Recent content by Phil Argument

Okay, I glanced through Paul's answer. That was enough to conclusively ensure me that the guy is intellectually dishonest, and he is never going to give frank answers to some difficult questions. Bertha was right from the beginning. I of course have met some difficult physicalists before, but...

According to physicalist philosophy, as far as I know, all movements of matter are thought to take place due to essentially purposeless workings of physical forces.

Let us wait for Paul's answer to the topic of the relationship between consciousness and purpose first. The definition has been given a long time ago, and Paul actually did accept the definition, but later he withdrew his acceptance because of some consciousness-based excuse, and I haven't been...

But the causal efficacy Paul is referring to is in no way different from the causal efficacy of the brain activity of a zombie. Consciousness is not at all an explaining factor in a physicalist world. Consciousness is not needed in the explanation of behavior, because everything that happens in...

Thank you, Bertha! There is so much inconsistent physicalist nonsense in the world. One has to try to do something to reduce it.

I have done it. For some reason you just don't accept it. Let's see what the reason is... In post #86 you state: "I'm okay with this ["sake definition"] as long as sake does not include consciousness. If it does not, then there is no basis in proof 1 for premise 2. [which is: "If physicalism is...

So are you saying that every event carries a purpose? That seems inevitable, since every event has causal consequences. This makes me curious. Would you see wings as purposeful in a zombie universe with absolutely no consciousness? Are you somehow suggesting that there can be purpose in a...

It is purpose itself. It is the physicalist assumption that all workings of nature are due to purposeless forces, combined with the assumed causal closure of the physical. Well, the argument does not assume that purpose entails consciousness, let alone immaterial consciousness. But I think...

I certainly would not agree with the statement "all movements of matter are essentially not for the sake of anything", because most of our movements actually serve some purpose. But to answer your question, yes, I would agree with the statement that under physicalism all movements of matter are...

No, I didn't ignore it. You only stated the same things in another form. The premise is not stating that there is no purpose under physicalism. It states that under physicalism all movements of matter are purposeless by nature, "by nature" meaning "essentially". This should be quite obvious...

Right. We agree on that. How? Premise 4 is: Steering ourselves to food and eating are purposeful actions by nature. Absolutely no mention of consciousness. If '"purposeful" clearly seems to include consciousness', please explain how. If it is so clear, sure it must be possible to point out...

Ok, thanks, Stephen. I don't know if it is possible to find any process model for all definitions. At some point the definitions will inevitably go in a circle, and that's a clear sign of reaching the level of primary or indefinable concept. In human language we reach that level very soon.

OK. As I told before, the argument does not have to appeal to consciousness. But don't get me wrong. 'Sake' does not exclude consciousness, either. If you think it should exclude consciousness, you certainly have a good explanation for that. There are three logical possibilities: (a) purpose...

Ah, I see where you are going. I'm not going there with you. To refute the conclusion of an argument you have to refute at least one of its premises or show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. You have not done either. Instead, you have asked for definitions of concepts. My...

If you bothered to read the quotes, I'm sure you noticed that it's not a question of falsification of only local realism anymore, but realism in general.