I have in mind Dennett and his denying phenomenal consciousness. — Manuel
Any explanations? — Banno
Explanation #1 - Poor enforcement of the pseudo-science rules. — T Clark
am I missing something? — StreetlightX
But I would more so say that when Dennett says “consciousness ain’t real” he is denying the “phenomenal” bit, not the “consciousness” bit. He is basically denying a dualistic approach. Consciousness is real and all, but no more than a physical process. The “feeling of red” IS a specific neurological state, and no more than that. It’s not something “produced by” a certain neurological state no it IS the neurological state.
That’s what he seems to be saying to me at least. — khaled
I don't really mind our pseudoscientific members and their writing. It's fun for me to feel all superior. On the other hand, allowing bad science a place to speak is not this forum's job. It's here to provide bad philosophy a place to speak. They come here because they get smacked down and banned on science forums. You actually have to know something real to write there. — T Clark
I think this is a small example of a larger problem - the inability to accept reality.
Reality deniers come in many shapes & sizes: Vaccines, the Holocaust, Flat Earth, climate change, etc.
I wish I knew what causes this. I have close relatives & friends who deny at least one (and typically many) aspects of reality. My amateur psychologist analysis is that this is partly driven by fear. The way they view themselves and how they fit into the world is being challenged. And they are afraid of that change.
And the thing is - they are not stupid people. You can have intelligent conversations with them on any number of issues, you can share laughter & tears, etc. — EricH
The tedious tide of theological threads appear to have been replaced by a population of piss-poor physics posts. — Banno
I always viewed physics as just another form of advanced math, like calculus and whatnot. Am I wrong on that? — James Riley
To presume I have any idea that its "bad physics" is delusional. Ditto for you — Xtrix
I can't speak for you. But I'm entitled to (and do in fact have) an informed opinion on the matter. I can refer you to some recent books by physicists on the subject. And since the work of modern physics is primarily supported by government grants and I'm a taxpayer, I most definitely have say. — fishfry
Note that all these books and articles, and others like them, are intended for mainstream audiences. — fishfry
You're welcome to your delusions. — Xtrix
Did I say something that bothered you? By way of conversation, I'm wondering why you think the public is entitled to a voice in which highways to build, which public projects to fund, but not which scientific projects to fund? — fishfry
That has nothing to do with whether physics has been "bad" for the last few decades. The OP isn't about funding science. — Xtrix
Note that all these books and articles, and others like them, are intended for mainstream audiences. So these authors are physicists who understand the physics; and who also believe that it IS the business of the public to make informed judgments on the validity of the work currently being done by the physicists. — fishfry
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.