Well I'm happy that you see that technically, it is. I can't ask for more than that.

"even if". I don't quite accept that it is. But to me 'evidence' isn't incidental or inferential unless i'm in court.

I don't know what you mean by that. "Evidence isn't incidental".

(not meant in any way to come across rude). In Court there's a concept that you can present 'propensity evidence'.

Well, in the Court context, it means that the evidence being presented isn't actually about the matter at hand, but is incidental to it, and goes to 'propensity'. Is it more likely, in light of this unrelated evidence, that the other thing is the case?

The answer could be yes (in fact, for the most part propensity evidence isn't even admitted unless it goes to show something reasonably helpful to the judge or jury), but that isn't evidence for the thing itself having happened. It evidence that makes it less likely something else happened.

I see the inference from weak neural correlation to be similar. It isn't evidence for physicalism, but incidentally, it removes other possibilities. It just makes no sense to me to read over from "This piece of evidence precludes X" to "This piece of evidence goes to proving Y" unless it actually does, and incidentally precludes X. Tricky, but i suppose parsing different types or relevance is part of my job.

I really don't see how you're still maintaining that the evidence isn't even related to the claim of physicalism. If physicalism requires, as you say, that there's a 1:1 perfect correlation, and we have information that AT LEAST there's a weak correlation, that's completely relevant. It's not like someone's saying "physicalism is true because my grammas panties are blue", you know what I mean? You're making it out like the evidence in question has nothing to do with the claim, and that just seems entirely unfair to me. Like, really far off base. Grammas panties have nothing to do with physicalism. The correlation being AT LEAST weak is not like grammas panties, let's get real.

And in just the question of evidence against other things being evidence for some other competing idea, I think the Monty Hall problem is a great example of that. Once you rule out one option, it changes the odds for the remaining options - there's nothing even controversial about stating that.

I'm still not really sure what you were agreeing with the other guy about earlier in the conversation. The dude was basically saying, there's no such thing as evidence for one statement that can be compatible with a contrary statement. You really agree with that?

that AT LEAST there's a weak correlation — flannel jesus

To me, its not this. Maybe that's the issue. It indicates we're not going to get a 1:1. It counts against the physicalist expectation. But that's more fact-specific, and may be hte underlying bias i'm expressing in the reasoning. But i also can't quite grasp how my point isn't fairly clear....

You're making it out like the evidence in question has nothing to do with the claim, and that just seems entirely unfair to me. Like, really far off base. — flannel jesus

To me, it is essentially the only way to read it parsimoniously.

The correlation being AT LEAST weak is not like grammas panties, let's get real. — flannel jesus

Facts-wise, I think it's worse :snicker: But you're not losing me, either. I hear you.

Once you rule out one option, it changes the odds for the remaining options - there's nothing even controversial about stating that. — flannel jesus

Agreed. But its not evidence for them. Not sure what's not getting across there - to be clear, it's something about which we can just plum disagree and there's no implication. I think its a bad use of the concept of 'evidence'. It's supposed to make something evident.

The dude was basically saying, there's no such thing as evidence for one statement that can be compatible with a contrary statement. — flannel jesus

Compatible? Sure. That's why i'm accepting a weak correlation or some other similar statement about it. I don't think its evidence beyond the 'propensity' type. That's where i felt MU got my point.

I don't think he got anything. The point he was making against me is easily disprovable. I could prove it to you right now. You just have to imagine a scenario which I'll give you some parameters for, and everything else falls into place

I am sure you feel that that is the case... :halo:

And, I don't agree with is conclusions, best I could tell. I feel he got my point that information which reduces the possibility of other outcomes, isn't evidence for any of the remaining outcomes. I wouldn't go so far as to say a piece of information can't be multiply inferential.

the only thing we talked about the whole time I was talking to him was the idea that evidence for X can sometimes be compatible with not-x. I cannot tell if you agree with him on this point or not. He and I didn't talk about anything else other than this. Do you agree with him on that?

evidence for X can sometimes be compatible with not-x — flannel jesus

Of course I agree here. Evidence for X can obviously be compatible with not-X unless its totally conclusive. This goes to hte heart of why 'indirect' evidence is such a shaky claim.

It doesn't really put paid to anything. I thought of an example... You're tracking animal prints. There are four Big Cats it could be in your area.

You have a cast of only one paw from the four possibilities.

You come across a print. The cast does not fit. It is not the animal from which the cast came.

It is not evidence for any of the other three being the culprit. You could say "it's evidence for all of them" but thats not sensible imo. It isn't evidence for any of them. It increases their likelihood given we have only four possibilities. But it provides nothing by way of evidence for any of them.

Of course I agree here. Evidence for X can obviously be compatible with not-X unless its totally conclusive. — AmadeusD

Good. That's what meta was disagreeing with me on. He was not correct about that.

Then I certainly either misunderstood or misconstrued the line. Apologies for dragging you through that, then lol.

Good. That's what meta was disagreeing with me on. He was not correct about that. — flannel jesus

Thanks to this discussion, I now think I understand the faulty logic which persuades you of physicalism. Stuff which you judge to be compatible with non-physicalism, you illogically judge as evidence of physicalism, by appealing to ignorance.

From what I understand, all of the pieces of evidence put forward for Physicalism are actually bits of evidence against other positions. — AmadeusD

I'm afraid this is indicative to me, of you not knowing much about the evidence. The scientific evidence is rather overwhelming. But then most people don't put a lot of effort into apprising themselves of the scientific evidence.

The scientific evidence is rather overwhelming. But then most people don't put a lot of effort into apprising themselves of the scientific evidence. — wonderer1

I know the evidence and disagree its particularly convincing. As do millions of others. If you're partial to/leaning to/prefer physicalism as an explanation, then that will colour your reading. As will my neutrality on it (its always going to be more interesting if physicalism does not obtain). If you could, perhaps, put forward some element of 'the evidence' you either find convincing, or more particularly, you assume i must have missed.. More than happy to 'appraise'.

At risk of sounding salty, as a general comment, I do not appreciate seeing or receiving assumptions about education based on differing conclusions. There are millions of people, including professional philosophers, who hold my position in light of the evidence. I could be wrong, sure, but this assertion is.. bad faith, to my mind.

The scientific evidence is rather overwhelming. But then most people don't put a lot of effort into apprising themselves of the scientific evidence. — wonderer1

There is no scientific evidence for physicalism. Rather, physicalism is an operating assumption on the grounds that science proceeds in terms of what is objectively measurable, which is best conceived of against an assumption of physicalism. But physicalism itself is actually a metaphysical axiom, not a scientific theory as such. Furthermore many aspects of current science cast doubt on materialism or physicalism as it was traditionally conceived.

The second point is more cultural than philosophical. It is that secular culture has abandoned the kinds of frameworks of belief within which alternatives to physicalism are meaningful or intelligible. That parallels the ascendancy of science over religion as a kind of over-arching cultural narrative. But this forgets that science principally deals with falsifiable hypotheses, not claims about broader questions which include ethics and the meaning of existence. Scientifically-oriented people will often put aside or shelve such questions as imprecise, but that is just further evidence of the presumptions under which science generally operates.

But mostly, it's just an assumption about 'the way things are', with science being held up as the arbiter of judgement about such matters.

But mostly, it's just an assumption about 'the way things are', with science being held up as the arbiter of judgement about such matters. — Wayfarer

:ok: I feel this is accurate. Though, it doesn't really go to my rejection of Physicalism per se as my point is that i accept the evidence, and its not good. But still..

It would behove anyone reading this thread to go back to the SEP article on Physicalism that it started with, from time to time. It's a difficult and in some ways irksome article but it focuses the discussion on what precisely is being talked about.

There is no scientific evidence for physicalism. — Wayfarer

Do you seriously think there is no scientific evidence that minds are a result of physical neurological processes?

Even a lot of Christian fundamentalists don't go that far in their science denial. Of course you do reject evolution. Do you think there is no scientific evidence for evolution as well? How about heliocentrism?

Wayf, I have interacted with so many people who are in denial of scientific evidence in order to maintain their religious beliefs, that statements such as the quote above might as well be an announcement of invincible ignorance on your part.

Do you seriously think there is no scientific evidence that minds are a result of physical neurological processes? — wonderer1

Philosophim asks me that all the time. I don't think you, or he, have any background in philosophy of mind, or why philosophy of mind is different to neuroscience. So it just strikes you as preposterous that anyone can question that.

statements such as the quote above might as well be an announcement of invincible ignorance on your part. — wonderer1

It might also be evidence that you don't understand the arguments. Most people nowadays simply assume the meta-scientific narrative, in which evolutionary theory has supplanted the religious creation mythology, but without really considering all of the philosophical implications of that.

So, again, with respect to science: what would scientific evidence of physicalism look like? What branch of science would you look to, in particular, to prove or to show that everything is, or reduces to, the physical?

Again, it might help if you can point to some section of the SEP: Physicalism article to show what you have in mind.

Pretty typical religious science denial, with hoops to jump through thrown in. I'm not really interested in doing much more at this point than pointing out that people who deny there is any scientific evidence, for what are matters of scientific consensus, are mostly fooling themselves.

I can find young earth creationist to argue with all over the place. There are much more interesting discussions to spend my time on here.

You never show any specific knowledge of philosophy of mind, and you equate any questioning of philosophical materialism with religious fundamentalism. And you didn't answer the question.

my disagreement with you wasn't about physicalism, it was about evidence and compatibility. Have you corrected yourself on that point yet?

Do you accept the fact that there are situations where when you have evidence of X, that evidence can still be compatible with not-X? And have you learned that "compatible" is not a synonym for "evidence"?

So, again: what would scientific evidence for physicalism look like? Thread is called 'best arguments for physicalism', so take your shot.

https://chat.openai.com/share/db2ac20a-cb37-45cd-8f22-95e9

User
what scientific evidence supports the philosophical position in position in philosophy of mind known as physicalism

ChatGPT
Physicalism in philosophy of mind asserts that everything about the mind can be ultimately explained by physical processes. Scientific evidence supporting physicalism comes from various fields, such as neuroscience, cognitive science, and psychology. Neuroscientific studies, for example, demonstrate correlations between mental states and brain activity, suggesting a strong connection between the mind and the physical brain. Additionally, advancements in brain imaging technologies provide insights into how specific mental functions correspond to distinct neural patterns. While the debate continues, these scientific findings align with the core tenets of physicalism.

User
What are the top ten neuroscientific findings which support physicalism

ChatGPT
While it's challenging to pinpoint a definitive list of the "top ten" neuroscientific findings supporting physicalism due to the evolving nature of research, here are ten notable findings that contribute to the physicalist perspective:

Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC): Identifying brain activity patterns associated with conscious experiences supports the idea that consciousness is closely tied to specific neural processes.

Brain Lesion Studies: Examining how changes or damage to specific brain regions affect cognition and behavior provides evidence for the physical basis of mental functions.

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI): Studies using fMRI reveal correlations between mental states and localized patterns of brain activity, offering insights into the neural basis of various cognitive processes.

Neuroplasticity: The brain's ability to reorganize itself in response to experiences and learning supports the idea that mental processes are rooted in the physical structure and function of the brain.

Electroencephalography (EEG) Studies: EEG allows researchers to observe electrical activity in the brain, helping to establish connections between specific neural patterns and cognitive processes.

Split-Brain Studies: Research involving split-brain patients demonstrates how distinct cognitive functions can be isolated to specific hemispheres, emphasizing the physical basis of mental processes.

Pharmacological Interventions: The impact of drugs on mental states provides evidence for the role of neurotransmitters and neural pathways in influencing cognition and emotions.

Brain Stimulation Studies: Applying techniques like transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to manipulate brain activity supports the idea that altering neural processes can directly affect mental functions.

Genetic Influences on Behavior: Investigating the genetic basis of behavior and mental disorders highlights the connection between molecular-level processes in the brain and psychological traits.

Evolutionary Psychology: Examining how the brain has evolved over time to support various cognitive functions underscores the physical underpinnings of mental processes.

These findings collectively contribute to the growing body of evidence supporting the physicalist perspective in philosophy of mind.

cop out.

cop out. — Wayfarer

Sure, and if I had written something along those lines myself, you would have said it is too long.

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.

— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97

my disagreement with you wasn't about physicalism, it was about evidence and compatibility. Have you corrected yourself on that point yet? — flannel jesus

I surely disagree with this. Let me present my evidence, in no way is it compatible with "my disagreement with you wasn't about physicalism".

The evidence for physicalism doesn't push the probability of those other ideas to 0. That's okay, the available evidence doesn't have to push other ideas to 0 - I, as a physicalist, have no problem with that. "The probability that I am wrong is above 0" is not a particularly hard thing for me to say here. — flannel jesus

What are you saying, I'm a physicalist but I'll own up to the possibility that physicalism might be wrong? I'm a physicalist and I don't mind admitting that the probability that physicalism is right is about .999...? — Metaphysician Undercover

The guy I was responding to said that the best evidence for physicalism still leaves the door open to other theories. I'm just expressing that *that's okay*. I'm okay with that, I don't see a problem with that. — flannel jesus

I would think that "physicalism" is quite strict, not allowing for the possibility of an open door. Isn't that what physicalism is, saying that there is no possibility of anything other than the physical? Opening the door would be rejecting physicalism. — Metaphysician Undercover

Me, as a physicalist, saying "the evidence for physicalism could also plausibly still be compatible with non-physicalist ideas" is not me rejecting physicalism. — flannel jesus

I don't see the logic. If it is compatible with non-physicalist ideas, then it is not evidence for physicalism because it's equally evidence for non-physicalism. — Metaphysician Undercover

It was your attitude about what constituted "evidence for physicalism" which interested me.

Do you accept the fact that there are situations where when you have evidence of X, that evidence can still be compatible with not-X? — flannel jesus

No, I would not accept that, it's what I insist is illogical. If the object is judged as compatible with not-X it is illogical to judge it as evidence of X. Only things judged to exclude the possibility of not-X can be judged as evidence of X. If it is judged as compatible with not-X it cannot be accepted as evidence of X

That kind of illogical thinking, which you demonstrate very well, produces an arrogant self-deceiving certitude which inclines one to aggressively assert "X is true because all the evidence supports X", all the while knowing that all of the so-called "evidence" is actually compatible with not-X. That all of the supposed "evidence" is compatible with not-X means that it is not really evidence of X at all, and there is no evidence of X. It is simply an illogical way of judging what counts as "evidence of X" which produces self-deception by way of confirmation bias. The "logic" of a closed mind apprehends everything as evidence for what it believes, and shuts out every other possibility as improbable.

The above Chat GPT examples concern logical behaviourism rather than physicalism. For example, a solipsist who doesn't believe in the literal existence of "other" minds, is on the one hand likely to identify as a logical behaviourist when it comes to interpreting so-called "other minds", and on the other hand as an idealist when it comes to his interpretation of the physical world as being inseparable from his "own" mind.