That's the opposite of what happened, Newton overthrew materialism, and it has only gotten stranger since - further removed from common sense. — Manuel
Strawson, on the other hand, describes panpsychism as a form of physicalism, on his view the only viable form.[26] Panpsychism can be combined with reductive materialism but cannot be combined with eliminative materialism because the latter denies the existence of the relevant mental attributes.[8] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism#Physicalism_and_materialism
Now it may be easy for us to say "that's obvious", well, I don't share that. I don't think many of us (or any) would have come up with his equations and theory. — Manuel
But, Chomsky doesn't agree with Panpsychism, because he believes "radical emergence" to be part of normal science. — Manuel
But what about relativity? Isn't it built on thought experiments that were later verified? At least some of our native reason works? — frank
But what about relativity? Isn't it built on thought experiments that were later verified? At least some of our native reason works? — frank
Maybe I'm not as well versed on this topic matter; still, I don't find a necessary conflict between the idea of panpsychism and the idea of radical emergence: e.g., even if panpsychism, there would yet be a radical enough emergence of life from nonlife. Any idea of why the two would need to be contradictory? — javra
Strawson postulates panpsychism as necessary because emergence cannot be brute or "radical": there must be something in the phenomena by which new properties arise as they do (in this case consciousness or experience), otherwise it would be a miracle every time a new property arises in nature. [...] — Manuel
Classical interpretations having vanished, the notions of body, material, physical are hardly more than honorific designations for what is more or less understood at some particular moment in time, with flexible boundaries and no guarantee that there will not be radical revisions ahead, even at its core.
Sure! If you are interested, I can see if I can find you an article - or a part of an article - in which Strawson talks about the problem of life in relation to panpsychism. — Manuel
The gist of it was (if I remember correctly) that all of "life" could be explained by our physics, chemistry and biology, but this still does not touch on the topic of experience at all. — Manuel
Anyway, so Chomsky's sense of "understanding" – by extension explicability and therefore inexplicability (i.e. "mysterious, mystery") – is anachronistic and related to / derived from an out-dated, surpassed, methodological paradigm? – okay, got it. — 180 Proof
The wiki for Lord Kelvin with his "false pronuncements" is interesting though — 180 Proof
If you say General Relativity is more intuitive than mechanistic materialism, then we slightly differ in common sense understanding. — Manuel
But what about relativity? Isn't it built on thought experiments that were later verified? At least some of our native reason works? — frank
Yeah. Einstein understood that Newton's laws could only go so far, it had problems it could not account for, such as the orbit or Mercury.
So Einstein's theory is better for many aspects of astronomy, including say, GPS. Though Newton's laws work pretty well for objects here on Earth. — Manuel
You might be interested in this comment. — Wayfarer
What does physicalism involve? What is it, really, to be a physicalist? What is it to be a realistic physicalist, or, more simply, a real physicalist? Well, one thing is absolutely clear. You’re certainly not a realistic physicalist, you’re not a real physicalist, if you deny the existence of the phenomenon whose existence is more certain than the existence of anything else: experience, ‘consciousness’, conscious experience, ‘phenomenology’, experiential ‘what-it’s-likeness’, feeling, sensation, explicit conscious thought as we have it and know it at almost every waking moment. — Galen Strawson -- Realistic Monism: Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism
You kibbitz a lot, Xtrix, without staying on topic or addressing my explicit requests — 180 Proof
cite where Chomsky clearly states what he Chomsky means by "understanding" and "mystery" and where he soundly demonstrates how he/we can understand whatever it is he/we "will never understand". — 180 Proof
t I need to know whether or not Chomsky says anything new on this topic — 180 Proof
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.