[keybored]

All of the assumptions (and the metaphor) contained in that response of yours seems to contradict the statement itself.

By using “just” you’ve already asserted that there is nothing more of relative importance to figure out—it’s done, figured out.

[pjc50]

These days "just" is a huge red flag for me. It's saying "my thinking stops here, yours should too".

[satvikpendem]

Yes, by using "just," it is a thought terminating word. However, again, I do believe we have it figured out, based on how we understand the rest of the universe to be physically-based as well. It is, in my experience, human arrogance that leads us to believe that we are somehow more than physical structures. It makes people feel uneasy to believe that so they invent something to solve that cognitive dissonance.

[keybored]

The relevant comparison isn’t to people who think we are “more than physical structures”. It is to people who are a bit humbled by the complexity of the world and how when you seem to learn something new about it, ten more questions pop up. Which must be a forced attitude that some scientists have.

Contrast that with the arrogance of creating a neural network in your garage and thinking to yourself: “well I guess as a side-effect of this all of existence makes sense now.”

[satvikpendem]

None of that relates to what I said though. Physicalists do continue to do research of the natural world, in fact, that is actually what drives them more toward physicalism! I think you are arguing a strawman, since no one said anything about being arrogant.

[keybored]

> None of that relates to what I said though. Physicalists do continue to do research of the natural world,

If they do research and this viewpoint works for them then who am I to judge.

I’m more used to this viewpoint being presented when someone who doesn’t work in some area expresses some opinion (hot take) on it. That could be a physicist expressing an opinion on cognitive science e.g. (whatever cognitive science is about).

> Physicalists do continue to do research of the natural world, in fact, that is actually what drives them more toward physicalism!

I don’t understand what physicalism is supposed to be about[1] beyond explicitly denying God-of-the-gaps.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsLOVYTLt90

> I think you are arguing a strawman, since no one said anything about being arrogant.

Just like no one identified themselves as being arrogant because they believe that they are more than physical structures. Or even claimed that they believe that they are more than physical structures. (The reductionists will often barge in an identify anyone who disagrees with their opinion as someone who believes in the supra-physical, based on nothing.)

[satvikpendem]

> I’m more used to this viewpoint being presented when someone who doesn’t work in some area expresses some opinion (hot take) on it. That could be a physicist expressing an opinion on cognitive science e.g. (whatever cognitive science is about).

Seems like your comments are responding to a point in your head without anyone expressing such points. No one here is like the physicist in your example, so I am not even sure against whom you are arguing here.

[keybored]

> Seems like your comments are responding to a point in your head without anyone expressing such points.

Again I urge the reductionists[1] to look in the mirror.

> No one here is like the physicist in your example, so I am not even sure against whom you are arguing here.

Unless the original poster is a relevant expert like a biologist[2] the point stands.

You already agreed that it is thought-terminating—and justifiably so. I don’t get why you are still here.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41054500

[2] Or could range all the way to a psychologist because it’s a pretty broad topic.

[llamaimperative]

Sure some people believe that, but there’s still an interesting and worthwhile path of inquiry along the lines of: “it’s remarkable how such fundamentally simple systems can generate such profoundly complex and varied structures.”

The discovery of evolution in nature, for example, could be seen (and was seen by Darwin as) an increase in the wonder and awe we can find in the world.

[satvikpendem]

See my other comment, I don't deny that. By "figured it out," I mean that the general principle of physicalism versus dualism seems empirically established based on all of the tests we've done in cognitive biology. That is not to say that the general theory cannot be improved via further research.

[mistermann]

You have superb skills in leveraging often hard to spot ambiguity the English language offers, I think you would excel in sales of most any product, truth included.

[satvikpendem]

Thanks, indeed I do do sales, for SaaS specifically, my own as well as for others.

[llamaimperative]

Got it, yeah I think we're in the same boat here. It's clearly physical, and yet that ought to be the beginning, not the end of inquiry.

Dualism is probably one of the most intellectually destructive ideas we've managed to come up with.

[satvikpendem]

Yes, and I really think it stems from religious biases, of wanting to think ourselves as being a soul inhabiting a body instead of being the body in itself. There's a reason why Descartes was one of the prime motivators of dualism.