As a wrap-up review -- to this and the Non-Physical thread -- what do you think of my assessment that the opposing positions are viewed as A> Real Science vs un-real Pseudo-science by conservative hard-liners, but as B> Reductive Science vs Holistic Science by more progressive pioneers of unexplored territory ? The result of such binary framing is that we end-up debating different questions from polarized positions. Unfortunately, the Science=Truth posters, don't accept that there is another way to do scientific research. And of course, it's easy to go wrong, when you go beyond "settled science" into open-ended questions. But that's the difference between tinkering Technology and Progressive Science, otherwise known as Pure Science or Basic Research.Don't waste your time arguing against the omniscient. — Wayfarer
As a wrap-up review -- to this and the Non-Physical thread -- what do you think of my assessment that the opposing positions are viewed as A> Real Science vs un-real Pseudo-science by conservative hard-liners, but as B> Reductive Science vs Holistic Science by more progressive pioneers of unexplored territory ? — Gnomon
Another way to frame the debate is between Inductive & Deductive reasoning. Empirical science is supposed to be strictly Deductive from direct experience (experiment). But a lot of modern science, especially the Soft Sciences, have little hard evidence to work with, so most of their reasoning is Inductive, from a general hypothesis to a more developed theory (what if?). — Gnomon
Are there determinate entities we might call "thoughts". I would say 'no' because thinking is a process. There is certainly thinking. When we say there are determinate entities it is usually because we can look at and examine them. Can we do this with thoughts? I don't think so, thoughts are known only in the thinking of them, or reflexively known only in remembering that we have thought them; which amounts to thinking them again. — Janus
So computation is the basis for thoughts (and presumably consciousness)?
— RogueAI
As far as what is currently understood in modern cognitive neuroscience, and by that I mean every single piece of available data when analyzed together, beyond any question — Garrett Travers
No. Just that non-physical Mind & physical Body are philosophically distinct concepts. The latter is subject to empirical investigation, but the former is subject only to theoretical exploration. Philosophers only do thought experiments, which are always debatable. That may be why Mind is more interesting to them than Brains. You don't have to get your hands mucky.↪Gnomon
Is it your position – extrapolating from Pinker's objection to Lakoff & Johnson's thesis ("metaphor") – that mind is disembodied? — 180 Proof
"Whole" . . . "holistic" . . . I get it. :joke:Agree with your analysis, on the whole. — Wayfarer
Sure. But Positivism was mainly concerned with weeding-out Metaphysics. And most of modern Philosophy falls in that non-physical category, by default. If it ain't physical, it's metaphysical (i.e. religious faith). Which is why many philosophers try to dissociate themselves from Scholastic Metaphysics. :cool:C S Pierce also included abductive reasoning - reasoning from effect to probable cause. But the issue is that underlying 'scientism' is 'positivism' - that being, in a loose sense, the view that science and mathematical extrapolations of empirical observations are the sole forms of valid knowledge. — Wayfarer
But Positivism was mainly concerned with weeding-out Metaphysics — Gnomon
It is not easy to say what metaphysics is.... — Gnomon
In what sense does Mind exist, if not as an illusory figment of imagination? — Gnomon
Nonsense. This preferred "interest" may be only true – symptomatic – of idealists, platonists or cartesians. You need to study (more) modern philosophy such as works by Spinoza, Hume, Peirce/Dewey, Jaspers, Merleau-Ponty, Dennett, Flanagan, Maturana/Varela, Hofstadter, Lakoff/Johnson, Damasio, Metzinger ... also some synopses (e.g.) neurophilosophy and neurophenomenology. Get your mind's "hands mucky", Gnomon. :eyes:Philosophersonlydo thought experiments, which are always debatable. That may be why Mind is more interesting to them than Brains. — Gnomon
Easy to say; make a conceptually coherent, logically sound case for this "notion's" "legitimacy" (i.e. that "disembodied soul" (or disembodied mind) is not vacuous, just-so, woo-woo). Show me, intellect to intellect, G, don't just tell me (bloviate). :sweat:The notion of a disembodied soul is a legitimate topic for philosophical discussion...
Yes. For the purposes of my Enformationism thesis, I typically define "metaphysics" in terms of the topics Aristotle discussed in the second volume of his treatise in Nature. There, he was not describing physical things, but ideas about things, or about Nature in general, including the human Mind and its Thoughts. Volume 1 was the primitive forerunner of modern Science, while volume 2 was the prescient ancestor of modern Philosophy. :smile:It's been discussed a lot but I always say, never loose sight of its connection to Aristotle, for whom the term was coined. Otherwise metaphysics becomes a catch-all term for any kind of woo. — Wayfarer
As usual, you missed the point of my description of what distinguishes Philosophy from Science. Some professional scientists with mucky hands, also do some philosophical speculation on the side. Apparently, you think that Philosophers should be required to present empirical evidence for their conjectures.Nonsense. — 180 Proof
I consider myself a freethinker (and naturalist) who studies philosophy.Do you consider yourself a Philosopher, perhaps an amateur like me? — Gnomon
Three years of graduate lab work (Cognitive Science / Psychology). Engineering projects and physics + chemistry lab work as an undergrad. Paralegal and mortgage underwriting work for decades (pre-pandemic). Left-Green political activism for decades (pre-9/11). I'd say I've been quite "mucky" in various ways ...If so, what "mucky" physical experiments have you done?
I don't have a basement.Do you tinker with real stuff in your basement?
I cite publicly available, corroborable evidence and fact-based interpretations which support my "personal opinions" in the spirit of inviting dialectical challenges (against which "personal opinions" like the usual woo-of-the-gaps, such as yours, sir, that usually does not hold up under the slightest scrutiny).Or do you simply express personal opinions as Facts on forums?
I only cite findings of science to corroborate my challenges to the pseudo-science woo-of-the-gaps silliness graffitied on these fora by you hordes of "amateur philosopher" poseurs. My own speculations – what I call "the Real" – are open to being challenged. I welcome the dialectic, but like you, Gnomon, most retreat back into their own self-consoling, "scripture" quoting, "personal opinions" (i.e. dogmas) instead.Do you simply quotethe Scriptures of Science asevidence for your claims of what's Real, and what's not?
As an untrained dilettante philosopher, I bow before your self-proclaimed Omniscience. But, I still don't appreciate your "dogmatic" (your word) True-Believer-in-Scientism shtick on this non-ideological forum. Most of us amateurs are well-informed about modern science in general, but we are not narrowly-focused specialists in any particular sub-field. So, our worldviews may be broader and more inclusive than yours. If that open-mindedness is what you call "woo", then woo-hoo give me a tattoo! :joke:Three years of graduate lab work (Cognitive Science / Psychology). Engineering projects and physics + chemistry lab work as an undergrad. Paralegal and mortgage underwriting work for decades (pre-pandemic). Left-Green political activism for decades (pre-9/11). I'd say I've been quite "mucky" in various ways ... — 180 Proof
Well, your "untrained dilettante" ad hominems, sir, miss their mark by a wide country mile with projections of your own philosophical defects. :sweat:As an untrained dilettante philosopher, I bow before your self-proclaimed Omniscience. But, I still don't appreciate your "dogmatic" (your word) True-Believer-in-Scientism shtick on this non-ideological forum. — Gnomon
Just wondering how many forum members are prepared to say there are no thoughts. — ZzzoneiroCosm
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.