If you say that the mind is some physical thing we have no conception of i have a feeling physicalism is going to turn into idealism. — RogueAI
In this thread. — RogueAI
I don't need my senses to know that my mind is not physical, in the sense that materialists/physicalists use the word. It's simply not in that category of things, because it's missing physical characteristics. You're saying it could have those physical characteristics, except my senses could be fooling me, but I don't need my senses to know my mind isn't a physical object. I don't need to try and smell it to know it doesn't have an odor, or try and look at it to know it doesn't have a shape. — RogueAI
The cost is discipline and time. And you're obviously not interested. Don't bother. You can stay in your post-truth worldview, and I have my worldview. — Dharmi
I'm not asserting the existence of just one mind. I'm claiming that we know for certain that at least one mind exists. There might be one, there might be billions of minds, but there can't be zero minds. That's powerful. We don't have that kind of certainty about the existence of anything else, except logical/mathematical truths. — RogueAI
I don't agree. I don't think our situation is that hopeless. — RogueAI
In this view of mind-body-environment no clear-cut interior or exterior can be discerned. — Joshs
There are many forms of physicalism.
For instance , what allows Barrett to reject naive realism is her indebtedness to Kantian idealism. That’s why she can talk about a veil of appearances separating us from a world we have no direct access to and must use interpretive faculties to understand. She would agree we can never access the thing in itself. That notion of the physical only emerged with Kant. So I would say the default position in most of the sciences is a physicalism
derived from , or at least consistent with, Kant’s idealism. — Joshs
But again, this is where idealism has an advantage. We can ask "what is matter," we can ask "what is mind," but in the end, we know mind exists. We can't be wrong about that. — RogueAI
After all, I create worlds populated by real-seeming people in my dreams, so isn't it entirely possible I'm still doing all that even when I think I'm awake? I think the knowledge of dreaming strengthens the idealist position. If world-building during sleep is a thing, than world-building during non-sleep (or what we think is non-sleep) is definitely on the table. — RogueAI
They don't feel the need to borrow the intellect of an eighteenth century German. — Isaac
Their beliefs and worldviews might have been influenced by Kant, unbeknown to them. Scientist do not live outside of society and they are influenced by the culture in which they live. — Olivier5
My favorite quote from Hume:
“ For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception…. If any one, upon serious and unprejudic'd reflection thinks he has a different notion of himself, I must confess I can reason no longer with him. All I can allow him is, that he may be in the right as well as I, and that we are essentially different in this particular. He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and continu'd, which he calls himself; tho' I am certain there is no such principle in me.” — Joshs
I think ordinary language should be the default starting position. J.L.Austin explains why: — Andrew M
Popper was Kantian and had an undeniable, modern influence on epistemology and philosophy of science. — Olivier5
Scientists are very ambitious. They’re very competitive. If they really thought philosophy would help them, they’d learn it and use it. They don’t. — Lewis Wolpert
[philosophy is] just a way of talking about discoveries that have already been made.
"Consider the following: two people from thousands of years ago can meaningfully talk about their minds, agreed? They can exchange meaningful information with each other about their mental states. Now, if minds and brains are the same thing, then two people in ancient times exchanging meaningful information about their minds must also be exchanging meaningful information about their brains. But of course, ancient peoples had no idea how the brain worked. They thought it cooled the blood. It's an absurdity to claim ancient peoples were meaningfully exchanging information about their brains, so the claim mind=brain entails an absurdity." — RogueAI
Probably. But none of that has anything much to do with whether he had an influence on scientists. — Isaac
Scientists were influenced alright, whether they like to admit it or not. And whether they are conscious of this influence or not. Don't take take their word for it. — Olivier5
Meaning? — Olivier5
Of course, Popper was influenced by scientists, mainly by QM. — Olivier5
Scientists, as a loose collection, would not even exist in the first place if philosophers had not first carved up a safe space for freedom of inquiry, sometimes exposing themselves to significant risk of punishment in doing so, and if they had not used this space to invent the scientific method. — Olivier5
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.