Still drafting a longer thesis on my full metaphysics, prompted in this earlier post, but the premises are quite straightforward:
IF – we allow that physics (physicalism / materialism) are
fundamentally about information and processes (ie computation).
THEN – I’m happy to be considered a physicalist, and that all evolved phenomena, including those of subjective consciousness and intuitive right-brained world-views, are also physical, BUT physicalism is then more than materialism (with more than matter & energy as fundamental, see IF).
ELSE – “Orthodox” physical science
cannot explain consciousness.
IF – we allow that physical science involves more than logically objective determinist causation – including an organic subjective perspective.
THEN – I’m happy to agree that all that exists and can be known in the universe can be described by physical science.
ELSE – “Orthodox” physical science has many limitations
and cannot even address “the hard problem” and many more aspects of human subjectivity..
This post prompted by this ludicrous twitter exchange this morning:
How is “Consciousness is a Physical phenomenon” a position that is “sceptical of Materialism”?
Physicalism = materialism?
(Unless you’re making a subtle point of which Musk is unaware in this thread.)
This whole “debate” is a word-game about definitions …. imho 🙂
— What, Why & How do we know? (@psybertron) May 16, 2022
And of course the whole thread is simply a follow-on from my two previous posts about the hopelessness of any “definition” of consciousness and definitions generally.
Goff is right on one thing. It’s healthy that public media carry dialogue that is sceptical of physicalism as materialism.
BTW, I completely give up on Goff as any kind of progressive thinker – his political ideology means he simply cannot see through the dimwit @OwenJones84, a conspiracy theorist of the highest order.
Media consensus that Keir Starmer is honest winds me up, given he ran most dishonest leadership campaign ever. This doesn’t change people’s judgments of his character because he was screwing over people with radical politics, routinely demonised as threatening mob. @OwenJones84
— Philip Goff (@Philip_Goff) May 16, 2022
Many patient attempts by @NaturalPhilosopher to get him to see multiple subtle views in the “TERF Wars” for example – another culture war stirred-up by the likes of @OwenJones84 – are rejected or simply ignored. I once called him “close but no cigar” in his pan-psychist thesis, but all evidence in dialogues since suggests he’s just in it for disingenuous mental exercise. He really holds no coherent view on anything. A lost cause imho.]