Check out Heidegger — macrosoft
I think your post is based on a fundamental mistake about what philosophers, prior to modernity, thought that science was — Wayfarer
In my view, it is "semantic" matter, or linguistic one in general.an exploration of the limitations of linguistic understanding and what language means beyond the colloquial use — I like sushi
Kant would not be agree that philosophy is contradictions free.pure human thought without any fallacies, prejudices, or contradictions — hks
Science works on assumptions (theoretical side). The prescribing role could be interesting. Some philosophical accounts have turned to psychological theories (e.g. the mental files theory of Perner, grounden in Frege`s semantic). But it is (theoretical) science after all.focused on critically examining assumptions that we make, as well as trying to describe, account for and occasionally prescribe things about the world based on abstract structural relations — Terrapin Station
Again, it is science. Science is not just to make experiments, but to design the experiments, which is often the claimed matter of philosophy, contrarily to the common view of philosophers.Philosophy is logical investigation which provides a coherent concept — Galuchat
There is no way for a premise to be determined true or false except relative to another premise — khaled
Saying we are living in a simulation run by super intelligent beings is logically the same as saying we live in a universe created by God — T Clark
1) Mental states and occurences are defined by their functional roles.
2) The functional roles so defined are filled by states of and occurences in the brain (well, let's be honest, you'll need more than just a brain to fill some of these functional roles, the rest of the body will probably have to get a look-in).
3)Therefore, mental states and occurences are brain (bodily) states and occurences. — MetaphysicsNow
The terms "instrumentalism", "functionalism", "pragmatism" mean different things in different contexts and in some contexts are not even compatible with each other. — MetaphysicsNow
But it's curious how so many people can believe that transistor-switchings somewhere can create a world, but that a world couldn't consist of the system of abstract facts itself — Michael Ossipoff
then not only is the simulation more probable in the future, is it not inevitable? — Arne
he was saying that our physical world could be a computer program that doesn't need a computer — Michael Ossipoff
Or perhaps I could think with someone else's brain, and not my own? — MetaphysicsNow
Does your concept of consciousness, in the context of philosophy of mind, admit of degrees of consciousness? — bert1
What distinugishes a human from a computer? — TheMadFool
Very well, here is an example, the precision of an iq test has the 95% reliability interval at measured iq + or - 15 iq points. 15 iq points is also the standard deviation in measured iq in a population. — Tomseltje
wich claim I made are you referring to? — Tomseltje
Why do you want me to cite an iq test as evidence? — Tomseltje
Wich theory would that be, and why don't you consider it to be plausible? — Tomseltje
My point is that we still have much to improve on iq tests to increase their accuracy — Tomseltje
Since the term "intelligent" is not universally well defined, their measurement is obviously not easy. IQ tests are one of these attempts to define "intelligent" so that measurement can be done. — FLUX23
By God you are right! — MetaphysicsNow
And the only thing that IQ tests have ever been able to tell about anyone is how good or bad they are at taking IQ tests. — MetaphysicsNow
Physical Red light has the Property of Wavelength. Conscious Red Light has the Property of Redness. — SteveKlinko
We experience the Red and recognize it as a Category of Experience that we call Color — SteveKlinko