This week I had to block a couple of people on different platforms. Neither seemed able to make their point without lacing in insults. One seemed to be on a mission to make me feel as bad about my outlook as possible. The disagreements were on purely metaphysical grounds, physicalism vs non-physicalism. And seem to be examples of something that appears pervasive in online discussions, the constant sniping between these different metaphysical camps.
Which, when you stop and think about it, is strange, since we’re not talking about something that will affect anyone’s fortunes or livelihood, or overall make any difference in their day to day life, except maybe psychologically. It pays to remember that in the debates between physicalism, property dualism, panpsychism, idealism, neutral and Russellian monism, and their variants, that these outlooks are all empirically identical.
(Interactionist dualism may be the one alternative where this wouldn’t be true. But a century and a half of neurological case studies seem to imply that the interactions would have to be pretty nuanced. Which I think is why most of the academic world has lost enthusiasm for this option, even though it remains popular in general.)
I often remember Karl Popper’s observation that what is metaphysical in one century could become science in a later one. But in the case of these basic viewpoints, they’re all ancient. Which implies that there’s no foreseeable experiment or observation which will conclusively prove or falsify any of them.
People often think quantum mechanics might provide the evidence, but there are many different interpretations of QM. Which ones seem sensible and which hopelessly crazy appear to be driven by your preexisting metaphysical viewpoint. And again, all of these outlooks long predate QM. Idealism was actually more popular during the reign of classical physics than it is today. So even if one of the QM interpretations is eventually shown to be correct, I suspect the various viewpoints will continue.
And when I listen to idealists like Barnardo Kastrup talk, and am able to look past all the provocative language, the world he describes often sounds a lot like the physicalist one, one where the planet and universe are billions of years old, and we’re the result of evolution through natural selection. He just sees the external world as being in the mind of God or Nature. And of course I agree with panpsychists that there’s nothing categorically unique about the physics of the brain.
All of which often makes my inner positivist wonder if there’s really any meaningful distinctions here. Maybe these are all just different ways of thinking about the same world. Or, from a purely empirical standpoint, maybe the best stance is a neutral one. These bouts of extreme empiricism don’t typically last very long, but I think they do stop me from being too strident in my views.
All of which is to say, calm down about your metaphysics. The fact that I can’t prove mine over yours and vice-versa, means that the only way you’re ever going to make your view more prevalent is by persuading people. Calling those with other views idiots, or implying that their view is trivially false, while it may play well with your own partisans, isn’t going to expand your camp.
The best way to do that seems to be the old fashioned way. Try to understand what others are saying, and try to be understood. Let them know the genuine blockers preventing you from taking up their view. Address the concerns others have about yours, and admit it when you can’t. That may not feel as good in the moment, but it often doesn’t lead to the acrimony the other approaches do.
Of course, others will still engage in their bluster. My advice is to ignore it. Or when it gets nasty, do as I did, and block them. Your life will be better off for it.
Unless of course I’m missing something?
SelfAwarePatterns 
Some people are more on the side of one camp, others more on the side of another … and then some are just morons.
I thought discussing philosophical topics was supposed to be fun, as nothing life shattering is likely to be discovered, but I guess some folks didn’t get that memo.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m the same way as seeing these topics as fun, but like with anything, some people just have a tendency to get carried away. I know some of them will say even that is all in fun, a bit of rough play we should all just take in stride, but they rarely keep that opinion when they’re on the receiving end.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Metaphysical positions have consequences. Much of continental philosophy is dedicated to exploring how the metaphysical assumptions of modernity have led to its discontents, whether psychological or environmental or political or economic.
So there is something at stake here. Unfortunately, some activists on all sides of the debate happen to be unreconstructed jerks.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I mentioned psychology but probably underplayed it in the post, particularly since you’re right; psychological effects cascade into sociological ones. It seems like people arguing for minority metaphysical views might be well served by exploring that aspect more.
LikeLike
I’m with you Mike, “we’re not talking about something that will affect anyone’s fortunes or livelihood…” On the other hand some feel deeply threatened when anyone questions their conception of reality. It’s the same as questioning religion. Living with a modern, open, and questioning mind means living with a certain level of uncertainty. I think that’s what drives folks to embrace various forms of fundamentalism—having that calm feeling of certainty. Not that I eschew spirituality by any means.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Matti. I agree. People don’t like having their worldview questioned, but admitting when things are uncertain does come with benefits.
I mostly stay away from religion because there I do understand some of the psychological factors involved, and, aside from fundamentalists, see little benefit from upsetting that applecart. Most of the people arguing for the viewpoints I mentioned aren’t coming at it from a religious perspective. At least by traditional meanings of “religion.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think metaphysics has consequences, but belligerence is uncalled for. And you’re right, it’s completely useless if you’re trying to win someone over to your way of thinking. Sorry you had to block people. That’s disheartening.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I mentioned the psychological effects in the post but probably underplayed them, particularly since those do lead to sociological effects if enough people are onboard.
I’ve had to block people before, so nothing too tragic. I’m more willing to do it these days than I used to be, particularly when someone is trolling right out of the gate. I’ve never had it get better from there. Maybe I’m just getting too impatient in my old age.
LikeLike
Some years ago, I decided to as much as possible recuse myself from discussing, let alone debating, unresolvable topics (like consciousness, QM interpretations, and so on). I’ve been doing that since the 1980s, and it just got old for me. I’ll write posts and then try to clarify any questions, I’ll even exchange views, but I try to avoid persuasion of any kind (other than in the post). It really is true that the more you learn, the less you know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m probably too attracted to those kinds of discussions. For me they’re fun, at least as long as they stay friendly. And online communities offer a chance to have them since most people in real life aren’t into it. But it definitely pays to step back occasionally and remember how academic the subject matter often is.
LikeLike
A couple of things Mike. One would be that online discourse seems to naturally devolve to a “gangsta” rather than “Gandhi” theme. This seems very short sighted. Gandhi was only able to succeed by permitting his opposition to go “gangsta”. It’s a lesson that Trump is now failing with his unhinged ICE goons.
You can imagine my disappointment, for example, when Elan Barenholtz posted this Note: “We’re software. The “I” is a pattern running on biological hardware. AI shows this kind of pattern can run on other hardware too—so it’s not the stuff, it’s the process. The mind/body problem is the software noticing it isn’t the hardware. Stuff the stuff. We are information.” Still I also realized that only a “Gandhi” type of response could even potentially help him grasp the magic in such a position. https://substack.com/profile/312741572-eric-borg/note/c-207460256?r=5674xw&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web Not that I suspect my argument will sway him. We all believe what’s in our own interests to believe — his now seem aligned with yours here.
Then secondly, I can’t help but tie your new post in with our last conversation (or the one that started with my “metascience” post and ended with your “usefulness” post). Without various professionally accepted, explicit rules of metaphysics, epistemology, and axiology, associated disputes should cause science to operate in various a sub optimal ways. Therefore I challenge status quo interests in this respect as well — the structure of science itself is still in need of formal founding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gandi’s methods required taking a beating while continuing to protest peacefully. It’s a pretty hard road, one forced on him by his situation. The Socratic method involves asking questions, eventually in the hopes that the person answering sees the issues with their position. It works a lot less often than in Plato’s dialogues, but people are usually happy to answer questions about their view, providing the questions aren’t nakedly hostile. That said, it has its limits. And it’s worth remembering that Socrates was still eventually forced to drink hemlock.
Right. I continue to think science works best by focusing on results. We may not understand why a particular theory works, and some of the proposed explanations may pull from various metaphysical beliefs we disagree with, but that’s a reason for further investigation, not for throwing the theory out because it doesn’t meet some doctrinal test.
LikeLike
Maybe there’s a bit of Dunning Kruger effect in play? I don’t know. In general, if I don’t sense a bit of humility in someone, they’re probably a long way away from being a true expert on whatever topic they’re talking about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
On Dunning Kruger, possibly. But I agree. Stridency more often reflects shallow knowledge than true understanding. Everything is more complicated than it initially looks, and true experts learn caution.
LikeLike
Particularly with Kastrup, I noted on another forum years ago that if you took everything in physicalism – brain, electron, atom, etc. – and put an “m” in front of it – m_brain, m_electron, m_atom, etc. – to denote they were “really” mental then you could just about sum up his philosophy. The foundation of his mental reality is not much different from the vibrating strings (m_strings, that is) of String Theory.
Here’s a quote:
Inanimate objects: these are excitations of consciousness, like vibrations are excitations of a guitar string or ripples are excitations of water. There is nothing to a vibrating guitar string other than the string itself, yet the string manifests a discernible behavior that we call vibrating. Analogously, there is nothing to a ripple other than water, yet water manifests a discernible behavior that we call rippling. Both behaviors obey certain patterns and regularities that can be modeled mathematically, which is what science does. Now, in exactly the same way, inanimate objects are simply ‘vibrations’ or ‘ripples’ of consciousness and, ultimately, nothing but consciousness itself. They are images in mind of excitations of mind.
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/07/ripples-and-whirlpools.html#:~:text=Inanimate%20objects:%20these%20are%20excitations,and%20'consciousness'%20interchangeably.)
LikeLike