Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 5:23 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 2:45 am
Atla wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2023 3:24 pm
Well probably in my brain. The problem is that science can't find the experiences themselves, only correlations that explain such experiences in terms of how matter behaves.
That does explain why there is experiencing at all. It only explains the shifting around of what gets called matter. They can correlate some kinds of shifting around with some kinds of experiencing. But they have no idea where the experiencing is coming from. This doesn't prove dualism, but it should lead to a holding off on pronouncements about what consciousness is or experiencing really is merely. Further the word 'physical' just has no meaning. So to assume that minds must be non-physical is really at a level of gibberish. Physical sounds like a substance claim, but the category keeps expanding to include anything, regardless of qualities. So a physicalist can say that nothing has been found that is non-physical, but this is like saying that nothing has been found that we in our group don't consider real. Because we call whatever we consider real 'physical' or 'material'.
Until this all gets resolved, if it can be, I can't see any reason not to leave it all open, and continue with mind and physical speak, since these are very useful ways to talk about different facets of our experiences.
Okay, but 'the word 'physical' just has no meaning' is false. It has several different but related uses. And in this context, I go with 'consisting of energy and the form of energy we call matter'. It's the stuff that natural scientists investigate. The fact that we're learning more about what constitutes 'being physical' is irrelevant.
You need to understand the contrasting views between your philosophical realism vs ANTI-philosophical_realism.
Your basic fundamental underlying principle of your philosophy related to 'what is physical' is grounded on
philosophical realism, whatever physical [matter of fact] must be absolutely mind-independent from the human conditions.
Your definition of what is fact is that feature of reality which is just-is or being so, that is the case, states of affairs.
In the case of natural science, you adopt scientific realism grounded on philosophical realism, as such what science is discovering things that are physical and mind-independent.
But philosophical realism as I had argued is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
You have not counter this claim which you are not capable of doing.
Thus whatever is physical and scientifically physical is grounded on illusion, thus nonsensical.
On the other hand, re
There are
Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
my reality grounded on a specific
human-based FSK which the scientific FSK [scientific anti-realism] is the most credible, realistic and objective.
In a way, Physicalism is a sort of "Error Theory" re ontology that lead to all sorts of confusion and a never ending story. It is a sort of circle jerk by analytic philosophers.
What is realistic is based on a FSR-FSK approach to what is real and factual as conditioned upon a human-based FSK of which the scientific-anti-realism FSK is the most credible.
And '[we] have no idea where the experiencing is coming from' is false. We increasingly understand the organic, physical basis for what we call consciousness or experience - or 'having a mind'.
I agree that it's important to keep an open mind - but not, as has been said, so open that your brains fall out. Absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false, but it does mean that believe it's true is irrational. So 'pending evidence' is the right proviso.
On the other hand, you are keeping a very closed mind that no knowledge could go in to enlighten you.
The realistic approach is to start with 'experiences' [conditioned upon a 13.7 billion years of history] from which we generate hypothesis and continuously polished it with critical and rational thinking via a credible human-based FSK.