Maverick Philosopher

Uh-oh. I smell trouble.

I can already anticipate what I might be in for here, and placing my ear to the ground, I can hear the teams of sappers planting charges all around the foundations of our quaint, cherished notions of causality.

Suppose I preempt the mine-laying and go so far as to agree that yes, in typically irrefutable fashion, it is logically coherent to defend a viewpoint that sees apparent physical causality as mere "regularity", and that once we have abandoned the need for physical interaction, then all sorts of otherwise problematic assertions also become defensible. Immaterial minds can then run our bodies without violating conservation, damage to the brain can affect the immaterial mind by some sort of reversal of the direction of influence, you name it. Really, anything is possible.

As I say, I admit that I can't prove you are mistaken, nor can anyone else. The world you describe is indeed a logically possible one, and there would be no way to tell if it were indeed our world.

But why, oh why oh WHY, should I prefer your view to mine? Why not interpret these unbroken sequential regularities as being true examples of physical causality? Physicalist models of the brain/mind system are yielding new insights every day. Where is the dualist version of such a program? What would it even look like?

As I have said in here before, if, given what we know, it were possible to determine with certainty which of these models is correct, the philosophical argument, which has raged for centuries among the world's greatest thinkers, would be over by now. The fact that it isn't is to me a sure sign that there simply is no way to settle this.

Imagine some late-game position in a game of chess. If fifty grandmasters were to square off in all possible pairings, always playing from that same position, and drew every time, we would be justified in thinking the position itself is inherently drawn, no?

We can do a good job of identifying the weaknesses of each view, and perhaps if we are clever enough we can design experiments that might help settle the matter empirically. I have certainly learned much from this discussion, and agree that the arrogance of many physicalists is unjustified. Still, though, I have not seen any compelling reason to abandon physicalism in favor of another view, and having gone this far I can see that I am not likely to, either.

Thanks Bob, and to Bill, I apologize for being such a loudmouth in here. I should have thought that there would be squadrons of elite materialists swooping down to offer withering criticism, intuition-busting thought experiments, arcane scholarly citations, dazzling rhetorical technique, sesquipedalian philosophical jargon, and a bit of manpower and ammunition generally (in which case I would have happily shifted to the sidelines, licking my wounds as I watched and learned), but sadly, my legions of allies have not, um, materialized. So it has been left up to me, an ordinary civilian, to man the ramparts until help arrives. If you make it out alive, Bob, please call for backup.

Bob and Sam,

Thanks for lending your support to Malcolm. I too value his contributions. He is handling himself very well under fire, which may have something to do with his martial arts training. If he feels lonesome here, he can comfort himself with the fact that his views are mainstream in the wider philosophical world.