First of all, I would expect that you also mention "materialism" as another name of "physicalism", which in fact is more commonly used and their differences (nuances) usually don't matter in discussions like this. (Not mentioning the connection looks like you are talking about a different thing.)

The consequences of such a philosophy is that the mind/ consciousness, the state of being/ living and all other seemingly illusive or mysterious/ abstract phenomenon are at there basis concrete and are wholly explicable by physics, chemistry, etc even if the exact mechanisms have not yet been elucidated. — Benj96

It is not clear to me what "consequences" actually are, but you are raising here an important issue, a flow in human knowledge, the responsible of which are materialists or materially-oriented people and esp. scientists --although philosophers have a big share in this. So, allow me to say what the main consequence is for me: There's no progress in understanding the consciousness and the mind, which includes thought and thinking, reasoning, emotions, mental health and a host of other mental features. Because these do not belong the material (physical) world.

You say, rightly so, that "the exact mechanisms have not yet been elucidated", which I believe is or should be obvious to everyone. Well, how long still --after so many years of research-- should we wait to see some tangible results, mainly in the form of evidences, from science on this subject? Is this lack of results maybe an indication of a failure in this area --the mind-- and that this area is not an area for the conventional, totally materialistic science to get involved in?

I strongly believe it is.

It leaves little to no room for theology, spirituality — Benj96

Certainly. This is in accordance with the consequence I mentioned above.

I would like to know what’s problematic with this philosophy. — Benj96

I have launched a discussion about this subject: The problem with "Materialism" (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12480/the-problem-with-materialism/p1). I also mention your term, "physicalism", which is almost the same thing.

I don't like to put terms, concepts, thoughts, views, etc. into frameworks like -isms. They always limit the extent of their meaning and application. Moreover, they adulterate their essence or nature by introducing to them foreign elements that these -isms contain. And even worse, they make them ambiguous because these -isms usually come in "brands", variations. Just check how many variations and definitions the term "dualism" has!

So, when I use such terms, I prefer describing them as separate, independent entities, and stating what exactly they mean to me and what exactly I mean by them. For example,

Awareness is an ability and a state. It is the result of perception. It is shaped by perception. In a way, it is perception itself. And by perception I mean whatever I notice, comes to my attention or I observe through my senses (external environment) or stemmed from inside me (thoughts, feelings, etc.)

Awareness is the most simple thing that exists. It’s the basic thing one does: being aware of his environment as well as being aware of oneself, one's thoughts, feelings, etc. The highest form of awareness is "being aware of being aware", an attribute and ability exclusive to humans. It does not exist in any other form of life.

Now, if you mean to ask whether I see the mind and body as separate things (re: dualism), yes I do. But I would like to address the matter in a different more general way: that we consist of two separate parts -- physical and non-physical. Calling this "dualisim" adds nothing but complexity, ambiguity and even confusion. Even just talking about "two parts" of a human being is quite unnecessary. I one defines/explains clearly one's terms, thoughts, views etc. and uses characteritic examples of their existence and/or application in life, one does not need to categorize them, closing them into boxes. They must be free to flow everywhere and permeate everything. They thus become something more than knowledge. They become experience. I don't just know what awareness is. I have the experience of it. I can experience it. This is very basic to my reality of the world.

Yes, I should watch more of the video, esp. about the end of it, which you suggest. But I would prefer having the interview in written form. I would also prefer hearing/reading interviews about each of the subjects of this comprehensive interview, separately. See, by talking a little about everythingin interviews like these, you actually learn nothing (as in the case of consciousness at ~0:32:00 that I mentioned). So I will try to find written material elsewhere ... But thanks again for bringing up this subject.

:up:

... does not mean I don't value your opinions. — universeness

Thanks again. I didn't think of that. It is was rather a reaction that my views and positions on mind and consciousness are shared by really very few in here.

if I did not pay attention to viewpoints that differed from mine then I would rarely progress in my own learning — universeness

I fully agree. I have told myself a similar thing a few times in here and elsewhere.

You have not given any indication that you are ossified in your viewpoints like many do indicate imo. — universeness

"Ossified in something" ... I got linguistically richer by one expression todαy. Thanks! :grin:

I know you have a lot of interest in the area of consciousness so I very much value your input. — universeness

Indeed. Mainly the mind, and by extension consciousness.
BTW, my preferred term is "awareness". It is more specific and has a more restricted meaning and application than "consiousness", which can refer to various things --both physical and non-physical-- and in genera it is quite misused and "damaged" term not only in everyday life but by the scientific community and even in philosophy, i.e. places like this one.

I'm back, with a little more knowledge on the human intelligence existing in our world! And I'm talking of course about Demis Hassabis. What an amazing guy! I take my hat off! And I feel envious of him -- something quite rare for me-- mainly because we share the same passion about programming. So thanks for bringing him up. But better, we must bringing him in TPF! :grin:

As for the video, I watched about 10 minutes in total, and the whole part referring to consciousness. Yet, I got almost nothing from there, except that he too rejects Penrose's "quantum" brain, since, as he said, there has not been any evidence about anything of a quantum nature in the brain. This was of course a more pragmatic rejection than my talking about and "exotic" therory. But see, I am not a scientist or well informed like Hassabis to use more solid arguments ... In this area, mine are mostly intuitional.

I might come back to the video some time to watch more ...

Ha! Didn't expect that coming! :smile: Thanks. I hope you mean it! (re: my contribution etc.) :smile:

I will certainly watch the interview you posted. But it will be for tomorrow ...

we're getting to the point where the material basis of consciousness is a robustly empirical issue, even merely in terms of electromagnetism. — Enrique

That wo\uld be just great. But you see, you said it yourself: the material basis of consciousness. I mentioned that in connection with physical perception and the anesthesiologist. This is a very limited view of consciousness. Anyway, it would be great to create a workable scientific model of even that ...
BTW, why do you use the first plural? Are you participating in the project?

The microtubule theory as originally proposed is flawed simply because atoms ... — Enrique

Hold on, hold on! I said that I'm no good in Physics! :grin:

I respect Penrose a lot. But in this case, I think he is looking for and working on a quite "exotic" explanation and description of consciousness, by creating "a new kind of science" as he says. Of course, since conventional Science has failed in that sector, even if most of the scientists believe and claim otherwise.

"The Penrose-Hameroff theory of quantum consciousness argues that microtubules are structured in a fractal pattern which would enable quantum processes to occur." (https://theconversation.com/can-consciousness-be-explained-by-quantum-physics-my-research-takes-us-a-step-closer-to-finding-out-164582).
Really, "What?"

I have watched part of the video, most of the Penrose talk. I have come to read quite a few of such "exotic" stuff. They are desperate attempts to answer the "hard problem of consciousness", which is and will always be an open problem for science. Why? Because all scientific theories and attempts like the present one, try to tackle the problem on a physical level and more specifically the brain. They talk about conscious and unconscious states of a person, and here is where the anesthesiologist Mr Hameroff come in the scene. As if consciousness were a black or white case or a case with a lot of shades of grey! Of course, perception --which is a central element in consciousness-- needs the brain to work. Only that the brain is a medium, a machine, a communication means for the individual to perceive his environment. But he can also be aware of other things that are not in his environment --thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc. These are rarely talked about.

Well, this is the only way that Science can work. Only that all efforts are in vain. Because consciousness is a subject out of the jurisdiction of Science!

Have you ever hear any of these scientists talking about awareness of awareness, i.e. a person being aware of being aware? A person examining his thoughts? Quantum physics theorists of consciousness, like Penrose, say that from the moment one examines his thoughts they change, which is similar of what is happening with particles in a quantum context. It may be true, there may exist a similarity between the two, but this is specific feature, characteristic. Yet, they try to build scientific models of consciousness based on that kind of stuff.

Listening to Mr Penrose, I hoped that he would give some tangible examples of how his theory-system of consciousness works. Well, he didn't. As no one else who has a scientific theory or explanation does. It's all theory. Not a single example. No application in everyday life. Isn't that strange? :chin:

Now consider the fact that in a universe that's finite there's gotta be a number that is the upper limit of a counting processes that yields the largest number possible/required to describe this universe — Agent Smith

The universe is physical. Numbers are not. They are abstract objects. Whether the universe is finite or infinite has nothing to do with numbers being finite or infinite. Their nature is totally different and their existence is of a different kind, too. The only relation between numbers and universe that I can see is the following: numbers are representations of things in the universe, considered individually or in groups, categories etc. When I say "5 (five) apples" I refer to "5 (five) individual objects" or "a group of 5 (five) objects". Both the numeral "5" and the word "five" are symbols that represent a "quantity", which is also another abstract word, a concept.

So, if the universe is finite, it means that it contains a finite number of elements, such as atoms (microcosm), stars (macrocosm), etc. If it is infinite, then it means that it also contains an infinite number of elements.

Now, we also have irrational numbers, like PI, which have a sequence of decimals that looks infinite. But this is theoretical and has nothing to do with whether the universe is finite or infinite.

Finally --but not the last-- we talk about the magnitude of physical objects, which is also an abstract idea. For example Plank's constants refer to the smallest and largest number calculable magnitudes, which range from 5.4 x 10^-44 ("Planck time in seconds, the shortest meaningful interval of time in seconds, and the earliest time the known universe can be measured from" and 5.1 x 10^96 (Planck density, the density in kg/m^3 of the universe at one unit of Planck time after the Big Bang). (Re: https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/numbers.html)
But I don't think that these can be used as a proof that the universe is finite. Well, my knowledge of Physics is quite limited to be able to judge.

Please look at your INBOX.

You must confuse me with somebody else.

its just marxism. You could do it if you had the patience, but I don't blame you — Merkwurdichliebe

You just gave me a good reason for not being interested: Marxism. I have left it behind me and never looked back since about 50 years ago! :smile:

Agreement? Disagreement? Why did that matter in the first place? Not sure. — Moliere

Common reality between two parts (entities) --two persons, a person and a group, two groups etc.-- is based on agreement between the two parts. And vice versa: different reality is based on disagreement. Communication is based on agreement. Understanding is based on agreement. Knowledge is based on agreement. In fact, our whole existence is based on agreement.

So, agreement does not only apply between two entities, but to a single entity as well. This is how our knowledge is acquired, our experience formed and our consciousness developed.

Agreement supports, favors life. Disagreement is against life. Both physically and mentally. Total agreement equals "immortality". Total disagreement equals "death".

philosophy often serves as a kind of creative ground for the creation of new sciences — Moliere

True. Philosophy has always been an incubator for scientific ideas and theories.

Philosophers, on the whole, don't hold concepts constant or agree upon what philosophy should be doing. — Moliere

True.

they're different because we treat them differently, on the basis of how much agreement there is. — Moliere

Right. Agreement is a key element that separates Science from Philosophy, scientists from philosophers. It is very strong in one and very weak in the other. Obviously, since the first offers hard-to- be-denied proofs and the other not. The first uses hard-to-be-ignored physical experimentation and the other not. And so on.

It wouldn't be that interesting to discuss knowledge if we didn't know anything — Moliere

I wonder what Socrates would have to say on that! (Re: "The one thing I know is that I know nothing") :grin:

my concern is that around the world, people have taken their culture for granted and then are willing to fight for their culture. I want us to think about what we are doing and how we might do things differently. — Athena

I don't know how people in US think of and treat their culture, and how they "fight" for it. In Greece there's no culture to fight for. The Greek culture today is plenty of foreign elements that have been deeply rooted during the 400 years of Ottoman yoke.

As for Freud, since you have mentioned him, I find his work quite obsolete to be talked about, since a long time ago. He has indeed opened a road, but since then there's has been much more, better and more useful information on unconscious and conscious behavior, feelings/emotions and the mind in general.

"Progress" has some end-goal in mind, or at least a notion of how things ought to improve — Moliere

Good point.
Progress however can mean or refer to various things. One is moving towards a destination or end-goal, as you say. Another is evolving towards an improved condition. A student is making progress. There's not necessarily an end point or goal. It also means developing gradually. One can be always moving forward, evolving. "Improvement" I think is the key word here. Also, developing a more workable theory or system --e.g. about ethics-- can be considered a progress in philosophy. However, such things happen quite rarely to talk about a "visible" progress in philosophy in general. As I said, what we can offer to philosophy is mainly details and technicalities. But this is not real progress. And they are nothing compared to what philosophy can offer to us. Which, is the reason we are in this place, afterall.

what scientists think of scientific progress isn't exactly the same as what the public at large thinks about scientific progress — Moliere

Certainly. People see mainly the technological progress, the practical side, the applications of science. They cannot follow the scientific knowledge and general progress of science as a field of knowledge. How can they? It is too specialized a sector in life. Scientists consider a progress the discovery of a new particle, or a tiny dwarf in the space. These things go unnoticed in the public.

the intension of "science" is "that which people tend to agree to" and the intension of "philosophy" is "that which people tend to disagree upon" in many uses — Moliere

Interesting point!

Re "the spin-off theory": Indeed, the lack of progress in philosophy may be an illusion.
Well, again, it depends on how one defines and what one considers as "progress" ...

Wondering whether or in what way the Universe is physical is by no means ‘silly’. — Wayfarer

Well, Science works fine with the physical universe and produces great results without have to question its existence. Fortunately! And if some scientist does question it, I don't know if he could keep his job or even belong to the scientific community anymore. Not even any scientifically-oriented or well informed mind could question such a thing. Only some "philosophically-oriented" minds can. And in fact, they find support in that from other "philosophically-oriented" minds as I can see in this thread. But I don't think that such questions could stand in professional and academic philosophical circles and communities, as I have already mentioned.

So, that's it for me. It's too much already. I will stop trying to explain and talk about how idiotic and useless is the questioning of the existence of the external world is.

I will refer you to my responses in the thread which this started from, rather than trying to re-state them again, in particular this one. — Wayfarer

You are give me too much work to do! I would be satisfied with a simple affirmation or negation oo what I have assumed.

philosophy often consists of asking questions about matters which most people take for granted as being seemingly obvious or not worth questioning. — Wayfarer

Not philosophy. Only people who are engaged in phillosophical discussions do that.

Re: 'Wisdom begins in wonder',: Certainly. But can you think of Socrates or Plato or any other great or important philosophers wondering whether the physical universe exists or not and that kind of silly questions or commonly accepted facts or truths? It would be totally ridiculous. And philosophy would have maybe not survived as a field of knowledge or whatever else.

Things need always to be put in their right perspective! One must always consider and recognize analogies and differences in importance.

It's a perfectly valid philosophical concern — Wayfarer

Thank you for your response to the topic.

I assume that either yourself are not sure whether the external world actually exists or not, or you believe that there are strong reasons why someone else does. Is that so?

Whatever is the case, I will respect it.

"My empirical knowledge is increasing, but is my understanding and wisdom increasing?" — Yohan

Thank you for your response to the topic.

Why "empirical" knowledge only? Besides from experience --which I consider most important-- knowledge can be also acquired from learning (theory, facts) and reasoning (critical/logical thinking). All of them build ones's reality about a certain subject and in general.

One's undestanding and reality grow proportionally. The better one learns a foreign language (by reading or hearing it) the more and better one is able to undestand it.

Wisdom also grows proportionally. One has a better judgement about a subject the more experienced and knowledgeable one is on that subject.

I put all that under one umbrella: mind.

And I use to say, for myself, that if I ever stop evolving menttally, and esp. intellectually, I will be "dead",

I think that the perception of philosophical "advance" (whatever that might mean) is being colored by this belief. — Moliere

Thank you for responding to the topic.

"Advancing" means making progress, which is the subject of this topic. And the subject of progress in philosophy is discussed quite a lot. One of the many interesting articles is "Why Progress Is Slower In Philosophy Than In Science" ((https://dailynous.com/2017/06/02/progress-slower-philosophy-science/), published in a site about professional philosophy.

OK.
(Subjects like these are too heavy for me; can't digest them. :smile:)

All these are either methods/tools or principles. I have never said that there aren't. In fact, I have referred to them in general when I said "I can only see logical and reasoning testing to prove that something is either true or false." And then I said "But this has nothing to do with scientific testing". My response was to @Joshs statement that "Science doesn't differ from philosophy in terms of method, such as objectivity or testability."

Therefore, I was talking about viewpoints, opinions, reasoning, argumentation and other subjective functions and processes that are involved in practising philosophy. If all these were objective, then philosophers would (have to) agree among them in almost everything, as is the case, in general, with scientists. There would not be all these endless differences among schools of Philosophy, philosophers or people carrying out philosophical discussions. Maybe we wouldn't even be in this place communicating to each other, because there wouldn't be actually a reason for.

As for the principles, I have rarily seen them beeing used in common philosophical discussions, as in here. I cannot say if and how often are used in academic circles. Maybe, because most of them are quite obsolote and also ar based on assumptions that are totally unrealistic for our times. (E.g. Aristotles "Mean" principle, which is about dualities such as Good vs Evil, God vs Satan, and other unsubstantial --at least today-- elements.)

You missed my whole point. And you wasted your time listing a dozen of methods and principles ...

OK

I posted some nonsense in that thread. I think the advantage of those threads — Merkwurdichliebe

OK.
BTW, what other thread are you referring to besides "Is there an external material world?" ?

Science doesnt differ from philosophy in terms of method , such as objectivity or testability, — Joshs

There's no objectivity in philosopy. It's all subjective: opinions, viewpoints, arguments etc. Your above statement is based on your reality, your knowledge, your reasoning and your experience.

As for "testability" in philosophy, I can only see logical and reasoning testing to prove that something is either true or false. But this has nothing to do with scientific testing. Maybe you are talking about "psychology". You can find there a lot of testimg and experimentation.
I would be glad to hear about any other substantial testing carried out in philosophy ...

Every major historical advance in the sciences is paralleled (and usually preceded) by a corresponding advance in philosophy. — Joshs

Examples, please.

think, for example, about the sophists, who tried to show how tricky our language and our thinking is — Angelo Cannata

Sophists had other purposes than establishing truths! I think you know what ...

Heraclitus: if everything is becoming, then an established truth cannot exist, it will be becoming as well — Angelo Cannata

Heractlitus was not taking about abtract ideas like "truth". He was talking mainly about the physical universe. His famous statement, "No man ever steps in the same river twice" refers to time and change in the physical universe. You can also think of this: if his statement was referring also to abtract ideas, like "truth", then the "ever changing" feature would apply to his statement itself, and he would be thus contradicting himself, because he certainly considered his statement as a truth!

There's another thing. maybe more important than the above: You seem quite certain about the things you say, and I'm sure you are considering them true, yet you maintain that you must always doubt about truths. Isn't this a loud contradiction?

No, you cannot always and constantly doubt. This is insane. Fortutately, you are only talking about it but you don't do it! :smile:

If science is advancing, then so is philosophy. There is no way to categorically distinguish between what science is and does, and what philosophy is and does. The history of science and philosophy is completely entangled and interdependent. — Joshs

Thank you for your response to the topic.

I think you are talking about the past, and in fact quite far back. I will quote myself from an earlier post: "Science started to be a separate subject a long time ago, even before the term "science" was formulated in the 19th century, acquiring such names as "epistemology" in early 16th century, etc. So, today they are two different fields of knowledge."

The 'big questions' (can we know there is an external world? etc) are based on misconceptions and false analogies. — Cuthbert

Thank you for your response to the topic.

These too. The may be based in a lot of things --even nonsese-- but not a real interest or quest for truth and knowledge. Nor a way to exercise critical thinking and other processes involved in philosophy.

Philosophy's job is to provide the tools to innoculate us against the mystification caused by deep grammatical trickery. — Cuthbert

I would also say "semantical". A large part of the mystification is inability to grasp concepts nor even lacking them. There are a lot of people, even in here, whod don't care about defining the terms they use and if one insists they do, they come up with none. I you cannot define a term, don't use it, man!

To ask why we are still stuck on these big questions and to think that means lack of progress... — Cuthbert

I know what you mean. But this was just an example and a sparking for my launching of this topic. I gave a few more exapmles and one can meet dozens of them in philosophical forums and communities. They just make you wonder, "Aren't there more substantial, meaningful, productive questions to ask?" and that kind of things. This, as well as the so meny repetitive questions (variations), or questions that keep coming back each now and then, maybe dressed in a different cloak, as well as non-philosophical questions treated as philosophical ones, and so on, makes you wondering whether there's actually a progress in philosophy. And I am sure that in some more official philosophical forum --e.g. consisting of professional/certificated philosophers-- and various places holding philosophical lectures and official papers in philosophical magazies, end son on, such kind of questions won't exist at all. And that is also another thing I wanted to know by launching this topic, that is I trieds to atract more knowledgeable in the field. Maybe not in the best way, though! :smile:

There appears to be progress in the philosophy of mathematics, — jgill

Even if "philosophy of mathematics" is considred by some a branch of philosophy, I personally don't consider it a philosophy per se. Because we also talk about "philosophy of life", "philosophy of marriage", "philosopy of education", "philosophy of music" and so on. These actually refer to a general attitude towards or philosophical view of life, marriage, education, music etc.

For me philosophy is about developing your own perspective and getting better at discourse, not arriving at any particular ideology. — Enrique

Thank you for your response to the topic.

I agree. Only that I consider it as a result or product of getting involved in the field of philosophy, not philosophy itself..

I think that one of the hardest difficulties that both philosophy and science have met in their history is when they said “Of course!” about anything. “Of course!” means “There's no need to inquire!” — Angelo Cannata

Thank you for your response to the topic.

You are right as far as philosophical quests are concerned. Doubts should always exist, but they should serve as a path in establishing truths and knowledge. Isn't this the purpose of philosophy and the philosophers?
But my "Of course!" was not a philosophical reply. It is a response from an individual who is very certain about something and his certitude concerns his reality. If he were always and constantly in doubt about everything, he would be a mentally ill person.

There's also something else: if I live in a constant doubt, it means that I would also doubt that I doubt. Which leads to vicious circle. And then of course to an asylum.

I think this is what Descartes meant by saying "We cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt".
Yet, the same philosopher also maintained that doubting one's own existence served as a proof of the existence of one's own mind and therefore of himself. But whis was meant as a mental "experiment". It didn't mean that we must always doubt our existence!

A persons's reality may include doubts but it cannot be built on doubting evertyting. It is mainly build on knowledge and certitudes. That is, on "Of course!"'es. :smile:

The existence of an external world may be without doubt but its nature can and should be doubted by all philosophers. — magritte

Thank you for your response to the topic.

Right. But you are almost repeating my words! :smile: I don't know if this is your way of agreeing or you didn't read my whole description of the topic or you just missed these points ...

...what seems is exactly as it appears to be. Modern philosophy still insists on this stretched presumption. This is where progress ends. — magritte

Good point.

I think this exchange is got quite "personal" and I don't want to burden this thread more. I will reply you with a message to your Profile page.

Look at your INBOX

Very good point and nicely put. :up:
(You are maybe the only one who has thought about that. Well, maybe the poster too. :smile:)

Thank you for your response to the topic.

Interesting quote and older post.

Thank you for your long and productive response to the topic.

Yes, certainly I remember that science and philosophy were once one thing. I have talked about that in many discussions. Some believe that they are still one thing, calling science as "natural philosophy". But let's be pragmatic. Science started to be a separate subject a long time ago, even before the term "science" was formulated in the 19th century, acquiring such names as "epistemology" in early 16th century, etc. So, today they are two different fields of knowledge.

Today, the cultural sciences -- Psychology (philosophy of mind), — Gnomon

Just a note about Psychology (which I have studied and "watched" its progress) : I cannnot call psychology a philosophy. And, although it maybe started as a science, using experiments and so on, today it can be hardly called a science. BTW, philosophy of mind has nothing to do with psychology. I have studied Psycology. The "mind "for Psychology is the "brain". For those who have studied and know what mind is --I am among them-- "laugh" with this idea. But one does not even have to study it; one has only to look what the "philosophy of mind" is.

Philosophical Progress :
the mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead reportedly summed up the Greek thinker's accomplishments with the remark, “All of Western philosophy is but a footnote to Plato.” — Gnomon

Great quote! Thanks for bring it :up:

Philosophical Science vs Natural Science :
The main difference is in the way they work and treat knowledge. 2. Science is concerned with natural phenomena, while philosophy attempts to understand the nature of man, existence, and the relationship that exists between the two concepts. — Gnomon

Excellent description! :up:

Thanks for your contribution to the topic.

OK. Thanks for responding to the topic.

That's a tough question. — jgill

Tough is good. :smile: Glad that I posted it. And thanks for responding.
I hope that interesting things will pop up, esp. from the more knowledgeable in the subject people in here, as you mentioned.