I'm going to spend some more time on your essay but, But it sounds like you're on to something. There are physicists who are (a decreasing number), that say if you can't measure something, it doesn't exist. They are deterministic by nature and anything that can't be wrapped around by language or mathematics must be unreal. They have persistently tried to just disprove entanglement, complementarity and non-locality for 100 years, since the philosopher/physicists at the Solvay conference first proposed them. As you know, it's called the Copenhagen interpretation. It's as much a statement of philosophy of Mind in the end, as a model of quantum physics and reality.
I posted this on substack on your thread, but since I don't really understand how substack works, I'm reposting it directly to you because I want you to read it. Here it is.
The most brilliant, insightful Westerner in the last 125 years, meets an equally insightful Indian!
~A conversation between a Pueblo Indian, a chief, and Carl Gustav Jung in 1925. They were talking about perspectives relative to each other, European and Indian. This is from Jung’s autobiography, Memories, Dreams, Reflections.
“See,” Ochwiay Biano said, “how cruel the whites look.
Their lips are thin, their noses sharp, their faces furrowed and distorted by folds. Their eyes have a staring expression; they are always seeking something. What are they seeking? The whites always want something; they are always uneasy and restless. We do not know what they want. We do not understand them. We think that they are mad.” ~
I would love to see you post an article on "The Physicalism Trap," taking an eliminativist view.
This would be much more akin to the biologist pointing out there are zero examples of unicorns.
Simply, there has never been and can never be a single demonstration of ontologically self existent physical stuff.
There is no possible conceptual way to describe such stuff, unless (like the experientialists Dennett and Wittgenstein wrongly thought were confused about experience-talk) you have someone with a thought capacity so throughly damaged that they actually belief the abstract concepts (pointer readings, as Sir Arthur Eddington calls them) scientists derive from the study of sensory experience are real.
As a clinical psychologist who has conducted over 3000 psychological evaluations requiring more than 10,000 diagnoses, I can tell you there is a name for such a belief in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the book used to describe mental illnesses).
On the other hand, it is rather poignant, I think, to observe that a psychiatrist once told religious scholar Huston Smith that from a purely technical view, a belief in physicalism qualifies for a diagnosis of Delusional Disorder, Grandiose Type.
Delusional disorder (DSM-5-TR 297.1) is characterized by one or more delusions lasting for at least one month, without other prominent psychotic symptoms (like severe hallucinations or disorganized speech). Individuals generally function relatively well, and behavior is not markedly bizarre aside from the delusion. Types include persecutory, erotomanic, grandiose, jealous, somatic, or mixed.
DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria (297.1/F22)
Presence of Delusions: One or more, lasting for 1 month or longer.
No Schizophrenia: Criteria for schizophrenia have never been met.
Functioning: Apart from the delusion, functioning is not markedly impaired, and behavior is not obviously bizarre.
Mood Episodes: If mood episodes (mania or depression) occur, they are brief compared to the duration of the delusion.
Exclusions: Not caused by substance use, medication, or another medical condition.
Key Symptoms and Types
Delusion Types:
Persecutory: Belief of being targeted, harassed, or conspired against.
Erotomanic: Belief that someone is in love with them.
Grandiose: Belief in having special talent, insight, or power.
Jealous: Belief that a partner is unfaithful.
Somatic: Belief in having a physical defect or medical condition.
Mixed/Unspecified: Multiple themes or not fitting one specific type.
Other Symptoms: Non-prominent, non-bizarre hallucinations may be present.
Diagnosis and Prognosis
Diagnosis: Relies on clinical interview, history, and ruling out other psychotic disorders or substance-induced, as this UpToDate article suggests.
Prognosis: Variable; treatment often involves a combination of psychotherapy and antipsychotic medications, though patients may not recognize their need for help.
**********
The most important note is "Patients may not recognize their need for help." And I suppose there's no law that would allow one to forcibly hospitalize Keith Frankish!!
Generally speaking, these delusional beliefs take the form of believing that the vast majority of humanity is stuck in thinking of themselves in inferior forms of "folk psychology." The patient often believes they have special insight reserved for the few into the truly meaningless, directionless, purposeless nature of existence, which they assure - without any evidence - to be utterly devoid of consciousness, life or intelligence.
A special type denies the reality of colors, sounds, sensations, feelings thoughts, etc. A careful differential diagnosis should be undertaken to consider whether a diagnosis of dissociative disorder or possibly bipolar 2 disorder is warranted.
One must be very careful in challenging such patients as they are likely to become explosively angry when challenged, particularly if one points out the fundamentally irrational nature of their delusions in a way which provokes them to start questioning their own delusions. They are more likely to attack you than to reconsider their cult-like belief, so it is best to empathically support their delusional beliefs long enough to build sufficient rapport to cautiously begin deconstructing their incoherent thinking.
I completely agree! I often think about developing an argument against physicalism that frames it as a kind of illusion. An illusionism, but for the idea of there being physical stuff, rather than experiences.
Honestly ,I'm planning this year or next to create a series of short videos on this one. Jan (my wife, with whom I'm working) would LOVE at least to get your feedback and suggestions. Write to us at info@RememberToBe.Life. We would SO appreciate it!!!
Also Alan Wallace, "Tibetan Buddhism from the Ground Up," the chapter on Emptiness (I have a PDF copy if you like). "Confessions of a Buddhist Skeptic" (a reply to Stephen Batchelor's Buddhist physicalism) Also a chapter on emptiness.
There's many more examples, but those are among my favorites. Really Brunton is excellent but you could take any 100 page passage and boil it down to about 10. We plan to do that also but are kind of putting it off:>))))
I would definitely be interested in seeing your videos. I really need to read Alan Wallace. I've had quite a few recommendations. I've not heard of van der Leeuw, I'll check out the book.
What if the eliminativist says that they do not need to split experience-talk into acceptable and unacceptable versions. Instead, they can affirm all of experience-talk and give a positive account of what it refers to — e.g. some sort of physical/functional representation. 'Qualia’ is, to them, a fictional description of that same thing, with no more connection to ordinary experience than 'phlogiston' had to actual combustion. It can be discarded wholesale, not because experience is theoretically off-limits, but because qualia doesn't refer to anything that experience-talk was ever actually tracking.
JThe most brilliant, insightful Westerner in the last 125 years, meets an equally insightful Indian!
~A conversation between a Pueblo Indian, a chief, and Carl Gustav Jung in 1925. They were talking about perspectives relative to each other, European and Indian. This is from Jung’s autobiography, Memories, Dreams, Reflections.
“See,” Ochwiay Biano said, “how cruel the whites look.
Their lips are thin, their noses sharp, their faces furrowed and distorted by folds. Their eyes have a staring expression; they are always seeking something. What are they seeking? The whites always want something; they are always uneasy and restless. We do not know what they want. We do not understand them. We think that they are mad.” ~
Hi y'all! You know I was born in Texas, 12 and 1/2% Cherokee Indian 87% European. 1/8 of me was here long before everybody else. Is that dualism in action?!
I think that once we first confuse the subject of all of existence, the mind, for an object in existence, we first become physicalists. The most fundamental, unalterable, subject-object relationship is lost to the perception of reality, and a kind of insanity has occurred. We have objectifyed our own existence. No wonder the number one complaint with postmodern Humanity is loss of meaning.
I think that when the fundamental Conceptual error about reality occurs, confusing the intrensic subject all of reality, consciousness, for the object of reality, and then forgetting you have done it, the die is cast, a kind brokenness of mind has occurred. We can no longer naturally perceive reality and it becomes so easy to truly objectify ourselves, our very being, and we have become physicalists.
I'm going to spend some more time on your essay but, But it sounds like you're on to something. There are physicists who are (a decreasing number), that say if you can't measure something, it doesn't exist. They are deterministic by nature and anything that can't be wrapped around by language or mathematics must be unreal. They have persistently tried to just disprove entanglement, complementarity and non-locality for 100 years, since the philosopher/physicists at the Solvay conference first proposed them. As you know, it's called the Copenhagen interpretation. It's as much a statement of philosophy of Mind in the end, as a model of quantum physics and reality.
I think there is almost a kind of fetish for the 18th century, reductive "billiard ball" view. It's very powerful in our culture.
I posted this on substack on your thread, but since I don't really understand how substack works, I'm reposting it directly to you because I want you to read it. Here it is.
The most brilliant, insightful Westerner in the last 125 years, meets an equally insightful Indian!
~A conversation between a Pueblo Indian, a chief, and Carl Gustav Jung in 1925. They were talking about perspectives relative to each other, European and Indian. This is from Jung’s autobiography, Memories, Dreams, Reflections.
“See,” Ochwiay Biano said, “how cruel the whites look.
Their lips are thin, their noses sharp, their faces furrowed and distorted by folds. Their eyes have a staring expression; they are always seeking something. What are they seeking? The whites always want something; they are always uneasy and restless. We do not know what they want. We do not understand them. We think that they are mad.” ~
BOY, THAT SURE IS US, ISN'T IT?
I would love to see you post an article on "The Physicalism Trap," taking an eliminativist view.
This would be much more akin to the biologist pointing out there are zero examples of unicorns.
Simply, there has never been and can never be a single demonstration of ontologically self existent physical stuff.
There is no possible conceptual way to describe such stuff, unless (like the experientialists Dennett and Wittgenstein wrongly thought were confused about experience-talk) you have someone with a thought capacity so throughly damaged that they actually belief the abstract concepts (pointer readings, as Sir Arthur Eddington calls them) scientists derive from the study of sensory experience are real.
As a clinical psychologist who has conducted over 3000 psychological evaluations requiring more than 10,000 diagnoses, I can tell you there is a name for such a belief in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the book used to describe mental illnesses).
On the other hand, it is rather poignant, I think, to observe that a psychiatrist once told religious scholar Huston Smith that from a purely technical view, a belief in physicalism qualifies for a diagnosis of Delusional Disorder, Grandiose Type.
Delusional disorder (DSM-5-TR 297.1) is characterized by one or more delusions lasting for at least one month, without other prominent psychotic symptoms (like severe hallucinations or disorganized speech). Individuals generally function relatively well, and behavior is not markedly bizarre aside from the delusion. Types include persecutory, erotomanic, grandiose, jealous, somatic, or mixed.
DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria (297.1/F22)
Presence of Delusions: One or more, lasting for 1 month or longer.
No Schizophrenia: Criteria for schizophrenia have never been met.
Functioning: Apart from the delusion, functioning is not markedly impaired, and behavior is not obviously bizarre.
Mood Episodes: If mood episodes (mania or depression) occur, they are brief compared to the duration of the delusion.
Exclusions: Not caused by substance use, medication, or another medical condition.
Key Symptoms and Types
Delusion Types:
Persecutory: Belief of being targeted, harassed, or conspired against.
Erotomanic: Belief that someone is in love with them.
Grandiose: Belief in having special talent, insight, or power.
Jealous: Belief that a partner is unfaithful.
Somatic: Belief in having a physical defect or medical condition.
Mixed/Unspecified: Multiple themes or not fitting one specific type.
Other Symptoms: Non-prominent, non-bizarre hallucinations may be present.
Diagnosis and Prognosis
Diagnosis: Relies on clinical interview, history, and ruling out other psychotic disorders or substance-induced, as this UpToDate article suggests.
Prognosis: Variable; treatment often involves a combination of psychotherapy and antipsychotic medications, though patients may not recognize their need for help.
**********
The most important note is "Patients may not recognize their need for help." And I suppose there's no law that would allow one to forcibly hospitalize Keith Frankish!!
Generally speaking, these delusional beliefs take the form of believing that the vast majority of humanity is stuck in thinking of themselves in inferior forms of "folk psychology." The patient often believes they have special insight reserved for the few into the truly meaningless, directionless, purposeless nature of existence, which they assure - without any evidence - to be utterly devoid of consciousness, life or intelligence.
A special type denies the reality of colors, sounds, sensations, feelings thoughts, etc. A careful differential diagnosis should be undertaken to consider whether a diagnosis of dissociative disorder or possibly bipolar 2 disorder is warranted.
One must be very careful in challenging such patients as they are likely to become explosively angry when challenged, particularly if one points out the fundamentally irrational nature of their delusions in a way which provokes them to start questioning their own delusions. They are more likely to attack you than to reconsider their cult-like belief, so it is best to empathically support their delusional beliefs long enough to build sufficient rapport to cautiously begin deconstructing their incoherent thinking.
I completely agree! I often think about developing an argument against physicalism that frames it as a kind of illusion. An illusionism, but for the idea of there being physical stuff, rather than experiences.
Paul Brunton, in "The Hidden Teaching Beyond Yoga" (But VERY long and over-wordy)
Better: "The Conquest of Illusion:"
The whole book: https://selfdefinition.org/van-der-leeuw/J.J.-van-der-Leeuw-Conquest-Of-Illusion.pdf
Birief overview of physical stuff as an illusion: https://www.selfdiscoveryportal.com/Conquest.htm
Honestly ,I'm planning this year or next to create a series of short videos on this one. Jan (my wife, with whom I'm working) would LOVE at least to get your feedback and suggestions. Write to us at info@RememberToBe.Life. We would SO appreciate it!!!
Also Alan Wallace, "Tibetan Buddhism from the Ground Up," the chapter on Emptiness (I have a PDF copy if you like). "Confessions of a Buddhist Skeptic" (a reply to Stephen Batchelor's Buddhist physicalism) Also a chapter on emptiness.
There's many more examples, but those are among my favorites. Really Brunton is excellent but you could take any 100 page passage and boil it down to about 10. We plan to do that also but are kind of putting it off:>))))
I would definitely be interested in seeing your videos. I really need to read Alan Wallace. I've had quite a few recommendations. I've not heard of van der Leeuw, I'll check out the book.
What if the eliminativist says that they do not need to split experience-talk into acceptable and unacceptable versions. Instead, they can affirm all of experience-talk and give a positive account of what it refers to — e.g. some sort of physical/functional representation. 'Qualia’ is, to them, a fictional description of that same thing, with no more connection to ordinary experience than 'phlogiston' had to actual combustion. It can be discarded wholesale, not because experience is theoretically off-limits, but because qualia doesn't refer to anything that experience-talk was ever actually tracking.
Off topic a little bit, but maybe not!
JThe most brilliant, insightful Westerner in the last 125 years, meets an equally insightful Indian!
~A conversation between a Pueblo Indian, a chief, and Carl Gustav Jung in 1925. They were talking about perspectives relative to each other, European and Indian. This is from Jung’s autobiography, Memories, Dreams, Reflections.
“See,” Ochwiay Biano said, “how cruel the whites look.
Their lips are thin, their noses sharp, their faces furrowed and distorted by folds. Their eyes have a staring expression; they are always seeking something. What are they seeking? The whites always want something; they are always uneasy and restless. We do not know what they want. We do not understand them. We think that they are mad.” ~
BOY, THAT SURE IS US, ISN'T IT?
Hi y'all! You know I was born in Texas, 12 and 1/2% Cherokee Indian 87% European. 1/8 of me was here long before everybody else. Is that dualism in action?!
I think that once we first confuse the subject of all of existence, the mind, for an object in existence, we first become physicalists. The most fundamental, unalterable, subject-object relationship is lost to the perception of reality, and a kind of insanity has occurred. We have objectifyed our own existence. No wonder the number one complaint with postmodern Humanity is loss of meaning.
I think that when the fundamental Conceptual error about reality occurs, confusing the intrensic subject all of reality, consciousness, for the object of reality, and then forgetting you have done it, the die is cast, a kind brokenness of mind has occurred. We can no longer naturally perceive reality and it becomes so easy to truly objectify ourselves, our very being, and we have become physicalists.