Physicalism is true.

Thanks, Pro.Burden of ProofAs my opponent stated in the opening round, the winner of this debate shall be decided based on the side with the preponderance of evidence. As such, the burden of proof is shared. My opponent, in order to carry his share of the burden of proof, must (1) knock down the arguments I present in favor of my own position and (2) present good arguments to think that physicalism is true. On the other hand, it will be my own responsibility to (1) knock down the arguments presented in favor of physicalism and (2) present good arguments to think that physicalism is not true.RebuttalMy opponent has dedicated his first argument to providing evidence against idealism. Unfortunately, this is a straw-man argument, as I myself do not affirm idealism. I'll have to ask my opponent to focus his arguments on dualism if he is to succeed in showing that it is physicalism, rather than dualism, that is true. In my opponent's second argument, he asserts that there is a contradiction between the hard sciences and the existence of non-physical entities, and that as a result non-physical entities do not exist. This is a trivial argument. I see absolutely no reason to think that there is a contradiction between the hard sciences and the existence of non-physical entities. Science is by definition the study of the material world, so thinking that science should have something to say about the immaterial is palpably false. As such, my opponent's conclusion that "all actually existing entities are physical" is unwarranted. If he wants this conclusion to be accepted, my opponent needs to provide justification for his assertion that there is a logical contradiction between hard sciences and non-physical entities. Arguments Against PhysicalismI will present four arguments in attempt to show that physicalism is more likely false than true. The first of these arguments will be a modal argument against physicalism, the second an argument from truth, and the latter two will be evolutionary arguments against physicalism. 1) Modal ArgumentIf we take physicalism to be true, it follows that each of us, as human beings, are nothing more than our material bodies. This can be summed through the proposition:A=B, where a is "me" and b is "my body"In order for physicalism to be true, "me" and "my body" (or "A" and "B") must be identical. However, it seems to me that there are good reasons to think that this is not the case. In his book The Metamorphosis, Franz Kafka provides an illustration that may provide insight to what will follow:"As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect. He was laying on his hard, as it were armor-plated, back and when he lifted his head a little he could see his domelike brown belly divided into stiff arched segments on top of which the bed quilt could hardly keep in position and was about to slide off completely. His numerous legs, which were pitifully thin compared to the rest of his bulk, waved helplessly before his eyes." I can perfectly conceive of something like this happening to myself; waking up one morning to find that my human body was gone and instead occupying the body of an insect. So, we can call this "Possible World P". In Possible World P, I occupy the body of an insect while my human body is destroyed. But if there is even one possible world where "me" (A) and "my body" (B) are not identical, then it seems to me that "a" and "b" are not truly identical. For in order for the proposition A=B to hold true, it must be the case that every property of A is a property of B (and vice versa). If there were even one property that differed between A and B, then it follows that A and B are not truly identical. Among these properties are modal properties, or properties in possible worlds. If A=B is to be true, then A=B must be true in every possible world. If there is a possible property of A that is not a possible property of B, then we can reasonably conclude that the proposition A=B is false.It's fairly easy to recognize that there are properties that are true of A (me) that are not true for B (my body). To give an example we have already seen, A has the property of existing in a world where B doesn't (as in the insect example). So, it seems to me that A and B are not identical, and as such the proposition A=B is false. Premise 1: If physicalism is true, then the proposition A=B must be true.Premise 2: The proposition A=B is not true.Conclusion: Physicalism is not true.2) Argument from TruthPhysicalism can be seen as self-defeating when considering truth:Premise 1: If physicalism is true, there are no true sentences.Premise 2: Premise 1 is true.Conclusion: Therefore, physicalism is not true.3) Evolutionary Argument AThis argument goes to show that the conjunction of the beliefs in evolution on one hand and physicalism on the other can not rationally be held. If evolution and physicalism are both true, then both our behavior and our beliefs are determined by our neurology. On evolution, behavior that maintains or increases fitness is selected for. If this is true, then the neurology that causes this behavior is also selected for. Notice that our beliefs are not selected for. It may be the case that the same neurology produces both our behavior and our beliefs, but the truth value of these beliefs is irrelevant in terms of fitness. So long as our neurology produces behavior that goes to increase fitness, it really doesn't matter whether our beliefs are true or false. If a false belief is produced with a beneficial behavior, then the neurology that produced the false belief will evolve in just the same way it would have had it produced a true belief. So, given evolution and physicalism, we can say that there is a 50% probability of any given belief being true; it is just as likely true as false. But if that's the case, then the reliability of our cognitive faculties is very low. We each have thousands of beliefs. If it's the case that our cognitive faculties produce true beliefs only 50% of the time, then I'd say those cognitive faculties are unreliable. In other words, it's not sensible to think that any given belief produced by these cognitive faculties is true. But notice that the physicalist has shot himself in the foot here; for physicalism itself is a belief that on this view cannot be rationally held.Premise 1: If the conjunction of evolution and physicalism is true, then the reliability of our cognitive faculties is low.Premise 2: If the reliability of our cognitive faculties is low, then we cannot sensibly hold any beliefs produced by these cognitive faculties, including the belief that physicalism is true.Conclusion: If the conjunction of evolution and physicalism is true, then we cannot sensibly believe that physicalism is true.4) Evolutionary Argument BHere again, I will attempt to show that the conjunction of the beliefs in evolution on one hand and physicalism on the other can not rationally be held. If evolution and physicalism are both true, then altruism among organisms is not possible (I take altruism to be any act where the total costs outweigh the total benefits). Darwin himself recognized this. In his book On the Origin of Species, Darwin acknowledges that the existence of altruism would "annihilate" his theory. Altruism might appear to be very common among animals. For example, many birds will provide resources (such as food) to each other. However, there are explanations for this type of behavior commonly displayed by various animals. One such explanation involves kin selection; an organism will perform a seemingly altruistic act if the beneficiary of the act is a close relative. Another explanation involves reciprocation; an organism will perform a seemingly altruistic act if the probability that this act will be reciprocated at some point in the future is high enough. But what about humans? I can think of several examples of altruistic behavior among human beings. I can think of stories of soldiers, for example, who have jumped on roadside bombs in order to save a stranger whom they had never met. Is this an example of altruism? Kin selection cannot explain this act away, as the two individuals involved are unrelated. Nor can reciprocation, as the probability of reciprocation goes to 0 at death. In order for altruism to not occur on the physicalist view, it would be impossible that an individual would perform an act of self-sacrifice (i.e. death) for a stranger. But surely this is not impossible. However, if there exists some sort of immaterial soul or spirit, then altruistic behavior among human beings is no issue for evolution. It could be the case that while our human bodies are unable to perform altruistic behavior, our immaterial souls are entirely capable of these sorts of acts. The physicalist, however, asserts that the soul does not exist. The existence of altruistic behavior among human beings then presents an issue to the physicalist; for he must abandon either belief in evolution or belief in physicalism. Premise 1: If the conjunction of evolution and physicalism is true, then altruism cannot exist.Premise 2: Altruism exists.Conclusion: The conjunction of evolution and physicalism is not true.SummaryI have provided four sound arguments in favor of the position that physicalism is more likely false than true. In order to win this debate, my opponent must (1) knock down each of these arguments and (2) present sound arguments of his own in favor of the position that physicalism is more likely true than false.Thank you.SourcesThe Metamorphosis by Franz Kafkahttp://www.calvin.edu...On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin