-
The Sciences Vs The HumanitiesG.U.T. =/= "T.O.E." (both in physics and anatomy :smirk:) because the latter is pop-sci / metaphysical hype and the former is a scientific research program.
So you're "absential materialism" (or "strategic incompleteness") is Kantian?When we speculate about the nature and content of this world, of course we’re doing it within the scope of NI. This leads me to say we don’t and can’t really know a non-NI world. -
US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
In that case it wouldn't matter one wit that you'd lived here. :mask:Had I lived in the States, I wouldn't vote. — Tzeentch
:victory: Yes, the next POTUS sure did.Kamala won that debate. — NOS4A2
:up: :up:Trump is the greater evil. Don’t overthink it. — Mikie
Like Ronald Reagan (whom I loathed), Kamala Harris is, if anything (besides highly competent), a happy warrior. :strong: :cool: -
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
:smirk:Well that was fun. Now about that genocide… — Mikie -
The Sciences Vs The Humanities
Clarify this phrase (in context, of course). Thanks.the omnipresence of cons — ucarr -
The Sciences Vs The Humanities
Are you asking whether or not the world lacks subjects? or lacks subjective aspects? Insofar as subjects are self-reflexive, adaptive objects (which are 'entangled' to varying degrees with (all?) other objects), the unambiguous answer is 'the "objective world" also has subjective constituents'. Anyway, perhaps you can clarify precisely what you mean by "objective" – are you using it as an epistemological concept or a metaphysical concept?Is a purely objective worldout there? — ucarr -
The anthropic principle and the Fermi paradox
Yes. Or maybe we have received their signals but our systems lack the sensitivity and/or bandwidth to distinguish those signals from the cosmic background noise (e.g. maybe they use neutrinos rather than EM waves). That would also filter us out as still too primitive (e.g. one of many Kardashev Level less-than-1 species) to reveal themselves to.The fact that we have not received any signals does not mean that they are not out there, it just means that we have not received signals. — Sir2u -
Relativism vs. Objectivism: What is the Real Nature of Truth?
Whether or not it is (I don't think it is), the OP clearly doesn't use "truth" that way.Isn't truth a metaphysical concept? — T Clark -
The Sciences Vs The HumanitiesYour "physics of nature" is redundant (unless you believe there is "physics of" something other than "nature", which doesn't make sense).
-
The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?
:up: :up:Speculation is fun, but if you want to get serious you have to get your hands dirty and commit to the grind ;) — I like sushi -
The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?The claim of "pseudo-science" is not just someone "expressing their opinion"; the claim can be shown to be true or not true – to wit: if an explanation of phenomena is not testable, even in principle, then it is not a science (i.e. pseudo-science). Whatever else Dispenza's "mind-body" quackery might be, afaik, it is demonstrably not a science. And, imo, speculation based on pseudo-science, Jack, is merely pseudo-philosophy (e.g. esoterica). :sparkle: :eyes:
-
The anthropic principle and the Fermi paradox
From a 2020 thread Aliens!
Btw, barely a century of terrestrial technoscience, our so-called "Fermi Paradox" seems wildly premature. — 180 Proof -
Relativism vs. Objectivism: What is the Real Nature of Truth?
Of course; but I didn't claim or imply otherwise. There are virtuous circles and vicious circles, and the latter are self-refuting ones (e.g. OP's definition of "relativism").Not all self-reference is self-contradictory. — T Clark
Well maybe, TC, but the OP posits epistemological positions (on "truth"), not metaphysics.Relativism and objectivism are metaphysical positions. -
The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?I just can't grok this gobbledygook, mate. Sorry. Reads like trumpian word salad to me. :mask:
:up: -
The Sciences Vs The Humanities
Yeah, that's ancient neoplatonism ... subjective idealism (Berkeley), monadology (Leibniz) or absolute idealism (Hegel). This anti-realist thesis is conceptually incoherent (like 'panpsychism'). Read Hume & Q. Meillassoux/R. Brassier.Consciousness and existence being linked biconditionally is radical conjecture. — ucarr
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/584/what-are-the-major-points-of-meillassouxs-critique-of-correlationism
Also, this "conjecture" is, like teleology, without modern scientific significance, imho.
I've neither claimed nor implied this.You don’t allow that causation is a part ofthe physics ofnature. -
The Sciences Vs The HumanitiesI'm pretty sure I've directly or indirectly answered these already .
-
The Sciences Vs The Humanities
No, it is inferred (read Hume ...)Is causation an emergent phenomenon? — ucarr
It could not be anything else (read Epicurus or Spinoza ...)Or Is it just partof the physicsof nature? -
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
Your willful ignorance is stunning, BC. :sweat:I don't believe Zionism is inherently correlated to Jewish religiosity.
I don't think ... — BitconnectCarlos -
Relativism vs. Objectivism: What is the Real Nature of Truth?
And therefore if relativism is true for some and not others, then it is self-refuting as a claim (i.e. relativism is relative ... "truth is subjective" is subjective ... :roll:). This is incoherent, of course, and not a viable, or reasonable, alternative to 'objective truth' (so the OP's poll is a false choice).And Relativism?
In contrast, relativism claims that truth is subjective and dependent on context, cultural beliefs, and individual perspectives. What is true for one person or culture might not be true for another. — Cadet John Kervensley
This doesn't follow since "right and wrong" are use-claims (i.e. evaluations, selections, preferences (re: plurality)) and not truth-claims (i.e. propositions (re: objectivity)) – not to be confused with "relativism", pluralism is objective (i.e. many different paths through / maps of the same terrain, or many different perspectives on / aspects of the same thing). Btw, there are reasonable conceptions of 'objective morality' such as (e.g.) moral naturalism¹.For instance, in matters of morality, what is considered right or wrong can vary depending on cultural or historical contexts, reinforcing the idea that truth is relative.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/857773 [1] -
The Sciences Vs The Humanities
Of course. "Consciousness", such as it is, at least is an effect – output – of neurologically complex body-environment interactions. In other words, imo, mind is nonmind (i.e. causal nexus)-dependent, or causally emergent phenomenon. How can it not be (sans woo-of-the-gaps idealism (e.g. "disembodied consciousness"))? :chin:Does causality exist in a world without consciousness? — ucarr
With all due respect, man, you're confusing yourself with a buttload of semantic gibberish (i.e. mismash of epistemic and ontic terms) and pseudo-scientific assumptions (e.g. "observer" = "measurement" = "consciousness"). Bad philosophy derived from bad physics. :roll:
:up: :up: -
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
No doubt, as a post filled with strawmen & non sequiturs show, you're a willfully ignorant apologist for zionfascism. :shade:I stopped reading here. — BitconnectCarlos
:up: -
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West BankBibi's regime + settler movement = Hamas, etc. IMO, "both oppressors" have forfeited their "right to exist". Secular Jews & secular Arabs have been effectively disenfranchised for decades, thus the incessant cycles of atrocities & reprisals driven by religious extremists on both sides. As a matter of fact, zionfascist Bibi has supported Hamas for decades in order to "justify" apartheid, torture and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by the Shin Bet & IDF; apparently not enough Israelis have been slaughtered yet for Jews to break the death grip of their zionfascism. Even Sharon in the end had agreed with Rabin (& Barak) that the "Greater Israel" policy – lebensraum – (movement) will eventually destroy Israel and therefore has to cease asap. And yet, decades on, reciprocal mass murdering continues.
-
People Are Lovely
Lovely. :flower:Thread Title: People Are Lovely
To the degree they are interesting (i.e. unfamiliar), I agree.— 180 Proof
Well, that's an interesting perspective :chin: — Amity
Familiarity breeds ... "bizarre and beautiful spider" bites.The unfamiliar certainly holds its attraction, as can the familiar.
Or mistaken identity – shock of recognition – (like "seeing a ghost"). Btw, I don't care for musicals. :meh:Your words had a strange effect. I thought: 'strangers across a crowded room'. First Love? -
Calling on any theoretical physicists or philosophers that enjoy the topic of relativity and quantum
The latter (truism) doesn't justify, or imply, the former (disbelief).I don't believe the main physical domains can be reconciled without consideration for the role of the observer - we are not separate/isolated from the system we wish to understand. — Benj96
Why? Suppose what we call "observer" is only an aspect of "the environment" that "interacts" with other aspects of "the environment", then there is no "boundary". Consider Carlo Rovelli's RQM ...[T]he "physical" observer MUST interact with the "physical" environment at some boundary by some set rules and principles.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics -
People Are Lovely
To the degree they are interesting (i.e. unfamiliar), I agree.People Are Lovely — Amity -
Calling on any theoretical physicists or philosophers that enjoy the topic of relativity and quantumGiven that human facticity is classical and nonrelativistic, I don't see the philosophical relevance – existential import – of either relativistic physics or quantum physics. We are proximate beings (i.e. locally embodied metacognitives), not beings who pre/judge and re/act at the fundamental scales of nature. Explain, for instance, how ethics, aesthetics and/or logic are derived from (or even entailed by) Relativity / QM-QFT, and therefore why 'we (non-academic) philosophers' should even consider such knowledge-domains in our reflections.
(Btw, my critical concern here is (mostly) pragmatic and not Hussserlian, Kantian or Platonist.) -
The Sciences Vs The Humanities
As I've pointed out already ...Can a number have an application to matter and yet have no connection to matter? — ucarr
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/926546
In this sense, I think so: a map is an abstraction from aspects of the terrain (e.g. regularities of nature) that is instantiated in some other aspect of the terrain (e.g. observers' brains-discursive practices).Does a map have some type of relationship _connection with/to terrain? -
The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?:up: Okay, sounds to me like compatibilism.
-
The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?Blah blah blah ... but what do YOU think, Jack, about the topic at issue?
-
US Election 2024 (All general discussion)Today in Trumpenfreude
Harris will beat Trump, says election prediction legend Allan Lichtman
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/05/harris-trump-lichtman-election-prediction.html :victory: :cool:
Syphilis.↪NOS4A2
You're kind of likeSisyphus— frank -
The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?
Well, imo, that's because both are pseudo-problems generated (mostly) by 'philosophical grammar' and not themselves scientific, or empirical, problems. Re: embodied metacognition (+ property dualism) contra disembodied "consciousness" or "will". :sparkle:the hard problem of consciousness and free will [will] not go away — Jack Cummins
So what? For the sake of this discussion, only what we – you and I – think about these topics is relevant no matter how informed we might be by other sources. Stop hedging and think things through for yourself. :chin:various authors use the idea differently
Many of the important thinkers were speculating
may be insufficient -
The Sciences Vs The HumanitiesNumbers are abstract, we use them to quantify – map – (both concrete and abstract) objects or their discrete properties (e.g. observed fact-patterns such as regularities of nature) – terrain. Maps (i.e. formalism) =/= terrain (i.e. empiricism); conflating them as you seem to do, ucarr, incoherently reifies abstraction (i.e. misplaced concreteness). In this context, I'm a nominalist-pragmatist.
-
US Election 2024 (All general discussion)Today in Trumpenfreude
4Sept24 – $16.98 per share (-36% past month) :down:NASDAQ (DJT :rofl:)
31August24 – $19.50 per share
(NASDAQ 17,713.62) — 180 Proof
(NASDAQ 17,084.10)
:lol: :point: Sell-off erases Trump Media shares' 2024 gains
180 Proof
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum