Problems with Physicalism/Skeptical inconsistency

Before getting to the subject presented by the title, I need to point out that I'm part of a very small minority in this world. I am not religious or dogmatic in any way, but I'm also not an atheist. I am not entirely agnostic, either. I would have labeled myself as a deist years ago, but my convictions are more specific than that in some cases. I don't think I entirely belong to any previously named group.

The bulk of intellectuals on the internet is composed mostly by atheists/skeptics, and that is undeniable. That makes me wary of discussing my own convictions in most circles, because people are quick to label non-atheists as foolish and intellectually dishonest.

Having said that, I'd like to point out some inconsistencies in skeptical thinking before actually getting to my main convictions (in another post).

Though I believe asking for people to keep an open mind probably sounds redundant for most, I guess it probably helps. I found this really cool list on wikipedia the other day, it's a list of cognitive biases that a lot of people possess. Everyone has biases to a certain extent, including myself (though I try to keep them to a minimum). I think everyone should take a look at this list, because it might make some more prone to challenging their own beliefs, should that be necessary. And because the list is pretty fascinating.

Anyway, here goes.

Problems with Physicalism

Physicalism is the philosophical stance which states that everything derives from the physical and can be adequately described by the laws of our nature.

If you consider yourself a physicalist, you naturally assume that there is nothing beyond the physical world we perceive.

The problem is that, by its very definition, physicalism is fallacious.

Let me explain:

Physicalism assumes that everything that exists is physical, and the reasoning behind that is skeptical in nature: there is no evidence of something non-physical (actually, I think there is, but I'll get to that in another post).

Any evidence we can perceive is necessarily physical. Anything that can be detected by our (physical) tools and sensors is necessarily physical. That dictates that an objective evidence of something non-physical is impossible by definition, which also means that physicalism is unfalsifiable by its own standards.

"But a metaphysical entity that behaves in a completely different way from what our physics dictate and that can interact with the physical world in some manner would be possible to prove, should it exist", someone would say. That doesn't change the fallacious nature of physicalism, because:

1- The perceived part of the metaphysical entity would be limited by our physical sensors and would, by default, be physical to us.

2- Physicalism still fails to address the possibility of independent forms of physical existence, which have their own set of physical rules but cannot interact with our physical world in any way. E.g.: other universes.

This is the reason why I believe that physicalism is not the most logical stance. In this case, I think it would be wiser to simply make no assumptions about the existence of what we can't perceive.

"What is the point?", you ask, "Anything that doesn't interact with our physical world is useless to us. It is simply more practical to believe only in the physical."

You are correct. The problem, though, is that practicality has nothing to do with existence. Existence is absolute: the truth concerning whether something exists or not does not depend on whether this thing is useful to you or not. And we are talking about assumptions of existence, not usefulness.

Another possible justification for physicalism is what skepticism naturally dictates: there is no positive proof for the existence of something non-physical, so the negative assumption is taken by default.

I get that, but I still disagree, because, from a strictly logical standpoint, the probability of existence of something beyond our physical world is absolutely unknown, and a negative assumption implies that it is unlikely. There is no evidence of any kind that it is unlikely, because any evidence we can obtain is only capable of describing what is already a part of this physical world.

There's this quote from one of the characters of my story (yeah, I made it up): "You cannot judge a system if your judgment is determined by the system."

Think about it.

Skepticism

So, besides what I said previously, I want to mention a few other things I find strange about the behavior of most skeptics.

Please note that I am NOT saying that skepticism in general is wrong. Requiring evidence to believe in something is a logical behavior. I'm talking about something I find strange about skeptics. Specifically, the need for a negative assumption when evidence is lacking. That negative stance is not necessarily "believing that something doesn't exist", it also includes "believing that something is not likely due to lack of evidence" (this is actually the most common view I've come across, by the way)

My view is like this: if there is no evidence for something and there is no evidence against it either, I make no assumptions about it. Depending on the subject, I might act as if it doesn't exist due to practicality, or may simply act neutrally if its existence/nonexistence doesn't affect my situation. But I don't assume anything, either way.

If you are a skeptic and think that "believing that something is not likely due to lack of evidence" is logical, when there is no evidence supporting either side, please answer me this: are you a solipsist?

No?

You probably answered "no". If you said "yes", I guess this text isn't for you.

There is no evidence that there is anything beyond our minds. Not only that, but it is impossible to obtain evidence, and it will always be. Before being a physicalist, it should make more sense to be a solipsist, because the existence of one's own mind is infinitely more certain that the existence of external reality.

And, yet, most skeptics are not solipsists (as far as I know). Why?

That is inconsistent behavior, yes, and the most likely answer is simply "convenience". Realism is a lot more convenient than solipsism. Solipsism raises a lot of unanswerable questions and would be a potential justification for psychopathic behavior. You would be alone in existence, and everyone else would be simply figments of your imagination, feeling no love or pain.

Still, I don't see anyone bashing realism due to "wishful thinking"... Hmm... I'll probably analyze this later.

"Solipsism is actually very unlikely", you say, "What would be the mechanism behind the illusion? What are the motives for such a thing in the first place? It's highly suspicious."

Honestly, I could say the very same thing about physicalism. Something so incredible that just starts existing out of nowhere for no reason is also "highly suspicious", as far as I can see. That interpretation is subjective at best, and does not invalidate solipsism in any way (I am not a solipsist either, by the way).

If you think there are arguments against my case that I haven't addressed, please tell me. But try to be as honest as possible with yourself. I'm still going to get into the details of my convictions in the next post. It will probably be a little harder to swallow than what I've already presented here, so I'll try to pick my words carefully.