What of all the numerous meditators and religious people who experience this? — Protagoras
He finally admitted he couldn't square how life actually started from matter,or how DNA replicates. — Protagoras
If you want to know what non material but physical is raise your hand and observe. — Protagoras
Or that the mind and brain are the same thing but from different views. In this case, we can dispense with the term, "substance", and talk about dualistic views. How is a view different than the thing being viewed? Can a view be viewed? In other words, can the mind view itself? Can a brain view itself? Can an apple?True, I suppose it could be argued that the mind and brain are distinct but that both are physical, so it would be neither substance nor property dualism. — Michael
:100: :fire: Deus, sive natura.My faith in science serves me well and helps me a lot, for the very simple reason that it is undistinguishable from my faith in my own reason and senses. Science is but a systematic way of doing basic human thinking that is natural to man. It is our specialty, in the animal kingdom. We are sapiens.
If God created man, He created reason, sapience, and gave it to man. If God created reason, then science is godly. It is the patient exploration of God's eternal laws. Eureka = Hallelujah. — Olivier5
Aside from me being black and American, we could be twins. Bonjour!I'm an environmentally concerned, pro-science, atheist social-democrat from France. To my defense, I'm also an old white heterosexual male. Nobody's perfect. — Olivier5
:lol:Is non-physical energy the ability to do non-physical work? I have lots of that. White collar til I die. — Kenosha Kid
I've explained enough in my posts for you to get what I'm saying. — Protagoras
If you can't see it, then perhaps try to be less scientismistic and apply your own perception. — Protagoras
No not majority rules. More like: if “what of all the people that experienced X” is an argument that X is not a hallucination, then the fact that the majority who tried have not experienced X should be a stronger argument that X is a hallucination. — khaled
First, we should not expect reality to accord with the way we understand things. The way we understand things changes over time. Second, substance dualism is not the basic way we understand things. — Fooloso4
Dog shit post. — Protagoras
Head out of the scientists ass and in the real world. — Protagoras
That's a strawman. Dualism only implies that he who does the empirical observing recognises said observing to be 1) fundamentally different from the observed thing; and 2) important or even critical to one's knowledge of the observed thing. — Olivier5
it's not clear to me what your point 1 even means — Pfhorrest
Indeed, idealist monists such as Berkeley disagree with my point 1, and so do materialist monists in fact (i.e. the eliminative ones), because for them there is no such thing as a symbolic map: everything is just gluons spinning in a flat ontology, without any room for transcendence.I think most everyone (besides Berkeleyan subjective idealists) would agree with that; even eliminative materialists would agree with that (the act of observation is a thing the observer's brain is doing, which is not identical to the object being observed). — Pfhorrest
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.