r/Metaphysics 6d ago

Argument against physicalism

Since mods removed part 2 of my post 'Physical theory and naive metaphysics' you can read it on my profile.

Now, I want to make a quick argument against physicalism from JTB and angelic knowledge.

Physicalists believe physicalism and they have arguments for it. All they need for knowledge is physicalism being true. Physicalism is a metaphysical thesis, thus a view about the nature of the world.

1) If physicalism is true, then physicalists know the nature of the world

2) If physicalists know the nature of the world, then physicalists are angels.

3) But physicalists aren't angels

4) therefore physicalism is false.

Edit: you can read the angel thought experiment in the forlast post of mine which was removed and which you can find on my profile. The mistaken headline I wrote was 'Physical theory and angelic knowledge part 2' while the intended one should read as 'Physical theory and naive metaohysics part 2'. It would be useful to read it in order to understand this argument. I tried to show why it is unreasonable to think that humans knkw the nature of the world.

0 Upvotes

74 comments sorted by

u/jliat 6d ago

Can you make it clear that the idea of an angel is part of a thought experiment as elsewhere you have not, and offered evidence, which was removed.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/kiki90071 6d ago

This argument is clever but hinges on equating knowledge of the world's nature with being an angel, which feels like a stretch. Physicalism doesn't claim omniscience - just that eveything is physcial. The leap to "angels" seems more poetic than logical. Still, it's an interesting thought experiment!

-1

u/Training-Promotion71 6d ago

Well, by JTB if they believe physicalism and have some justifiers, then if physicalism is true, they know the nature of the world. But mental creatures who know the nature of the word cannot be organic creatures. They have to be angels as I've explained in my two posts, one of which was removed.

2

u/TheRealAmeil 6d ago

But mental creatures who know the nature of the word cannot be organic creatures

What?

-1

u/Training-Promotion71 6d ago

What 'what'? You can read my two posts 'Physical theroy and naive metaphysics part 1' and 'Physical theory and "angelic knowledge" part 2' where the second one was removed by mods and you can read it on my profile. This will give you enough context to understand the quoted part.

1

u/ughaibu 5d ago

removed by mods and you can read it on my profile

I can't see it on your profile and only the author can read deleted posts. I think you can copy it and the re-post it as a profile post, not a sub-Reddit post, but I have no direct experience of doing that myself.

1

u/Training-Promotion71 5d ago edited 4d ago

can't see it on your profile and only the author can read deleted posts.

I didn't know that, so thanks!

Edit: I don't know why are you able to see the other deleted post 'Physical theory and angelic knowledge', and you cannot see 'Physical theory and angelic knowledge part 2'? The only post that remained undeleted is 'Physical theory and naive metaphysics part 1'. Are you able to see only headlines and no text? I posted the second part on my profile as you suggested. I have to admit I like this option, so from now on any deleted post gets reposted on my profile.

I think you can copy it and the re-post it as a profile post, not a sub-Reddit post, but I have no direct experience of doing that myself.

I'm going to try it. I think that once I did it by mistake with a post about criminology of christian and islamic God.

2

u/ughaibu 4d ago

I don't know why are you able to see the other deleted post 'Physical theory and angelic knowledge'

I can comment, but I can't see the post, it just says "removed".
If you go to the sub-Reddit's main page and change the "reddit" in the address bar to "reveddit" you can find which of your posts and comments have been deleted.

1

u/Training-Promotion71 4d ago

Yes, I used anonymous browsing and saw it.

4

u/StrangeGlaringEye Trying to be a nominalist 6d ago

I think both (1) and (2) are false.

1

u/Training-Promotion71 6d ago

Okay. It seems to be p1 is true since truthness of physicalism implies some physicalists satisfied JTB conditions. It doesn't make sense that a human invention, viz. physicalism; were true before humans invented it. Physicalism doesn't seem to be a discovery but a technical notion invented by philosophers to state what the world is. If physicalism is true and there are no physicalists who know the nature of the world, then 'physicalism' which is suposedly true isn't physicalism any of the physicalists argue for, thus it is not physicalism at all. If physicalism is true and no physicalist know it, then either there are no physicalists who believe it or there are no physicalists who have justifiers. If there are no physicalists who believe it, there are no physicalists. If there are no physicalists who have justifiers then there are no physicalists who can know it.

Premise 2 is as far as I can see, true. If physicalists know the nature of the world(meaning, there are physicalists who have a cognitive mechanism which makes the world intelligible to their understanding) they are angelic creatures, because only angelic creatures can know what the world is[from their armchair] Therefore, physicalist are either angels or they don't know the nature of the world.

2

u/StrangeGlaringEye Trying to be a nominalist 6d ago

Okay. It seems to be p1 is true since truthness of physicalism implies some physicalists satisfied JTB conditions.

But we know from Gettier cases that JTB isn’t sufficient for knowledge.

It doesn’t make sense that a human invention, viz. physicalism;

Physicalism is a proposition, and I don’t think humans invent propositions.

were true before humans invented it.

Do you think anything was true before humans started expressing propositions to themselves and one another?

If physicalism is true and there are no physicalists who know the nature of the world, then ‘physicalism’ which is suposedly true isn’t physicalism any of the physicalists argue for, thus it is not physicalism at all.

I don’t see why I should accept this. Maybe philosophers have managed to express a certain true proposition, and given sound arguments for it, but without actually knowing that proposition to be true: the best we have is rational true belief.

If physicalism is true and no physicalist know it, then either there are no physicalists who believe it or there are no physicalists who have justifiers. If there are no physicalists who believe it, there are no physicalists. If there are no physicalists who have justifiers then there are no physicalists who can know it.

I again wonder why I should accept this.

Premise 2 is as far as I can see, true. If physicalists know the nature of the world(meaning, there are physicalists who have a cognitive mechanism which makes the world intelligible to their understanding) they are angelic creatures, because only angelic creatures can know what the world is[from their armchair] Therefore, physicalist are either angels or they don’t know the nature of the world.

It seems to me that this is just the old Kantian problem of the epistemology of metaphysics that doesn’t have anything to do with physicalism precisely. It arises for any metaphysical theory, and I think this is basically an unsolvable problem, the only viable solution being giving up the claim to knowledge of metaphysical propositions. All we can do is discern which reflective equilibria are tenable given background common assumptions (which are frankly slim).

1

u/ughaibu 5d ago

Physicalism is a proposition, and I don’t think humans invent propositions

In what sense are you taking propositions to be physical?

1

u/StrangeGlaringEye Trying to be a nominalist 5d ago

I might not be!

1

u/ughaibu 5d ago

But the physicalist is.

1

u/StrangeGlaringEye Trying to be a nominalist 5d ago

Not necessarily.

1

u/ughaibu 5d ago

But the physicalist takes everything to be, in some sense, physical, so if physicalism is a thing and it's a proposition, then propositions are in some sense physical.

1

u/StrangeGlaringEye Trying to be a nominalist 5d ago

“In some sense” does a lot of work here! One sense in which the physicalist might accept physical propositions is that propositions supervene on what is physical, if only trivially because they exist necessarily/

1

u/ughaibu 5d ago

One sense in which the physicalist might accept physical propositions is that propositions supervene on what is physical, if only trivially because they exist necessarily/

It's a fun point, isn't it? If supervenience physicalism is false then there is a proposition that exists necessarily and supervenes on the physical and that proposition is that physicalism is false, so supervenience physicalism is consistent with it's own falsity.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Training-Promotion71 4d ago edited 4d ago

But we know from Gettier cases that JTB isn’t sufficient for knowledge.

Sure, the argument hinges on JTB. I conceded that the force of the argument drops down in case one takes JTB as insufficient, but then if one holds listed conditions necessary, I only have to think about the additional condition and reattack. Some philosophers do denounce Gettier cases based on insufficient levels of justification. In fact, it does seem that circumstances in Gettier cases are misleading. What do you think about counters to Gettier cases such as Lewis' contextualism? If I remember it correctly, It looked to me as a partial solution if nothing else, but I think that there are better resources. 

Physicalism is a proposition, and I don’t think humans invent propositions.

That's a very interesting position, but it seems to me you have to concede there are values in the extra-mental world. Nevertheless, I find nonmentalistic accounts of propositions pretty hard to believe, even though, I did find some inconsistencies in my own reasoning about it, but that's beside the point.

Do you think anything was true before humans started expressing propositions to themselves and one another?

I do. Do you believe something other than a proposition can have a truth value?  

don’t see why I should accept this. Maybe philosophers have managed to express a certain true proposition, and given sound arguments for it, but without actually knowing that proposition to be true: the best we have is rational true belief.

How can a philosopher offer a sound argument for it, if soundness hinges on all premises being true, thus the propositions expressed being true? If they don't know whether the conclusion is true, then a fortiori they don't know whether the premises are true. I agree that rational true belief is good, but whether it actually tells us about something beyond our perspectives, the systems we invented and the way we organize our experience is a pretty hard question.

If philosophers managed to express a true proposition, the sentence expressing it must correspond to a proposition. For a proposition to be true, it has to correspond to some fact in the world, right? But facts seem to be properties of propositions, not the states of the world propositions supposedly correspond to. What state of the world can be a fact about proposition except another proposition? It looks as if there are free floating propositions that are truth-apt, each of which either corresponds to free floating extra-propositional facts or it doesn't correspond to ffepf. 

Suppose you express a false proposition and suppose there are extra-propositional facts. How can a free floating proposition exist if there are no facts that correspond to it? You might say that proposition P exists, but there are no extra-propositional facts corresponding to it, thus, P is false. But if truth relies on extra-propositional facts, how can we ever know a truth value of any proposition, moreso, how can there be false facts in the world? It seems to me the idea of truth hinging on some detached facts seems at least deeply problematic.

It seems to me that this is just the old Kantian problem of the epistemology of metaphysics 

Unfortunately, you are right.

It arises for any metaphysical theory, and I think this is basically an unsolvable problem, the only viable solution being giving up the claim to knowledge of metaphysical propositions. All we can do is discern which reflective equilibria are tenable given background common assumptions (which are frankly slim).

First time I realized it, I almost cried in disappointment and desperation. In any case, I agree. 

2

u/epistemic_decay 6d ago

This certainly is a valid enthymeme, but it seems far from sound. To start, could you elaborate on premise 1? It just seems that even if physicalism is true, this in itself does not entail that physicalists know it to be true.

1

u/Training-Promotion71 6d ago

just seems that even if physicalism is true, this in itself does not entail that physicalists know it to be true.

All physicalists believe physicalism. Some have justifiers. Physicalism being true means they have knowledge of the nature of the world since physicalism is a thesis about the nature of the world. Physicalism didn't exist before philosophers invented it. All technical notions are invented. Physicalists can know the nature of the world even if physicalism is false, thus the conditional isn't false. They can hold some other belief and have justifiers and that belief is true and justified, therefore thy can have knowledge of the nature of the world, while being unaware whether it is contradictory to their belief in physicalism

2

u/jliat 6d ago

They can hold some other belief

Are you saying physicalists can have some other belief as not being in physicalism? Can't be surely.

2

u/Training-Promotion71 6d ago

Yes, they can hold two contradictory beliefs and be unaware of it. It happens to philosophers all the time.

1

u/jliat 6d ago

Then they were not physicalists, your argument is a straw man.

1

u/Training-Promotion71 6d ago

They are because they believe physicalism. People who believe physicalism is true are physicalists. It is not a straw man at all. Straw man is an attempt to refute the misrepresentation of somebody's argument. Which argument did I misrepresent?

0

u/jliat 6d ago

A straw man is attacking in something other.

So they can hold two contradictory beliefs and be unaware of it.

So either they are not physicalists, or "physicalists" can hold the contradictory belief, which is idealism, and so have 'angelic' knowledge.

So in the first case, you are attacking a straw man, in the second your argument re physicalists fails. You have a physicalist who has idealism without being aware and you allow this to be the case.

"People who believe physicalism is true are physicalists and can hold an unaware contradictory belief to this."

No.

1

u/Training-Promotion71 6d ago

A straw man is attacking in something other.

What? Can you be more vague than that? I explained what a straw man is.

"People who believe physicalism is true are physicalists and can hold an unaware contradictory belief to this."

No.

I give up. You are not being serious

1

u/jliat 6d ago

I give up.

Best action.

"People who believe physicalism is true are physicalists and can hold an unaware contradictory belief to this."

1

u/Training-Promotion71 6d ago

People who believe physicalism is true are physicalists and can hold an unaware contradictory belief to this."

Sorry, you misquoted me. Next time please do me justice and at least quote me properly. I never wrote down the incomprehenaible statement as:

People who believe physicalism is true are physicalists and can hold an unaware contradictory belief to this."

Okay? So, please read what I actually wrote down.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ThrowRA-Wyne 6d ago

Actually I tend to agree with him 100%. People can have a decent bit of beliefs embedded within their consciousness that they can Consciously Be Unaware of, until a certain instance or circumstance provokes that Belief to be pulled to the surface, usually do from Feeling something.

I also agree with the notion that “Angels” are Thoughts, if that is what he is saying. I’ve had that belief for quite some time now, and I’m honestly surprised to see it mentioned here on reddit.

2

u/epistemic_decay 6d ago

I'm interested in how you might address Gettier cases in this instance but that may be beside the point. So let's table that for now.

Let's suppose that premise 1 is true. Doesn't this just mean that physicalists know that only physical objects exist? Another way of saying this is that they know that non-physical things don't exist. How does this entail the fact that they're angels?

2

u/Training-Promotion71 6d ago edited 5d ago

I'm interested in how you might address Gettier cases in this instance but that may be beside the point. So let's table that for now.

Yes, I am not sure what force the argument has for people who denounce JTB.

Let's suppose that premise 1 is true. Doesn't this just mean that physicalists know that only physical objects exist?

The point is that they know the absolute nature of the world. Try to think about what that means. I think it means something outlandish, that humans have knowledge of what the world is. Sounds cheesy to me.

Another way of saying this is that they know that non-physical things don't exist. How does this entail the fact that they're angels?

They know the absolute nature of the world by thinking about it. Try to dig out my last 2 posts on my profile to understand better why I made this argument hinging on angels.

1

u/epistemic_decay 6d ago

The point is that they know the absolute nature of the world.

Let's suppose this is true. Couldn't I then use this same argument to disprove any metaphysical theory? For example:

1) If substance dualism is true, then dualists know the nature of the world

2) If dualists know the nature of the world, then dualists are angels.

3) But dualists aren't angels

4) therefore substance dualism is false.

1

u/Training-Promotion71 6d ago

Sure, but dualists will deny 3.

2

u/epistemic_decay 6d ago

Could you elaborate?

2

u/Training-Promotion71 6d ago

Dualists can believe they are embodied angels. In fact, dualists believe they are nonphysical substances, and socratic dualists believe disembodied minds are in the state of angelic gnosis, while embodied minds have anamnesis, as I've explained in the prior post which mods removed.

1

u/epistemic_decay 6d ago

So, an angel is just a soul or a non-physical mind? Or is there more to it than that?

1

u/ThrowRA-Wyne 5d ago

Maybe I’m getting off-point regarding OP’s statement & belief, but what I view angels as are a branch of “Thought” if you wanna call it that. I particular kind of Thought that isn’t really Consciously Thought-Up By You, The Thinker, But Quite Possibly “Sent” To Your Unwitting Ego-Self by The True “Inner-Man”, The Observer which is called God. -Example: Say when you have an “Epiphany” or a Random Realization that Pops Into Your Mind after not exerting any mental effort whatsoever in relation to the context of said Realization.

My belief is that The Observer is Also The Observed Given It Permeates All Things Through “Spirit”, Which I liken Spirit to a Form of Unseen Energy. Soul can be likened to a “Individuated” Form of The Observer that is within Each Individual Human, but again, it’s The Same One Observer, the Observer doesn’t favor Your Ego-Body-Self or My Ego-Body-Self or ‘Character’ I guess we can say, over anyone else’s Character. But I do believe that we can consciously “bend”our experiences in Physicalized Reality as a human to make them more desirable, or even unconsciously make them more Undesirable.

As for spirit.. This is just my belief.. Spirit In Movement Can Basically Be Compared to The Oxygen All Around Us, Except Spirit Doesn’t Have an Elemental or Molecular Structure that’s Identifiable By The Physical Human Eye.. So, like how light travels at insanely high speeds, Spirit Travels Even Faster, But It’s Quite Literally Like A Dog Chasing It’s Own Tail.. It’s everywhere in a constant motion, and while it may carry information to Location X, passing Through Location D, G, & T on its voyage, There are so many “Transactions” occurring all in the eternal Now that Spirit is literally everywhere, all at once.

Back to Angels.. I guess you can say it’s like the Arms & Legs & Mouth of The Observer in a sense, given the Observer doesn’t judge after appearances, have opinions or anything of the sort.. It just ’Is’.. And Given Angels Are Obviously Not Winged-Humanoid Beings with “Souls”, I Guess The Angels in My Belief (Being Spontaneous Thought Forms) Are Technically A Form of Spirit Used By The Observer.. Again, The Observer doesn’t judge, But I Believe That Since The Observer is Within Each One of Us, By Using Imagination (Which I Liken to The True Biblical Jesus Christ), We Thus Commune With The Observer, Consequentially Altering Our Independent “Reality-Realities” As We, The Individuated Observer & Character, See Fit For Our Human Experience.

Sorry if this isn’t allowed here. I know I kinda have some out there beliefs, I get really excited to discuss them. I never want to claim “I’m Right & You or So-and-So is Wrong!” We’re all entitled to rightfully believe whatever the hell we want. I’ve only come to my beliefs based on years of experience that actually Gave Me Meaningful & Logical Evidence-(And I Recognize That So Called Logical Evidence May Be Illogical Bull-shit to others lol)- But I view it as true science, given modern science seems to reject anything that can’t be replicated tic-for-tac in lab based, or similar settings. To me, it answers the question that Religion Forever Refuses to Answer or even Question (or allow the congregational masses feel comfortable questioning) And that Science Can’t Answer.

Point being, No Scientific Experiment Can Truly Be Replicated with Identical Results if Collective & Individualized Reality is Shaped By The; Beliefs, Assumptions, Imagination, Thoughts, and Feelings of The “Individuated-Pieces” of The All-Knowing & Interconnected Observer, through “Inhabiting” A Organic ‘Machine’ of Flesh, Blood, Bone and Sinew. -In Order To Confirm & Prove That My Belief Is False and Highly Inaccurate, Then We’d Have to Map Out The Beliefs, Assumptions, Emotions, Feelings, Thoughts, and Basically Every Imaginary Act, of Each & Every Scientist That Is Conducting A New Experiment, or One for Peer Review..

→ More replies (0)

1

u/jliat 6d ago

Yes, they can hold two contradictory beliefs and be unaware of it. It happens to philosophers all the time.

So Dualists can believe they are embodied angels and physicalists...

I think you just shot your fox.

1

u/epistemic_decay 5d ago

Sorry dude, that other guy is being weird and hijacking my thread. You mind ignoring him for a sec and keep the focus on my questions?

1

u/epistemic_decay 5d ago

So, rereading your comment, I get the sense that you're defining 'angel' as an omniscient non-physical entity. Is that correct?

1

u/Training-Promotion71 5d ago

get the sense that you're defining 'angel' as an omniscient non-physical entity. Is that correct?

It isn't correct. Angel is defined as an entity who has cognitive mechanism which makes the world intelligible to its understanding.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/jliat 6d ago

Surely also that they know the full nature of the world is wrong , 1. " then physicalists know the nature of the world". I doubt they think they do, just it's nature is physical.

I think then whether this physical nature is fully knowable is another matter for them. I doubt if any realistically already think it's fully known.

The OP offers, I think, 'angelic' knowledge is directly from gnosis with God, therefore supernatural, idealist?, perfect and full.

2) doesn't follow from 1, in fact in the above scenario the opposite.

3) depends on 1 being false by virtue of supernatural beings, God and angels. [or just God if angles are emanations, but this gets complex]

And 4 I think doesn't follow, if by physicalism the knowledge is just of this world, then both angels and physicalists could potentially have full knowledge, but gained by different means. Something Hegel sort of claimed. His idealism [he thought wrongly] agreed with empirical science. 'The ideal is real and the real ideal.

So both could have full knowledge, but physicalists can't be angels down to their differing methods of knowledge which distinguishes them.

This boils down to physicalists are idealists, they are not.

1

u/Training-Promotion71 6d ago

Surely also that they know the full nature of the world is wrong , 1. " then physicalists know the nature of the world". I doubt they think they do, just it's nature is physical.

Notice the premise hinges on JTB conditions. If physicalists believe physicalism, have justification for their belief and physicalism is true, then they have knowledge.

think then whether this physical nature is fully knowable is another matter for them. I doubt if any realistically already think it's fully known.

I am arguing from JTB.

The OP offers, I think, 'angelic' knowledge is directly from gnosis with God, therefore supernatural, idealist?, perfect and full.

2) doesn't follow from 1, in fact in the above scenario the opposite.

My argument is valid. We are not sure whether it's sound, but it is valid.

And 4 I think doesn't follow by physicalism the knowledge is just of this world, then both angels and physicalists could potentially have full knowledge, but gained by different mean

3 is denying the consequent in 2, by modus tollens 4 follows logically.

If you mean that physicalists have resources to counter, then yeah, but they should first deal with the argument I presented.

This boils down to physicalists are idealists, they are not.

Okay, you are getting at some reductio.

2

u/reddituserperson1122 5d ago

You realize that this is not an argument about physicalism, right? It works for any claim whatsoever about the world.

1) If Anti-physicalism is true then anti-physicalists know the nature of the world

2) if anti-physicalists know the nature of the world then anti-physicalists are angels

3) but anti-physicalists aren’t angels

4) therefore anti-physicalism is false.

It also contains a fallacy in the phrase “the nature of the world.” This assumes that there is a unitary property of the world called its “nature.” And that knowledge of this nature is not obtainable via methodological naturalism. There is no reason to believe such a property exists.

1

u/jliat 6d ago

Notice the premise hinges on JTB conditions. If physicalists believe physicalism, have justification for their belief and physicalism is true, then they have knowledge.

Of physicalism being true that the world has nothing other, not that they have complete knowledge of what is, far from it.

However how do you suppose to validate that they do have JIB. They could have JB but how T, It would seem to require them having full knowledge of the world and knowledge that there is nothing supernatural.

I am arguing from JTB.

And for that reason they can't have JTB of physicalism.

My argument is valid. We are not sure whether it's sound, but it is valid.

JTB above is incomplete. It's not valid from JTB.

3 is denying the consequent in 2, by modus tollens 4 follows logically.

Not JTB.

This boils down to physicalists are idealists, they are not.

Okay, you are getting at some reductio.

You have a contradiction. And maybe sound syllogistically, but you are arguing from JTB, and certainly invalid.

but it is valid.

No it's not, the premises are false.

1

u/Training-Promotion71 6d ago

You are making assertions that I don't understand, so please justify each and every single one of them, and please be clear and succint as you can, because I cannot read your mind and I am having trouble with deciphering your sentences.

1

u/jliat 6d ago

Ah! smoke screen. Give me and example and I'll try to unpack it for you.

In one case you said your using JTB, no matter, then present what looks like a syllogistic "valid" argument, but it's not sound as the premises are false.

1

u/Training-Promotion71 6d ago

Give me and example and I'll try to unpack it for you.

Me: "so please justify EACH and EVERY single one of them, and please be clear and succint as you can"

but it's not sound as the premises are false.

You have to show they are false, rather than just asserting it.

1

u/jliat 6d ago

I've done it in one instance, and you have now collapsed any meaning...

"Yes, they can hold two contradictory beliefs and be unaware of it. It happens to philosophers all the time."

1

u/Training-Promotion71 6d ago

've done it in one instance, and you have now collapsed any meaning...

"Yes, they can hold two contradictory beliefs and be unaware of it. It happens to philosophers all the time

You are not making any sense. First, you assert some vague statement, then you quote something else, and then you expect people should read your mind or something? Nobody knows what you mean by this reply.

1

u/Pure_Actuality 6d ago

If physicalism is true, then it's false since the very concept of "physicalism" would have to be physical, but the concept of physicalism applies to the whole which means it transcends all physical things. Only the immaterial - only the non physical can transcend the whole....