"The panphysicalist might admit at least one essential difference between man and the objects of physics. The stones and the atoms reflect neither upon their own nature, properties, and behavior nor upon those of man. They do not engineer either themselves or man. Man is at least different from them insofar as he is a physicist and an engineer. It is difficult to conceive how one could deal with the activities of an engineer without realizing that he chooses between various possible lines of conduct and is intent upon attaining definite ends. Why does he build a bridge rather than a ferry? Why does he build one bridge with a capacity of ten tons and another with a capacity of twenty tons? Why is he intent upon constructing bridges that do not collapse? Or is it only an accident that most bridges do not collapse?
"
thought, as perceived by humans are not physical processes. The fact that it is impossible to disect the concepts of thinging, acting of one’s own body by using the tools of physics, does not imply that it is impossible to do so to that of others’. On one’s own body would be a circular task - using the tools to manipulate the very object that is manipulating the tools.
"
If one eliminates from the treatment of human action the notion of conscious aiming at definite ends, one must replace it by the — really metaphysical — idea that some superhuman agency leads men, independently of their will, toward a predestined goal: that what put the bridge-builder into motion was the preordained plan of Geist or the material productive forces which mortal men are forced to execute.
"
No, the perceived “actions” of man are nothing more than the implications of the physical elementary system that encompasses it, and its interactions with the rest of the universe. This theory is backed by the entirety of physical theory, whereas praxeology is a mental concept with absolutely zero backing that would connect it to the physical domain. Rothbard’s attempted aristotelean “empirical” proof is nothing more than the fallacy i described in response to the first quote.
"
To say that man reacts to stimuli and adjusts himself to the conditions of his environment does not provide a satisfactory answer. To the stimulus offered by the English Channel some people have reacted by staying at home; others have crossed it in rowboats, sailing ships, steamers, or, in modern times simply by swimming. Some fly over it in planes; others design schemes for tunneling under it. It is vain to ascribe the differences in reaction to differences in attendant circumstances such as the state of technological knowledge and the supply of labor and capital goods. These other conditions too are of human origin and can only be explained by resorting to teleological methods.
"
This would be a true criticism IF everyones brain was exactly the same in the physical domain as everyone else’s and its interaction with the rest of the world also identical. Both of these premises are false.
I’m not familiar with “panphysicalism” so I did a Google search to check out what current thought there is on the subject and found almost nothing. In fact, the top hits are all Mises Institute stuff basically referencing what Mises said on the topic. It is as if no one on the Internet believes in panphysicalism. If this is the case then it seems like Mises was correct in his criticism.
Now it could also be that “panphysicalism” is an old term and there is a better term. Maybe you could reference some sources or go into more detail on the specifics of what you consider panphysicalism. Based on what Mises said, it sounds like is some kind of deterministic philosophy. If it is basically deterministic, then it would be odd that Mises was against it. I’d guess that the difference would be that simple determinism doesn’t necessarily rule out human action, but panphysicalism specifically asserts that human action, as being of a different nature than say a falling rock, doesn’t make sense. Mises would have thought this was absurd and completely missing the point of our existence as human beings, and I would be inclined to agree with him.
Mises did not believe a purely physical explanation for the human mind to be impossible or useless. What he was attempting to refute was the idea that ONLY a purely physical explanation can have any meaning. It was (and to an extent still is) a popular interpretation of the social sciences that the motivation of individuals is without consequence. Mises showed this is wrong: A physical explanation must account for motivations as well.
Robbie: Panphysicalism is the idea that the ultimate ends of individuals can be predicted by a purely physical theory. Panphysicalists like to bash Mises because they don’t understand his ideas.
Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life. - from wiki
And about your criticism on motivation. It is nothing but the subjective interpretation of the objective physical processes that describe it.
Self reflection breaks down at analyzing the source of actions, the ego itself. Hence the apparent conclusion, the fallacy of that the ego is of teleological nature. This is because the ego can not perceive the source of itself, the same way a program running on a virtual machine cannot analyze the host machine that is running the virtual machine.
That’s not Mises’s, nor my argument. For a panphysical theory to work, one way or another ideas and desires need to be explained. You can’t ignore them.
To make an analogy, if I see a mirage in the desert, the oasis may not really be there but my perception of it certainly is. A theory of vision needs to explain these flaws of perception. What I “see” is what my brain filters and presents to me. To assume this filter doesn’t exist, as the behavioralists do to desires and motivations, is to doom yourself to misunderstanding.
There is no flaw in perception, only flaws in conception. You seeing the mirage in the desert is not correct or in correct, but your conclusion that it is not a mirage is wrong.