On 7/16/2010 1:26 PM, rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
And in either case the counter argument is the same, c.f. "The Evolution
of Reason" by William S. Cooper.
If Physicalism is true, then the belief in Physicalism can’t be
If physicalism is true, then our beliefs and experiences are a result
of the universe’s initial conditions and causal laws (which may have a
Therefore, assuming physicalism, we don’t present or believe arguments
for reasons of logic or rationality. Instead, the arguments that we
present and believe are those entailed by the physics that underlies
It is *possible* that we live in a universe whose initial conditions
and causal laws are such that our arguments *are* logical. But in a
physicalist framework that’s not why we present or believe those
arguments. The fact that the arguments may be logical is superfluous
to why we make or believe them.
Obviously there’s nothing that says that our physically generated
experiences and beliefs have to be true or logical. In fact, we have
dreams, hallucinations, delusions, schizophrenics, and madmen as proof
that there is no such requirement.
So arguing for physicalism is making an argument that states that no
one presents or believes arguments for reasons of logic.
Note that the exact same argument can be applied to Bruno’s
mathematical realism, or any other position that posits that
consciousness is caused by or results from some underlying process.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at