I disagree. Only if we dogmatically assert that something must be in the world to affect the world, or something must be physical in order to affect the physical, etc. But why would we hold to such an assumption? For example, ideas aren't physical, and yet they determine a large part of what physically happens - think about the ideas that guide scientists in inventing a new technology. — Agustino
Are we just enlightened machines, or souls existentially trapped inside fleshbots? — apokrisis
That's why I say that any answers to such questions, being ultimately incapable of definitive demonstration to everyon'e satsifaction, come down to personal faith — Janus
the very idea that existence is not replete and fairly rippling with meaning seems obviously absurd. — Janus
Well why that rather than down to the well investigated conclusions of a community of open-minded inquirers? Why would you privilege personal faith over collective research? — apokrisis
But there is not just one single community of inquirers. — Janus
Some methods have proven better than others. — apokrisis
Well let's talk about organisms rather than machines. Can an organ exist without a body, and a body without its organs?
Can a heart have an independent existence - one that never involved the context of being part of an organism which needed it for the purpose of pumping blood. Or is there in fact an intimate interconnection, a co-dependent relation, that speaks to the wholeness of the biological causality? — apokrisis
Your cue, I believe.And that is why it would be wonderful if more people understood holism properly. — apokrisis
If relations between material things were not real, then what scientist are doing would be meaningless. Is the relation between the sun and the earth real? — Metaphysician Undercover
So if you are talking about human metaphysical systems, it’s going to be about something that seems functionally useful in terms of some communal purpose. — apokrisis
I don't think you could make a plausible case for choosing between them as to their metaphysical verisimilitude based purely on the various numbers of adherents they have attracted. — Janus
The glue that binds the religious communities and ensures their continuance is the personal faith of their members, whether that faith is mere lip service or fervent passion, whether it is enforced or merely encouraged, any institution will only last as long as the faith its members have in it, which is measured by the time and money they are willing to devote to it. — Janus
So, it is not the faith itself that is "innocent" or guilty, but the evil, the guilt, consists in the authoritarian forces of strict tradition, persecution of "heresy" and coercion through fear. — Janus
A heart is a piece of meat. — tim wood
For me it is permissible, informally, to take ideas - immaterial things - as real, because they clearly are. For me it is not permissible to include them in reality, or at least the same reality that contains material things, and there are lots of tests that differentiate the two. — tim wood
So our differences are resolved if you acknowledge my distinction, or show clearly how ideas are material things (even as you say they are immaterial). — tim wood
We appear to be back knocking heads over language. — tim wood
You ask if the relation between the sun and earth is real. Of course it is. But you insist, or so I read you here and everywhere else this issue arises, on the relation having a reality that I understand as a claim for materialty. For me it is permissible, informally, to take ideas - immaterial things - as real, because they clearly are. For me it is not permissible to include them in reality, or at least the same reality that contains material things, and there are lots of tests that differentiate the two. — tim wood
So our differences are resolved if you acknowledge my distinction, or show clearly how ideas are material things (even as you say they are immaterial). — tim wood
...or show clearly how ideas are material things (even as you say they are immaterial). — tim wood
No, I don't think our differences can be resolved in this way. You want to say that relations are real, yet immaterial things are not real. And I see no way that a relation can be classed as material, therefore it must be immaterial. If relations are immaterial, and they are real, then the immaterial must be real. — Metaphysician Undercover
the physics of information theory — apokrisis
If, in order to make your physics "easier," you want to suppose you live in a hologram or some such thing, you're free to do so — tim wood
Did you know that Shannon calculated the limit entropy of an ordinary English text to be just a little more than one bit per letter? — tim wood
Religions are social projects. — apokrisis
The rational soul is only found in human beings. It is this soul that accounts for the ability human beings have to reason and engage in higher order cognitive function (i.e. knowledge of universals). It is indeed what makes us human after all. Human reason, intellect, is inherent in the rational soul. It is a power that goes beyond the mere collection and retention of knowledge (through sensory perception) –as with the Sensitive soul; it accounts for our non-sensory knowledge, our knowledge of universals, and our ability to be self-aware. As St. Thomas tells us, the Rational soul “regards a still more universal object – namely, not only the sensible body, but all being in universal.”
That's what a secular account would say, as by definition, it can't accomodate the soteriological dimension, as there's nothing in its conceptual framework to accomodate it. — Wayfarer
It is this soul that accounts for the ability human beings have to reason and engage in higher order cognitive function (i.e. knowledge of universals).
But why would we believe in such fairy tales - except for socially constructed reasons? — apokrisis
Yes, yes, yes. You misread me above. Relations are real and immaterial. Do you agree that the reality that comprises the things in the world, the bricks and chairs and so forth, also contains relations? Or would you rather agree that immaterial things like relations are not part of the reality of material things, although they are real. Or, if in the same reality, how exactly do you define that reality? — tim wood
I'm thinking that in the last case it's hard to define that reality in a way that does not create new problems. For example, if the immaterial is real and in reality with the bricks and chairs, & etc., without further distinction or qualification, then there are uncountable infinities of real things in reality - where do they fit? — tim wood
I think you maintain, and have maintained across multiple discussions, that the immaterial is in reality. Do you? And if you do, how do you account for it. — tim wood
That's what a secular account would say, as by definition, it can't accomodate the soteriological dimension, as there's nothing in its conceptual framework to accomodate it. — Wayfarer
By definition or due to lack of any evidence for why it would need to be taken seriously...why would we believe in such fairy tales...why would we believe that given what we now know...? — apokrisis
I don't see any convincing arguments that metaphysics can be done by science or as a science — Janus
And in philosophy it doesn't matter what ideas you entertain beyond what creative and interesting ways of thinking about the world they open up. — Janus
"Getting it right' in some determinative sense doesn't matter except in the sciences. — Janus
And even there it is about "what works". — Janus
That's the point I think you fail to see, because you are so starry-eyed about science. — Janus
The failure here is your failure to counter arguments. — apokrisis
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.