Excellent article and I have a number of questions and points to raise
1. As i understand it, you rightly reject the observer effect. Now maybe I’m drawing a wrong conclusion, but it seems that even if one accepts every point you made - the universe or “matter” or whatever is “physical” is ultimately indeterministic, non local and irreducible - I don’t see how this necessarily requires the rejection of physicalism.
2. While all of these observations about the implications of quantum physics are helpful, did we ever “need” the philosophy of materialism/physicalism (I’ll use “physicalism” from here on to simplify things)? There never has been any evidence that something purely physical exists; it’s always been a philosophic, non empirical speculative idea. Why not start with this - the notion that the scientific method of focusing on measurable aspects of sensory experience does not in itself confirm or deny any philosophic perspective - and then consider, what are universally accepted aspects of the universe (the experienced universe, that is, the only universe we actually know) which need to be explained, and then compare - what philosophic outlook more comprehensively explains that experience - physicalism or a non physicalist view?
Since physicalism, as I understand it, explains nothing, it seems if #2 was sufficiently spelled out, we’d find that physicalism is the worst possible philosophic foundation for science.
In his book, “The Experience of God: Existence, Consciousness Bliss,” David Bentley Hart presents h is “Vedantic Christianity” and in fact, comes to this exact conclusion - there has never been a philosophic outlook, in all of human history, that is as utterly incoherent and nonsensical as naturalism (his umbrella term for materialism/physicalism - sometimes he refers to it as “mechanical naturalism”)
As Hart is one of the most brilliant writers alive, as far as I can see, it seems his views are worth considering.
It also seems to me, once this fundamental philosophic error is made clear, everything you have written, in both “End of Materialism” and “Spirit Calls Nature” will be much much easier for skeptics to understand, most of whom, as Kastrup humorously points out, don’t even understand what they mean by the words “physical” and “Matter.”
I have long been hesitant to say this, but I had a conversation with a philosophy professor a year or so ago, one who for some years bought into the physicalist view, who started practicing meditation and had a radical shift of mind, who said, (a) it’s the easiest, most logical, simplest thing in the world to show why physicalism is nonsensical and not required by any scientific finding; and (b) most of his colleagues who cling to physicalism simply are psychologically incapable of seeing this simplicity.
So again, I guess, as usual, I come to teh conclusion that the shift away from physicalism is not an intellectual issue. IT’s so simple, even Bernardo Kastrup stated it in barely more than a sentence. It’s fundamentally (as you hinted at toward the end of your article) a psychological issue
THe point is one I made in my essay, “Shaving Science with Ockham’s Razor” (yes, I do think there are least a few occasions where Ockham might be helpful)
1. What do we know, directly? Perceptions
2. WHat is the means by which we know perceptions? Awareness. (Perceptions being, actually, undulations in the field of Awareness)
3. If you want to posit something other than perceptions in awareness, the burden of proof (ie evidence at least of a minimal kind) is on you. To post something entirely apart from awareness is not necessary for any aspect of science, it provides no explanations whatsoever for any phenomenon, and makes the entire experienced universe as we know it - experienced as qualitative - virtually impossible.
It only shows how incapable so many scientists and educated lay public are of even the simplest philosophic thought when they respond, “But where is the evidence for this “field of awareness?”
As if they really can’t comprehend that there is no evidence for this purely physical stuff they believe in!
First of all, the post’s aim was not (or, at least, not necessarily) that to convince people to get beyond physicalism starting from an argument of QM. It’s main reason is to show that the resistance to accept QM as an indeterministic, non-local theory without hidden variables has its sociological root cause in an absolute faith in naturalism (I like this word but don’t use it frequently because in the Aurobindonian context Nature is much more than the physical plane, but here it might be more appropriate.) It is an answer to the question of the subtitle, “Why do so many physicists and philosophers try to save classical realism?” Not more than that. Even though I would not exclude that this line of argument might relax in one or another’s mind the materialistic dogma either.
For question A one could answer in two ways.
The diplomatic answer: “Well, you are right. Quantum mechanics excludes only that kind of Laplacian naturalism that relies on determinism, reductionism and classical physical causation. But since this is what most scientist mean to be the very basis of a materialistic paradigm, QM has for sure refuted it.”
The answer of the occultist: Step 1: Consider an experiment where you prepare a particle in state A. Then let it make its thing. The particle runs away to the left. Step 2: Take exactly the same particle an prepare it into exactly the same state A. Then let it make its thing again. This time it runs away to the right.
Question: If QM is without hidden variables, what determines the difference between left and right outcome? (Warning: saying that it is all “random” means nothing.)
As to question B I guess the physicalist would answer you: “Nobody has ever defined what ‘physical’ means, thereby, it makes no sense to ask whether something purely physical exists or not. I’m only interested in the outcome of measurements that don’t depend on my expectations, what you call “the measurable aspects of sensory experience.” And, even you say: “focusing on measurable aspects of sensory experience does not in itself confirm or deny any philosophic perspective.” Then it doesn’t confirm non-physicalism either. Thus, there is no “philosophic error”. But you reply by saying that “we can’t posit something other than perceptions in awareness.” Ok, but this is no argument against naturalism. It is only good old Kant that told us that we will never get to the noumenon. But there is no logical reason to jump to the conclusion that the noumenon has anything to do with awareness, consciousness, mind or whatever anthropocentric conception.”
Before making the point about awareness, there has to be a deep, detailed understanding that Kant’s observations apply to all claims of physicalism.
The point I’m making, philosophically, is one of 100% agnosticism. I personally know there’s much beyond that but I”m not asking the physicalist to believe anything. Let me spell it out again in this context and I think it will respond well to your last points:
1. All we know is awareness; we know this by direct experiential evidence.
2. There is not and can never be any evidence of any kind of something outside of awareness.
3. There has never been a single scientific experiment conducted for which physicalism provides any kind of explanation.
4. Awareness - that is, Supra-mental intelligent awareness provides perfect explanations for all so called physical phenomena.
5. Therefore, the onus is on the physicalist as to why he/she wants to have pure non empirical faith for something that makes all science inexplicable as opposed to something which explains everything science has ever done!
You know what? I think we may be on the verge of getting more clear about this. Continue in your role as devil’s advocate - I don’t know if I failed to make some of my points clear, but most of your arguments misrepresent what I intended.
So, I’m voting for a more contentious devils’ advocate. I’d love to see if you can credibly contest these points. I’ve never come across anyone who could.
Of course, I’m misrepresenting, otherwise I would not be a devil. 😊
But I know that the physicalist would come up with these misrepresentations. Let me continue to do my worst.
“1. All we know is awareness; we know this by direct experiential evidence.”
Nope. All we know is *through our* awareness.
2. There is not and can never be any evidence of any kind of something outside of awareness.
Yep. That’s Kant.
3. There has never been a single scientific experiment conducted for which physicalism provides any kind of explanation.
It depends on what you mean by “explanation.” Doesn't gravity provide a nice explanation of why the Earth circles around the Sun? (Didn’t we already have this conversation?)
4. Awareness - that is, Supra-mental intelligent awareness provides perfect explanations for all so called physical phenomena.
Really? Such as? What is the “perfect explanation” for a falling stone?
5. Therefore, the onus is on the physicalist as to why he/she wants to have pure non empirical faith for something that makes all science inexplicable as opposed to something which explains everything science has ever done!
That “non-empirical faith” was quite successful in the last four centuries. Why does it make “all science inexplicable”? What is that “something which explains everything”? Consciousness? Why? How? Your line of reasoning isn’t clear.
Excellent article and I have a number of questions and points to raise
1. As i understand it, you rightly reject the observer effect. Now maybe I’m drawing a wrong conclusion, but it seems that even if one accepts every point you made - the universe or “matter” or whatever is “physical” is ultimately indeterministic, non local and irreducible - I don’t see how this necessarily requires the rejection of physicalism.
2. While all of these observations about the implications of quantum physics are helpful, did we ever “need” the philosophy of materialism/physicalism (I’ll use “physicalism” from here on to simplify things)? There never has been any evidence that something purely physical exists; it’s always been a philosophic, non empirical speculative idea. Why not start with this - the notion that the scientific method of focusing on measurable aspects of sensory experience does not in itself confirm or deny any philosophic perspective - and then consider, what are universally accepted aspects of the universe (the experienced universe, that is, the only universe we actually know) which need to be explained, and then compare - what philosophic outlook more comprehensively explains that experience - physicalism or a non physicalist view?
Since physicalism, as I understand it, explains nothing, it seems if #2 was sufficiently spelled out, we’d find that physicalism is the worst possible philosophic foundation for science.
In his book, “The Experience of God: Existence, Consciousness Bliss,” David Bentley Hart presents h is “Vedantic Christianity” and in fact, comes to this exact conclusion - there has never been a philosophic outlook, in all of human history, that is as utterly incoherent and nonsensical as naturalism (his umbrella term for materialism/physicalism - sometimes he refers to it as “mechanical naturalism”)
As Hart is one of the most brilliant writers alive, as far as I can see, it seems his views are worth considering.
It also seems to me, once this fundamental philosophic error is made clear, everything you have written, in both “End of Materialism” and “Spirit Calls Nature” will be much much easier for skeptics to understand, most of whom, as Kastrup humorously points out, don’t even understand what they mean by the words “physical” and “Matter.”
I have long been hesitant to say this, but I had a conversation with a philosophy professor a year or so ago, one who for some years bought into the physicalist view, who started practicing meditation and had a radical shift of mind, who said, (a) it’s the easiest, most logical, simplest thing in the world to show why physicalism is nonsensical and not required by any scientific finding; and (b) most of his colleagues who cling to physicalism simply are psychologically incapable of seeing this simplicity.
So again, I guess, as usual, I come to teh conclusion that the shift away from physicalism is not an intellectual issue. IT’s so simple, even Bernardo Kastrup stated it in barely more than a sentence. It’s fundamentally (as you hinted at toward the end of your article) a psychological issue
THe point is one I made in my essay, “Shaving Science with Ockham’s Razor” (yes, I do think there are least a few occasions where Ockham might be helpful)
1. What do we know, directly? Perceptions
2. WHat is the means by which we know perceptions? Awareness. (Perceptions being, actually, undulations in the field of Awareness)
3. If you want to posit something other than perceptions in awareness, the burden of proof (ie evidence at least of a minimal kind) is on you. To post something entirely apart from awareness is not necessary for any aspect of science, it provides no explanations whatsoever for any phenomenon, and makes the entire experienced universe as we know it - experienced as qualitative - virtually impossible.
It only shows how incapable so many scientists and educated lay public are of even the simplest philosophic thought when they respond, “But where is the evidence for this “field of awareness?”
As if they really can’t comprehend that there is no evidence for this purely physical stuff they believe in!
Ok, some good points here.
First of all, the post’s aim was not (or, at least, not necessarily) that to convince people to get beyond physicalism starting from an argument of QM. It’s main reason is to show that the resistance to accept QM as an indeterministic, non-local theory without hidden variables has its sociological root cause in an absolute faith in naturalism (I like this word but don’t use it frequently because in the Aurobindonian context Nature is much more than the physical plane, but here it might be more appropriate.) It is an answer to the question of the subtitle, “Why do so many physicists and philosophers try to save classical realism?” Not more than that. Even though I would not exclude that this line of argument might relax in one or another’s mind the materialistic dogma either.
For question A one could answer in two ways.
The diplomatic answer: “Well, you are right. Quantum mechanics excludes only that kind of Laplacian naturalism that relies on determinism, reductionism and classical physical causation. But since this is what most scientist mean to be the very basis of a materialistic paradigm, QM has for sure refuted it.”
The answer of the occultist: Step 1: Consider an experiment where you prepare a particle in state A. Then let it make its thing. The particle runs away to the left. Step 2: Take exactly the same particle an prepare it into exactly the same state A. Then let it make its thing again. This time it runs away to the right.
Question: If QM is without hidden variables, what determines the difference between left and right outcome? (Warning: saying that it is all “random” means nothing.)
As to question B I guess the physicalist would answer you: “Nobody has ever defined what ‘physical’ means, thereby, it makes no sense to ask whether something purely physical exists or not. I’m only interested in the outcome of measurements that don’t depend on my expectations, what you call “the measurable aspects of sensory experience.” And, even you say: “focusing on measurable aspects of sensory experience does not in itself confirm or deny any philosophic perspective.” Then it doesn’t confirm non-physicalism either. Thus, there is no “philosophic error”. But you reply by saying that “we can’t posit something other than perceptions in awareness.” Ok, but this is no argument against naturalism. It is only good old Kant that told us that we will never get to the noumenon. But there is no logical reason to jump to the conclusion that the noumenon has anything to do with awareness, consciousness, mind or whatever anthropocentric conception.”
Greetings from the devil’s advocate. 😉
Before making the point about awareness, there has to be a deep, detailed understanding that Kant’s observations apply to all claims of physicalism.
The point I’m making, philosophically, is one of 100% agnosticism. I personally know there’s much beyond that but I”m not asking the physicalist to believe anything. Let me spell it out again in this context and I think it will respond well to your last points:
1. All we know is awareness; we know this by direct experiential evidence.
2. There is not and can never be any evidence of any kind of something outside of awareness.
3. There has never been a single scientific experiment conducted for which physicalism provides any kind of explanation.
4. Awareness - that is, Supra-mental intelligent awareness provides perfect explanations for all so called physical phenomena.
5. Therefore, the onus is on the physicalist as to why he/she wants to have pure non empirical faith for something that makes all science inexplicable as opposed to something which explains everything science has ever done!
You know what? I think we may be on the verge of getting more clear about this. Continue in your role as devil’s advocate - I don’t know if I failed to make some of my points clear, but most of your arguments misrepresent what I intended.
So, I’m voting for a more contentious devils’ advocate. I’d love to see if you can credibly contest these points. I’ve never come across anyone who could.
Do your worst, Dr. Masi!
Of course, I’m misrepresenting, otherwise I would not be a devil. 😊
But I know that the physicalist would come up with these misrepresentations. Let me continue to do my worst.
“1. All we know is awareness; we know this by direct experiential evidence.”
Nope. All we know is *through our* awareness.
2. There is not and can never be any evidence of any kind of something outside of awareness.
Yep. That’s Kant.
3. There has never been a single scientific experiment conducted for which physicalism provides any kind of explanation.
It depends on what you mean by “explanation.” Doesn't gravity provide a nice explanation of why the Earth circles around the Sun? (Didn’t we already have this conversation?)
4. Awareness - that is, Supra-mental intelligent awareness provides perfect explanations for all so called physical phenomena.
Really? Such as? What is the “perfect explanation” for a falling stone?
5. Therefore, the onus is on the physicalist as to why he/she wants to have pure non empirical faith for something that makes all science inexplicable as opposed to something which explains everything science has ever done!
That “non-empirical faith” was quite successful in the last four centuries. Why does it make “all science inexplicable”? What is that “something which explains everything”? Consciousness? Why? How? Your line of reasoning isn’t clear.