• What is the solution to our present work situation?
    Well, animals seem to not have this problem of self-awareness. — schopenhauer1
    Then you haven't been at the elephants' funeral.

    Either do machines. — schopenhauer1
    I give you that. Machines do not know the concept of futility. They know utility, functionality, and redundancy.

    Another problem would be that people would rather not be either of those, now that we've experienced our Promethean situation. — schopenhauer1
    Well, yes. And we wouldn't want to be in a stupor or in a coma either.
  • What is the solution to our present work situation?
    The error written in our code is that self-awareness leads to understanding of systemic futility. — schopenhauer1

    Then there's your answer: disconnect self-awareness and you're fine again.
  • How can the universe exist without us?
    Well, Rutherford discovered quite a few things about atoms in fairly short order, because he assumed there was order and structure to the universe, and to the atoms which make up the universe. I like that. It takes nothing away from the world to know that matter is ordered and structured. — Bitter Crank

    And of course he also knew that to know one atom is to know all atoms. This is not the case of white swan/black swan. Good god.
  • Schopenhauer and compassion: inconsistent ?
    Isn't this inconsistent; that is, these two conditions can't both possibly be true? — jancanc
    No, we are making a distinction between individuals who have experiences (empirically derived) and the will, which is metaphysically derived. These are two different realms, but they can co-exist.
  • How can the universe exist without us?
    The universe revolves around me, so should I not exist, it'd stop revolving. Yes, a revolving universe. That's what I said. — Hanover
    :grin:
  • The purpose of education?
    I wasn't, but I am an ageing hippy, so they probably read my mind. — unenlightened

    You're a legend now, unenlightened.
  • The purpose of education?
    Education is an indoctrination into a world that forbids creativity, individuality, and promotes conformity through competition and measurement of 'progress'. It is the industrial production of adults depressed into compliance with a vacuous and self-destructive world of production/consumption. — unenlightened
    Are you referring to another brick in the wall?
  • What is a philosophical question?
    I only stated that it cannot be answered by referring to empirical evidence, experiment, math or logic. If the question can be answered by such tactics, then the question is either an empirical one, like involving history, or a scientific one, which can be addressed by science, or a math problem or a problem in logic. — LD Saunders

    Good comeback.
  • Philosophical Jeopardy
    A (type of) philosopher who uses non-empirical method to arrive at truth.
  • David Hume's Argument Against The Goodness Of The Whole
    The title of this thread is wrong.
    Hume is arguing against speculative philosophy (metaphysical theories).

    The case is the same with moral as with physical ill. It cannot reasonably be supposed, that those remote considerations, which are found of so little efficacy with regard to one, will have a more powerful influence with regard to the other. The mind of man is so formed by nature that, upon the appearance of certain characters, dispositions, and actions, it immediately feels the sentiment of approbation or blame; nor are there any emotions more essential to its frame and constitution.
    "Those remote considerations" -- metaphysical theories that do not taken into considerations individual experiences. Individuals have sentiments, emotions, identity, and individual decisions.
  • What is a philosophical question?
    How can we distinguish philosophical question from other types of questions? What are the distinctive features of a philosophical question? — Pacem
    Philosophical questions are written as critiques, which may include questioning our ordinary way of seeing things, the certainty of our knowledge, what exists, our morality, etc. A lot of these are undertaken to expose the error of our habits and to point out our naïveté in what we take for granted as real and true.
  • Philosophical Jeopardy
    ↪aporiap
    Yes, that's correct.
  • Philosophical Jeopardy
    ↪Purple Pond
    :grin: Incorrect.
    Not sure if that answer is for my question, though.
    Also, if I give another hint, that would make it too easy. This philosopher is famous for theory on "Will".
  • Philosophical Jeopardy
    ↪René Descartes
    What is psychoanalytic theory? (Wild guess. I didn't google)

    He declared that human life is a never-ending suffering.
  • More Is Different
    ↪apokrisis
    All in good spirit. Like I said earlier, if this discussion is about the normative function of account of reality, no need to bother with reductionism. They are situated where they want to be.

    Holism has already beaten reductionism at the level of metaphysical generality. — apokrisis
    I don't know anything about this. Reductionism is not about generality.
  • Word game
    What if all underwear ran extra large?

    How do you _______ after you _____ ?
  • More Is Different
    To a reductionist, or an idealist, these are the same thing. — Dominic Osborn
    Yes, I realize that they are.
  • More Is Different
    But words like 'Absolutism' and 'Relativism' are just words, nominations. What does it matter if you call something 'absolutism' or 'relativism'? You haven't specified the difference these differences make. — StreetlightX
    Those concepts matter. We are having philosophical arguments, after all. We need to use certain concepts to explain what's going on here.
    Relativism is context-driven, absolutism is fundamental-driven (you can also say here, foundation-driven). The reductionist explanation doesn't need context as a crutch. As you say, their explanation is "context invarience". Okay. But I do not find the criticism "context invariant" as damaging to a method of explanation, such as the reductionist's. This does not weaken their theory. Why not? It's because context-driven explanation must necessarily use some form of reference point to relativize. And this point of reference must necessarily come from the fundamental laws themselves, which the reductionist had already set out.

    As for the cat, what about it? Again, what's the relavence? I think it would be more helpful if you elaborated the stakes involved in invoking these things. — StreetlightX
    The significance of Schrodinger's cat, if we follow the context-driven explanation, is that it is necessarily observer-driven. We could not make the judgment unless we look inside the box. The mechanism inside the box is designed so as to leave us guessing -- it could go one way, or another. Reconstruction is observer-driven.

    "The main fallacy in this kind of thinking is that the reductionist hypothesis does not by any means imply a 'constructionist' one: The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe. In fact, the more elementary particle physicists tell us about the nature of the fundamental laws, the less relevance they seem to have to the very real problems of the science, much less to those of societies". (Anderson, "More Is Different"). — StreetlightX
    But I think the mistake here is misunderstanding the reductionist's account of reality. If they want to solve the problem of science, do not look at reductionism. The above quote sounds like they want to talk about the ethical treatment of knowledge as it relates to science. That's fine. They should develop a theory on how best to explain the universe, given the scientist and a context, without having to appeal to reductionism. We should know that reductionism is unforgiving. The very first principles they developed was prior to the modern scientific method. They earned their salt.
  • Word game
    Confucius says be calm in the face of spider on the bathroom wall.

    Whenever I feel ______ I want to touch ________.
  • More Is Different
    This 'inability to reconstruct the universe' from first principles is, I think, the exact corollary of understanding reductionism as context-invarience: it means that there is no one-way street, and that explanation (of any phenomenon) needs to be (at least) 'two way' - context matters. — StreetlightX

    Okay, I read your last response to me, but I'd rather respond to this quote instead. I am sympathetic with your idea.
    lol. I am now officially defending reductionism. :smile:
    First, I think the definition of existence given by reductionism is one that denies context, complex, processes and manifolds as real. (You can correct me on this. )
    And then what's left? Absolutism. Reductionism is a true absolutism.
    I think when we start talking about context, reconstruction, and phenomena, we want to explain why relativism isn't being mentioned here. Is this not relativism? Better yet, why is this not a Schrodinger's cat?
  • The language of thought.
    If we all speak different languages, then that logically implies that there is a global language that comes before words, ie: we don't think in words. — Gary McKinnon

    This can confuse your readers. There is a global language that comes before words? Language is communication using words. Don't you mean "global communication" instead?
  • DEBATE PROPOSAL: Can we know how non-linguistic creatures' minds work?
    ↪Sapientia
    :grin: Yeah.
  • More Is Different
    In fact, the oddest thing about such reductionist programs is that, taken to their logical conclusion, the ability to reconstruct the universe from first principles is idealism in it's most extreme form; they literally 'vacate the world of its content' as it were, giving up empiricism - the very loadstone of science - for ideality. Yet this almost entirely antiscientific POV is what is almost universally associated with so-called 'hard core science'. It's both bizarre and saddening.

    The only definition of complexity with rigour that I know of is Robert Rosen's, which 'relativizes' complexity to our ability to model a particular system,     — StreetlightX

    (Good reference. I like Rosen's description of complex and simple).
    Yes, reductionists could be easily read as idealists. After all, the exercise of their intellect is of a priori kind -- what we see is what we don't understand.
    Reductionists are simply purists -- remove the clutter to get to the neat stuff. The point is not to reconstruct the universe, it is to see it as it really is.
    To put it simply, to the reductionist, the universe is complete.
  • More Is Different
    I realize I am sort of defending the traditional reductionism even through I am not a follower of this school of thought.
  • DEBATE PROPOSAL: Can we know how non-linguistic creatures' minds work?
    Creative's opponent in debate must pretend that this is all some kind of sham, and that we in fact don't know shit? — Sapientia

    :smile: It'd be hard to argue persuasively if it's only pretend.
  • What is Scientism?
    Again, if you actually read the whole post rather than just picking a fight, — Pseudonym

    Sorry if my posts sounded like picking a fight to you. I thought this was a philosophy forum. I should bow out of this thread then and not continue if this is how you summarize my questioning. It will be a waste of my time.
  • More Is Different
    This 'inability to reconstruct the universe' from first principles is, I think, the exact corollary of understanding reductionism as context-invarience: it means that there is no one-way street, and that explanation (of any phenomenon) needs to be (at least) 'two way' - context matters. — StreetlightX
    Excellent post!
    Phenomena and processes are 'complex' in the philosophical sense (of course, that is also true if strictly science). Reductionism in the true sense of existence denies the complex and what's left is ultimately the indivisible something -- say an atom. I don't suppose the (old) traditional reductionists would want to change the entire meaning of their endeavor. Reductionism is about what is ultimately cannot be denied.
  • What is Scientism?
    Where's this line of questioning going? It seems a bit random, some insight into where you're heading might help. — Pseudonym

    It's really simple. You right away defended the following quote by Putnam:
    "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective" — Pseudonym
    as merely Realism, without providing an argument that the line points to Realism. And that makes it okay to say? Not quite. This is a philosophy thread. You need to explain why you think that's just realism.

    Then, I asked you to think about your first experience, and the time when you were able (at an age that you could articulate or communicate it). You admitted under those conditions that not only you've had experience, but you could articulate it or communicate it. Did you have to wait for science to explain it to you and for you?
    You should be critical about the quotes you read.
  • DEBATE PROPOSAL: Can we know how non-linguistic creatures' minds work?
    ↪creativesoul
    You can organize the parameters this way:

    Given:
    Assumption:
    Question: (in a manner that two debating teams can take opposite sides.)

    Also, you may want to allow multiple-member teams - not one on one.
    So, pick your partner, then the other team will have two members as well.
  • What is Scientism?
    My senses, translated into thoughts by my brain. — Pseudonym
    So, you did have senses.

    The world; and I didn’t articulate it because I hadn't learned how to talk. — Pseudonym
    As a child?
  • Laws of Nature
    that science is useful and powerful, but it's not inherently meaningful in an existential sense. — Wayfarer

    Existentialism has been very vocal about this.
  • What is Scientism?
    The one we experience. Why would we have any cause to describe any other? — Pseudonym

    But when you first experience anything, where did that come from? As a young child, what did you experience and how did you articulate it?
  • What is Scientism?
    for example Hilary Putnam's definition, the belief that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective" — Pseudonym

    This is as good as you're gonna get it. Let us focus on this brief quote.
    Notice how Putnam puts 'science' (the manner or method of explaining the world) ahead of the nature of reality.
    The question then you should be asking is, First, what reality or world are we trying to describe? Why is science the default method of explanation given to whatever world we are trying to describe?
    Oh wait, what? Is there not only "one world"?
    Think about that. You, in fact, had already assumed there is just this reality, this one. Which one? Which reality are you trying to describe? Oh, it doesn't matter. Only science matters. It will explain whatever reality there is.
    As you can see, science, as that quote would have it (and I'm only relying on that one quote, as a disclaimer) determines the reality-- instead of the other way around.
    Explain to me how this happened. (I'm asking a real question)
  • What makes a philosophy "Neo"?
    This is a bit unclear, do you want to expand? — schopenhauer1

    The main argument against free will is that we live in a world that must obey cause and effect and the whole foundation of determinism and rationalism. Living in this world suppresses our ability to think of the 'impossible' and beyond. And that's where the pain is -- on the one hand, the proponents of free will are not anti-something, wholesale. They are not condemning anything -- just the illusion of the wall. On the other, this 'impossible other' is very difficult to articulate philosophically, let alone support.

    So, proponents of free will must first take the risky step of introducing that other part of our intellect that could accommodate thinking of the impossible:
    By introducing the impossible, they don't mean turning rocks into bread or any of that nonsense.
    The 'impossible' is really a misnomer -- they refer to impossible because normally, in this world, the sun rises in the morning and there's no arguing our way out of it. If then they begin to explain that the opposite could also be true, they are penalized with vulgar accusations and a exclamation of "But that's impossible! This world is in order. It has laws." and a possible relegation to philosophical nuisance.
  • Ethics has to do with choices, about what is right and wrong, about what is good and bad.
    exactly my point as well. Regardless of how you want to consider the origins, if you admit morality is a real thing, and that it determines what is right and wrong, an absolute claim on morality is an absolute moral claim. Its like drinking milk, talking about what you think of it, and denying its existence simultaneously, while admitting what you have in your hand and enjoy to drink and talk about is called milk. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

    :smile: Good god!
    Yes, once you admit it is 'real', it exists.
  • What makes a philosophy "Neo"?
    Neo-Schopenhauerean — schopenhauer1
    Drop the -ea-, please. Neo-Schopenhauern will suffice.

    The repetitious and systemic futility of life (what I call structural suffering), and the contingent harms of a particular life with its set of circumstances, etc. It has similar themes and conclusions and even can accept Will as a principle of sorts of nature and certainly in the human psyche, but perhaps without the Platonic forms, or his seemingly static, non-evolutionary metaphysics. — schopenhauer1
    (I sure hope you're not a follower of the Cynics.)
    Anyway, 'will' or freedom does not have to be at odds with non-suffering existence. I mean, you could be both free and not-suffering at the same time. Humanism, for instance, could possibly be the cure for the automatic, uncritical obedience to rationalism and scientism if we are willing to risk being called "un-philosophical".
  • Ethics has to do with choices, about what is right and wrong, about what is good and bad.
    Yes, but it is not absolute or existing outside of physical reality and it is a social construct. I never suggested that there was no such thing as morality. — René Descartes

    It's okay. We're not looking for absolute, just real.
  • Why consciousness is personal/local: A challenge for materialism
    These parts interact with each other. This means that there is one process which tells you the state of the system, motion of all particles. This means that there should be one consciousness if consciousness is the result of motion of particles. — bahman

    Ah. "Interact" but not interpenetrate.
  • Ethics has to do with choices, about what is right and wrong, about what is good and bad.
    So, you agree with this:

    morality is very much a social construction — Cavacava

    ↪René Descartes
    Then, are you agreeing that morality is real? Hint: the answer is yes.
  • Ethics has to do with choices, about what is right and wrong, about what is good and bad.
    I completely agree — René Descartes
    What are you agreeing with?
Home » Caldwell