My claim is that science is primarily or even only concerned with what is objectively measurable — Wayfarer
But I’m arguing that this account leaves something important out. When you say ‘what is that?’, the response is, something that is not objectively measurable. — Wayfarer
I'm no philosopher, Wayfarer but the fact that science can't yet explain the origin or nature of consciousness to our satisfaction does not mean it won't and it doesn't mean we have to say, 'therefore a deity or supernatural realm exists'. That would be the fallacy from ignorance, surely? — Tom Storm
Well I'm pushing buttons here, as it's a philosophy forum, best to ask yourself why. — Wayfarer
It's early days and until there is evidence for a soul or some such dualist notion, let's not take it too seriously. — Tom Storm
When you speak of 'evidence' you're already assuming an empirical stance, when the nature of the question may be such that it can't be adjuticated by empirical means. — Wayfarer
What else is there but evidence based knowledge? Can you demonstrate any other kind? — Tom Storm
But the issue I’m raising is the significance - if any - of the inner experience of organisms, the ‘what-it-is-like-to-be’ - a bat or any other kind of creature. And the reason why is that there’s a strong tendency to dismiss that latter quality or attribute as secondary or ‘epiphenomenal’ or derivative, in evolutionary accounts. — Wayfarer
The default setting in the absence of any evidence of supernatural forces is surely naturalism? For all the bad press naturalism gets, (and you are right that science is concerned with what is objectively measurable - should it be concerned with the subjectively immeasurable?) it is the only known way to acquire reliable knowledge about the world. That said, i am a methodological naturalist not a philosophical naturalist. — Tom Storm
'In response to the charge that methodological naturalism in science logically requires the a priori adoption of a naturalistic metaphysics, I examine the question whether methodological naturalism entails philosophical (ontological or metaphysical) naturalism. I conclude that the relationship between methodological and philosophical naturalism, while not one of logical entailment, is the only reasonable metaphysical conclusion given (1) the demonstrated success of methodological naturalism, combined with (2) the massive amount of knowledge gained by it, (3) the lack of a method or epistemology for knowing the supernatural, and (4) the subsequent lack of evidence for the supernatural. The above factors together provide solid grounding for philosophical naturalism, while supernaturalism remains little more than a logical possibility.' — Barbara Forrest
But there are also many foundational axioms that are held without evidence. Scientific materialism is one. It is a metaphysical stance, not a testable hypothesis as evidenced by the fact that its proponents keep defending it, even while the scientific notion of matter is in constant flux. — Wayfarer
Methodological naturalism v philosophical naturalism.
What are they and why is it important to make the distinction ? — Amity
They are important because the first says it is not possible to gain reliable knowledge outside of using this method. The second, which I do not accept, is that all which is extant is natural subject to natural laws. We would need to demonstrate this before making that claim. — Tom Storm
Methodological naturalism v philosophical naturalism.
What are they and why is it important to make the distinction ? — Amity
I fail to see how it gets us to a supernatural. — Tom Storm
Consciousness is nothing special any more than neutrinos, cockroaches, or I are. It's just one of what Lao Tzu would call the 10,000 things. Just stuff. — T Clark
There are many presuppositions we all need to make that cannot be justified. Reason is one. Do we go as far as to call them properly basic? — Tom Storm
My hypothesis is that qualia are the product of additive superposition amongst entangled wavicles. — Enrique
No one denies this. Responsible scientists do not. The best answer to the question of abiogenesis is we don't yet know how it happened. But filling the hole with a fantasy because don't yet have an answer is not cool either. I recently spoke to some people who are certain life on earth was manufactured by aliens. — Tom Storm
So, the suggestion that living organisms can't be wholly understood through the objective sciences implies 'the supernatural'! — Wayfarer
This is also a problem that has made itself clear through the observer problem or measurement problem in physics. — Wayfarer
The more crassly expressed version of similar notions might be: 'There is a limit to science; therefore Jesus.' or Aliens. It can also lead to a kind of language game. A revived version of idealism proffered that studiously avoids talking about God in a deliberate way, but is clearly used as a foundation for some form of theism or prime mover - even Tillich's Ground of Being, say. — Tom Storm
I recently spoke to some people who are certain life on earth was manufactured by aliens. — Tom Storm
That seems pseudo-science to me, and plainly dualistic, to boot. — Wayfarer
I like how your mind works but I guess (in case you hadn't guessed) we come to different conclusions on these issues. — Tom Storm
The real test of a belief system is not how much 'metaphysics' or anti-realism it holds, but what it looks like in action in the world. — Tom Storm
Tillich or Bentley Hart's Gods are not worth contesting and ultimately do not contribute to life denying, bigotries and superstations that cause real harm in communities. Are they even theists? — Tom Storm
What about additive superposition amongst entangled wavicles or "quantum resonance" seems like pseudoscience? Its a testable hypothesis regarding a possibly observable property of matter. — Enrique
But how did their life evolve? Earth is just a circumstantial prop in this debate of the origin of life (organism from the non-organic). — Outlander
It is our ability to discern meaning... — Wayfarer
Consciousness is nothing special any more than neutrinos, cockroaches, or I are. It's just one of what Lao Tzu would call the 10,000 things. Just stuff.
— T Clark
So, the suggestion that living organisms can't be wholly understood through the objective sciences implies 'the supernatural'! — Wayfarer
I am arguing the view that an ontological distinction must be made between living things and inorganic nature. — 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.