Scientific method like all methods has limitations in offering Proofs. — Benj96

I am saying that physicalism is not science.

Should I object that my use of "necessary" was pretty clearly circumscribed in what I wrote? — Srap Tasmaner

Necessity is just a statement about history. For example, Schrodinger said we need to transform the concept of necessity in science to observations of behavior.

Very true. But perhaps time to a human and time to the universe are very different. We know its rate objectively depends on distance, gravity, relativity etc and also “human time” is somewhat arbitrary : assigned to relatively quick cycles that we can observe. But for something that exists as long as the universe could - perhaps life and humanity arose in reasonable haste. Alas we most likely cannot appreciate that in its entirety I suppose considering we are only here for an average of 70-80 years or so. — Benj96

Okay. So I see the universe as intelligent, an intelligent system. Having consciousness is just one aspect of that consciousness. Though I subscribe to panpsychism, I do not think intelligence requires self consciousness.

Interesting, could you elaborate a bit more? Also out of curiosity by what criteria is something “proven” to you or in the sense that you’re using it here?
Is it proven if it’s consistently the same throughout time - ie repeatability? If it stands to reason/ logic, or if you have first hand experience/ have observed it? Or other possible proofs? — Benj96

So, science moves by proofs, not beliefs. If a scientist or philosopher says physicalism is true, we expect proofs.

The natural conclusion is that either universes cannot exist in any other way but one that leads to an observer, — Benj96

If the universe had intention to create humans it sure took a long time.

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

Physicalism is a metaphysics. There is no way to prove it false or true.

And did, practically forever.

Should that bother us? — Srap Tasmaner

It should bother people who believe the universe wanted to have humans in it and that is the sole purpose of the universe.

I'm perfectly happy to say that art and philosophy are unnecessary in exactly this sense. — Srap Tasmaner

If you want to go this far, then human life is not necessary. The universe can exist without us.

If you want to chat, engage without the insults. — Philosophim

Philosophy is not "chat." And writing a bunch of questions is not having a dialogue.

You get what you ask for.

Does this mean all of my personal experiences are art? — Philosophim

Do you know what the word "about" means?!

Try to engage with more than one sentence Jackson. — Philosophim

What you are saying is extremely elementary and boring. Try to say something worth responding to. You want this?

Why are a bunch of colored sguiggle lines slopped on a canvas considered art compared to a realistic picture of a lake? — Philosophim

Again, no idea what you are referring to by "slopped on a canvas considered art." Can you give an example?

So what I mean by objective is something that exists apart from a human's personal experience. — Philosophim

Art is about a human's personal experience.

What are the degrees of art. Why are some things considered more artistic than others? — Philosophim

I don't even understand the question.

Feel free to enlighten me! — Philosophim

Sure. The objective/subjective dichotomy is meaningless. If there were no subjects no art would exist because no humans would exist. So, humans make objects.

What are propositions? What is a language? What is science? What are numbers? etc. — Harry Hindu

4th graders solved the problem of the nature of language? Is this your position?!

Currently art is considered subjective. — Philosophim

By you. I see no argument for that.

Unless you are a mean sort of fella.

There were three guys from Sparta
Each had a mean sort of phalla.
They cleaned up the town
Their leader went down
In history books as Fella. — god must be atheist

silly

Yes, that rings a bell. I remember reading somewhere that ( at least some) of the Positivists saw him as their mentor and wanted him to participate in their meetings, but he disabused them of the notion that they were doing something along the lines of what he was, I can't remember specific names either, and I can't be bothered looking it up. — Janus

Yes, exactly. That is what I was referring to.

You're referring to those in the Vienna School who thought that? — Janus

I don't remember their names anymore. But it was a group which W. was attending and told them he did not agree with them.

Both Wittgenstein and Popper, for quite different reasons, refused to be identified as part of that school. — Janus

And Wittgenstein rejected those who thought they were following his agenda.

↪Jackson I don't think we disagree in this connection either.

↪Joshs So, would you say the Logical Positivists, and the Analytics whose main concern is with propositional and modal logic, are the odd ones out (are there others?) islands cut off from the diverse mainland of philosophy? — Janus

The positivists made everyone dumber. If you want to do science, do science.

I do not think we disagree.

If philosophers today really do "comprehend their own time in thoughts", does that mean they also comprehend how our own time and its thoughts were arrived at? If you want to say they do, would this be all philosophers, or only some, and if only some, then which ones? — Janus

I don't know if philosophers today would agree with Hegel. Especially the science based ones.

No, p-zombies are a thought experiment, — hypericin

I know what it is.

Yet, p zombies are thoughtless, as are you. — hypericin

Agree.

Worries about zombies is a vestige of the Christian idea of a soul.

Courage is great but it means knowing the mean between cowardice and recklessness. — Tobias

I think Aristotle says courage is what makes the other virtues enacted. Knowing the mean is not the same as acting on it.

Philosophers are the ones that don't seem to realize that as they attempt to re-ask the same questions we asked and solved in the 4th grade. — Harry Hindu

What are those questions?

Best statement on the topic of progress in philosophy: " philosophy is its own time comprehended in thoughts." (Philosophy of Right, Hegel, preface).

https://hscif.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Hegel-Phil-of-Right.pdf

Smolen is a big fan of Leibniz. He has pointed out that it is only fairly recently that scientists have ignored or disparaged philosophy. He points out that scientists of Einstein's generation had more than a passing interest in philosophy. — Fooloso4

Bohr and Heisenberg actually wrote legitimate philosophy. Not just reflections.

I think Heidegger was on the right track when he said that in the movement of thought some things are occluded. Hence the importance of retrieval. — Fooloso4

Retrieve what?

Some people think that the continued interest in Plato and Aristotle is regressive. I do not agree. — Fooloso4

Most philosophy departments offer classes in ancient Greek philosophy.
I think the idea of progress is an idea coming from science and does not have much relevance to philosophy.

Progress toward what end?

The goal or assumption of progress in philosophy might be regressive. — Fooloso4

Philosophy is very different from science. In science people do not talk about past science. In philosophy, people still talk about Plato and Aristotle as live topics.

3. Art - What is it, and why is it needed? — Philosophim

Art is largely founded on the subjective, so pulling out an objective result faces its own challenges. — Philosophim

Then all of everyone's life is "subjective."

In other words, say someone's actions harm a group of people, I show them how their actions cause harm, and they respond with "why should I care?" — Paulm12

That is how a sociopath answers.
Morals are norms, shared customs.

I mean, we can imagine consciousness without reason, so why not reasoning without consciousness? — Gregory

That is what I think. Thinking can take place without consciousness. Why I think wondering about sentient AI is beside the point.

I don't need God to act "morally" in the sense that I think plenty of people who don't believe in God act morally. But personally, I need God as an explanation (or justification) to why objective moral values exist and that our faculties (rational and emotional) correspond to the existence of these values. It may be strange to say but JL Mackie (and his argument from queerness) actually pushed me towards theism as an explanation to why our moral intuitions could track true or false statements. — Paulm12

What morality are you referring to that depends on God? Does one need God to not kill, steal, or lie?
Isn't not harming others pretty straightforward and practical?

Personally, I'm committed to moral realism. And this led me to theism, or the belief that God exists to explain moral realism. Of course, there are those who become moral anti-realists because they realize that moral realism may require theistic belief, and theism is "too high of a price" to pay for moral realism. The moral arguments for the existence of God are the most compelling to me. — Paulm12

Why do you need God in order to act morally?