Both of you worship science, but scientists are open-minded like me.

And it's more promising than the religiously influenced fantasies that you're peddling. — S

I’m not religious. That is a misrepresentation.

So bringing up that we haven't excluded some possibility is irrelevant. — Terrapin Station

I don’t subscribe to scientism, and there are many widely held beliefs among scientists that there is no evidence for, such as the multiverse, that black holes retain information, that there is extraterrestrial life, different theories yet differing opinions about the expansion of the universe, etc.

There’s no evidence that there is a multiverse, but it is a widely held speculation among cosmology physicists, you anti-science buffoon.

Empirical claims are not provable. Precluding possibilities is irrelevant to them. So that we haven't precluded a possibility in the context of an empirical claim is a red herring. It has nothing to do with support for an empirical claim, nothing to do with reasons to believe one claim over another, etc. — Terrapin Station

No, they’re not provable. That was my point.

Ask the Hume expert @S.

Sure. So, are empirical claims provable? — Terrapin Station

If we were to preclude all possibilities but one, that would be a proof, correct? — Terrapin Station

I suppose that’s logically correct. However, we haven’t done that yet.

Even if it's possible, absent any evidence, it's a possibility that only fools would take seriously. So you're fighting a losing battle here. — S

That sounds like an argument from incredulity.

If we've precluded all possibilities but one, then that one thing can't be wrong, no? — Terrapin Station

How have we precluded all possibilities? What is the justification for that?

No. Lack of evidence also PROVES nothing.

By the complete absence of evidence of it occurring elsewhere. That's the same way that we know that Led Zeppelin music only occurs on Earth. — Terrapin Station

Lack of evidence doesn’t preclude the possibility. There is lack of evidence that consciousness exists outside of this planet.

I would guess you might be an example.

That's not at all the case. Consciousness is very clearly a subset of brain function. — Terrapin Station

And you’ve died already to say that that is clearly shown? What hubris. How do you know that consciousness only occurs in brains? What is your justification?

I definitely do not choose any stance because I like it. In fact, I'd often prefer that other things were true. I choose stances based on what's the case. — Terrapin Station

It is the case that physicalism has no answer and will never have an answer for consciousness. To so readily discard that which is a given to each of us as unworthy of attention is folly, imho.

Yeah, well, um, you know, that’s just like your opinion, man. -The Dude (a true philosopher)

That’s your opinion.

Kant made mince-meat out of Hume.

I know, at least, that one has a better chance of obtaining it through a means other than those known to be faulty, such as wishful thinking and confirmation bias. You want there to be a God, and, lo and behold, you interpret the science so as to lead to God. That's not the approach of a seeker of truth, that's the approach of someone who is out to indulge in pleasing deception, whether consciously or unconsciously. — S

S thinks that analytical philosophy is superior to continental philosophy, and that the 17th and 18th century philosophers did nothing of note. I don’t know why I engage with him. He isn’t about discovery, about the world or about himself. He seems to think that the consensus in the scientific community at any given time is the end all and be all. He has no imagination, and he just parrots back what he has learned from Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. — Noah Te Stroete

Would you rather hear kind words or harsh truths? — S

And what do you know about truth. You’re no better than a nihilist.

I sympathize with your position, but you can't really discuss it with materialists because they disagree with your premises, but then you disagree with theirs so it doesn't lead anywhere. Still I think that people who believe in the primacy of consciousness over matter are usually less narrow-minded. But it's hard to show someone narrow-minded that they are narrow-minded, they have to be willing to let go of their convictions, or at least to tentatively entertain different points of view without reacting strongly right from the beginning against what they don't believe in. — leo

Thank you. S thinks that analytical philosophy is superior to continental philosophy, and that the 17th and 18th century philosophers did nothing of note. I don’t know why I engage with him. He isn’t about discovery, about the world or about himself. He seems to think that the consensus in the scientific community at any given time is the end all and be all. He has no imagination, and he just parrots back what he has learned from Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

It is a good exercise to try to find the most basic building blocks of the Universe. Science has traced it back to Energy, but you are Speculating that Spirit or what I would call Consciousness is a more fundamental building block. I don't see how you make Energy from Consciousness, but it is a good Speculation. There's nothing wrong with Speculation. You don't need to have all the answers to have a Speculative Insight. Maybe just the thought that Energy and thus Matter are actually made out of Consciousness will inspire some other Mind to discover the answer. By the way, when it comes to Consciousness all we have is Speculation because nobody — SteveKlinko

Thank you for the kind words.

S, has nothing to teach. I suggest, learning from someone else if dialectics is your thing. — Wallows

I will try to make that my last interaction with him.

A wonderfully tasty ego boost called "personal attack" gets the rhetorical palate juiced up and ready to go. — creativesoul

Delusions of persecution? Sorry, couldn’t resist.

Does anyone like you? If so, then they’re probably insufferable pricks as well.

Unironically I would give that as the most effective answer to all these questions (especially 9-10), or some other psychedelic like psilocybin. Or rather, attempting to answer these questions oneself while under the influence. I think that would work better than attempting to follow guidelines that were summarized into words. Something to try at least. — leo

It was a suggestion, and I was only partly trying to be funny. :wink:

I would disagree with the claim that only words have meaning. — creativesoul

Would you argue that any form of representation has meaning (including art, photographs, etc.)? What about a door? When I see a door, I know I can potentially open it and walk through it. Does a door have meaning? Or, what about my Grandfather’s burial flag? It might have meaning to me that it doesn’t for others. What about that?

LSD worked for Steve Jobs.

Sorry, but I would have to just say that almost everyone I talk to says I’m full of shit. Mostly everyone in my experience says that there’s no such thing as abnormal psychology and psychiatrists are quacks. So you’re in good company. Sorry I offended you.

I think you got it half right (in my experience at least). I have been told by 12 different psychiatrists and one counselor (and my wife who has a master’s degree in counseling) that I have schizoaffective disorder, which is a mood disorder and a thought disorder. My emotions drive my thoughts to a large extent, but what you didn’t get right (at least for me) is that my thoughts also influence my emotions. When bad memories pop up (which they often do out of nowhere from my loose associations between and among my thoughts) I start to feel angry or sad or apathetic. When good memories pop up (usually out of nowhere) I get good emotions. When I get good emotions, then I think about funny things and make jokes or act silly. This reinforces my good emotions and thoughts until my loose associations bring up a bad memory again. Then I’m back to negative emotions.

It seems to me that you don’t have a thought disorder, but it sounds like you have a mood disorder. Nothing to get down about per se, but once you are aware of it, then you can maybe get help.

That said, I’ve been under psychiatric care for twenty years now, and I’m still a hot mess.

Best wishes to you.

I hope all antinatalist men “accidentally” get their female partners pregnant and she refuses to get an abortion. Or are they all celibate?

Physicalism cannot explain consciousness. S singles out my posts for some reason. He said I have a “God delusion.” I never argued for a particular god or implied that I know the nature of God. A delusion means having a false belief. This from someone who in other threads stated he had no beliefs about God one way or the other. Now he says it’s “delusion,” and says I don’t care about the truth. Weird.

I made a category error in my argument. I own that. I own that this line of thinking is purely speculative. So what? One cannot appeal to one’s subjective experiences in philosophy? Consciousness IS subjective, and materialism CANNOT explain consciousness as consciousness is by its nature a private domain. The scientific method cannot touch it. So, to completely disregard the only thing that I have certainty of, viz. my subjective experience (my consciousness) is patently absurd and hardly a disregard for the truth.

At least you can learn, which is more than we can say for 90+ percent of the folks around here. ;-) — Terrapin Station

It’s just that my life was very lonely and shitty when I was an atheist. :fear:

What you pointed out would be like saying, "Yes, perhaps the sun is warming things, but without a camera, there could be no photographs." — Terrapin Station

You’re right. You beat me.

In that trying, beware the bane of speculative philosophy.....the dreaded, but nonetheless ever-present, categorical error. — Mww

I tried.

It’s very difficult to keep up with this barrage from now three people. I don’t read edited posts. Please repost. I will not respond to @S.

Does sunlight not interact with all the places on earth where nobody is looking and that's why the globe is warming? — Razorback kitten

Warming and inhabitability are human and life-form problems, but you make a good point. It may be that the motion of air particles is speeding up, oscillating at a higher frequency, but without a subjective experience by someone, there would be no notion, knowledge, or experience of this. It would have no meaning. It wouldn’t matter. Pardon the pun.

Was my comment about epistemology, or somehow saying anything pro or con what you responded with? — Terrapin Station

Metaphysics and epistemology go hand in hand. Without epistemology, there would be no metaphysics.

So then you understand why it was silly to point out that man-made machines are made through human intentionality, and that they require a conscious mind in design, execution, and interpretation? — S

That is why a consciousness is required to observe an inflation of a fluctuation in the quantum foam. Without an observer, there would be no Big Bang. This is one theory of how the universe began. A fluctuation in the quantum foam expanded and inflated into our universe. Just as wave functions require an observer to collapse, it would seem that an observer would be required for the fluctuation in the quantum foam to come into existence.

My bad. I thought I was responding to @Terrapin Station. Fuck off S.

Because, for example, energy makes no sense without there being something that's in motion or capable of motion. — Terrapin Station

Knowledge or perception of motion requires an observer. Without an observer, something there might just as well be nothing there. There’s nothing to discern the motion to say there is motion.

Do you believe that there are properties of things without conscious observers? — Terrapin Station

I believe we could have no knowledge of them or know anything about them.