:rofl:

If you are ignorant of the objective nature of the Scientific Method
— Nickolasgaspar

There isn't such a thing as "A scientific Method".
— Nickolasgaspar

:rofl:

:rofl:

You yourself are saying science(knowledge) is seperate from philosophy (wisdom).
Without philosophy means without love of wisdom...

Anything not guided by the love of wisdom is guided by something else, no?

Tell me how science can seperate itself from philosophy without being foolish?

Trying to understand nature without first understanding yourself (or in conjunction with) could be THE definition of unwise, on par with trying to gain the whole world but losing one's own soul.

"I was only doing my job!" — Yohan

-Interacting with you makes me tired and sad.

A little synopsis:

Thinking is an activity that human beings do.

Thinking defined by the universal nature of its questions— especially the question of being — is called philosophy.

Philosophy is universal phenomenological ontology.

Questioning relegated to the causal relations in nature is natural philosophy. Its ontological foundations are just that: natural. “Natura” derives from the Greek: phusis.

Before we take a look at nature — which is one aspect of being — we are doing philosophy. Science is derived from ontology.

Again ALL scientific hypotheses are Metaphysics. Mathematics are NOT science. Its a tool based(that science uses) on an accurate language of logic that has the same role like human language in Philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

Thanks for the heads-up about math. :cool:

Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices

(SEP)

So even tools can be metaphysical.

Philosophy is universal phenomenological ontology — Xtrix

Well, that may clarify things. No need to continue. :yawn:

So even tools can be metaphysical. — jgill

No tools thus mathetmatics aren't metaphysical. Metaphysical views on ideas produced by mathematics (like abstract mathematical objects) ....are metaphysics.
Its in the text you quote!

Metaphysical views ....are metaphysics — Nickolasgaspar

I agree. :chin:

I see your icon only lists physics as a part of philosophy. Are you saying all the other branches of science are spin-offs? Or is this icon from the distant past?

What is "Total Apochavnosis"?

Thinking is an activity that human beings do. — Xtrix

-so this statement raises on important question....what went wrong with you?lol

Philosophy is universal phenomenological ontology. — Xtrix

It might be. I can recall people struggling with such concepts. The important question is...are such ontological speculations meaningful. Can we arrive to meaningful and wise conclusions?

Questioning relegated to the causal relations in nature is natural philosophy. Its ontological foundations are just that: natural. “Natura” derives from the Greek: phusis — Xtrix

-let me get this straight now.... the term Nature derives from the Greek physis(φυση)lol????
What exactly the term nature obtains from the term physis? They don't even share letters or etymologies.(nat-born, natura birth/ physis sprout).
This comment take us to my initial question what went wrong....

Before we take a look at nature — which is one aspect of being — we are doing philosophy. Science is derived from ontology. — Xtrix

-Dude stop saying unfounded deepities. You can not do philosophy without having basic empirical observations to start with . First we interact empirically with your environment, we form our philosophical questions and hypotheses and we look back at nature for additional information that could provide answers and validate some of our hypothesis.

You can NOT have science without philosophy and philosophy without science.
Science is the best tool we have to verify ontological descriptions of the observable reality.

The Philosophy you are referring to as" universal phenomenological ontology" is filled mostly with pseudo philosophical assumptions about unfalsifiable ontological speculations.
Most of the ideas will never be confirmed or dismissed but people will form their comforting worldviews mainly because most of them imply some type of immortality a.k.a. Magical Thinking.

I see your icon only lists physics as a part of philosophy. Are you saying all the other branches of science are spin-offs? Or is this icon from the distant past? — jgill

-Those are steps of the Philosophical method, and all major branches of Philosophy are included!
Aristotle presupposed Logic as a tool necessary to do philosophy this is why it isn't in his list.
But its should have been since Logic is shaped by our epistemology too.

-"What is "Total Apochavnosis"? "
-its a diagnosis relevant to how Philosophy is done!

let me get this straight now.... the term Nature derives from the Greek physis(φυση)lol???? — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, it does. Natura is the Latin translation of phusis.

First we interact empirically with your environment — Nickolasgaspar

No. First we are.

You can NOT have science without philosophy and philosophy without science. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, you can.

I’ll skip the rest. Lying children don’t deserve serious responses. Go read more Rand.

Yes, it does. Natura is the Latin translation of phusis. — Xtrix

:lol:
first of all its one thing to feel the need to point out how the word is translated in Greek and a different to say it derives from the Greek word.
I quote...lol

Questioning relegated to the causal relations in nature is natural philosophy. Its ontological foundations are just that: natural. “Natura” derives from the Greek: phusis — Xtrix

First we interact empirically with your environment — Nickolasgaspar
No. First we are. — Xtrix

We are not arguing the about our existence...lol.
You claimed that:

Before we take a look at nature — which is one aspect of being — we are doing philosophy. Science is derived from ontology. — Nickolasgaspar

That is a factually wrong statement. We first start as "stupid" babies, kids and youngsters and by accumulating facts about the world thus feeding our philosophical narrative. Put your ducks straight mate.
First is our existence then our empirical interactions then our ability to compose meanings. You need material to work upon in order to produce a narrative.

Yes, you can. — Xtrix

Well you can but then you can only be able to produce pseudo philosophy.

translated in Greek — Nickolasgaspar

I didn’t say it was cognate.

That is a factually wrong statement. — Nickolasgaspar

There are no “facts” involved. So this statement is just stupid.

Look - you have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s obvious. You’re pretending otherwise fools no one but yourself. You’re a liar, and you communicate like a child who pretends to have all the answers. Much like Ayn Rand herself.

I doubt if one person on this forum takes you seriously. A normal person would look at this feedback and perhaps reflect…but self-deluded liars like you apparently can’t.

But keep going…trolls provide many laughs.

Questioning relegated to the causal relations in nature is natural philosophy. Its ontological foundations are just that: natural. “Natura” derives from the Greek: phusis — Xtrix

:lol: :joke:

There are no “facts” involved. So this statement is just stupid. — Xtrix

-I agree....."“Natura” derives from the Greek: phusis" is a factually wrong and stupid statement!
:razz:

Look - you have no idea — Xtrix

-Yes I know you don't have a clue. lol

I doubt if one person on this forum takes you seriously. A normal person would look at this feedback and perhaps reflect…but self-deluded liars like you apparently can’t. — Xtrix

- This is your expert opinion as a translator? lol

:rofl:

Trolls are amusing. Imagine not knowing what “cognate” means — or “derive”. Lol

Philosophy has no requirements of prior knowledge. Unlike in physics, you can debate someone's claim on truth without having prior technical knowledge.

Agreed.

.

I think that what you're saying was already well known thousands of years ago, and was even discussed by Plato in his Cratylus dialogue.

And all this elaboration on speech and meaning were already discussed very sensibly by Locke, Reid, Priestley and others.

Was there more added later on? Very much so. Quite a lot.

I think you simplify analytic philosophy. People like Nagel, Haack, Tallis, McGinn and a few others are very, very good.

But, to each there own. — Manuel

Derrida is not Plato. Analytic philosophers have been very helpful for me. It is the sacrifice of content for the sake of clarity that I don't approve of. The world is, at its epistemic foundation, a really, impossibly interesting place. Philosophy should deal with this, not ignore it. Post modern theology, the so called French turn, following Husserl, Heidegger, Levinas et al, does this.

I'm not a post-modernist or deeply read in Derrida, but I find myself agreeing for the most part. For me it seems that the anti-foundationalist conclusions of po-mo are an inevitable consequence of a process that began in earnest (perhaps) with the enlightenment project. We have peeled away the layers of the onion and found that there are only layers and ultimately nothing at the core. While this represents a freedom of sorts, it terrifies and outrages those who insist on foundations. Humans seem hard-wired for this, we navigate via certainty. The challenge for us all is how to reinvent ourselves in relation to this conception. My prediction in the short term is that the culture wars will lead us back into flailing 'certainties' and ever escalating cant. — Tom Storm

This "reinventing ourselves" sounds like Heidegger and Nietzsche before him. True, I think. But I would go one step further: I put aside terms like "hard wiring" for this. It suggests a resignation to some inevitable limitation that is undefined. One thing about onion layers is, if you will, the onion itself, which has layers, no doubt, questions about questions, and there is no way out of this. But that about which the questions apply sits there. This is existence. Can this be questioned? Of course. But there is in question the palpable world that does not belong to language. This deserves analysis as a palpable world. Tricky.

The only thing I like about "analytic" philosophy is that they try to be clear. But some of them do lack content, at least for me. Quine, for instance, does nothing for me, nor does Kripke or Lewis.

Of course the world is interesting, there are many ways to tackle it. I tend to find certain figures enlighten me more than others, often in an eclectic manner.

But the world should be analyzed correctly too, one can easily confuse elaborate constructions for insight about the world, or the mind for that manner.

Again, Heidegger is interesting, Husserl is fine, but goes into mental gymnastics often. I don't find much of anything in Levinas.

-You can never say that an objective set of observations can or cant mirror nature accurately!
You are using an argument from ignorance fallacy as an excuse to dismiss our only credible and objective source of knowledge and sneak in pseudo philosophical speculations as competitive ontological frameworks.
Again I am not saying that our observations are absolute true or the picture we receive is 100% accurate. I only pointing out that we can not evaluate the accuracy of our observation so we are forced to work with what we got (pragmatic necessity) either they agree with our metaphysical worldviews or not! On the other hand idealistic and supernatural claims fall outside our Cataleptic Impressions and our methods of observation so we have zero objective information about these speculations. — Nickolasgaspar

But reading Kant does not yield zero information. That is, well, silly. Not that he's right about everything. Not the point.

I don't read Tyson. He is too poetic for my taste and diluted in epistemology. Again phenomenology has many varieties. Some are philosophical but many are pseudo philosophical. This is the problem with Philosophy. Under the same umbrella term its possible to found good and bad Philosophy!
My statement "whatever it means" was my response to the claim "consciousness being fundamental".
ITs was not a cheep blow. I used that statement because consciousness in Neuroscience has a specific definition and pseudo philosophy/supernaturalism definitions are pretty vague.
What verify in science is in direct conflict with the proclaimed "role" of consciousness by pseudo philosophical views. — Nickolasgaspar

You toss terms like "pseudo" and "supernaturalism" around like you think they have some place in this disagreement. To me it is just the presumption of condescension usually found among those who are limited in their reading. People in science generally are philosophically clueless, which is to be forgiven; after all, they don't read philosophy, or, if they do, it ends up being the philosophy of science.
Generally, when I ask someone with your predilections, they really haven't read anything.

-What I personally think is irrelevant. In science we establish Sufficiency and Necessity between a causal mechanism and the effect by verifying Strong Correlations between a process and a phenomenon. So to explain this process in terms of your example.....an Environmental or organic stimuli (a drowning child or a pebble or a fish breaking the surface of the water etc) produces connections in the brain (surface ripples ) that in turn enables the emergence of mental conscious state with a specific conscious content( wave, bubbles, foam, distorted reflections etc). — Nickolasgaspar

Personally?? The idea here is that a CT scan is not a mirror of the mind in the truest sense of what a mirror is. We can talk like this, but this is a metaphor at work here. In the matter at hand, imagine you had a CT scan of something, but you were told you had to dismiss all familiar possibilities for its interpretation. So much for interpretation. But then, you do have what is there before you to be taken not as something impossibly beyond the phenomenon itself, but simply AS itself. That is where we are.

In this case there the phenomenon is all things. The relation in question is epistemic. If you want to declare the epistemic relation to be a causal one, then you will have a lot of explaining to do. For one thing, the very notion of causality itself would have to be causally accounted for.
The idea here is not to deny what science does, nor its conclusions nor its theorizing. It is to say something really quite simple and without argument: all science has to say rests with what lies before the perceiving intelligence. This is, if you will, a horizon of intuition. Nobody disagrees with this. The most devoted analytic philosopher understands that phenomenology cannot be refuted, only ignored by people why prefer to think of other things. Who cares? You may thematize the world as you please as long as the world has those themes there for the inquiry.

Again you are making an argument from ignorance (because we can not disprove that there is an addition level of reality responsible for mental states we can dismiss or ignore Neuroscience's epistemology without evidence against it and without any evidence for the suggested idea)!
This is NOT how the burden of proof works. This is not how we identify a Default position(Null Hypothesis) .
This is fallacious reasoning! We can not throw out of the window our objective observations and frameworks that make testable predictions (diagnose pathology) and real life technical applications (accurately read complex thoughts, surgery and medicinal protocols)...just because some believe a fallacious claim!
By definition the truth value of a fallacious claim is unknown so we are forced to dismiss it as pseudo metaphysics. — Nickolasgaspar

Not to ignore neuroscience's epistemology. To realize that this epistemology is based upon something more foundational: intuitive givenness. Science is left alone since no one is denying its claims. It is a different world of inquiry altogether.
If you are looking for evidence, and you want to be a good neuroscientist, consider how you would you would translate neurological events into events that are not neurological. There is no assumed ignorance. Just do it. If I asked you to do this in any other case of identifiable connectivity, you wouldl be appalled at the presumption that one could make a scientific claim with out this connection in place. So, just make it. If you cannot, and you can't, you may continue on in your fashion. But you would be thoroughly disabused about the foundational validity of your claims.
Or you can exercise your curiosity and ask questions like, how is it that ideas and object are related? I cannot apprehend an object apart from the understanding, so is it that objects cannot be considered as a "stand alone" presence? What does stand alone even mean at the basic level of inquiry? And on and on.
Pseudo metaphysics? Yes, I despise this sort of thing. I am interested in authentic metaphysics.

-I think I understand what you want to say. You are misusing the term "observation" and that creates a miscommunication. To set things straight , of course we can observe the act of believing and knowing by many methods. We can either compare brain scans in relation to specific stimuli, check blood profile , behavior etc.
What we can't observe is how others individuals subjectively experience those states. This is because it is a subjective experience!
Our goal is not to experience other peoples experiences!!!!! Its nonsensical to even suggest it! What w can do is to verify the processes responsible for the experience. We can do that with objective methods of investigation. — Nickolasgaspar

You have to read more carefully, and then think more carefully. I did say, "even in one's interior observations." I do suspect your problem is that you don't have a capacity to think beyond the models provided the science text. Observe the thought, the experience rising within. Observe that YOU are in a believing state. To observe this is an obvious and simple matter. You have beliefs and you know this. So, there you are believing the sun is out or the cat is sleeping, and conviction is, say, upon you. Now ask, how is it this belief state has verification? That is, clearly you believe and trust your belief, but what is this trust grounded upon? It is purely an intuitive presence of belief that determines this, but because this is given without a justificatory grounding, then it sits there, indeterminate, believing, but at its basis, indeterminate. Of course, you can say, this indeterminacy is the best we can do. We do not live in the mind of God, and so all knowledge claims are like this. And I say, brilliant. This is our indeterminacy.

The more time you spend trying to see this, the more you understand that this condition is not remote from our existence. It is only remote FROM the pov of the presumption of knowing, which is pervasive in all things, like passing the salt and taking a bus. This philosophical perspective is THE perspective: a suspension of the "pass the salt" affairs in order to examine things at a level where presumption itself can be interrogated. Philosophy asks, what is belief?

The "knowing of anythings" is the process of interacting with the world and composing objective descriptions about it. Knowledge is any claim that's objectively in agreement with current facts and carries Instrumental value. Everything gets in our brain by empirical interactions. If you have ever observed babies growing up, you will see that in their early years they know nothing about the world. By interacting with it and testing their assumptions (this is why they are prone to accidents lol) their small brains construct a mental model. This process is called Learning. We can see the changes in the brain and how learning things affect size and function. — Nickolasgaspar

This is just evasion. Or you really can't understand the question. Empirical interactions? But this is exactly what is being questioned. You can't say, oh well, these are just the way of it. Is this how science works?? Is a cloud just a cloud, with no care given to its anatomical analysis?

The think is we are talking about the knowledge on a phenomenon that is studied by a Scientific discipline so "understanding philosophy" or better listening to pseudo philosophical ideas on the mind or consciousness is irrelevant.
When we need to learn things about the causal mechanisms of a biological phenomenon....we study science.
When we want to understand the implications in real life of this knowledge, its value and meaning for our lives...then we use philosophy.
WE NEVER use philosophy to assume magical ontologies that are Unnecessary, Insufficient and Unfalsifiable.
Its not like they are the products and conclusions of our observations!! Someone made up an magical realm and placed his idea in a safe place away from falsification without any epistemic foundations! — Nickolasgaspar

Quite the opposite. What is magical are unexamined assumptions. You are fond of the world magical. This is a sure sign of a dogmatic personality. There is therapy for this; it is called reading outside what dictates your thoughts. It is not magic your fear. It is the unknown, the disconnect from the ready grasp, the letting go of certainty and familiarity, this frightens you. Understandable. It is disquieting to learn that the world is, at the basic level, alien to your ability to know.

-"This is an epistemic relation, not a causal one."
-Correct....observing doesn't cause the event you observe....where exactly do you see a problem???
I don't get what problem do you see in an event (volcano) and an observer observing the event (which is a different event on its own).
Could you point out where the problem is???? — Nickolasgaspar

It is the question that has been there throughout. "Observing doesn't cause the event you observe," THIS is just massively naive. What, is causality suspended to account for how you, the perceiver, can "reach out" to that over there? Remember, I am not thinking like aa phenomenologist at all here. I am thinking like an empirical scientist. Witness two distinct events and say the one has a relation to the other, it MUST BE a causal relation. Unless you have something else in mind for objects and there relations? Whatever it is, it will be reduced to a causal accounting.

Mathematics are NOT science. Its a tool based(that science uses) on an accurate language of logic that has the same role like human language in Philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

And there's the problem. Human language lacks the preciseness of mathematics. Start at ground zero: Ontology. "the nature of being"? "being" being what? Existence? Human existence, physical existence Platonic existence, of mathematical theory, of consciousness, of memories, etc.?

Math has its confusing moments also. Category theory is one for me! But, typically, a mathematical argument is a model of clarity, frequently concise and compact, compared with the tsunami of words constituting a philosophical argument.

You can not do philosophy without having basic empirical observations to start with . First we interact empirically with your environment, we form our philosophical questions and hypotheses and we look back at nature for additional information that could provide answers and validate some of our hypothesis. — Nickolasgaspar

Philosophy of mathematics. Foundations of mathematics? Perhaps the formations of logical principles by observations of natural phenomena.

You can NOT have science without philosophy and philosophy without science — Nickolasgaspar

My interpretation: Philosophical explorations in science are speculations in science. When they are not done by those well-versed in a science they rarely have any intellectual depth.

Thus we differ. That's OK.

-"And there's the problem. Human language lacks the preciseness of mathematics. "
-correct and Mathematics needs philosophy for its symbols and conclusions to be interpreted.
We don't disagree on the differences pros and cons of philosophy and math. I only pointed out that Mathematics are not science, but a tool of reasoning.

-"Philosophy of mathematics. Foundations of mathematics? Perhaps the formations of logical principles by observations of natural phenomena."
-Again your statement is irrelevant to what I wrote.
I said."You can not do philosophy without having basic empirical observations to start with . First we interact empirically with your environment, we form our philosophical questions and hypotheses and we look back at nature for additional information that could provide answers and validate some of our hypothesis."
We need to observe analogies and relation in order to form philosophical or mathematical frameworks.

-"
My interpretation: Philosophical explorations in science are speculations in science. "
-No. Philosophical exploration in science is known as Scientific hypotheses. Those hypotheses need to be testable in order to be scientific.

-"When they are not done by those well-versed in a science they rarely have any intellectual depth.""
-correct.

-"Thus we differ. "
-where and why?

You're right to bow out of this conversation with your tail between your legs — Xtrix

:rofl: No offense Nickolasgaspar.

Interacting with you makes me tired and sad. — Nickolasgaspar

:rofl: No offense Yohan.

You're right to bow out of this conversation with your tail between your legs — Xtrix — Agent Smith

lol....the above comment is from the mind who gave us the statement "Natura derives from the Greek Physis"....lol
Anyone can make an ad hominem...but he is evaluated by his valid arguments.

But reading Kant does not yield zero information. That is, well, silly. Not that he's right about everything. Not the point. — Constance

First of all your answer doesn't really address any points made in my first paragraph. We don't have a way to be sure whether our feedback of an invisible underlying reality is accurate or not. What we can verify is that in different scales of reality we observe different characteristics that are quantifiable and verifiable.
What Kant or any philosopher says about metaphysical aspects of ontology is IRRELEVANT and an argument from false authority since there aren't any experts or authorities in metaphysical claims!

You toss terms like "pseudo" and "supernaturalism" around like you think they have some place in this disagreement. — Constance

Of course they have. If you talk about mind properties non contingent to natural processes or "post modern Theology" or accept unfalsifiable metaphysical statements as foundations for your philosophical views then both of my labels are justified in this conversation!
Those terms just point out that the promoted ideas do not carry epistemic foundations sot they can not be used as tools for the understanding of the world (not that they are wrong).

To me it is just the presumption of condescension usually found among those who are limited in their reading. People in science generally are philosophically clueless, which is to be forgiven; after all, they don't read philosophy, or, if they do, it ends up being the philosophy of science.
Generally, when I ask someone with your predilections, they really haven't read anything. — Constance

- Is it? Are they? Maybe you are right.
Two problems.
1. What do you mean by reading philosophy? Chronicling? Finding out who (philosopher) said what?
Do you really think that Chronicling is Philosophy or that it will help you to promote a metaphysical statement to an epistemic degree of value, by knowing about it?
The fact that those conclusions have never being evaluated or used to produce abbitional knowledge or wise claims that we can act upon..... doesn't raise any flags for you?
Sure some great names made some metaphysical claims that you agree with...this is all you have!
The question is What makes you think that they are philosophical or at least meaningful?

2.People in science are generally philosophically clueless....meaning that they are really bad in Chronicling. THis is because they ignore ideas that are not proven Wise and with zero epistemic potential.
They are only familiar with Philosophical ideas that are epistemically and instrumentally valuable. (Naturalism, Objectivism, Humanism, Situational ethics etc etc etc ).
So at least in my case I don't give much attention to philosophical claims that do not achieve the goal set by Philosophy itself....to provide Wise claims about our world on solid epistemic grounds.
Sorry If I sound condescending...that was not my intention.

Personally?? The idea here is that a CT scan is not a mirror of the mind in the truest sense of what a mirror is. We can talk like this, but this is a metaphor at work here."

-Brain scans detects and records function while a mirror reflects an image. We know that Mirrors don't even display the light correctly, due to imperfections(distortions) and the fact that they flip images.
So the mirror is a bad metaphor.
In fMRI scans we are not interested in accuracy or reflecting light. We are tracking the role of every area of the brain and their connections. We can test any specific mental state by disturbing specific functions and connections allowing us to establish necessity and sufficiency of a function for a specific mental state.


-". In the matter at hand, imagine you had a CT scan of something, but you were told you had to dismiss all familiar possibilities for its interpretation. So much for interpretation. But then, you do have what is there before you to be taken not as something impossibly beyond the phenomenon itself, but simply AS itself. That is where we are. — Constance

"
-Dismiss familiar possibilities???? By studying brain scans we establish strong correlations between mechanisms and produced outcome of the system (thought, action etc). He don't dismiss possibilities (that we don't even know whether they are possible or not) we describe functions and how they are linked to phenomena. Our interpretations are forced to work with available descriptions due to Practical Necessity not of a bias opinion against unknown possibilities! IN science , Philosophy and Logic we can never include Unfalsifiable assumptions or mechanisms that we can not demonstrate their possible nature in our interpretations. That is an irrational behavior.

. If you want to declare the epistemic relation to be a causal one, then you will have a lot of explaining to do. For one thing, the very notion of causality itself would have to be causally accounted for. — Constance

-In science we don't arbitrary declare causality.We test and verify causality by building a case on the accumulation of Strong Correlation between Necessary mechanisms by proving them sufficiency in the process.
Your argument is based on tour inability to prove a Universal Negative (we can not prove that there is an additional invisible underlying mechanism that drives the causality we observe).
That is a fallacy (argument from ignorance). This is your burden not a weakness of our methods. You need to provide evidence that could prove the observable causal mechanisms secondary or superficial.

.The idea here is not to deny what science does, nor its conclusions nor its theorizing. It is to say something really quite simple and without argument: all science has to say rests with what lies before the perceiving intelligence. This is, if you will, a horizon of intuition. Nobody disagrees with this. The most devoted analytic philosopher understands that phenomenology cannot be refuted, only ignored by people why prefer to think of other things. Who cares? You may thematize the world as you please as long as the world has those themes there for the inquiry. — Constance

I will agree with that statement.
-"all science has to say rests with what lies before the perceiving intelligence."
Science can only evaluate frames of what is provided by our Cataleptic Impressions.

-"This is, if you will, a horizon of intuition."
-That is a sophistry in my opinion. Intuition doesn't rest on Systematic accumulation of Objective facts...so equating science to intuition is unfair and troubling to be honest.

Not to ignore neuroscience's epistemology. To realize that this epistemology is based upon something more foundational: intuitive givenness. Science is left alone since no one is denying its claims. It is a different world of inquiry altogether.
If you are looking for evidence, and you want to be a good neuroscientist, consider how you would you would translate neurological events into events that are not neurological. There is no assumed ignorance. Just do it. If I asked you to do this in any other case of identifiable connectivity, you wouldl be appalled at the presumption that one could make a scientific claim with out this connection in place. So, just make it. If you cannot, and you can't, you may continue on in your fashion. But you would be thoroughly disabused about the foundational validity of your claims.
Or you can exercise your curiosity and ask questions like, how is it that ideas and object are related? I cannot apprehend an object apart from the understanding, so is it that objects cannot be considered as a "stand alone" presence? What does stand alone even mean at the basic level of inquiry? And on and on.
Pseudo metaphysics? Yes, I despise this sort of thing. I am interested in authentic metaphysics. — Constance

-How this answer of yours is relevant to the fallacious nature of the main excuse you use to accept claims that aren't epistemically founded.
No, we don't know how accurate our most advanced scientific observations are and we don't have a way to test them. This is the reality and this defines the Pragmatic Necessity that we need to accept.The default position is NOT to assume that they are not accurate, without any indications or evidence and go on presuming invisible realms and substances interacting with the accessible reality!
Science doesn't produce epistemology on intuition. It challenges our intuitive thoughts and preferred assumptions by contrasting them head to head them with objective facts.
Asking questions is a good thing but you need to know that NOT all questions are philosophical. If your questions beg the questions for specific supernatural artifacts or assume what you need to demonstrate they are fallacious in nature. (Again they are not necessarily wrong).

I do suspect your problem is that you don't have a capacity to think beyond the models provided the science text. — Constance

-No my problem is thoughts that ignore that their starting point should always be epistemically supported, free of fallacies and they shouldn't assume what they need to prove.

Observe the thought, the experience rising within. Observe that YOU are in a believing state. To observe this is an obvious and simple matter. You have beliefs and you know this. So, there you are believing the sun is out or the cat is sleeping, and conviction is, say, upon you. Now ask, how is it this belief state has verification? That is, clearly you believe and trust your belief, but what is this trust grounded upon? It is purely an intuitive presence of belief that determines this, but because this is given without a justificatory grounding, then it sits there, indeterminate, believing, but at its basis, indeterminate. Of course, you can say, this indeterminacy is the best we can do. We do not live in the mind of God, and so all knowledge claims are like this. And I say, brilliant. This is our indeterminacy. — Constance

-No you are oversimplifying states of beliefs and how they arise.
Belief is the state when someone accepts a claims to be true.
There are Knowledge based beliefs and faith based beliefs.
Knowledge based beliefs are those which are objectively verified by facts accessible by any one.
I can test the claim "the cat sleep on the couch", by pointing it to my gf and seeing her smile, by taking a photo of my cat and sending it to friends and be verified by their reactions, by physically checking she is there etc etc.
Objective empirical verification is how we verify the knowledge value of a belief.

Faith based belief are those claims that aren't based on sufficient evidence and they can not be verified Objectively. Intuition or subjective experience or other bad evidence are offered as an excuse for accept such claims.

Of course we have limitations in the quality and the quantify of the evidence we can gather for a claim.This is why we always aim to satisfy Sufficiency and Necessity and our position are Tentative in the case where new evidence might force us to change our narrative.
Again Intuition has nothing to do with Scientific knowledge. Sure none of our knowledge claim can be accepted as 100% correct but its the best material we have to work with and they are the standards by which we define a belief rational/irrational and our Arguments Sound or Unsound.

The more time you spend trying to see this, the more you understand that this condition is not remote from our existence. It is only remote FROM the pov of the presumption of knowing, which is pervasive in all things, like passing the salt and taking a bus. This philosophical perspective is THE perspective: a suspension of the "pass the salt" affairs in order to examine things at a level where presumption itself can be interrogated. Philosophy asks, what is belief? — Constance

_we are aware of all those problems in our attempt to verify claims and distinguish epistemology from faith
The problem rises when you use this as a way to lower the epistemic value of Scientific frameworks but you have no issues to promote ideas that do not even reach the half way of those standards.
In short an argument of ignorance doesn't raise its value if we admit the uncertainty in our epistemology. A fallacy is a fallacy and we should dismiss it.

This is just evasion. Or you really can't understand the question. Empirical interactions? But this is exactly what is being questioned. You can't say, oh well, these are just the way of it. Is this how science works?? Is a cloud just a cloud, with no care given to its anatomical analysis? — Constance

What is your argument COnstance?? What are you trying to say? I defined what a knowledge claim is
thus describing our limits in what we can accept as a knowledge claim.
How is this an evasion, how is this me not understanding the question.
The problem is with the question.
The problem is that you deny the standards by which we can verify a knowledge claim
the problem is that you reject empirical methods(which is ok) but you are unable to suggest an alternative method that can also provide objective evaluations.!
NOT all sentences with a questionmark at the end qualify as good questions or they can be answered?
Just because you can form a question that doesn't takes any value of our current standards or epistemic acknowledgments.
Your presuppositions will need to meet the same standards of logic in order to be accepted as reasonable.

You are questioning the ontology of reality and the picture we have without any fact to argue against or even indication for our picture being constantly wrong!
That is an irrational practice.

Quite the opposite. What is magical are unexamined assumptions. You are fond of the world magical. This is a sure sign of a dogmatic personality. — Constance

-No, Magic is a sign of a claim that attempts to describe a phenomenon based on an assumption without including the describing a of mechanism that obeys known rules of reality.
Its an intrinsic issue of a claim (magical) not an observer depended one.

. There is therapy for this; it is called reading outside what dictates your thoughts. It is not magic your fear. It is the unknown, the disconnect from the ready grasp, the letting go of certainty and familiarity, this frightens you. Understandable. It is disquieting to learn that the world is, at the basic level, alien to your ability to know. — Constance

_I am pointing out the weaknesses in your assumptions.
1. the logical fallacy of assuming a wrong picture of reality without being able to demonstrate it
2. Assuming transcendent causality without being able to demonstrate it
3. Arguing from false authority and chronicling instead of providing evidence on why this type of "philosophy" should be trusted.
4. Now you are using ad hominem arguments because you are unable to accept that something is wrong with your reasoning...but it is easy to accept that something is wrong with my personality!

The proof is in the pudding. You will need to based your assumptions on evidence.
Can you really do that? Philosophy without epistemic foundations is theology.

Ayn Rand devotees are cute.