> On 4 May 2020, at 06:05, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 5/3/2020 8:14 PM, smitra wrote: >> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> The SSH >>> >>> https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247 >>> >>> still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT >>> FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism. >>> >>> It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of >>> materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but >>> to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new >>> force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field). >>> >>> http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness >>> >>> etc. >>> >>> * or physicalist >>> >>> @philipthrift >> >> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other >> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against >> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one fell >> swoop. > > Really? What are 'all these problems that are solved’?
A reduction of why there is something to the existence of arithmetic + an explanation of why it is possible to explain arithmetic from less. Then the mind body problem, including why there are physical laws, and this from a “simple” theory of consciousness. Here physics is unable to predict why we see an eclipse when we use physics to predict an eclipse. > Does it explain why a blow to the head renders you unconscious? That is what mechanism explains the best. > Does it explain how anesthesia works? Certainly better than particles physics. But ye, it does not solve all problems. It formulates them, and we have to solve them one by one, like always in science. > Does it explain epilepsy? Synasthesia? Drunkeness? Does it explain the > evocation of memories by electrostimulation of the brain? Dementia? > Childhood amnesia? Yes. Why not? > > Or is it just smug mysticism that physics hasn't explained X, Has not, and cannot once we believe in say, Darwinism. > so by rejecting physics I'm entitled to any explanation I want about X. Yes, but the simplest explanation, with the biggest range of explanation will be the best. Physicalism remains based on a ontological commitment, which is the sort of “miracle” that scientists are skeptical about. We don’t have evidence for a primary physical universe. The dream argument explains why evidence for a physical reality is not evidence for a primitive physical reality. We confuse them due to a very long pseudo-religious brainwashing, to be short. Bruno > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f4746a82-54b6-3397-6084-08817b3d196e%40verizon.net. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/50439EDC-4A71-4A81-94B0-66C8D3179FC8%40ulb.ac.be.
