[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.

[satvikpendem]

No, they don't need to be a biologist to understand the current situation of physicalism versus dualism. Physicalism is extremely well established in the literature as compared to dualism, of which there is barely if any evidence. You are looking for a philosopher of the mind, not actually a biologist, who can speak on these issues, as biologists and indeed scientists in general are not philosophers, while the debate is philosophical in nature.

[keybored]

This physicalism/dualism obsession is besides the point.