No, "just us"; specifically: only human brains cannot scientifically explain human consciousness. IMO, ChatGPT is a toy compared to the AGI that's coming, which I suspect will be exceedingly capable of comprehending human consciousness far in excess of however much we can or cannot comprehend ourselves. Perhaps AGI will even explain us to us in a way we can understand. Btw, I'm in no way a 'mysterian'.Does mysterianism entail that all brains in the universe cannot understand consciousness, or just us? — RogueAI
Maybe. I think it's more likely, however, that a "religious philosopher" is an apologetic critic of naturalism, irreligion and/or religions (or sects) other than her own.So, is a persons claim that they are a religious philosopher, the inevitable beginning of losing/rationalising away, their [own] religion? — universeness
:up: Yes, of course, beginning with internal critiques of 'mythologies, theologies & ideologies' – including and especially one's own (re: "Gnothi seauton").Against the common view that philosophy is a two-thousand-year-old failing enterprise, a body of thought that has produced no knowledge, couldn’t we say that philosophy has in fact done pretty well in bringing dominant beliefs into question, revealing their incoherence or baselessness, or just submitting them to rational enquiry? — Jamal
"Ecrasez l'infâme!" ~VoltaireBtw, philosophizing began for me in encounters with (raw) stupidity of other teens and adults, then authority figures and institutions, finally profound failures and missed opportunities I'd discovered throughout the histories I'd studied. Recognizing stupidity as endemic to the human condition was my initial existential crisis (i.e. despair) at 16/17 from which, over four decades later, I've still not recovered. — 180 Proof
Reality is a donut-hole, or nothing out of something. — Thus Spoke 180 Proof
Marriage [Love] is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. Second marriage [love again] is the triumph of hope over experience. — Oscar Wilde
Love is divine only and difficult always. If you think it is easy you are a fool. If you think it is natural you are blind. — Toni Morrison
If you have reasons to love someone, you don’t love them.
Love feels like a great misfortune, a monstrous parasite, a permanent state of emergency that ruins all small pleasures. — Slavoj Žižek
I regard him as a philosopher. He is a practioner of philosophy – Donald Trump; and he is a philosopher of fuckyouism. — Steve Schmidt, former GOP senior campaign advisor, from discussion with former Senator Al Franken (D-MN), podcast 7 May 2023
Not "opposite TO" (i.e. opposition) but opposite OF is what I wrote. Opposite of science ... of knowledge ... of explanation ... of truth-telling ... If not 'pseudoscience', then what is the opposite OF science? :chin:However how then is there an "opposite to science". — Benj96
I also don't exclude other intellectual or cultural endeavors e.g. history, music, poetry, philosophy, comparative studies, mathematics, sports, politics, etc.For me its not "science or .." but rather "science and..."
The term means 'false science' or making explanatory claims which fail to – cannot – explain anything. I'm not using the term in a polemical fashion or for rhetorical effect, though it can be used that way as you point out.For me the term "pseudoscience" is a fancy way of disregarding/dismissing or making inferior or supposedly obsolete all other pursuits outside the realm of science, philosophy ofc being one of them.
Like a grown-up kid. :wink:How would it make you feel? — Benj96
Ideals exist for a reason.
Realism[Reals] also exists for a reason.
How do approach them?
How do you think we ought navigate such a dynamic?
Ethics is a reflective practice (which I mentioned previously) with normative implications similiar to aesthetics. Non-propositional (often suppositional) and pragmatic.Where does ethics fall into this? — Benj96
No. It's philosophy.Is it [ethics] pseudoscience? I
Do we "retain knowledge" of our time as blastocysts? :roll:Do you have evidence that the butterfly retains no knowledge of its time as a caterpillar? — universeness
I imagine crawling is, at best, useless for flying. Maybe butterflies keep caterpillars around just to study them (e.g. "butterflygenesis") or for shitz-n-giggles (à la reality tv, stupid pet tricks, etc) or both? :smirk:Might the butterfly maintain much of the 'mind' of the caterpillar?
:up:I suppose it's a process.
A slow painful process of overcoming self doubt and learned helplessness. — HarryHarry
suggesting that 'dogma & bigotry' obstruct free inquiry (i.e. reflective practice).The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go. — Galileo Galilei
The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe. A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move toward higher levels. — Albert Einstein (1946)
We are the cure.
If by "nihilism" you mean 'not believing in anything' (i.e. believing all beliefs are false), then I agree with you, Tom. If, however, you mean 'belief in nothing', then I disagree because most people believe – place highest value – in fictions (e.g. gods, demons, ghosts, souls, miracles, horoscopes, ideology, ideals) either in lieu of or more than they believe – place highest value – in demonstrable something (e.g. nature, facts, uncertainty, cognitive biases / limits, other people, death, etc).Nihilism seems moderately rare ... — Tom Storm
Advaita Vedanta comes to mind first ... but I suppose it depends on what's meant by "transcendence".Can you point to any religion that does not have some notion of transcendence as central? — Janus
:cool: :up:I always liked Ambrose Bierce's definition:
“Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.” — Tom Storm
Yes, "religious claims" have never been publicly demonstrated to be true.Would you say that they are all devoid to true content (in their claims)? — Hallucinogen
Usually. No.But what about the claims of religions, are those incompatible, or are you unsure?
Neither. I'm saying that "all religions" are myths and that they can be – most, especially dead religions, have been – studied as such. They have the same function (re: pacifying false fears with false hopes) even though their contents may be "incompatible" like e.g. 'styles of art' or 'varieties of medicines' or 'tribal/territorial identities' throughout history and across cultures. I suppose this implies the "doctrine" of religious skepticism.Are you saying mythology itself holds this view or that the universe of each myth entails incompatability with all others? — Hallucinogen
Mythology (i.e. cults, folklores).Is there a name for the doctrine which claims that all religions are epistemically/veridically disjunct from each other? — Hallucinogen
Plenty. This article cites some of them:1. Any exemplar, reliable scientific studies you know of that claim this as fact? — universeness
To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton: Of course, not all believers are stupid but almost all the stupid people I've ever met are believers.I’m angry at stupidity because it leads to ignorance and ignorance leads to evil. — invicta
:up:There are those" seems to be covertly pointing at yours truly.
— Gnomon
Indeed.
Nowhere have I accused you of new ageism, nor of "science bashing"
The most I have "accused" (your word) you of is not being able to either follow or present a clear argument.
Despite the faux footnotes. — Banno
The mind is its own place and in it self can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n. — John Milton, Paradise Lost
The inhabitants of the earth are of two sorts: those with brains, but no religion, and those with religion, but no brains. — Abu al-Ala al-Ma'arri, pessimistic freethinker, d.1057 CE
:up:Cooperation being a stepping stone to a goal (wellbeing or flourishing), not the goal itself. — Tom Storm
... how the idea that morality is about solving cooperative problems can actually help in addressing the moral case for supporting or denying support to the Ukrainians against the Russians. — neomac
Your ideal of well-informed, rational people with shared goals and ideas is nowhere to be found. — Fooloso4
What is the relationship between morality and cooperative strategies? They are not, as you assume, one and the same. Cooperative strategies to achieve immoral goals are immoral cooperative strategies.
Deontology is not "the traditional perspective" but one traditional perspective. There are others. — Fooloso4