Chill about metaphysics

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?