32
Has there ever been a viable alternative to the phsycialist model of the universe? (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 10 months ago* by to c/askscience@lemmy.world
154 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Physicalism or materialism. The idea that everything there is arises from physical matter. If true would mean there is no God or Free Will, no immortal soul either.

Seems to be what most of academia bases their world view on and the frame work in which most Science is done.

Often challenged by Dualism and Idealism but only by a loud fringe minority.

I've heard pan-psychicism is proving quite the challenge, but I hear that from people who believe crystals can cure autism

I hear that "Oh actually the science is moving away from materialism" as well, but that seems to be more crystal talk as well.

So lemme ask science instead of google.

Any reason to doubt physicalism? Is there anything in science that says "Huh well that seems to not have any basis in the physical at all and yet it exists"

Edit: I have heard of the Essentia Foundation and Bernado Kastrup but since it's endorsed by Deepak Chopra I'm not sure I can trust it

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (11 children)

It's funny how people told me I had said something misleading and couldn't point to what it was, and now you're claiming I refused to listen and can't point to anything I refused to listen to. Somehow, people keep assigning blame to me without being able to substantiate it in any way.

I don’t think you’re seeking information, I think you’re seeking argument.

I presented a rather thoughtful line of philosophical reasoning, and expected people to either agree with it or critique it. As one does.

Instead, people started critiquing an idea utterly unrelated to anything I said. Which you are now blaming me for. And now you're saying that I just came here "seeking argument," really? Did you read my initial comment? Do you really, genuinely believe that I was trolling and not looking for an intellectual discussion?

why would you pick OBJECTION! as your username?

Quite simply, because I find that people say things all the time without providing any sort of evidence, and I believe in calling that out and keeping things more evidence focused.

Whatever problems I might have with people being unable to substantiate or defend their beliefs with evidence, I have much more disdain for people throwing around accusations without evidence. Which people on here do, all the time, constantly.

If you want to say I'm "argumentative," that's fine with me. There's nothing wrong with arguments. What's more wrong is to talk shit about people without being able to substantiate it. Lots of people, not just on here, but on the internet in general, will make up bullshit about a person or group they don't like, and if you call out their bullshit, they use that against you too. "Crybullying" is the term I use for it.

I think everyone ought to have the chance to defend themselves and nobody should be going around talking shit if they can't back it up. I won't claim to be perfect, but if you don't go around saying things you can't back up, then you will find me much easier to get along with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    You appear to be attempting to prove to the world that I'm wrong to assert that you and the other user unnecessarily blow out of proportion and prolong arguments without truly listening, by strongly emotive argument and taking what I said as a series of unconnected assertions for to destroy, taking on board nothing of what I said and instead turning my reluctance to join in your preexisting arguments into some sort of proof that my conclusions are wrong.

    You seem to be unable to see the wood for the trees. The irony is strong.

    Did it not occur to you that arguing so strongly that I'm wrong, accompanied by name-calling no less, might instead show that I'm right? It wasn't meant as a trap, but you twisted it around until you ensnared yourself.

    Ask yourself if you really do demand as much evidence from people or points with which you instinctively agree, and you'll see that your self-perceived intellectual integrity of believing only what people can prove to you is merely double standards and a sham: I accused you of being innecessarily argumentative and you shouted that I had provided no evidence!!!

    This is one of your favourite forms of disagreement, I suspect because it makes you feel you have logic on your side, but the asymmetry in the demand for proof is bias, and concluding that people who you disagree with are wrong because they failed in your one-person prosecution, judge & jury court is naive.

    Your court was not constituted to discover truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You should be surprised every time it finds it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (9 children)

    and if you call out their bullshit, they use that against you too.

    I accused you of being innecessarily argumentative and you shouted that I had provided no evidence!!!

    Oh hey, look, I called it.

    What I actually said, by the way, was that I don't mind if you call me argumentative. The thing that you don't have evidence for is when you assigned fault to me in my conversation with the other person.

    This is such typical crybully behavior. Talks mad shit, can't back up anything, and then whines about it. What do you imagine you're accomplishing here?

    You came in here just to talk shit. Literally, you saw two people you didn't like in an argument and you loved it, because it gave you the opportunity to gloat and act all self-righteous.

    You don't even recognize your own behavior when I specifically call it out. I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that. Are you even aware of what you're doing, or is it just second-nature?

    Literally what would I have to say to make you happy? You want me to just take all the blame and prostrate myself before your superiority, and anything short of that, any attempt to stand up for myself, or to explain my actions, is just further proof of my wrongdoing to you. This is exactly why I picked the name I did, because I completely reject your whole way of doing things and of approaching conflict.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    Put quite simply, ranting at me all the time whilst believing that you've done nothing wrong it absolutely typical of you, and I don't understand why you think calling me names shows that it's not. The irony of it seems to have completely passed you by.

    What I actually said, by the way, was that I don’t mind if you call me argumentative.

    You have a funny way of showing it.

    What I actually said, by the way, was that I don’t mind if you call me argumentative. The thing that you don’t have evidence for is when you assigned fault to me in my conversation with the other person.

    I can't quite believe that you put those two sentences in the same paragraph without the merest hint of self reflection.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (7 children)

    Put quite simply, ranting at me all the time whilst believing that you’ve done nothing wrong it absolutely typical of you, and I don’t understand why you think calling me names shows that it’s not.

    Never claimed that it wasn't. I spend lots of time ranting at crybullies who accuse me of shit and then claim I'm attacking them when I don't immediately roll over and accept it.

    I can’t quite believe that you put those two sentences in the same paragraph without the merest hint of self reflection.

    What can't you believe about it? Being argumentative is not the same as being at fault.

    You have a funny way of showing it.

    What I do mind is coming in here and accusing me of shit and then not being able to back it up, at all.

    It's really funny to me the way you libs operate, how "backing up a claim you made" is the absolute last thing you are ever willing to do. And how do you justify it? It's always the same. "Oh, I don't want to get into with you." Of course, then you'll happily continue the conversation! Just so long as it never involves having to substantiate your claims! It's such a consistent pattern of behavior, literally every one of you thinks and acts that way!

    Remember, the whole reason you weren't willing to back up your claim in the first place was that "you didn't want to get into it with me." Well, what do you call this, exactly? You wouldn't have commented in the first place if you weren't looking to "get into it."

    What this behavior stems from is arrogance, a belief that you are inherently superior and therefore people should just believe whatever you say. It's absurd. The sheer number of times I have asked people to back up their claims on here, only for them to get all weasely like you, while trying to continue the discussion, is far more than I could count.

    You're literally just here to trade snipes. You won't back anything up because then we might actually end up with a meaningful and intelligent discussion. Can't have that, can we? No, because that would imply a basic level of respect of treating others as equals. And you get all pissy when I actually defend myself and say that I will only accept criticism if it's substantiated, because I'm not treating you as my superior.

    Get bent. Evidence or GTFO.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago* (6 children)

    What I actually said, by the way, was that I don’t mind if you call me argumentative. The thing that you don’t have evidence for is when you assigned fault to me in my conversation with the other person.

    I can’t quite believe that you put those two sentences in the same paragraph without the merest hint of self reflection.

    What can’t you believe about it? Being argumentative is not the same as being at fault.

    Then why are you arguing with me at all? Why not just say "oh yeah, that's me to the core"?

    This whole thing started because I saw the two of you doing what you both often do and you were "crybullying" (your term, not mine) the other person for toxicity, when I "called you out" (your term, not mine) on it, you switched to "crybullying" me (your term not mine). This was as predictable as it was ironic, and I find it amusing that somewhere in there you really think that of you just argue a little but more angrily or a little bit longer you'll prove me wrong to have criticised your style of argument!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)

    Evidence or GTFO.

    Where did I act as a crybully? Do you know what that word even means? Where did I accuse the other person of shit, and then when they asked me to substantiate it, I took it as an attack? Where did I do the same to you?

    I did not "crybully" them over toxicity, I criticized them for it, and I did not crybully you either, I've only criticized you. Correctly and accurately, in both cases.

    Let me guess, "you don't want to get into it," and I'm just further proving my guilt by not immediately accepting your criticism. Ironic, I don't even know how many levels of crybullying you're on at this point.

    Evidence or GTFO.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Lol. When you criticise other people's behaviour, you call it "calling them out" or "calling you out", but when people criticise your behaviour, you call it "crybullying". It's extreme double standards.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    I'm describing a very specific behavior with the term "crybully," it is not just a general term for criticism. There is no double standard.

    Evidence or GTFO.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    I’m describing a very specific behavior with the term “crybully,”

    Yes, the very specific behaviour of criticising you as opposed to criticising other people. It's an irregular verb: I make valid criticism, you crybully, he/she spews hate and gets emotional.

    Evidence or GTFO.

    You need me to provide screenshots of your swearing and name calling pms to me, or can we take them on trust? Lol.

    You think you're quite the clever scientist because you tell other people to provide evidence, but the evidence is right here in this conversation and across your post history! Lol.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    I have already defined what crybullying is and explained how your behavior meets it and mine doesn't. You only think it's a double standard because you don't understand what the word means.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    explained how your behavior meets it and mine doesn’t.

    I can confidently predict that you 100% believe that this is true of everyone who argues with you online and absolutely never true of you!

    You truly believe that it's everyone else that's being unreasonable and toxic, making wild, random accusations with no basis whatsoever in factual reality, whereas you're a virtuous truth teller whose opinions are based on firm scientific evidence all day every day! It's so one-sided that I find it amusing.

    I have already defined what crybullying is

    I'm not sure you did, or at least if you did, you didn't phrase it as a definition. Reading back over our conversion, I think "crybullying" is your made-up word for people criticising you and then not obeying your made-up rules for how they should answer your talking points. It paints you as a victim when someone calls you out and completely glosses over your original behaviour. You paint yourself as boldly calling out poor behaviour in others, whilst calling similar behaviours in them crying and bullying. Trump does that kind of projection too, but like me, he never heard of your made up term for it.

    You can give it out, but you can't take it. And I was right in the first place that like that other user you're argumentative and bad at backing down.

    You admitted that you're argumentative and yet here you are, utterly failing to back down on that point. Do you fancy admitting that you're bad at backing down too?!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent