By which you mean exactly what?metaphysical naturalism — Wayfarer
:100: :up:My objection: it's irrelevant that our descriptions of objects is mind-dependent- because it's logically necessary that they be so. What is relevant is whether or not the descriptions MAP to reality (i.e. it corresponds). — Relativist
... and as if 'mind' itself is not physical (i.e. a mind-independent property).What physicalism wants to do ... Physicalism forgets ... That is precisely what physicalism does ... — Wayfarer
nobody has been able to give a clear and distinct definition to the term — ProtagoranSocratist
Sounds like Schopenhauer's philosophy.I am influenced by Jung's understanding of metaphysics. It combines a Kantian understanding of the limits of epistemology with ideas from Eastern thi[nk]ing of the nature of consciousness. — Jack Cummins
I think of metaphysics as a synoptic, rational study of fundamental questions... — 180 Proof
The question is unwarranted (like 'Cartesian doubt'), so why it was asked is philosophically trivial. In a scientific sense, however, Einstein's question exposes the absurdity (i.e. category error) of speculatively extrapolating – as (scientistic quantum-woo) idealists/antirealists tend to do – properties from unmeasured quantum states to interacting (i.e. measured) ergo decoherent states such as "the moon" – after all, strawberries do not get their flavor from 'strawberry-flavored subatomic particles'. :smirk:‘Does the moon continue t exist when nobody is looking at it?’ Einstein asked Abraham Pais.
Why do you think he asked that question? — Wayfarer
The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself. — Carl Sagan, 1980
Like atomism: we and the universe are fundamentally the same 'atoms swirling in the void'. Spinozism too: natura naturata (modes) are ontologically inseparable from natura naturans (substance). :fire:... does not separate us from what is and what will be — Athena
I don't see any examples on this thread of anyone using physicalism as an ontological category. Your stipulation (as usual) is a red herring, Wayf. Speaking for myself, I know of no other standard as reliable as "the physical" either for truth-makers of non-formal truth-claims or for constraints on non-formal speculations. Btw, my "fundamental ontological primitive" – necessarily presupposed by every discursive practice (i.e. embodied cognition) – is anti-supernatural / non-spiritual / not-transcendent (i.e. the natural (e.g. vacuum fluctuations)).physicalism treats “the physical” as the fundamental ontological primitive — Wayfarer
Nonsense. "Physics is grounded" in useful correlations with natural regularities or processes. For example, Newton didn't even know what gravity was and only that a mathematical constant happened to work in his model of celestial mechanics. The following are some of the fundamentals of modern physics which even physicists do not (yet?) understand: quantum gravity, the nature of space time mass energy, matter-antimatter asymmetry, the beginning and end of cosmogenesis, etc.Physics is grounded in such irreducible acts of understanding.
Well, since no one has made such a "metaphysical assertion", Wayf, your statement is, at best, just another non sequitur.So when you insist that everything is “physical,” you are making a metaphysical assertion, not a scientific one ...
More nonsense. Demonstrate how "cognition" is "more fundamental" than whatever is (i.e. nature) that embodies "acts of understanding". A 'Machine in the Ghost'? (pace Bishop Berkeley)More fundamentally still, cognition...
:100: :up:I agree that we are born not so much with innate knowledge but with innate ability.
Carrying this idea forward, we could say that we are not born with an innate knowledge of space and time, but have an innate ability to recognise space and time in our sensibilities. In today’s terms, we could say that my innate ability to recognise space and time is a priori, where a priori is being used in a temporal sense. — RussellA
This seems to me to aptly describe @Wayfarer's m.o. (and that of some other TPF members of the woo-of-the-gaps gang).I surmise that you have no rational justification for your claims, and you have rationalized your position by blaming me for failing to grasp what you're saying. — Relativist
:100:Obviously, 1st person experience is central to a first-person perspective. It's also the epistemic foundation for understanding the world. But it seems an unjustified leap to suggest it is an ontological foundation - as you [@Wayfarer] seem to be doing. — Relativist
I tend to agree but for different reasons from the ones you give. From your 2020 thread How important are Fantasies? ...Spirituality and the issue of fantasy is important. — Jack Cummins
How do you know existence has "purpose"? What is that "purpose"?purpose of 'existence — Jack Cummins
If "a person" is real, then s/he belongs to "reality", therefore s/he cannot "construct reality".a person's construction of 'reality
By "beyond" you mean like math or poetry?'beyond' the physical
I don't think "intuition and reason" are "approaches" but rather are presupposed by "understanding".I am asking about the nature of intuition and reason and such approaches to understanding? — Jack Cummins
Their "significance" is linguistic, or discursive. (See E. Cassirer or G. Lakoff.)What is the significance of the symbolic approach, mythic understanding and how are these bound up with the idea of consciousness and its emergence in the historical development of human consciousness?
From an evolutionary perspective, in a nutshell: (non/human) "consciousness" seems to function as arousal, alarm and/or self-awareness.What is human 'consciousness' if it exists and consciousness as qualia?
"Understanding" – that "the nature of reality" is unconscious – is presupposed (i.e. embodied) by "consciousness".What does 'consciousness' represent in an understanding and how is this based on the seat of consciousness as a basis for understanding the nature of reality?
Yes, or hallucinatory. :sparkle:Spirituality [dis-embodiment / more-than-embodiment] can be regarded as fantasy...
An inquiry into – speculation about – 'what (the synoptic results of) physics means for understanding existence' ...what liesbeyond'physics' — Jack Cummins
C'mon, this same rhetorical question / rationalization has been invoked "In The Name Of God" by countless priests & princes at least since the Bronze Age (ergo theodicy, teleological suspension of the ethical, Deus Volt/Inshallah, ends justify means, just following orders, etc). :mask:... what harm is there to engage in genocide, enslavement, and anything else for that matter? — Outlander
Philosophy has always grappled with the 'meaning of Being', explicitly or otherwise.
— Wayfarer
I'd say it's more the case that it has grappled with the meaninglessness of being
You're not thinking philosophically, but like an engineer.
— Wayfarer
And in saying that you're pontificating like a fool. — Janus
:smirk: Denial is a hell of a drug ...With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
— Steven Weinberg
More bigoted baloney. — T Clark
When I consider the brief span of my life absorbed into the eternity which precedes and will succeed it — memoria hospitis unius diei praetereuntis
(remembrance of a guest who tarried but a day) — the small space I occupy and which I see swallowed up in the infinite immensity of spaces of which I know nothing and which know nothing of me, I take fright and am amazed to see myself here rather than there: there is no reason for me to be here rather than there, now rather than then.
Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed.
The eternal silence of these infinite spaces terrifies me. — Blaise Pascal, Pensées
:up: :up:Given that the experiential cannot be given an explanation then suggests that there is no blindspot - which would only be emphasized if one can give computational / information-processing account of the meta-problem of consciousness (i.e. give an account of information processing limitations that cause intelligent information processing agent to hit a brick wall when it comes to accounting for certain things that it perceived or processes). The blindspot is then only apparent if you think that explanations can do more than give predictive or relational accounts and should be about God's eye perspective; but they simply can't ... — Apustimelogist
:roll: Wtf: map (description) =/= territory (pain).Surely nobody can describe the feeling of pain such that another on hearing that description will know that particular pain ... — Wayfarer
No doubt derivations from Descartes and Spinoza, respectively. I read Kant as contra the latter (re: "pure reason") and yet inconsistently far more the former (along with Plato's "Allegory of the Cave").I had thought that the "2 world view" and the "2 aspect view" were competing interpretations in Kant scholarship. — Janus
:fire: Well said!The so-called "natural attitude" just consists in the refusal to submit one's thinking, experience and understanding to any dogma, and the "interpretive/ methodological" application "to science, historiography, law, pedagogy religion, etc." is simply the extension of that free-mindedness to the human disciplines. — Janus
This is caricature. Paradigms like physicalism are not applied "to philosophy" but interpretively / methodologically to experience, science, historiography, law, pedagogy, religion, etc.... physicalism [naturalism] is the attempt to apply the same mindset to philosophy. — Wayfarer
Only for subjects.The subject reality of existence is ine[lim]inable. — Wayfarer
Neither proves nor explains anything. And given that there aren't rational grounds to "doubt everything", The Cogito only makes explicit (its) presupposed (non-subjective, non-mental) existence.Cogito ergo sum.
"Non-physical power/process"? More fatuous nonsense. :lol:# First, Mind (consciousness, thoughts, feelings) is not an entity, but a process.
# Secondly, Mind (power to create imaginary ideas) is not physical — Gnomon
Put up or shut up, son.... the ground of metaphysics
— Sirius
Explain how and why "metaphysics" requires a "ground". — 180 Proof
:up: :up:Heidegger, who thought the great final transformation of humanity would come from the rise of Germans to world power, manifesting their potential to live in authenticity. He also believed all Jews would have to die in order for this grand vision to be realized. That's why you'll find in the book Mikie referenced a nod to the 'inner greatness of National Socialism.' That book is partly famous because it contains Heidegger's attempt to cover up his attachment to the Nazis. — frank
Obviously you've not studied Spinoza's work.The infinite& indivisiblesubstance of Spinoza is a bare substratum, which can never be actual in of itself, since it lacks determination altogether. — Sirius
So what? Hume dispenses with this "axiom" (more recently Q. Meillassoux's anti-correlationism).An undetermined being violates the [Parmenides] unity of being & intellect...
Explain how and why "metaphysics" requires a "ground".... the ground of metaphysics
:roll:Kant [ .... ] he was far more intelligent than Spinoza.
:chin:[M]y goal is to make a metaphysical statement true. — ucarr
So, I "believe" naturalism is true - basically I see no good reason to think anything unnatural exists. This is not an expression of certainty - I'm open to having this theory challenged and defeated. But the mere possibility it is false is not a defeater. — Relativist
We don't. :mask:And how do we get evil people to do good things? — Metaphysician Undercover
Yeah, but which happens to be true.More bigoted baloney. — T Clark
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ~Steven Weinberg... history ["the bronze age"] has devised ways [religions] to make us homicidal [scapegoat "them"]. — ENOAH
And your point is?I think that many religions understand that they are an issue of faith, not something evidence, which is comes back to my point here. — ssu
