I agree that science does not make such claims concerning "objectivity", as I said, that's what philosophy does — Metaphysician Undercover
But you had made the contrary claim. "Scientists certainly do not consult philosophers to check whether their results are objective. They already know whether their results are objective by the confirmation of others." So that's one thing I objected to, and I'm glad you now realize that what you said wasn't really correct. — Metaphysician Undercover
Why do you think that one is "closer to being likely to be a property of the object"? Each is a description, and as such it is subjective, of the subject. — Metaphysician Undercover
To gain knowledge about the object, we need to go beyond this, and ask what does it mean to be an object, to exist as an object, and these are the question which ontology and metaphysics are concerned with. — Metaphysician Undercover
What a sadly impoverished worldview! — Janus
Which is why discussion is pointless - because if that is true then there is no means of ‘persuasion by rational argument’. You can’t change someone’s mind if there’s no mind to be changed. — Wayfarer
As such there is no 'ought', there is only what we 'are' going to do. — Pseudonym
Science can therefore make predictions (which is its job) about what we 'are' going to do and how we 'are' going to feel in certain circumstances. Therefore, given that we definitely 'are' going to want to bring those circumstances about, science can make statements about what courses of action are most likely to succeed. There's no further debate about whether we 'ought' to do these things because we just will, or will not depending on how convinced we are of them.
In neither Plotinus nor Advaita is physical death understood in terms of non-existence or non-being. — Wayfarer
What it does mean however is obviously not going to be an easy thing to say or to fathom. — Wayfarer
Suffice to say that the common aim of those traditions is to realize an identity that is not subject to death. — Wayfarer
Plotinus, that is through seeking the identity of the soul with the One - very similar to Vedanta. — Wayfarer
So the purpose of the spiritual discipline or sadhana is to ‘realize the Self’ (in Vedantic terms) instead of identification with ego and sense-objects. — Wayfarer
Realizing that identity is called mokṣa. — Wayfarer
What do you mean by meta-metaphysics? — Metaphysician Undercover
I've always gotten the impression that sages were referring to an emotional, attitudinal understanding, and that isn't metaphysics. But that advanced attitudinal, emotional understanding might only be for the longtime life-completed person. — Michael Ossipoff
I should know better than to tackle any proposition which has scare quotes around ‘are’ - but anyway, — Wayfarer
Who is this ‘we’? — Wayfarer
How does what ‘we’ want come into a ‘fully objective’ description? — Wayfarer
Why should ‘our’ convictions have any bearing on what ‘we’ are going to do? Surely ‘what we are going to do’ can be predicted by a third party, according to your own argument. — Wayfarer
But if the outcome depends on ‘what we want’ or ‘how convinced we are’ - then how is science going to predict that? — Wayfarer
The probability of two descriptions which entirely made up in the head (ie have no reference to properties of the object) matching are no better than random as there is no reason why they would match. The more they match, therefore, the less likely it is that their matching is a random coincidence, thus is requires an explanation. The theory is that the reason they match is because they describe some property of the object. That theory becomes more and more likely the more people match because it become increasingly unlikely that the match is coincidence. — Pseudonym
By metaphysics I mean general discussion of the limits of what describably, discussably is.
By meta-metaphysics, I mean what else is. — Michael Ossipoff
But what really changes is the properties of an object, and what it means to exist as an object remains the same. — Metaphysician Undercover
So we have a clear separation between what is in the head, and what is not. — Metaphysician Undercover
What you refer to is not knowledge, but an attitude which rules out much more than it includes. It is better characterized as an ignorance than as a knowledge. — Janus
But we are addressing human understanding and knowledge of these things, neither of which remain the same. — Janus
I'm not suggesting that the two are literally the same thing, but that the are sufficiently similar. — Pseudonym
This world is divisible into parts, if we allow the divisions to be arbitrary.
Each part of the world (a thing) will therefore have a "way it is" (its properties), because it is a part of the world, which has a "way it is". — Pseudonym
No, we were discussing objectivity, what it means to be an object regardless of human understanding. — Metaphysician Undercover
By metaphysics I mean general discussion of the limits of what describably, discussably is.
By meta-metaphysics, I mean what else is — Michael Ossipoff
So you are positing something which is, which is other than that which is. Isn't that contradictory? — Metaphysician Undercover
I know that you say the one "is" refers to what we can talk about, and the other "is refers to what we can't talk about
.
, but haven't you just talked about it by saying it "is". So if it's not contradictory, it's at the least, very hypocritical. How is it possible that you can mention the thing, and have a meta-metaphysics to talk about the things which we can't talk about?
If I tell you that there are national secrets, things that aren't allowed to be discussed, and you say, "But you've just discussed them by saying they are. That's hypocritical.", how much sense would that make? — Michael Ossipoff
If I tell you that there are national secrets, things that aren't allowed to be discussed, and you say, "But you've just discussed them by saying they are. That's hypocritical.", how much sense would that make? — Michael Ossipoff
I think that makes a lot of sense. — Metaphysician Undercover
So my objection holds.
Why would you mention, or bring up for discussion, something which you claim cannot be discussed.
That's nonsense.
Either they really cannot be discussed, in which case you wouldn't be able to mention them for discussion
, or your assertion that they cannot be discussed is false.
Clearly your assertion is false
because you are saying "I cannot talk about the national secretes which I am talking about".
Therefore, I think that unless you can explain your distinction between metaphysical and meta-metaphysical, in a way which makes sense
But the sages themselves are by no means attached to metaphysics, nor do they see them as profound.
Actually sages are quite dismissive of metaphysics and philosophy. Ramana Maharishi used to say, they're like a stick you use to get the fire going - once it's burning, you throw the stick into the fire.) — Wayfarer
'Objective' and 'subjective' are categories of human understanding; so nothing wrong with trying to clarify the differences ever more precisely. Nothing incoherent about that! — Janus
Also, let it just be noted here, that Sam Harris’ purported expertise in neuroscience is based on his completion of a questionable PhD thesis written (with co-authors) on the subject of ‘neural correlates of religious belief’. The methodology and pre-suppositions of the thesis have been subject to much criticism of for example cherry-picking and confirmation bias, quite aside from the possibility of the topic itself being entirely questionable.
After finishing his PhD., Harris has never lectured in neuroscience, nor authored any scientific papers in that subject, nor been employed as a neuro-scientist. His entire career has been in popular philosophy (if you can call it that) and the ‘evangelical atheism’ on which he made his name, as one of the so-called ‘four horsemen of new atheism’. — Wayfarer
You are conflating the science as practical knowledge with its interpretation as worldview. — Janus
What? The logical subject is sufficiently similar to the physical object? No, there is a categorical difference between them. They do not have the same type of existence at all. — Metaphysician Undercover
It is nevertheless a fact that Sam Harris has never worked as a neuroscientist, but as a pop philosopher - and that’s not an ad hominem but a statement of fact. — Wayfarer
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.