/lit/ - Literature

it's dishonest

This is obviously a joke thread but whatever. When push comes to shove 'physicalists' or whatever they call themselves can only give promissory notes. They doll up what physical, mechanistic explanation they do give to obfuscate any possible application of the features they do not tackle head-on. When they do try to address themselves to these features they habitually replace them the 'null' they inevitably get in applying their favored method to them.

It gives the impression of missing the point, which objection they identify as question-begging. Why *they* aren't the ones begging the question is answered by appeals to supersessions by natural science of previous ways of understanding. But they tend to conflate the practical with the cognitive aspect of these supersessions. If it is cognitive supersession, applied to previous ways of understanding understanding itself, if natural science has become genuinely self-conscious, why does it seem to miss the point and to behave the same as it has, unselfconsciously, manipulatively and predictively, with appeals to its own authority as the only game in town and useful rather than 'true'?

Often all it takes is pointing out the missing the point to get the promissory note if they are honest and not morons. Then you can note they have no way to ensure they aren't availing themselves of illicit 'spooky' features without having gone all the way down in their explanation.