The belief in objects having rudimentary consciousness goes back to animism. — Jack Cummins

As d’Espagnat famously observed[assumed], quantum physics suggests that “reality is not wholly real” in the classical sense presupposed by scientific realism. — Wayfarer

Ya, right, "I'm projecting." — Sam26

P1: Extensive Testimonial Database - Millions of individuals across documented medical settings report near-death experiences involving conscious awareness during verified clinical death (estimated 400-800 million cases globally, with over 4,000 detailed firsthand accounts in academic databases). — Sam26

P4: Objective Verification Protocol - A substantial subset of cases includes independently corroborated details ...

P5: Optimal Testimonial Conditions - Reports satisfy established criteria for reliable testimony: immediate temporal proximity to events, firsthand rather than hearsay accounts, credible sources without apparent ulterior motives, and systematic documentation by medical professionals and researchers.

@Philosophim Your critique of my work reflects a surprisingly limited and elitist perspective on philosophy, misrepresenting ... — Sam26

the inductive argument. — Sam26

Philosophy deals not with an object, but with its concept. And since philosophy speaks about the world .. — Astorre

I am not sure that the idea of spirit can be disregarded completely in thinking about the idea of soul. — Jack Cummins

Hegel saw spirit as being imminent in history and in his understanding of 'mind'.

Returning to the ideas of Heidegger, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, AI is deprived of temporality and finitude, it is deprived of living experience. Today it is a complex algorithmic calculator. — Astorre

the nonsensical idea of a theory of everything, which is the idea that the universe is infinitely compressible into finite syntax — sime

Vincent J. Carchidi, “Rescuing Mind from the Machines”(link)

This essay, published in Philosophy Now ... — Wayfarer

Life is one of the most complex and concentrated existences the universe contains. It is a set of chemical reactions that does not merely burn out, but seeks to renew itself for as long as possible. And as such we, life, make the world into something so much more existent than it would be had we all remained inert carbon. — Philosophim

How can life be justified in spite of all the suffering it entails? — kirillov

"Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good" [WOO]. So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be supernatural [WOO], in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang. — Gnomon

It is a mistake of category to believe that 'mental' is divorced from physical reality. — Philosophim

Perhaps - but, ironically, the whole question of the mind-independence of the fundamental aspects of nature has been thrown into question by this objective process. — Wayfarer

Our emotional state is usually in reference to what our expectations are. So, if you want to have the maximally positive emotional state, it is rational to lower your expectations to the minimum. I think a lot of misery in life comes from having high expectations which are not met. — Brendan Golledge

Wokism is just a collection of leftist overreactions and eccentricities. That's the actual punchline. — ssu

When you hamstring God by saying, "well, it might be metaphysically impossible for God to do that", you're making God sound very impotent. I get why Christians like Leibniz do that, but it's a very weak ad hoc move. Prima facie, this is obviously not the best of all possible worlds. — RogueAI

In short, religions disagree about what happens when I die, how to be saved, etc. Religions have had thousands of years to find the truth and have failed.
— Art48

I hope that helps. — Art48

You can't pardon the person that victimized you and be just: that would be mercy at the expense of justice — Bob Ross

Presumably there is a theology that explains[EXCUSES] all this...
— Banno

Theology can explain[EXCUSE] anything... — Tom Storm

Theology is not philosophy.

Theology starts with a conclusion, and seeks to explain how it fits in with how things are. It seeks to make a given doctrine consistent.

Philosophy starts with how things are and looks for a consistent explanation.

Theology can't say "That's inconsistent", and so eventually has to rely instead on mystery. — Banno

Each biblical reference here supports the methodological point that theology presupposes its conclusion. — Banno

... the idea of God's sacrifice. — Bob Ross

[W]hat is at stake is not rational.

It's why the replies from believers consist mostly of repeating doctrine rather than responding to the inconsistency. [ ... ] When face[d] with the profound, inexpressible, existential mystery, the rational response is I don't know.

But silence is difficult. — Banno

The Catholic Church [Christian myth à la St. Paul, St. Augustine] teaches that God Almighty came down from heaven to save us... from His own wrath... by allowing Himself to be tortured to death. And apparently this strategy worked in spite of the fact that he didn't actually die (people saw him walking around three days later), and most people didn't get saved. — frank

I was talking about legitimate debt. Are you suggesting that the idea of sin is illegitimate? — Bob Ross

Imagine that you knew someone [mortals] was in debt to you [God] so much money that they [mortals] never could pay it back. — Bob Ross

According to Christianity, when you sin you offend God and you cannot repay that sin; so God, out of love, offered Himself to repay that debt so that you can repent.

↪Bob Ross
The act of torturing yourself or others is evil[or stupid]. — MoK

[ ... ] Meaning that the stark object-subject divide that characterised modern thought is now being challenged by science itself. — Wayfarer

The idea that the universe is purposeless is a modern invention, arising in the early modern period ... — Wayfarer

That is briefly described in the OP under the heading of ‘The Great Abstraction’ — which is precisely what it was.

we don't know anything transcendent, and this is so by mere definition. — Janus

If life has a meaning beyond mere survival it consists in the volition to thrive [ ... ] If there is a good we all strive for it is potence. Potence is naturally desirable (considered good) and impotence is naturally undesirable (considered bad). — Janus

The idea of a transcendent meaning is incoherent ...

All meaning is immanent and relative to life as lived.

Did you ever try to accept it without understanding it? — frank

How does a person who hasn't had a lobotomy make sense of this? — frank

What about dumb adults, or sheeple? — Punshhh

We all know we are all stupid, and stupider still when younger. Why fan the flames of political ignorance? — I like sushi

For example, imagine if everyone had followed the advice of Jesus two thousand years ago and continued to for generations. We would presumably be living a better life by now. — Punshhh

The "distinction" is between the physical Brain and its meta-physical function: Minding is what a Brain does. When I refer to Mind as "Meta-Physical" --- note the hyphen --- I'm using the term in its literal sense of non-physical. — Gnomon

[T]he term "metaphysical" is often construed as religious or mystical or unscientific woo-woo. The study of Meta-physics is indeed un-scientific, in that the Philosophical exploration goes beyond the empirical limits of physical Science.

... consciousness. It is present, in all things. — Patterner

Here's a link to a famous paper on emergence "More is less" by P.W. Anderson. — T Clark

First of all, the scientific worldview holds that physical processes alone, operating through natural selection and other mechanisms, are sufficient to explain the emergence of all phenomena including consciousness and reason, without requiring any overarching purpose. Of course both Nagel and Goff object to this, but the reality is that the scientific worldview has been incredibly successful in practice, while the sort of metaphysics these authors keep pushing has done absolutely nothing to advance our understanding of the world and represents, in fact, a sliding back to the Middle Ages, if not earlier.

Second, and this is an elaboration of the point I have just made, teleological explanations simply fail to provide concrete mechanisms for how cosmic purpose would actually operate in physical reality. There is truly nothing there to be seen.
— Massimo Pigliucci

So he articulates exactly the kind of positivist dogma that I have in my sights. — Wayfarer

A relativist doesn’t have to deny that moral language is of use in our world: they just deny that it reflects some absolute, God’s-eye-view or Platonic realm of moral truth. — Tom Storm