onto here "atla".

[Atla]

I'll give you some advice: try to analyze the arguments using reason and logic.

Best regards

I did, that's why I said that according to the razor yours is just another dime a dozen dualist idea. Why you dualists think that you have it figured out when you just keep repeating the same irrational idea of dualism with small variations, is genuinely beyond me. This isn't against you, I see this for the 100th time.

And, it could also said, and written,, 'Why you "nondualusts" think that you have 'it' all figured out, when you just keep repeating the same irrational idea of 'nondualism' with small variations, is beyond others', as well.

And, said, and written, with nothing at all other than with as 'belief' as you have and are holding onto here "atla".

This one here thinks that there are variations to nothing. Well what do you expect from Age.

[Flannel Jesus]

So, when you wrote and claimed;
I came to the opposite conclusion

'now' you are claiming that 'that' was not your position, at all, right?

You are so miraculously fucking confused.

Okay.

If this is what you believe is true, then 'I', to 'you', must be 'this', right?

If you think my position, when I said that, was "beings, back then, would come to the exact opposite conclusion about things", you don't know how to read English well enough to even participate here.

But, I never ever to began to think such a thing as this.

Why have you presumed that I did?

Could it be possible that, just maybe, it is 'you' here who is somewhat confused about what has happened, and occurred, here?

Or, is this not a possibility in 'your world', nor in 'your view' of things, here?

I didn't presume it, you said it ken. Get with the program, stop gaslighting, grow up.

Where in your first reply to me did you "just agree with me"? I can't find anything that looks like that at all.

Where and when you said;
I came to the opposite conclusion

And, where and when I replied with;
these human beings, back then, would come to the exact opposite conclusion about things.

There you little liar.

If you ever wonder why there doesn't seem to be a single person on the forum who takes you seriously, feel safe to investigate these little dishonest interactions as a great example of why.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are you a theist?

I am a Christian. However, the arguments have provided against physicalism are independent of my religious beliefs.

My principle is whatever is reality, truth, fact, knowledge and objectivity is contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS]. This 'human-based' aligns with Berkeley's first part of his argument against absolute materialism.

The most credible and objective human-based FS is that of the scientific FS [at its best] where the subset of science-physics [physicalism] is the most credible and objective rated based on the relevant weighted-criteria. This must be reinforced and supported by critical and rational philosophy.
If the science-physics FS is the most credible and objectivity rated and indexed as the gold standard at say 100/100, whatever all others framework and system cannot be more credible and objective than the science-physics FS [at its best].
My reference to science is science-antirealism.

The element that carries the highest weightage in rating the credibility and objectivity of a FS is empirical evidence plus all other variables such as testability, repetition, etc.
Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FS
viewtopic.php?t=41040

Despite scientific facts are the most credible and objective, they are merely at best polished-conjectures [Popper], and they are the best we have, there is no other better method of the realization & cognition of reality. The basis here is emergent.

Your claim of an indivisible-consciousness is merely hypothesis which is unverified and justified [unpolished] to be credible and objective.
You merely assumedit exists [hypothetically] without proving it is really-real [not absolutely but relatively] based a reality-FS in the first place.

Also, your indivisible-consciousness is a thing-in-itself, i.e. consciousness-in-itself.
Kant had "proven" [not mathematically] but logically that any thing-in-itself [so, your consciousness-in-itself] if reified as real end up as an illusion.

Btw, if you were to reject your ideology of an absolute indivisible consciousness, what is there to lose?
The only loss is merely a psychological one, i.e. the ultimate loss of a soteriological avenue, i.e. path to salvation needed to soothe the terrible cognitive dissonance arising from an existential crisis.

On the other hand, there is lot to gain [for the individual and humanity] if one can give up the ideology of an absolute indivisible consciousness or consciousness-in-itself.
A relative human-based reality accord humanity some control over reality [human-based] instead of being vulnerable to the mercy of an absolutely uncontrollable independent reality out there.

[Age]

I did, that's why I said that according to the razor yours is just another dime a dozen dualist idea. Why you dualists think that you have it figured out when you just keep repeating the same irrational idea of dualism with small variations, is genuinely beyond me. This isn't against you, I see this for the 100th time.

And, it could also said, and written,, 'Why you "nondualusts" think that you have 'it' all figured out, when you just keep repeating the same irrational idea of 'nondualism' with small variations, is beyond others', as well.

And, said, and written, with nothing at all other than with as 'belief' as you have and are holding onto here "atla".

This one here thinks that there are variations to nothing. Well what do you expect from Age.

This one is, absolutely, Wrong, and Incorrect, again.

[Age]

You are so miraculously fucking confused.

Okay.

If this is what you believe is true, then 'I', to 'you', must be 'this', right?

If you think my position, when I said that, was "beings, back then, would come to the exact opposite conclusion about things", you don't know how to read English well enough to even participate here.

But, I never ever to began to think such a thing as this.

Why have you presumed that I did?

Could it be possible that, just maybe, it is 'you' here who is somewhat confused about what has happened, and occurred, here?

Or, is this not a possibility in 'your world', nor in 'your view' of things, here?

I didn't presume it, you said it ken.

If you want to keep believing that I said it, (especially when I never even thought it), then provide actually proof that I said it here.

If you do not, then, once more, 'we' have another prime example of one's belief/s getting in the way of the actual Truth, one that they cannot prove, at all.

Get with the program, stop gaslighting, grow up.

Here 'we' can, clearly, see how lost and confused this one here, really, is.

I never ever even began to think that this one's position was in regards to 'beings'. Obviously, this one's position was in regards to it, only.

Where in your first reply to me did you "just agree with me"? I can't find anything that looks like that at all.

Where and when you said;
I came to the opposite conclusion

And, where and when I replied with;
these human beings, back then, would come to the exact opposite conclusion about things.

There you little liar.

What are you even on about?

Are you, 'now', trying to imply that 'you' are not a 'human being'?

you said that you 'came to the opposite conclusion'.

I just agreed and said that these human beings, (which obviously you, "flannel jesus", are one of), would come to the opposite conclusion of things, to each other.

Again, I never ever had any thought that you were talking about or referring to 'beings'. you were talking about and referring to "yourself", right?

If yes, then 'you' are a 'human being', right?

If yes, then why were you so lost and confused here?

If you ever wonder why there doesn't seem to be a single person on the forum who takes you seriously, feel safe to investigate these little dishonest interactions as a great example of why.

LOL The only 'dishonesty' here was, and is, you not being able to 'look at' "yourself" nor to what actually happened and occurred here.

If you did, then you would recognize and notice that you own made up assumptions, and beliefs, were not, actually, True, nor Correct.

Also, I, already, 'know', exactly, why 'you' people here, in this forum, do not take 'me' seriously.

[Age]

Are you a theist?

I am a Christian. However, the arguments have provided against physicalism are independent of my religious beliefs.

My principle is whatever is reality, truth, fact, knowledge and objectivity is contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS]. This 'human-based' aligns with Berkeley's first part of his argument against absolute materialism.

'Reality', 'truth', 'fact', 'knowledge', and 'objectivity', "themselves", exist in 'thought', or 'mental concept', only. So, obviously, these things are contingent upon a 'thought creating' being. Which, as far as you human beings are concerned, you are the only beings that have 'thought', or 'mental concepts' like the ones just mentioned. Therefore, these things are, obviously, contingent upon you, human beings.

However, the 'very things' that these 'mental concepts' are referring to, exactly, are not contingent upon you, human beings, nor do they need you human beings for them to come to exist, to exist, nor to keep existing.

Again, here is another irrefutable Truth, which counters and refutes what was said and claimed.

The most credible and objective human-based FS is that of the scientific FS [at its best] where the subset of science-physics [physicalism] is the most credible and objective rated based on the relevant weighted-criteria. This must be reinforced and supported by critical and rational philosophy.
If the science-physics FS is the most credible and objectivity rated and indexed as the gold standard at say 100/100, whatever all others framework and system cannot be more credible and objective than the science-physics FS [at its best].
My reference to science is science-antirealism.

The element that carries the highest weightage in rating the credibility and objectivity of a FS is empirical evidence plus all other variables such as testability, repetition, etc.
Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FS
viewtopic.php?t=41040

Despite scientific facts are the most credible and objective, they are merely at best polished-conjectures [Popper], and they are the best we have, there is no other better method of the realization & cognition of reality. The basis here is emergent.

Your claim of an indivisible-consciousness is merely hypothesis which is unverified and justified [unpolished] to be credible and objective.
You merely assumedit exists [hypothetically] without proving it is really-real [not absolutely but relatively] based a reality-FS in the first place.

Also, your indivisible-consciousness is a thing-in-itself, i.e. consciousness-in-itself.
Kant had "proven" [not mathematically] but logically that any thing-in-itself [so, your consciousness-in-itself] if reified as real end up as an illusion.

Btw, if you were to reject your ideology of an absolute indivisible consciousness, what is there to lose?
The only loss is merely a psychological one, i.e. the ultimate loss of a soteriological avenue, i.e. path to salvation needed to soothe the terrible cognitive dissonance arising from an existential crisis.

On the other hand, there is lot to gain [for the individual and humanity] if one can give up the ideology of an absolute indivisible consciousness or consciousness-in-itself.
A relative human-based reality accord humanity some control over reality [human-based] instead of being vulnerable to the mercy of an absolutely uncontrollable independent reality out there.

[mmarco]

Your claim of an indivisible-consciousness is merely hypothesis which is unverified and justified [unpolished] to be credible and objective.
You merely assumedit exists [hypothetically] without proving it is really-real [not absolutely but relatively] based a reality-FS in the first place.

I have never made any claims about an indivisible consciousness. You must have misunderstood what I mean.
My thesis is that an indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your claim of an indivisible-consciousness is merely hypothesis which is unverified and justified [unpolished] to be credible and objective.
You merely assumedit exists [hypothetically] without proving it is really-real [not absolutely but relatively] based a reality-FS in the first place.

I have never made any claims about an indivisible consciousness. You must have misunderstood what I mean.
My thesis is that an indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties.

OK, I used the wrong terms.
The term 'indivisible consciousness' can be replaced with "indivisible non-physical element", and my argument still stand.

There cannot be an indivisible-non_physical-element by itself.
According to Kant, to reify it as a mind-independent element is chasing after an illusion.

This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties.

You are too presumptuous in this case.

You throw in the claim:
there is an indivisible-non_physical-element without 'proof' and justification.
This is merely linguistic without any basis of reality proper.

The laws of physics via the human-based science-physics FS merely confirm the reality of physical laws based on empirical observations. As I stated, its conclusions at best are merely polished conjectures.
You cannot used the science-physics FS to infer [without empirical evidences] an indivisible-non_physical-element exist as real.

As I had stated, the science-physics FS [at its best] is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity where empirical evidences carry high weightages.
The most you can claim for non-physics elements is you must justified your specific human-based is as good as the science-physics FS.

But your claim [of indivisible-non_physical-element ] so far as I can guess is equivalent to a theistic claim, i.e. God exists.
If the scientific-physics FS is the gold standard indexed at 100/100, your FS for an indivisible-non_physical-element in the absence of empirical evidence is a mere 5/100 or lower.

[Age]

Your claim of an indivisible-consciousness is merely hypothesis which is unverified and justified [unpolished] to be credible and objective.
You merely assumedit exists [hypothetically] without proving it is really-real [not absolutely but relatively] based a reality-FS in the first place.

I have never made any claims about an indivisible consciousness. You must have misunderstood what I mean.
My thesis is that an indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties.

OK, I used the wrong terms.
The term 'indivisible consciousness' can be replaced with "indivisible non-physical element", and my argument still stand.

There cannot be an indivisible-non_physical-element by itself.
According to Kant, to reify it as a mind-independent element is chasing after an illusion.

Why is "kant", to you, like God is to "immanuel can"?

Why are you two so 'insecure' within "yourselves" that you 'have to' rely on others/another to back up and support your own beliefs here?

Why can you two not back up and support your own beliefs, "yourselves"?

This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties.

You are too presumptuous in this case.

You throw in the claim:
there is an indivisible-non_physical-element without 'proof' and justification.
This is merely linguistic without any basis of reality proper.

The laws of physics via the human-based science-physics FS merely confirm the reality of physical laws based on empirical observations. As I stated, its conclusions at best are merely polished conjectures.
You cannot used the science-physics FS to infer [without empirical evidences] an indivisible-non_physical-element exist as real.

But, it is okay for you to imply that there were no physical things, at all, before human beings came along 'here', on absolutely nothing at all but your very own beliefs and presumptions, which, by the way, exist in 'thought' only, of which there is no scientifically proven experiment that shows that 'thought' is nothing more than just an indivisible and/or a non-physical element, itself.

For obviously there has never been any human based scientific experiment when cutting open a human body where 'thoughts', 'emotions', nor 'Mind' has ever been actually, physically, found.

As I had stated, the science-physics FS [at its best] is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity where empirical evidences carry high weightages.
The most you can claim for non-physics elements is you must justified your specific human-based is as good as the science-physics FS.

There is no human based empirical evidence, let alone empirical proof, that 'consciousness', 'thought' nor 'emotions' are physical things, themselves, as well.

Yet, here you are "veritas aequitas" believing things to be true before any actual empirical proof exists.

But your claim [of indivisible-non_physical-element ] so far as I can guess is equivalent to a theistic claim, i.e. God exists.
If the scientific-physics FS is the gold standard indexed at 100/100, your FS for an indivisible-non_physical-element in the absence of empirical evidence is a mere 5/100 or lower.

LOL Again, why do you present numbers and figures here, as though they are in relation to some actual thing other than just the 'invisible thoughts', within that body, alone?