What about "truth", though? Doesn't truth have to be a physical thing? It's certainly not a verb.

What they are denying is that we have introspective evidence of qualia, and they do so by providing a somewhat detailed cognitive theory of how that comes about. I think their case is sufficiently well-argued for us to take them seriously. — DanCoimbra

They're clever. They know their facts. I just think it's an obvious dead end. I notice that in the 2009 Philpapers survey, non-physicalism regarding the mind was at 27%. In 2020, it exploded to...32%. Still, if these trends continue...

Welcome to the forum!

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

If Israel had the intent to destroy Palestinians, in whole or in part, the population of Palestine would not have doubled the past thirty years. Compared to America, that's extremely fast population growth. How many deaths have their been in four months of conflict? 25,000? America killed four times that many in one night bombing Tokyo. If Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians, they're remarkably bad at it.

Why? Is the below a big problem for materialism?

At T1 the ball is someone's property. At T2 everybody dies. Nothing physical has changed about the ball but it is no longer someone's property. — Michael

So the ball loses "is someone's property" and gains "was someone's property".

Why? Is the below a big problem for materialism?

At T1 the ball is someone's property. At T2 everybody dies. Nothing physical has changed about the ball but it is no longer someone's property. — Michael

Is "truth" a physical thing? Is "belonging to" a physical thing? They have to be, right? So, we have two physical things: "ball" and "belongs to so-and-so" (or "truth" and "sentence"). And somehow those two things become attached or combined. But only when a lump of meat in a skull is involved! How does that work? Why is a brain necessary for that?

Cause, as I stated before, the tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths over the past 100+ years cannot be considered large enough scale to fit the term Genocide. But it is proper to use the term "holocaust," which details a slow burn killing over an extended period of time. — Vaskane

Ah, so not a genocide, but a kind of holocaust. The same objection applies: while there's a holocaust going on, Palestine's population triples in 40 years? Not really much of a holocaust, is it? Nothing at all like the actual Holocaust. Why do you think Israel is so ineffective at killing Palestinians?

At time T1 the ink markings are a true sentence. At T2 everybody dies. Nothing physical has changed about the ink markings, but they are no longer a true sentence. — Michael

I think that's a big problem for materialism.

So for physicalists, facts are physical or there are no facts; otherwise it would depend on whether you are talking about the type or the token, or whether the guy you are asking is an idealist, or what the fact is talking about. — Lionino

I think Lionino is right, which is why I was using "fact". But "true sentence" works just as well. The materialist claims a "true sentence" is a physical thing. What else could it be? But when all brains disappear, all true sentences undergo a change: they are no longer true. All changes are physical, so the change from "true sentence" to "sentence" has to be a physical change, but nothing physical happened to all the true sentences. The only thing that happened was all brains disappeared.

The materialist can avoid all that by simply claiming that the truth of a sentence is dependent on a brain (also whether something is someone's property), but isn't that a little like what an idealist would say? That truth is mind-dependent? Except, instead of mind-dependent, it's brain-dependent. But how does that dependence work exactly? How does this system of neurons and chemicals inside a skull confer something like "truth" onto a collection of ink markings? What does a purely physical account of that process look like? And is "truth" physical? What else could it be? What is truth made out of? How heavy is it?

So let's imagine a hypothetical physicalist:

1. In a brainless universe there are no true sentences; the book simply contains ink printed on a page
2. Everything that exists in a brainless universe is a physical object (or process)

Is there a problem with this position? — Michael

I think so. At time T, a book is said to contain true sentences. At T1, all brains disappear. Also at T1, no physical change happened to the book. But at T1, the book no longer contains true sentences??? How did they disappear? Are true sentences not physical things? If true sentences are physical things, how did they disappear without a physical change happening? If they are not physical things, what exactly are they?

OK, so replace all instances of "fact" in my examples with "true sentence". The encyclopedia is full of true sentences, even if all brains disappear, right? Is the randomly produced encyclopedia volume in the brainless universe also full of true sentences?

They can say that a science textbook is full of true sentences that refer to facts. — Michael

That seems a little wordy. Why wouldn't they just say that a science textbook has a lot of facts about the world?

I bounced it off ChatGpt:

"For example:

"Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level." This is a true statement about the physical world and qualifies as a fact because it accurately describes a well-established property of water."

Is there a problem with that?

Is that what the physicalist means by "fact"? Or do they mean the thing that a true sentence describes? — Michael

They're going to have to say that a science textbook is full of facts! How can it not be?

For my examples, fact = "true sentence" works fine. So, do facts still exist in a universe where all brains disappear?

How does Palestine's population grow during a decade's-long genocide?
https://www.statista.com/chart/20645/palestine-and-israel-population-growth/

"Palestine is facing a rapid population growth and large youthful population with 69% below the age of 29. The population growth rate stands high at 2.8% and it is expected to remain stable due to decline in mortality rates while fertility rate remains one of the highest in the Arab region standing at 4.06, with high disparity between Gaza and West Bank, 4.5 and 3.6 respectively. Furthermore, the current population density is a serious concern in Gaza Strip reaching more than 4500 inhabitants per one square kilometer."
https://palestine.unfpa.org/en/population-matters-0

Not really much of a genocide, is it?

I think there's an element of ambiguity here. For some, the word "fact" means "true sentence". For others the word "fact" refers to the aspect of the world that true sentences correspond to.

So for some "it is raining" is a fact if it is true.
For others "it is raining" is true if it refers to a fact.

The physicalist who says that there are facts in a brainless universe is just saying that the world exists and has certain features even if there's nobody around to see them or talk about them.

And I'll add, arguing over whether or not a fact is a true sentence or the thing that true sentences refer to is a meaningless argument. Just so long as you make explicit what you mean by "fact", use it however you want. — Michael

"The physicalist who says that there are facts in a brainless universe is just saying that the world exists and has certain features even if there's nobody around to see them or talk about them."

I don't think they're saying just that. The physicalist says an encyclopedia volume is full of facts, right? However you want to define facts, the book is chock full of them. Many many more facts than a book with nothing but blank pages.

Now, all brains disappear. Did the facts in the book disappear? How could they, under the materialist worldview? There was no physical change to the book.

OK, now suppose before all the brains disappeared that a person had set up a machine to produce random books. All brains disappear and the machine hums along. Through a fantastic chance, it spits out a volume of Encyclopedia Brittanica. Is that encyclopedia volume also chock full of facts?

So for physicalists, facts are physical or there are no facts — Lionino

So the physicalist has to claim that in a mindless -sorry!- brainless universe, facts still exist. That, to me, seems absurd, but the physicalist can say that an old Encyclopedia Brittanica book still contains facts, even if all the brains in the universe suddenly ceased to exist. OK, but what about a universe next door to us where there are no brains and there never have been, yet on a remote planet in that universe, an erosion pattern just happens to spell out (in English), Pi = 3.14... (the erosion pattern even includes the ellipsis). Is the physicalist going to say that that erosion pattern constitutes a fact in that universe? How, exactly, does that work?

And if so, and if there are countless intelligent beings in the multiverse speaking countless languages, then every erosion pattern on every world is a fact, since it's bound to refer to some fact in some language. That is an absurdity.

But if the materialist claims that my erosion example is not a fact, what about an erosion pattern in this universe that says Pi = 3.14...? Is that not a fact? What if I wrote down Pi = 3.14...? THAT, they would have to concede, is a fact, but how is that different than the erosion pattern? If facts are physical, it doesn't matter HOW the fact came about, it's still a fact.

They don't want to go anywhere near this thing. Maybe one or two do, but not four. What is there left to say, really? We have presidents, not kings. They're not above the law.

I can always count on you to go for the ad hominem. A lot of materialists here do. It's like they're emotionally invested in it or something.

But you haven't responded to the issue of you making arguments from ignorance. Why do you consider yourself competent to judge what the state of science should be at present? Surely it is not a matter of you considering yourself scientifically well informed. Right? — wonderer1

Compared to someone like Christof Koch, I'm a scientific ignoramus. But is that your point? So what? Does that make me wrong? 100 researchers haven't accused me of pseudoscience. I didn't lose a humiliating bet to David Chalmers. I would gladly have taken some of Koch's wine too, if he had been inclined to bet me. So who's ahead of the game, me or the integrated information "experts"? It was very entertaining when that j'accuse! pseudoscience letter was published.

Interesting turn in the last page or two. I see Dennett rearing his head in these discussions.

I think it is, even after reading Dan's elucidative posts, a really hard sell that Dennett even gets off the ground in reducing qualia to something other than qualia. The idea that "unification", "access" and "temporality" of conscious states is amenable to change doesn't at all infer, to me, that qualia are not qualia as currently understood. Its not just counter-intuitive, but counter possible-experience. In that way, even if it were true, I don't think its actually reasonable to expect a human mind to discuss the fact of its non-existence - given we operate via qualia at levels from sense experience to thought.
It may not be virtuous to be dismissive, but I do think it's virtuous to not waste time discussing something that, at it's base, appears to be not possible. — AmadeusD

I agree with this. There are some things that are so obviously wrong, they (and the people that support them) can be justifiably dismissed out of hand: flat-earthers, YE creationists, phrenology, palmistry, etc. Is anyone here going to spend much time arguing with a breatharian?

Am I a zombie? No. Ah, but what if you rephrase the question? Is my conscious experience and mind and subjective experiences some kind of illusion so that in effect I'm actually a zombie? No. I think a winning move in a debate with people like Dennett is to ask them to smash their finger with a hammer and then say qualia doesn't exist or is an illusion. Intense pain is probably the best rejoinder to the claim, "we're all zombies"*. When my back flares up... if only I were a p-zombie!

And I get being dismissed out of hand. My own pet theory, idealism, is taken seriously by very few. It is a very hard sell. But I sense a change in that. Panpsychism is on the rise. People are even seriously discussing plant consciousness. The materialist paradigm is teetering. That doesn't mean idealism will win out, but any loss of faith in materialism is going to translate into some gain for idealism. Bernardo Kastrup has a following. As science continues to flail away at the hard problem and more bottles of win are won by philosophers, I see my position as only getting stronger.

*Note that this is not like Johnson kicking the rock. Rock-kicking is consistent with immaterialism. Intense pain, on the other hand, directly contradicts any notions of zombiism.

We are all in fact philosophical zombies — DanCoimbra

If the physicalist/materialist has to make this move to salvage their ontology, they've lost the game.

https://www.durham.ac.uk/research/current/thought-leadership/2023/10/consciousness-why-a-leading-theory-has-been-branded-pseudoscience

I expect more of this in the future. Physicalist explanations of consciousness are all pseudoscience. It just hasn't sunk in yet.

What theory of consciousness do you like?

Can you provide any reason to think that you aren't making an argument from ignorance? — wonderer1

If there was progress to be made explaining consciousness, science would have made it by now. There are also reductio absurdums at play. Bernardo Kastrup talks about one of them here: https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2023/01/ai-wont-be-conscious-and-here-is-why.html

What theory of consciousness do you subscribe to?

Is that what non physicalist generally believe? That there's no possible test or experimental data to demonstrate non physical phenomena? — flannel jesus

Any supernatural event or miracle could be explained by physicalism in the guise of simulation theory. Maybe if there were messages hidden in Pi from God, it would count against physicalism. The one data point that I think defeats physicalism (or makes it very unlikely), is the fact that I'm conscious. Physicalism cannot explain that and most likely never will.

However, the first ball being blue is compatible with the box now containing 99 red balls — Michael

But it's not equally compatible with the hypothesis "The box contains 100 blue balls". For example, OJ's DNA found at the crime scene is compatible with "he did it" AND "the police framed him" but it is only confirmation for "he did it".

To use the "approaching John" example, if I see evidence that is equally compatible with John approaching and John not approaching (e.g., it's a blurry figure approaching me that might or might not be John), my probability that John is approaching won't change. The evidence can't move the needle unless it's more compatible with one hypothesis over another.

If an Islamic terrorist group like Hamas or Hezbollah acquired a nuclear weapon, what is the probability they would use it against a city in Europe or Israel or America? If anyone thinks it's less than 10%, can you explain why you think they would show restraint?

https://www.voanews.com/a/democratic-mayors-renew-pleas-for-federal-help-over-migrant-crisis-/7415519.html

It's the first ever trial of an ex-president and the lead prosecutor has never before prosecuted a felony??? That passes your smell test?

But he's never prosecuted a felony or a RICO case, according to this.
https://www.justsecurity.org/91627/the-fulton-county-disqualification-allegations-myths-facts-and-unknowns/

He's made $650,000 so far, has no prosecutorial felony/RICO experience, and he's romantically involved with her, after knowing her for a long time. Prima facie, this looks bad.

Good point. Why do you think she picked Wade then?

According to Willis, she was not romantically involved with Wade when she hired him. — Relativist

That's true. Republicans have subpeoned her. I'm curious what she'll say under oath.
Elie Honig has a good piece on all this:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/fani-willis-has-problems-upon-problems/ar-BB1hFdFk

Let's assume the correspondence theory of truth1: that a sentence is true is that it corresponds to a fact. We can use this to rephrase the liar sentence:

1. This sentence does not correspond to a fact.

We can also consider:

2. (3) corresponds to a fact.
3. (2) does not correspond to a fact.

Do (1), (2), and (3) each correspond to a fact?

1 Even if it's incorrect, the question above is worth considering. — Michael

Can't you get around that by changing the paradox to "Everything I say is a lie"? In that case, the sentence does correspond to a fact- that I am a liar.

Just playing Trump's call to Raffensperger should be enough to get him locked up no matter who the prosecutor is. But there were already questions about Nathan Wade, his lack of experience, and all the money he's gotten so far, and now every potential juror is going to know she was fucking him when she gave him the job. It's totally unprofessional, and people are going to think, if she's unprofessional about that, what else is going on?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/fulton-county-da-fani-willis-acknowledges-personal-relationship-specia-rcna136871

What a disgrace. In a trial like that there can't even be a hint of impropriety. I hope she gets fired and spends the rest of her career as a public defender.

Good point.

I get that so some extent, but young people must know that nothing gets done without political power, and letting the "drill, baby, drill" party have power is about the worst thing you can do for the planet.

But young people never vote and old people always do. It's just the way things are. I had higher hopes for this crop. We truly are facing an existential threat and we really could use higher youth turnout. There's really no excuse for not voting.

Which is not suprising, when they are treated with hostility, or at least patronizing. — baker

So are Boomers, but they vote. If young people really believed the planet was a stake, they would spend a few hours every two years to do something about it.

But it seems clear to me that Hamas and the Palestinians simply are not interested, being instead explicitly committed to the elimination by any means of Israel and Jews, which policy they actively pursue. That in turn does not leave a lot of choices for the Israelis, which in turn leads us back around to the question of who is really in control. I think - putting it simply - that Hamas and the Palestinians are in control, and what they're getting and have is what they wanted, worked for, and got. In doing they have fashioned themselves a plague, one that must mutate to a more human standard or be otherwise cured or eliminated. — tim wood

:100:

And future generations will look at all the aging advocates, apologists and evangelics as fuckups of their time, elderly losers who no one will miss. — Christoffer

Young people could certainly step up more than they have. Only a third of young people voted in 2022. That's pathetic.