Theology, I admit, belongs to classical metaphysics; but the "god of the philosophers" is not worshipped or what religious / mystical seekers seek. — 180 Proof

:up: I concur. Philosophers are in the business of sussing out how coherent the idea of a god is, whether facts support the existence of such a being, is a god desirable, etc.

My position is that philosophy concerns intelligible-explicable concepts and "god of religion" is neither an intelligible nor explicable concept.

My position is that philosophy concerns intelligible-explicable concepts and "god of religion" is neither an intelligible nor explicable concept. — 180 Proof

Si, you said that before and I agree - you hadta philosophize about god to realize that (ex post god is nonphilosophical). However, how do you square this position of yours with the universal scope of philosophy? In me humble opinion, everything is philosophizable.

...I can't imagine the possibility of anything uncaused... — Metaphysician Undercover

Does this incline you to think time has a cause?

But I don't know what you mean by saying time is "metaphysical". — Metaphysician Undercover

Does the following train of thought reflect your thinking: Since time predates God and God created the material world of physics, time must be something other than physical.

Universal is not synonymous with conceivable.

That's too obvious to state. Pick up an introductory book on philosophy and be informed! 180 Proof claims philosophy and god are incompatible. I beg to differ. — Agent Smith

As I already pointed out, our epistemology on god can only shed light on the Anthropological aspect of the cultural concept...not the ontological one. We don't have verified epistemology on the existence of god in reality in order to render any discussion on it "Philosophical".
180 Proff is right. God and philosophy are incompatible until hard evidence are provided as our starting point of a meaningful philosophical discussion.
People don't claim to have philosophical discussions on the existences Hobbits, Yeti, fairies, Leprechauns etc etc and that should be true for any claim that can be supported by credible epistemology.

That's the best thing one can do in life! Deepity? — Agent Smith

ITs only "the best thing one can do" if reasonable arguments is the goal.

And yet in the mouth of (most?) believers these days, "God" is just a three-letter epithet (or crutch) for ego ("why"). — 180 Proof

Yes, I'm glad you appreciate the close connection. Ego is the zeitgeist of the age brought on by, I suppose a century of material 'progress'. Hedonism is ego as virtue, and as you are aware, often wins the popular vote in politics in these parlous times. Where religion is disconnected from politics, one might, even now, find a more significant expression.

Speaking of Stoicism, I noticed this book:

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/604070/how-to-live-a-good-life-by-edited-and-with-an-introduction-by-massimo-pigliucci-skye-cleary-daniel-kaufman/

Which suggests in the introduction that a philosophy and a religion both necessarily have a metaphysics an an ethics, (and possibly a practice), and that the difference is vague. Not a new thought of course, but probably new to a certain modern incarnation of zealotry.

I have said before that everyone has something at the centre of their life that they live for, and that is their god, whether it is a football team, knowledge, ego, power, love, pleasure, rationality, sex, or whatever. "With my body, I thee worship."

Does this incline you to think time has a cause? — ucarr

No, that's what I describe as incoherent. "Cause" implies temporality, it is a temporal concept where a cause is understood to be prior in time to the effect. To say that there is something prior in time to time, as the cause of time, is incoherent. If we wanted to speak of something prior to time, we would have to use terms other than temporal terms to describe this sort of "priority". We might say "logically prior to" for example. But this would require a description of time itself, to determine what is logically prior to time, and we do not have such a description.

Does the following train of thought reflect your thinking: Since time predates God and God created the material world of physics, time must be something other than physical. — ucarr

No, that's backwards, you need to reverse it. We have the physical world first, as our source of evidence. We see that something preexists each and every material thing as the cause of existence of that thing. So we have an inductive principle that there is a cause prior to every material thing. This is what theologians refer to as "God". But "cause" is a temporal term, implying an act, and acts only occur within a duration of time (another inductive principle). So God requires time as a precondition for acting.

Science relies on observation and experimentation, while the pursuit of God is often based on subjective experience and personal conviction. — gevgala

The problem with what you're saying is that "subjective experience and personal conviction" doesn't translate to knowledge unless there is some justification for the belief, and that doesn't need to be science. Science is only one form of knowledge, but it's not the only kind of knowledge that's available to us. So, there are other ways of justifying a belief, which is a matter of having a good understanding of epistemology. If you're going to present a belief that there is a fact, viz., that God exists (Christian or otherwise), then you need some justification other than some indefinable subjective thing, or some personal conviction that's based on a feeling. Much of what religion emphasizes is not about objective facts, but about how they feel about their belief.

You seem to think that philosophy or philosophical thinking is separate from religious belief, and in some ways it is, i.e., there is the professional philosopher who teaches at a university, or other philosophers who may have just spent much of their lives thinking and studying about philosophy. However, make no mistake about it, if you have a set of beliefs, whatever they may be, and you've spent even a small amount of time thinking about those beliefs critically, you're doing philosophy. Many religious people want to separate their beliefs from general philosophical thinking, but that's an illusion. If you think about God, Christian or otherwise, and what that means, and explain your beliefs as you've done above, then you are presenting a particular religious worldview, and in doing that you're doing philosophy. You can't escape philosophy it permeates all of our beliefs, science, religion, history, psychology, and every other subject you can think of including games.

The only question is, do you do it well? And, since language is the vehicle with which we communicate our beliefs you better have a good understanding of how our concepts/words work in the flow of language, i.e., how they connect up with the world of facts (abstract or concrete, metaphysical or not).

Happy Hunting

If we wanted to speak of something prior to time, we would have to use terms other than temporal terms to describe this sort of "priority". We might say "logically prior to" for example. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since, by your declaration, logical priority ≠ temporal causality, it seems to follow that a realm of ideal forms exemplifies your statement that:

...we have an inductive principle that there is a cause prior to every material thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Furthermore, it seems to follow that this realm of ideal forms, being outside time because it timelessly causes material objects to exist, holds possession of a metaphysical identity in the sense that it is beyond both the temporal and the physical.

Can you affirm or deny this interpretation of your meaning?

Furthermore, it seems to follow that this realm, per the above named attributes, empowers God to exist in time whereupon God creates the material universe. Under this construction, God is a physical being. Moreover, God, being physical, exists as a natural part of this physical universe of material things. All of this entails a denial of God as supernatural, a radical departure from establishment theism.

Can you affirm or deny this interpretation of your meaning?

Embedded within your declarations is the mystery of the status of time.

Does the following train of thought reflect your thinking: Since time predates God and God created the material world of physics, time must be something other than physical. — ucarr

No, that's backwards, you need to reverse it. We have the physical world first, as our source of evidence. We see that something preexists each and every material thing as the cause of existence of that thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Furthermore, you seem to be implying time is physical.

Can you affirm or deny this interpretation of your meaning?

Since, by your declaration, logical priority ≠ temporal causality, it seems to follow that a realm of ideal forms exemplifies your statement that:

...we have an inductive principle that there is a cause prior to every material thing.
— Metaphysician Undercover

Furthermore, it seems to follow that this realm of ideal forms, being outside time because it timelessly causes material objects to exist, holds possession of a metaphysical identity in the sense that it is beyond both the temporal and the physical. — ucarr

No, not at all. A cause, as I painstakingly explained, cannot be outside of time.

Furthermore, you seem to be implying time is physical. — ucarr

No, not at all. As I explained, the idea that time is physical is what leads to the conclusion that God is outside time, God being the immaterial cause of the physical. This renders "God" as unintelligible, incoherent, as a cause, or act which is outside of time. Since logic indicates that the material (or physical) world must have a cause, we must conclude that time is not material (or physical).

Since you appear to be having difficulty let me restate the principles which I've been trying to explain.. Tell me what you don't understand.
1. Logic produces the conclusion that there must be a cause prior in time to all material (physical) things. This cause cannot be material (physical) because it is prior in time to material (physical) things. Theologians call this "God".
2. If time is the product of physical activity then God must be outside of time.
3. As an actual cause, it is impossible that God is outside of time.
4. Therefore time as well as God must be prior to material (physical) things, and is not material (physical).

A cause... cannot be outside of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

So causation implies passing of time.

Since you say,

1. Logic produces the conclusion that there must be a cause prior in time to all material (physical) things. — Metaphysician Undercover

can we assume someone can speak or write a logical statement that necessarily leads to:

the conclusion that there must be a cause prior in time to all material (physical) things. (?) — Metaphysician Undercover

1. (Continued) This cause cannot be material (physical) because it is prior in time to material (physical) things. — Metaphysician Undercover

If we wanted to speak of something prior to time, we would have to use terms other than temporal terms to describe this sort of "priority". We might say "logically prior to" for example. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay. Regarding the ordering of reality, if something is logically prior to time, then its priority over time is by a standard of measure not temporal?

This cause cannot be material (physical) because it is prior in time to material (physical) things. — Metaphysician Undercover

In the above quote priority is temporal? In the time prior to the physical-material universe, history was nonetheless unfolding, with some events occurring before other events? An example would be whatever event was happening in the immaterial world just before the big event of God causing the existence of the physical-material world?

1. (Continued) Theologians call this "God" — Metaphysician Undercover

So God causing the physical-material universe out of time does not cohere with the axiom: causation cannot occur outside time? Theological God is thus incoherent with causation?

2. If time is the product of physical activity then God must be outside of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

So time is the product of physical activity is a false premise?

3. As an actual cause, it is impossible that God is outside of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

So God exists and acts within time is your main premise?

4. Therefore time as well as God must be prior to material (physical) things, and is not material (physical). — Metaphysician Undercover

God’s existence in time is non-physical whereas human existence in time is physical?

Not sure why these sorts of questions matter.

Isn't it the case that in most constructions of God 1) God is transcendent and is outside time and space and 2 God being 'omni' can do whatever God wants and is not subject to any laws, since God created them? So trying to parse what god can and cannot do, or where God resides and in what form is pointless and subject to the paucity of human understanding. If the laws of physics get in the way of a person's understanding God then they're not doing it right...

...trying to parse what god can and cannot do, or where God resides and in what form is pointless and subject to the paucity of human understanding. If the laws of physics get in the way of a person's understanding God then they're not doing it right... — Tom Storm

I recognize your point of view and, moreover, I respect the facts and conventions that source the content of your query. However, in my dialogue with Metaphysician Undercover, I want to examine his thinking non-judgmentally. My purpose is to hopefully discover some ramifications of his thinking not already known to him. Should this happen, it might present him with an opportunity to delve deeper into his thinking, thereby increasing the chance of it becoming richer and deeper.

An important part of the technique, as I understand it, entails asking basic questions the world thinks already answered. Sometimes, in dialogue, simple questions trigger subtle, lucrative questions. When this happens, thought adventurers like ourselves are off to the races along a new line of inquiry not previously seen. Haven't we seen this in the movies? Folks put their heads together on a tough question. Suddenly, someone asks a simple question in a new context or POV and bingo! The answer pops out of the birthday cake.

This is why non-judgmental interviewing can be useful to the philosophical theoretician, a characterization I apply to Metaphysician Undercover.

. You're doing a Socrates, eh?

You're doing a Socrates, eh? — Tom Storm

I don't know anything!

That is the method.

In Plato, It is interesting to see how the results vary according to who is being interrogated.

:up: :100:

can we assume someone can speak or write a logical statement that necessarily leads to:

the conclusion that there must be a cause prior in time to all material (physical) things. (?) — ucarr

Yes, I went through this logic already. We know through observation and induction that each and every material thing has a cause. The cause of a material thing is prior in time to the existence of that material thing. Therefore there is a cause prior in time to all material things.

Okay. Regarding the ordering of reality, if something is logically prior to time, then its priority over time is by a standard of measure not temporal? — ucarr

I really don't know, but obviously not temporal. Someone would have to show me the logical order before I could make the judgement as to what is demonstrated by it. I just stated that as a possibility.

In the above quote priority is temporal? — ucarr

Yes, because we were talking about "cause", and "cause" implies a temporal order.

So time is the product of physical activity is a false premise? — ucarr

Correct.

So God exists and acts within time is your main premise? — ucarr

For that part of the argument. However that God exists and acts within time are conclusions drawn from the preceding part, which we already discussed.

God’s existence in time is non-physical whereas human existence in time is physical? — ucarr

Yes, humans are physical (material) beings. God as the cause of material (physical) existence cannot be a material (physical) being, otherwise God would be the cause of Himself, which is incoherent.

Edit: I had to delete my reply to the following questions because I misunderstood:

So God causing the physical-material universe out of time does not cohere with the axiom: causation cannot occur outside time? Theological God is thus incoherent with causation? — ucarr

So God causing the physical-material universe out of time does not cohere with the axiom: causation cannot occur outside time? Theological God is thus incoherent with causation? — ucarr

Let me try again.

As I explained earlier in the thread, the conventional conception of time bases the passing of time in physical (material) activity. By this conception of "time", God is outside of time. And so the theological conception of God, as outside of "time" is coherent on this conception of "time".

Where the problem lies is that God is understood to be actual, and the acting cause of material existence. "Acting", and "cause" are conceptions which imply the passing of time. So there is an inconsistency. God cannot be both outside time, and also an acting cause.

Since the logic which dictates the necessity of God, as an acting cause prior to material (physical) existence is sound, then we ought to conclude that God is not outside of time. So we can see that it is the conventional conception of "time", which forces the conclusion that God is outside of time, and this conception is therefore faulty. It is only in relation to the faulty conception of "time" that God is said to be outside of time. God is outside of time by that definition of time, but since this creates inconsistency or incoherency, the definition of time is incorrect, and God is not outside a true definition of time.

Okay. Time predates God. And God created the material universe.

So, time before God was metaphysical and there were no material things?

Okay. God can only act within time.

So, outside of time God cannot exist? — ucarr

I think my answer to all this is generally yes. But I don't know what you mean by saying time is "metaphysical". If you mean that it's an object of study in metaphysics, then I agree. — Metaphysician Undercover

3. As an actual cause, it is impossible that God is outside of time.
4. Therefore time as well as God must be prior to material (physical) things, and is not material (physical). — Metaphysician Undercover

We know through observation and induction that each and every material thing has a cause. The cause of a material thing is prior in time to the existence of that material thing. Therefore there is a cause prior in time to all material things. — Metaphysician Undercover

The gravitational field of earth's moon causes the rising and falling of ocean tides. Do you say that the moon's gravitational field predates the oceans covering the earth? Do you instead acknowledge that before creation of the material universe, cause and effect were temporally sequential whereas, in the wake of said material creation, cause and effect are not always sequential? Another way of saying this is saying ordinal relationships are not always temporally sequential.

Can you accept the following formulation: God existing and acting in time causes the material universe?

So God exists and acts within time is your main premise? — ucarr

For that part of the argument. However that God exists and acts within time are conclusions drawn from the preceding part, which we already discussed. — Metaphysician Undercover

Let's take a look at a list of your essential premises:

• Time predates God.

• God can only exist and act within time.

• Causation occurs within time.

• God caused (created) the material universe in time.

How do you respond to the following summary?

Upon consideration of the above essentials, your thesis gives highest priority to time. It is the principle essential, ranking above even God. This must be so since God cannot exist or take action without the sanctioning empowerment of time, a principle essential that predates God.

The gravitational field of earth's moon causes the rising and falling of ocean tides. Do you say that the moon's gravitational field predates the oceans covering the earth? — ucarr

No, if the gravitational field is the cause of the tides, it predate the tides, not necessarily the oceans.

Do you instead acknowledge that before creation of the material universe, cause and effect were temporally sequential whereas, in the wake of said material creation, cause and effect are not always sequential? — ucarr

No, that is illogical, cause and effect are always sequential by definition, that's the essence of causation.

I've already agreed that ordinal relations are not necessarily temporal. Causation is a temporal relation though. This points to my first premise. When we observe, and conclude through inductive reasoning, that material things are caused, what "cause" means is something prior in time. So we cannot change the meaning of "cause" here unless we get empirical evidence of a cause which is not temporal. Removing the temporal essence of "cause" would destroy the soundness of the argument.

Upon consideration of the above essentials, your thesis gives highest priority to time. It is the principle essential, ranking above even God. This must be so since God cannot exist or take action without the sanctioning empowerment of time, a principle essential that predates God. — ucarr

Yes, this is because God is defined as being "actual", and time is prerequisite for acting.

No, if the gravitational field is the cause of the tides, it predate the tides, not necessarily the oceans. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay. The gravitational field doesn't predate the ocean. So, at all times, the ocean currents are under influence of both earth and moon gravitational fields.

Does the strengthening gravitational field predate the rising tide?

The ocean tide rises with the progressively closing approach of moon to earth. As strengthening field intensifies, ocean tide heightens simultaneously. There is no time lag in the action-at-a-distance of the gravitational field. Were that the case, when a suicide jumps from the bridge, they would hover in the air for a positive interval of time before accelerating towards the ground.

We see this in a Warner Bros. cartoon featuring Wiley Cayote going over the edge of a cliff in pursuit of Roadrunner.

Have you seen this hover-in-the-air hesitation first-hand in your own experience?

Do you instead acknowledge that before creation of the material universe, cause and effect were temporally sequential whereas, in the wake of said material creation, cause and effect are not always sequential? — ucarr

...cause and effect are always sequential by definition... — Metaphysician Undercover

Your above clause is analytical. Is it also tautological? Also, remember having said:

I've already agreed that ordinal relations are not necessarily temporal. — Metaphysician Undercover

Can you cite a definition of cause and effect that explicitly incorporates temporal antecedence?

Okay. The gravitational field doesn't predate the ocean. So, at all times, the ocean currents are under influence of both earth and moon gravitational fields.

Does the strengthening gravitational field predate the rising tide?

The ocean tide rises with the progressively closing approach of moon to earth. As strengthening field intensifies, ocean tide heightens simultaneously. There is no time lag in the action-at-a-distance of the gravitational field. Were that the case, when a suicide jumps from the bridge, they would hover in the air for a positive interval of time before accelerating towards the ground. — ucarr

All this makes no sense to me. The suicide jumper is acted on by gravity before jumping. And, the "action-at-a-distance" of gravity is understood to not be instantaneous. The force of gravity, like light, takes time to traverse space. And I'd advise you not to get your images of physical actions from cartoons. Ever see the one where they cut a circle in the floor around a person, then the person just hangs there for a few frames before falling?

Have you seen this hover-in-the-air hesitation first-hand in your own experience? — ucarr

Come on ucarr, you're being ridiculous. Obviously gravity is acting on the person prior to falling over the edge. Why would you think that gravity would only avt after the person steps ove the edge?

Can you cite a definition of cause and effect that explicitly incorporates temporal antecedence?
4 hours ago — ucarr

Please don't waste my time, ucarr. If you do not believe me that causation is a temporal concept then do your own research, and find out how the term is used. Then get back to me with what you find. You know, asking me for a definition is pointless, because I can go through the web and pick and choose what I want to reproduce for you. I do not deny that one might define causality such that it is not necessary for the cause to be prior in time to the effect. What I've said is that this would render causation as incoherent and unintelligible.

Here's what Wikipedia says about causality in physics:

"Causality means that an effect can not occur from a cause which is not in the back (past) light cone of that event. Similarly, a cause can not have an effect outside it's front (future) light cone."

Further:

"Such a process can be regarded as a cause. Causality is not inherently implied in equations of motion, but postulated as an additional constraint that needs to be satisfied (i.e. a cause always precedes its effect)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

Here's some further reading material for you. If you read some of this stuff you'll see that most traditional definitions of causality list temporal precedence as a necessary condition . However, some might allow for simultaneity, but as I said this renders causation as unintelligible because then there is no true principle to distinguish cause from effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Hill_criteria#:~:text=Temporality%3A%20The%20effect%20has%20to,greater%20incidence%20of%20the%20effect.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1007/1007.2449.pdf

Sure, the quest for knowledge of the divine, if I could put it that way, operates by different standards to empirical science and peer-reviewed journal articles. But there are domains of discourse, communities of faith, within which that quest is intelligible, and which contain those quite capable of judging whether an aspirant is progressing or not. — Wayfarer

When I joined this forum, being rather naive of the current state of philosophy, I was surprised to have my philosophical reasoning & conjectures challenged for empirical evidence, rather than logical reasons. I thought that was the whole point of Philosophy : to go where Science cannot. Yes, philosophies often evolve into restrictive religions, but they may also free us from misconceptions.

Empirical investigations are limited by the physical properties of their tools. But Philosophy's only tool is metaphysical Reason. Which can easily transcend material barriers. Yet, some attempt to block such transcendence, with socio-cultural taboos. My latest run-in was with the Logical-Positive belief system, which constructs artificial fences around Logic ; functioning like electronic ankle cuffs, to limit the range of Reason to verifiable empirical questions. In other words, forcing Philosophy to obey the rules of Science.

Ironically, even law-abiding scientists sometimes form beliefs that could be described as Blind Faith. Like religious beliefs, they are taken to be Facts & Truths. But as long as we are free to exchange opinions, we may be able to refine our opinionated beliefs in order to get Closer to Truth. Avoidance of Open Questions will allow them to fester in the dark. :smile:

the "action-at-a-distance" of gravity is understood to not be instantaneous. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're right. The speed of gravity waves equals the speed of visible light waves. The action-at-a-distance of gravity is not instantaneous.

Why would you think that gravity would only avt [sic] after the person steps ove [sic] the edge? — Metaphysician Undercover *1

The gravitational field doesn't predate the ocean. So, at all times, the ocean currents are under influence of both earth and moon gravitational fields. — ucarr

*1 Why do you think I don't know this?

Obviously gravity is acting on the person prior to falling over the edge. — Metaphysician Undercover

...when a suicide jumps from the bridge, they would hover in the air for a positive interval of time before accelerating towards the ground. — ucarr

Do you see a difference between being held to the ground by gravity and accelerating-due-to-gravity to the ground while free-falling through space?

Note -- If there's a time lag in acceleration due to gravity -- at sea level it's $9.8m/s ^2$ -- then an atomic clock will be needed to measure such a minute interval of time.

I do not deny that one might define causality such that it is not necessary for the cause to be prior in time to the effect. What I've said is that this would render causation as incoherent and unintelligible. — Metaphysician Undercover

I've already agreed that ordinal relations are not necessarily temporal. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay. So, you think cause and effect -- even when contextualized by ordinality instead of by temporal antecedence -- only has coherence when cause is prior in time to effect?

...some might allow for simultaneity, but as I said this renders causation as unintelligible because then there is no true principle to distinguish cause from effect. — Metaphysician Undercover

At scout camp a boy, out on a hike, getting thirsty, fills his empty canteen with water from a stream and drinks. Back home and twenty-four hours later the boy starts feeling sick. His doctor informs him of the bacterial infection he imbibed from the stream. He learns that symptoms have appeared that day because after twenty-four hours of rapid multiplication, the bacteria has attained high volume. The symptoms were not caused by bacterial infection; they were caused by high volume of bacterial infection.

Okay. So, you think cause and effect – even when manifesting simultaneously – must always be understood in terms of temporal antecedence in order to have coherence?

Causality is not inherently implied in equations of motion, but postulated as an additional constraint that needs to be satisfied (i.e. a cause always precedes its effect)." — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay. So, you think postulation is sufficient ground for concluding: (...a cause always precedes its effect)?

... challenged for empirical evidence, rather than logical reasons. — Gnomon

"Enformer"-of-the-gaps, unsound arguments (about your own citations), and continuous strawman & ad hominem replies are among the parade of logical challenges I, @universeness, @bert1 & others have raised collectively over hundreds of posts just in the last twelve months. All you do lately is whinge on about what a victim you are of "materialist, reductionist, anti-metaphysical bias" or whatever. :ok: :sweat:

My latest run-in was with the Logical-Positive belief system, which constructs artificial fences around Logic ; functioning like electronic ankle cuffs, to limit the range of Reason to verifiable empirical questions. In other words, forcing Philosophy to obey the rules of Science. — Gnomon

Oh come on Gnomon!! enough of the 'I am being treated unfairly,' on repeat, through your loudspeaker.
I DO NOT, refute your right to philosophise as YOU see fit, and as makes logical sense to YOU.
I have already posted, that I think you do, genuinely, seek truth.
You will have your followers and your dissenters. I may not agree with what you say BUT I will defend with MY LIFE, your right to say it. I think folks like @180 Proof etc, (in other words, your dissenters,) appreciate your viewpoints, but the counter arguments we offer, are perfectly valid and legitimate and YOU, need to be magnanimous enough to accept that, or leave yourself open to the accusation, that you are a dishonest interlocuter.

When I joined this forum, being rather naive of the current state of philosophy, I was surprised to have my philosophical reasoning & conjectures challenged for empirical evidence, rather than logical reasons. I thought that was the whole point of Philosophy : to go where Science cannot. Yes, philosophies often evolve into restrictive religions, but they may also free us from misconceptions. — Gnomon

Ironically, science announces its own inherent limitations in the loudest voice of all. You can debate ad nauseum whether resonating waves of neurons amount to what we experience as subjective consciousness. Meanwhile, 95% of everything that is is, at the most basic physical level, a complete unknown to us. What are the implications of that? I wouldn't want to speculate, but it would simply be foolish to imagine that there aren't any. Or to think that the present state of our own scientific knowledge is anything but...very limited.

Specifically, all of the claims to reductively explain mind via matter are themselves just hypotheses. Moreover, since they are hypotheses, and hypothesizing exemplifies what we mean by thinking, they seem to be inherently and obviously self-contradictory. Which is more unlikely, that matter produces thought, or that thought produces matter? Most likely we are looking at the twin poles of a dynamic system, substance and form, or hylomorphism. At least that's the direction I'm looking.