I understand. That was POP's view, and wanted to get your thoughts on it. However if one embraces the notion of ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure. then, things that are alive also include abstract structures. And abstract structures include human sentience. — 3017amen
Let's say the world is a cosmic computer. And in that computer are all the choices (human volition) one can make in the world in order to arrive at an answer to a given question. In the context of cosmology, if one proceeds to hypothesize through the use of logic (synthetic a priori propositions/judgements), does that not imply that depending upon what actual questions we ask, our answers will only be commensurate or proportional to that which we ask? — 3017amen
I understand. That was POP's view, and wanted to get your thoughts on it. However if one embraces the notion of ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure. then, things that are alive also include abstract structures. And abstract structures include human sentience. — 3017amen
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Maybe if you give me an example of the kind of abstract structure you're talking about. — T Clark
Let's say the world is a cosmic computer. And in that computer are all the choices (human volition) one can make in the world in order to arrive at an answer to a given question. In the context of cosmology, if one proceeds to hypothesize through the use of logic (synthetic a priori propositions/judgements), does that not imply that depending upon what actual questions we ask, our answers will only be commensurate or proportional to that which we ask? — 3017amen
I really don't understand. — T Clark
I think that using computers to analyze the mind/brain and the universe can be misleading in the sense that the brain does what it does and is different from a computer in many crucial respects, not least of which is biology. — Manuel
As we move up in levels of complexity, the questions we ask about the world may not have an answer. We may not know enough to ask nature the proper questions. So the proportional part of the question only arises if the questions we ask correctly capture some aspect of the mind-independent world. — Manuel
in the sense there may exist other possible worlds that have a completely different metaphysical language or logic outside the usual categories of human thought. — 3017amen
Using human thought as the only thing we have in this context, there are other 'abstract thoughts' that include things like multiverse theories, a di-polar God, etc... — 3017amen
No end of abstract thoughts. The question is, is any other kind possible or conceivable? Lots have practical application, but that word "practical" is no easy word. — tim wood
What is your justification for joining religion with natural/physical sciences? — tim wood
Instead of going there, why not deal with what's here? There is no context in nature, only nature itself. — tim wood
What makes you think time is in nature?I'm not following that. "no context in nature?" What's here, among other things, is Time. — 3017amen
It's exactly the opposite situation in philosophy (East & West), and always has been, which accounts for the prevalence of e.g. (neo)platonic / esoteric-hermetic / idealist / anti-realist philosophies for millennia. So-called e.g. materialist / realist / pragmatist philosophies are the often unaknowledged metaphysics of e.g. scientists, engineers, physicians & political-economists. It's reason (i.e. Heraclitus' logos, etc), the skunk at the philoLARPing party, Jack, that gets "overlooked" by being mis/ab-used so routinely.I do find Kant's ideas on intuition as useful. Generally, I think that intuition is rather overlooked in philosophy and it does seem that reason is seen as the supreme principle. — Jack Cummins
What makes you think time is in nature?
You might argue that what is in nature, is in nature, but even that becomes granular, looked at closely enough. That tree over there, surely that's in nature? And practically speaking, for one who likes trees, or seeks shade, or even lumber, of course it is. But are not all of these, and all that they are themselves founded upon, constituted of abstractions? — tim wood
You suppose time in nature. Surely you must have some reason for so supposing. — tim wood
Of course those laws are what's unseen behind the physical/natural world, or things-in-themselves. Hence, we have nothing but an abstract language to describe (and to some degree explain) things. — 3017amen
The humanistic examples include human phenomena associated with human consciousness... In my view, those things are, by nature, abstract things-in-themselves. — 3017amen
To reiterate some of my earlier questions: "Some of this still makes me think about what Einstein said about the so-called causal connection between human sentience and religion/to posit God in the first place... . — 3017amen
Maybe the metaphysical questions are what does it mean to perceive something as abstract? Is the concept of God abstract? Is consciousness/sentience itself abstract?" — 3017amen
Of course those laws are what's unseen behind the physical/natural world, or things-in-themselves. Hence, we have nothing but an abstract language to describe (and to some degree explain) things. — 3017amen
There are some who disagree, but for me, mathematics and natural laws are stories we tell ourselves. They have no independent reality outside of humanity. — T Clark
The humanistic examples include human phenomena associated with human consciousness... In my view, those things are, by nature, abstract things-in-themselves. — 3017amen
I don't see why you would classify the phenomena you listed as "structures." Also, I think "abstract things-in-themselves" is a contradiction in terms. — T Clark
To reiterate some of my earlier questions: "Some of this still makes me think about what Einstein said about the so-called causal connection between human sentience and religion/to posit God in the first place... . — 3017amen
As I said previously, for me, religious thought is just thought, so of course there is a connection between religion and human sentience. — T Clark
Maybe the metaphysical questions are what does it mean to perceive something as abstract? Is the concept of God abstract? Is consciousness/sentience itself abstract?" — 3017amen
In a sense, anything described in human language is abstract. — T Clark
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.