Monday, February 16, 2009

My Response To A User Named Sofos

He says- I think that science presupposes a metaphysical position, namely, physicalism. It does so by virtue of starting with the assumption that nature is a self-organizing system (i.e. nature operates without any outside intervention) and proceeds by postulating mechanisms consistent with that assumption. At no point in this process is a logical proof for physicalism constructed. The circularity arises because the results of the process are taken as evidence in support of the truth of the underlying assumption. If the assumption regulating the process is false, then why is the process so spectacularly successful? If the assumption is false, then why do we never find contradictory evidence in any of our experimental results? If the assumption is false, why does it seem for all the world to be entirely true?

An inherent feature of the above process is that physicalism, as an hypothesis or working assumption, must always be held as tentatively supported by the available evidence. It is always possibile that the process will run into some phenomena for which it cannot account given its prior assumptions. That day has not come (though I know some people think it has).

My response to that

Yes 75 years, materialism is an ancient belief as much as dualism. But even older, may i ask you is their anything that is subjective besides consciousness? of course not. Were missing the boat their is overwhelming evidence that contradicts naturalism. What we have three options.

1] Take this evidence and put it into naturalism
2. Naturalism is falsified so dualism or some other philosophical view is correct.
3. Ignore contradicting evidence and pretend all is well with naturalism.

Number three is often picked by mainstream scientists. By the way up above i said materialism is an ancient belief, here is a part taken from an article by Chris Carter who points this out clearly.

To summarize, a roman poet named Lucretius from 99-55BC, continued an atomist tradition from where Epicurus left off. Epicurus defined the soul as a body of fine particles. He stressed that the soul has a complete dependence on the body. Lucretius described the mind as composed of extremely fine particles. His arguments for believing mind is dependent on the body, came from four arguments.

1]. That the mind matures and ages with the growth and decay of the body
2]. That wine and disease of the body can affect the mind
3]. The mind is disturbed when the body is stunned by a blow
4.] If the soul is immortal why doesn't it have any memories of its previous existence?.

No comments: