On absurdity of physicalism

medicare only allows payment for one complete physical per annum. that's absurd.

come on, realistically, how many times a year do think your doctor wants to see you naked

If I were his doctor I know I'd only want to see him naked once every 5 or 10 yrs. Unless he covered his valuables with his beard.

Snore .... Karl Popper would have told you 75 years ago that you can't "prove" anything in science. What else is not new?

The problem with most philosophical discourse is that its usually a product of the 19th century .

It's yes and no.

I don't try to prove that the knowledge or thought on absurdity of physicalism is new - I have read it from even before 19th century -, but I try to find some acceptable solution of proving it into current century. Those ideas of artifical intelligence it targets, by the way, have become widespread relatively lately.

I don't want to prove things, which are already known - I can understand that the old proofs are not understandable to most of us, otherwise there would be no physicalism. So I want to find simple enough argumentation based on well-known facts (not angels, gods or miracles) and showing clearly that physicalism (which is really widespread in scientific world right now) is obviously false. I don't want to show it's false - I want to show it's obviously false. This is a stricter sense of science (repeatability). Most philosophers haven't much repeatable experiments - most need at least high intelligence.

Just so I dont fall off the truck, please, in as simple terms as possible, explain what you even mean by "The absurdity of physicalism". Your intro statement was quite obscure. I dont read links in anyones intro statements. If one cant put it into ones own working vocab, why should I invest time in something that I may not be interested in at all?.
As I see it, YOUR job, as a thread host, is to act as saleseman and get me involved by your argument . Repeat YOUR argument.

My thesis:
The world view, which we call "physicalism", which states that the world is mechanical and that mind is just a complex mathematical model, is an absurd. Link itself contains arguments to show that it has serious logical biases.

Some call that also materialism, but materialism is:
a) a much wider term as it does not imply that world is mechanism, it implies only that all processes can be explained in terms of matter and it's laws.
b) somewhat outdated term as we now speak of physical information and know many nonmaterial forms of "matter" - things, what interact with matter, but do not fall into original strict terms.

I am, there, showing that widespread form of materialism, which states that there are only causal laws, is false. This kind of materialism has it's roots in Newtonian world-view, but it has developed into a concrete theory relatively lately, definitely after 19th century. I think that all it's implications have made clear in last fifty years - before that there was some hope that things somehow fall into places in that world-view and that it could actually explain something.

As philosophers have shown the cases I show long time ago, I am not trying to tell anything new. I am just trying to show that one of really widespread "scientific" model, which is never proven, but taken as granted, contains serious logical fallacies. I am, also, not proposing an alternative except the few interesting facts directly implied from it being false.

But text itself - you have to read to understand. It does not bite

Why not just say that "physicalism" is contrary to some logic system you hold dear. I certainly dont buy your attempted argument since it seems to be made mostly by the pund .

As a scientist I work in in the world of methodological materialism each day. If we measure it, sense it, can predict it, repeat ITS RESULTS (not the act of experimentation itself), and have its event effect similar outcomes in other realms, (even though its effects are only statistically measured), It certainly doesnt contradict logic, it defines it.

BTW,Your definition of "Newtonian" and mine sound rather different

This actually means nothing to me. I find it internally contradictory

I am not being against scientific method or five senses in my text.

I am sure that my terminology could be made better in those philosophic waves - I actually use terms, which make more sense in Estonian. This is sometimes hard to speak foreign language for just that reason - English "red" is somewhat different tone than estonian "punane", but dictionary matches them together. So english "physicism" might be different to estonian "füsikalism" even if they are exactly the same word. I hope you can go through those words

You have a thesis to show that physicalism is obviously false? Reminds me of a joke...

A math professor is writing out a proof on the board for the class. At the end of the proof he says "and so step 9 obviously leads to the conclusion". One of the students pipes up and says "but it isn't obvious!". The math professor turns and stares at the proof for a solid 20 minutes, not saying anything. Then he turns back to the class and says "Yes, yes, it is obvious".

David Hume would have said the same thing 250 years ago.