jccust
@jccust.bsky.social
Phd, Philosophy of Logic /Theory of Inference and Argumentation
Professor of Philosophy
(weakness: I am also a musician and poet 🥲)
Professor of Philosophy
(weakness: I am also a musician and poet 🥲)
It is so sad what Hegel and Marx did to dialectics…
August 15, 2025 at 10:38 PM
It is so sad what Hegel and Marx did to dialectics…
South Park has always covered news more accurately than the media!
August 8, 2025 at 10:50 PM
South Park has always covered news more accurately than the media!
I understand your point, but I prefer Dennett and the Dennettians over Chalmers and the Chalmerians any time of the day. In my opinion, Chalmers has done (and continues to do) an immense disservice to philosophy and science with this kind of talk
July 3, 2025 at 4:22 PM
I understand your point, but I prefer Dennett and the Dennettians over Chalmers and the Chalmerians any time of the day. In my opinion, Chalmers has done (and continues to do) an immense disservice to philosophy and science with this kind of talk
And if it is used as an “alternative” to contemporary cognitive science, that’s just scientific denial in disguise.
July 2, 2025 at 11:09 PM
And if it is used as an “alternative” to contemporary cognitive science, that’s just scientific denial in disguise.
If this first-person experience is meant to be entirely subjective, then it is not only unscientific but, by definition, forever beyond the reach of any kind of shared knowledge—perhaps a theme more suited to poetry or religion.
July 2, 2025 at 11:09 PM
If this first-person experience is meant to be entirely subjective, then it is not only unscientific but, by definition, forever beyond the reach of any kind of shared knowledge—perhaps a theme more suited to poetry or religion.
Should just call them science deniers, until people realize thats pretty much it
🤓
🤓
July 1, 2025 at 10:45 PM
Should just call them science deniers, until people realize thats pretty much it
🤓
🤓
Reposted by jccust
In my view, the zombie argument is among the weakest in philosophy, as it commits a petitio principii fallacy: by hypothesizing that an exact duplicate of a functional human being could lack consciousness, one is already presupposing the falsity of physicalism.
June 27, 2025 at 10:53 PM
In my view, the zombie argument is among the weakest in philosophy, as it commits a petitio principii fallacy: by hypothesizing that an exact duplicate of a functional human being could lack consciousness, one is already presupposing the falsity of physicalism.
The zombie argument not only refrains from assuming that physicalism is true (as many of its proponents claim), but in fact presupposes its falsity, and if its false, it cannot be necessarily true. The argument is epistemologically innocuous as it provides no independent reason to doubt physicalism.
June 27, 2025 at 11:00 PM
The zombie argument not only refrains from assuming that physicalism is true (as many of its proponents claim), but in fact presupposes its falsity, and if its false, it cannot be necessarily true. The argument is epistemologically innocuous as it provides no independent reason to doubt physicalism.
In my view, the zombie argument is among the weakest in philosophy, as it commits a petitio principii fallacy: by hypothesizing that an exact duplicate of a functional human being could lack consciousness, one is already presupposing the falsity of physicalism.
June 27, 2025 at 10:53 PM
In my view, the zombie argument is among the weakest in philosophy, as it commits a petitio principii fallacy: by hypothesizing that an exact duplicate of a functional human being could lack consciousness, one is already presupposing the falsity of physicalism.
And non-physicalists approaches is even older
June 27, 2025 at 10:43 PM
And non-physicalists approaches is even older
Paraphrasing Sheldon Cooper; nature, the heartless bitch.
April 21, 2025 at 9:51 PM
Paraphrasing Sheldon Cooper; nature, the heartless bitch.
Thats pretty much what Eliminative Materialism is about!
April 14, 2025 at 6:29 PM
Thats pretty much what Eliminative Materialism is about!
Aren’t you describing emergent properties of complex systems?
April 14, 2025 at 6:28 PM
Aren’t you describing emergent properties of complex systems?
And see, that’s exactly why Chalmers’ position in philosophy of mind isn’t considered scientific. While he’s not a "substance dualist", he’s clearly a "property dualist"—placing his view outside empiricism and physicalism.
April 13, 2025 at 10:23 PM
And see, that’s exactly why Chalmers’ position in philosophy of mind isn’t considered scientific. While he’s not a "substance dualist", he’s clearly a "property dualist"—placing his view outside empiricism and physicalism.
If by “operate under physicalism” you mean using physics terms while addressing emergent concepts and laws, I agree—each science has its level of description. But science today doesn’t see those phenomena as occurring beyond the four fundamental physical interactions, and so: physicalism.
April 13, 2025 at 10:17 PM
If by “operate under physicalism” you mean using physics terms while addressing emergent concepts and laws, I agree—each science has its level of description. But science today doesn’t see those phenomena as occurring beyond the four fundamental physical interactions, and so: physicalism.
I confess I don’t see your point—non-physicalism, by definition, implies a break from the laws of physics (e.g., dualist positions in philosophy of mind). If a phenomenon is understood within the scope of the four fundamental physical interactions, then it is *not* non-physicalism.
April 13, 2025 at 10:10 PM
I confess I don’t see your point—non-physicalism, by definition, implies a break from the laws of physics (e.g., dualist positions in philosophy of mind). If a phenomenon is understood within the scope of the four fundamental physical interactions, then it is *not* non-physicalism.
I mean, if you can empirically demonstrate that there are phenomena that clearly happen outside the scope of these four fundamental physical interactions, you would likely be regarded as the most important scientist of the century!
April 13, 2025 at 9:45 PM
I mean, if you can empirically demonstrate that there are phenomena that clearly happen outside the scope of these four fundamental physical interactions, you would likely be regarded as the most important scientist of the century!
In other words, I fail to see how an empirical test could be conducted outside the scope of the four fundamental physical interactions. If something occurs in empirical reality, it must ultimately arise from those interactions—that's why they are called fundamental in the physical sense.
April 13, 2025 at 9:42 PM
In other words, I fail to see how an empirical test could be conducted outside the scope of the four fundamental physical interactions. If something occurs in empirical reality, it must ultimately arise from those interactions—that's why they are called fundamental in the physical sense.
I tend to disagree. All empirical sciences operate this way. Even emergent phenomena— laws of chemistry, population biology...— is understood within the scientific framework not as new ontological realms but as falling under the four fundamental physical interactions (with degrees of complexity).
April 13, 2025 at 9:41 PM
I tend to disagree. All empirical sciences operate this way. Even emergent phenomena— laws of chemistry, population biology...— is understood within the scientific framework not as new ontological realms but as falling under the four fundamental physical interactions (with degrees of complexity).
When I said 'scientific context,' I was not excluding the part of philosophy that is done close to empirical science; philosophy of science—at least since Popper—is usually developed within a scientific context and by thinkers trained in science. The same with philosophy of mathematics and so on...
April 13, 2025 at 9:25 PM
When I said 'scientific context,' I was not excluding the part of philosophy that is done close to empirical science; philosophy of science—at least since Popper—is usually developed within a scientific context and by thinkers trained in science. The same with philosophy of mathematics and so on...
That's a very strange question: the discussion about 'physicalism' (and other terms like 'causation') is clearly part of the philosophy of science, even when conducted by trained scientists—or conversely, by philosophers trained in science. And I genuinely fail to see the relevance of the question.
April 13, 2025 at 9:20 PM
That's a very strange question: the discussion about 'physicalism' (and other terms like 'causation') is clearly part of the philosophy of science, even when conducted by trained scientists—or conversely, by philosophers trained in science. And I genuinely fail to see the relevance of the question.
Yes, the terminology changed. 'Physicalism' today has a much more objective meaning than 'materialism'— a mere fossil of hylemorphism—and imo is far from meaningless. In scientific contexts, physicalism usually refers to everything within the scope of the four fundamental physical interactions.
April 13, 2025 at 8:57 PM
Yes, the terminology changed. 'Physicalism' today has a much more objective meaning than 'materialism'— a mere fossil of hylemorphism—and imo is far from meaningless. In scientific contexts, physicalism usually refers to everything within the scope of the four fundamental physical interactions.
Physicalism is not merely a marginal view in science, but central to its methodology and underlying conception of nature. Non-physicalist positions go against the very core of scientific inquiry, rendering such theories incompatible with the scientific framework (if not ignoring empirical findings).
April 13, 2025 at 8:34 PM
Physicalism is not merely a marginal view in science, but central to its methodology and underlying conception of nature. Non-physicalist positions go against the very core of scientific inquiry, rendering such theories incompatible with the scientific framework (if not ignoring empirical findings).