Hegel defines himself as an idealist (read The Phenomenology of Mind) — 180 Proof

Where does Hegel call himself an idealist in the Phenomenology?

So for the philosophical naturalist, if the only tool at one's disposal is a hammer ... — javra

Physicalism is a metaphysics. But they like to think it is not.

If you have an argument make it.

Wiki is for beginners. I am no beginner.

However Hegel is at least widely perceived to put the ideational before the practical. — Tobias

Hegel was not a political activist. Most political philosophers do not want to be activists. Marx was different.

Hegel was an idealist in the sense that Hegel's though essentially deals with the conceptual and the conceptual apparatus we have of the world essentially determines what happens to it. — Tobias

Hegel never denied the reality of physical life and did not think reality was the ideal or conceptual. Marx wrongly defined Hegel as a idealist.

he was, you just don't know it. — Varde

I know Aristotle. He never called himself a mathematician.
Unless you want to say he was a biologist, physicist, literary critic, historian, philosopher, logician, cosmologist, political scientist, ethicist, philosopher of art.

To persuade you must know to speak the local dialect in your rhetoric. — Hillary

Which is different from dialectic.

There is no reason why we can't analyse mathematics and create philosophies; technically, because Aristotle said to do it, doesn't mean you do. — Varde

Aristotle was not analyzing math.

Aristotle initiated the study of logic. Aristotle was not a mathematician.

then answer the question using proper prose and not wrathful tapping of keys. — Varde

Last time. You really don't know what "nation" means?

then it is settled; no need to express your confusion so boldly, it's destructive. I believe that's antisocial. I feel insulted by your response, it's a sugar coat on what you're actually thinking at that time. It is throwing toys out of pram babyish, plus, no need to spam respond to a simple text. — Varde

You asked what "nation" means.

For the Greeks, dialectics was both rhetorical, as well as philosophical, though had no relation to the historical or the economic. — Hillary

For Aristotle dialectic was the pursuit of truth and rhetoric is the art of persuasion. They are opposites.

What are Nations? — Varde

Really, you don't know what a nation is?

Logic belongs with math... — Varde

I have no idea what that means.

Humanities is a reference to fields such as Literature, Art, etc. — Varde

...philosophy.

that's surely wrong by a large margin. — Varde

What exactly is wrong?

Logic. Math.
Ethics. Politics.
Metaphysics. Science.
Aesthetics. Humanities. — Varde

Math and logic are not the same thing.
Ethics is not politics; politics is about nations.
Aesthetics is the philosophy of art; there is no discipline called humanities.

Then where is the external program in our brain? — Hillary

Not external.

It's not a matter of opinion. — Hillary

I did not say it was.

The process is not a program. A program resides external to the process. That's exactly my point. — Hillary

Which I do not agree with. No need to repeat this debate.

Yes, but where is the program directing the process? — Hillary

The program is the process.

No. In AI, everything is programmed by a program you can point to. Where is the program in our brain? — Hillary

The way the brain functions. It's a finite object.

That's not programmed. That's part of the free process. — Hillary

Ok, same as AI.

Because there is a split between the process and the program directing it. Of course the program evolves freely when set in motion, but the process it directs is programmed and thus not free. It depends on the program inserted by us. — Hillary

Just as humans cannot fly, teleport, or calculate the distance to the moon by looking at it. Programmed.

But its nit a freely evolving process. — Hillary

Why not?

Conscious life can appear only in a freely evolving process, — Hillary

If AI is part of the evolution of the universe then it can understood as part of nature.

I think it follows that a machine that would be conscious — Olivier5

Why does a machine have to be conscious?

I think Kant means the validity of a priori judgements are demonstrated by experience.

“....The possibility of experience is, then, that which gives objective reality to all our à priori cognitions....”

An a priori judgement is an a priori cognition, insofar as a judgement is the synthesis of representations from which a cognition follows. As such, then, an a priori judgement is valid iff a possible experience may follow from it. All this is intended to show, is that we can synthesize all the representations we want, but if they don’t lead to an experience, or a possible experience, they are generally useless. Or what he calls “without sense or meaning”. Which is the conventional way of describing the ever-dreadful transcendental illusion.

We’ve been here before, and honestly, I can’t find anything to substantiate Kant’s acknowledgement as you’ve posited it. I’d understand if you’ve no wish to pursue this line of disagreement; to each his own, etc, etc..... — Mww

A priori means before experience, or a condition of experience.

it does, go ask any priest if you don't believe me. — SpaceDweller

Priests are condemning of Protestants.

This is far from truth, if I recall correctly epistle to the Romans says one can be saved by good deeds if it never had a chance to hear the gospel or become Christian. — SpaceDweller

I never heard of a church believing that.

It's one-way. If it were 'both', then Kant would not have said anything. If you want to show otherwise, you'll need to back it with some references. — Wayfarer

Same to you.

Kant's 'copernican revolution in philosophy' - that things conform to thoughts, not thoughts to things. — Wayfarer

Both, for Kant.

What do you think? — Paulm12

Intelligent Design is religion.

I'm linking a thread here where there are articles linked to support biological changes leading to intelligence of humans. — L'éléphant

First, I never read links.
Second, I do not see how my comment led to you talking about biology.

It means, as we speak, AI remains to be a computer. Until someone had created a human with human minds, let's keep this discussion within the reality of what we have available. — L'éléphant

I do not think we know what human intelligence is. So, AI is as good a form of intelligence and any other. AI is not trying to imitate the human mind.

Until then, let's stick to reality. — L'éléphant

No idea what that means.

Dan Zahavi has spent his career meticulously defining ‘the feeling of what it is like for me’. I dont happen to agree with him; too Kantian for me. — Joshs

Fuck Kant. I think he is a dope. And I read the Critique of Pure Reason entirely in grad school.

We can't say that computing is the same as thinking. — L'éléphant

No, but I think AI will be a different kind of thinking and not merely computing.

Therefore , what it is like for me to experience the ‘same’ color over time is never the same for me, because I am never the same ‘I’. — Joshs

Yes. A trained artist literally sees colors other do not. They can, but is a learned skill.