Is physicalism / materialism a dangerous belief?

[Open Mind]

Is physicalism / materialism a dangerous belief?

Organized skeptic movements like JREF, CSI (CSICOP), etc. tend to imply paranormal belief is a dangerous belief. No doubt some bizarre beliefs (lacking proper evidence) are harmful upon occasion but could their own physicalist belief (which lacks proper evidence) be even more dangerous?

Even if physicalists were right, this would mean the evolution of the brain must have found evolutionary advantages in making us feel we are functioning through a body and must have found advantages in creating common spiritual experiences? e.g. The Near Death Experience?

Can a thought be evil in the physicalist's paradigm? According to the physicalist paradigm thoughts are assumed 100% private therefore only wrong if physically communicated or acted out? However if one accepts the evidence for telepathy, even to the weakest of degrees, can what one thinks of another person adversely affect them?

Also does the temptation to cheat increase when one thinks, one can never be physically caught?

What I am leading up to is this clip ........

Are You Nothing but a Pack of Neurons? | global oneness project

Do physicalists think Dean Radin's clip here is dangerous?

Die-hard skeptic Ray Hyman's once commented “As a whole, parapsychologists are nice, honest people, while the critics are cynical, nasty people” (McBeath & Thalboume, 1985, p. 3).

Perhaps Hymans comment is a too stereotypical, perhaps skeptics become nasty when the skeptic thinks other beliefs are more 'harmful'.

Is believing matter creates the mind (physicalism) a less or more dangerous belief than the viewpoint that mind is not the same as the brain?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Even if physicalists were right, this would mean the evolution of the brain must have found evolutionary advantages in making us feel we are functioning through a body and must have found advantages in creating common spiritual experiences? e.g. The Near Death Experience?

Some of the things we experience could simply be accidents of evolution.

Can a thought be evil in the physicalist's paradigm? According to the physicalist paradigm thoughts are assumed 100% private therefore only wrong if physically communicated or acted out? However if one accepts the evidence for telepathy, even to the weakest of degrees, can what one thinks of another person adversely affect them?

What does the latter question have to do with physicalism specifically? If people can read our thoughts, then those thoughts can do psychological harm under any metaphysic.

Do physicalists think Dean Radin's clip here is dangerous?

I don't know about that, but the Global Oneness Project needs better servers. The clip won't play fast enough for the sound to be intelligible.

Is believing matter creates the mind (physicalism) a less or more dangerous belief than the viewpoint that mind is not the same as the brain?

I doubt we can answer this question.

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Paul, I might comment later when I have more time ....... but let me say that I don't put you in the category of 'cynical and nasty' skeptics (as Hyman worded it), other skeptics would be advised to follow your more civilized attitude in debates

[Ersby]

People will adapt their belief systems to excuse any "bad" behaviour as they see fit, in my experience.

The GCP says some curious things about what human consciousness is effected by, with charity telethons apparently making more of a difference than a fatal terrorist attack.

[David Bailey]

I feel physicalism downplays the importance of people and animals - so it has helped fuel factory farming and general ruthlessness in business. Phrases like 'human resources', 'wet-ware', even 'consumers' seem to stem from this way of thinking.

There is a certain abstract way of thinking that is scary. Mathematicians in banks inventing statistical tricks to make money at the expense of overall financial stability, technologists designing ever more weapons systems, psychologists figuring out how to persuade people to buy products in quantities that are not good for them...

Of course, the religious right seem pretty awful, so I don't know...
David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

I feel physicalism downplays the importance of people and animals - so it has helped fuel factory farming and general ruthlessness in business. Phrases like 'human resources', 'wet-ware', even 'consumers' seem to stem from this way of thinking.

Oh, please. The average person is not a physicalist, but some sort of religio-dualist. The average person has not read a shred of metaphysical writings. The world is the way it is because that is the way people behave.

There is a certain abstract way of thinking that is scary. Mathematicians in banks inventing statistical tricks to make money at the expense of overall financial stability, technologists designing ever more weapons systems, psychologists figuring out how to persuade people to buy products in quantities that are not good for them...

And yet most of those people are religious and hold some sort of dualistic notion of mind. In particular, many believe that there is a better life after this one, or another chance to do better.

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Hi Andrew

Originally Posted by Ersby

People will adapt their belief systems to excuse any "bad" behaviour as they see fit, in my experience.

Unfortunately I think so too. Perhaps this can be seen clearly in the enduring popularity of the pagan belief that bad present behavior can be wiped away in future by the past torturing of an innocent saviour God.

It is that sort of belief that put me of organized religion for life. However we shouldn't throw out the survival hypothesis with the religious bathwater. If mind doesn't quite fit into brain, we have to consider it.

Andrew, if I recall you once believed in *some* paranormal phenomena, why did you once believe? What changed your mind? Would you say your ethics have improved since becoming a skeptic? No change I reckon .... but what if you had been raised from childhood to think your were 'just a pack of neurons'? Personally if I had been raised like that, I fear I might have robbed the Bank of England by now ..... Well probably not.

[Open Mind]

Amazon books top review on Dawkin's 'The Selfish Gene' ....
Amazon.com: The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition--with a new Introduction by the Author: Richard Dawkins: Books

' But at the same time, I largely blame "The Selfish Gene" for a series of bouts of depression I suffered from for more than a decade, and part of me wants to rate the book at zero stars for its effect on my life. Never sure of my spiritual outlook on life, but trying to find something deeper - trying to believe, but not quite being able to - I found that this book just about blew away any vague ideas I had along these lines, and prevented them from coalescing any further. This created quite a strong personal crisis for me some years ago......

......Some critics of this book have found its reasoning unconvincing, its materialist reductionism too superficial and shallow. But, from my perspective, the problem does not lie here; the problem with the book is that it is *too* convincing, that it is *entirely* convincing. The book makes it very difficult to continue to believe in anything that contradicts its basic premise, but which might be more comforting, and might give a greater sense of hope and inspiration, and provide a real sense of purpose in life.

Such have its effects on my life been that, in my more depressed moments, I have desperately wished I could unread the book, and continue life from where I left off.....'

With epigenetics, neo-Darwism is beginning to crack at the seams, the book maybe caused this guy needless depression?

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Oh, please. The average person is not a physicalist, but some sort of religio-dualist. The average person has not read a shred of metaphysical writings. The world is the way it is because that is the way people behave.


And yet most of those people are religious and hold some sort of dualistic notion of mind. In particular, many believe that there is a better life after this one, or another chance to do better.

~~ Paul

Obviously there is some truth in what you say, but I think science has a lot of 'street cred' and people extract ideas from it in a strange sort of way. Describing what goes on in banks as mathematical analysis sounds so much better than calling it gambling. I have heard people claim that homophobia is based on science because science has shown that only heterosexual sex is normal (don't try to unpick the logic in that!) The point is that because science does not relate to values at all, people add their own!

I have seen it suggested that scientists should have to take an equivalent of the Hippocratic oath somewhere in their training. After all, it seems to successfully deter US doctors from helping in the execution chamber, so it might help deter scientists and engineers working on weapons systems.

The complete lack of a value-system in science - as illustrated by our discussions about whether a computer could feel pain - seems to contribute to the problem.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Obviously there is some truth in what you say, but I think science has a lot of 'street cred' and people extract ideas from it in a strange sort of way. Describing what goes on in banks as mathematical analysis sounds so much better than calling it gambling. I have heard people claim that homophobia is based on science because science has shown that only heterosexual sex is normal (don't try to unpick the logic in that!) The point is that because science does not relate to values at all, people add their own!

I agree that many people have hopelessly distorted views of science, math, logic, probability, and so on. But what does that have to do with the "evils of physicalism" that you talked about in post #5? If anything, it sounds like a little more scientific knowledge is in order.

I have seen it suggested that scientists should have to take an equivalent of the Hippocratic oath somewhere in their training. After all, it seems to successfully deter US doctors from helping in the execution chamber, so it might help deter scientists and engineers working on weapons systems.

That would be nice until some maniac attacked us and we wanted weapons systems.

The complete lack of a value-system in science - as illustrated by our discussions about whether a computer could feel pain - seems to contribute to the problem.

What?!? What does a value system in science have to do with whether a computer can feel pain? Do you think a computer's feeling pain is a question of ethics?

You know, sometimes you say things and I realize I simply have no idea whatsoever how you view the world.

~~ Paul