tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post3220677064974306195..comments2023-06-24T01:15:34.627-07:00Comments on The Skeptic Zone: im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-33300764206813136512017-03-29T07:48:13.454-07:002017-03-29T07:48:13.454-07:00That's confusing physicalism with empiricism -...<i>That's confusing physicalism with empiricism - a much broader thesis about knowledge, and it doesn't entail the existence of a material world - see phenomenalism, a position embraced by some skeptics. </i><br /><br />"Phenomenalism is the view in Epistemology and the Philosophy of Perception that physical objects do not exist as things in themselves but only as perceptual phenomena or bundles of sense-data situated in time and in space."<br /><br />That does not describe my own position, but I am an empiricist. I believe that our senses are stimulated by entities that exist in the physical world. If physical things had no existence apart from our perception, there would be nothing that stimulates the senses. In other words, the whole world would be an immaterial illusion, which I don't buy.<br /><br /><br /><i>Also, as far as I know, one does not detect or observe quarks with one's senses. One has to apply constructed theories to the data provided by physics colliders to reach the conclusion that such particle exists.</i><br /><br />When I say "detectable to the senses", I mean it in the sense that it is empirically detectable. True, the human sense organs can't detect quarks, but we can devise instruments that extend our senses, so to speak. We can detect electric fields, and wavelengths of light that the eyes can't see. We can detect tiny particles, etc. In all such cases, those things are detectable because they have some physical effect on the sensing device. And that's precisely what makes then "physical".im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-61618797859042281802017-03-27T12:20:54.374-07:002017-03-27T12:20:54.374-07:00im-skeptical wrote:
"A better definition of ...im-skeptical wrote:<br /><br />"A better definition of physical might be 'entities or phenomena that are detectable or observable to the senses' "<br /><br />That's confusing physicalism with empiricism - a much broader thesis about knowledge, and it doesn't entail the existence of a material world - see phenomenalism, a position embraced by some skeptics. <br /><br />Also, as far as I know, one does not detect or observe quarks with one's senses. One has to apply constructed theories to the data provided by physics colliders to reach the conclusion that such particle exists.<br /><br />I am not suggesting that one reject the existence of an independent existing world. I am suggesting that your definition of physicalism is too weak. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11370016045364647714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-26532565533178360992016-02-27T06:54:59.036-08:002016-02-27T06:54:59.036-08:00Doesn't tell us what it is and it doesn't ...<i>Doesn't tell us what it is and it doesn't prove the thesis of physicalism. I could say the same about mind/spirit as well.</i><br /><br />Funny. I thought I DID supply a definition for physical. But I didn't make any claims about proving physicalism.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-41620265693266123252016-02-27T02:50:07.656-08:002016-02-27T02:50:07.656-08:00Can science really prove the basis of physical cla...<a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/02/can-science-really-prove-basis-of.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Can science really prove the basis of physical claims?</b></a>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-79055498038882610892016-02-26T23:40:10.524-08:002016-02-26T23:40:10.524-08:00The truth of the matter is that physical reality e...The truth of the matter is that physical reality exists independent of our study or understanding of it.<br /><br /><b>Doesn't tell us what it is and it doesn't prove the thesis of physicalism. I could say the same about mind/spirit as well.</b><br /><br /><br /> We don't have a complete understanding of physical reality, and we probably never will. But regardless of any understanding we might eventually achieve, it has no effect on what that reality is. <br /><br /><br /><b>that's just rationalization for not being able to answer the issue</b><br /><br /><br /> If physical reality includes mental phenomena, as physicalists believe, that is true even if we don't have a complete understanding of it at present. It also implies that mental phenomena are, or can be, subject to investigation by physical sciences. <br /><br /><b>No one seriously denied the existence of physical things, even ideas like those Gaswami or even Berkeley did not deny the reality of physical things, They just placed that reality in a larger fram ework of mind.<br /><br />that the mental may be subject to investigation by the physical does not change the fact they are not the same thing.That does not prove the thesis of physicalism.</b><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-59147430152011812632016-02-26T23:31:11.326-08:002016-02-26T23:31:11.326-08:00This is symptomatic of Orwellian atheism. the basi...This is symptomatic of Orwellian atheism. the basic assumption of atheism is that it i8s "free thought." :Right so important to think for yourself. Of course if one doesn't[t toe the party line on materialism then he's a fool his ideas are "woo," that is Just a way of saying :anything that's not my view is shit and needs to be ridiculed,: You are riddling people for thinking for themselves. <br /><br /><br />the thing is you can['t answer the issue. you can't what physical is. you just say "science says it zi believe it that settles it,: <br /><br /><br />that's what religious fundies say. so your atheism is Orwellian and it's a religious fundamentalism.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com