Well, the scientific attitude you describe corresponds I think to a post-Enlightenment positivism, characteristic of a nineteenth century "faith in progress" mentality. The kind of mentality that is emerging (I hope) is one based on a more robust scientific understanding that replaces the ideal of technological progress with a systems-centric concept of health. It is still science-based, but it is a more mature kind of science that isn't blindly anthropocentric. That would be the general direction in which I would characterize it.

edit: Your characterizations of pluralism and economic health, for example, are not truly realized in the scientific weltanschauung, but are consistent with the emerging post-scientific ideals.

I sound like a broken record, but any time one wants to discuss science one should at least define what one means by science.

could you define what you mean by post-scientific ideals?

So - you’ve picked two areas that are currently on the decline - the biosphere and social Inequality - and then suggest we need a post-scientific viewpoint.

If - as a philosopher - you can’t see the faulty reasoning in this conclusion, then there’s a major problem here. And yet a lot of people on this forum make this same mistake.

Obviously, science isn’t responsible for these things, any more than Nietzsche is responsible for the Nazis misinterpretation of the Uberman.

I did. Sorry about that.

Obviously, science isn’t responsible for these things, — GLEN willows

Obvioiusly not. But then again, science is not a way of living either. Which was kind of the point.

I'm more interested in the rows, the contrasts, than the column titles.
With hindsight, I wish I had named the columns "Type 1" and "Type 2" so that more comments would have addressed the rows.

you said “One thing though. SInce we are currently not progressing towards a better future (misuse of technology is destroying the biosphere which is essential for human life, social and economic inequality is increasing, not improving), should there also be a "Post-Scientific" column.”

I know you’re not anti-science…which is why I question the term “post-science.” If science doesn’t cause these problems any more than philosophy, why single it out as opposed to “post-philosophy”?

video on chemistry is called “the Hidden chemistry of everything” so that sums up his stance. Sure, we are a bag of chemistry, — GLEN willows

I watched parts of this video. All 3 participants look quite brilliant, esp. Kate. So, posted the following comment:
"Excellent and very enjoyable video, with brilliant participants. So, I have a question for them, but also for everyone else here: Do you believe that we are just "chemistry"? If that is so, why don't they teach, in chemistry classes, that human thought, logic, imagination, memory and all human attributes as well as consciousness are all produced by chemical reactions and how? Or do they?"
The question is also for you who claims that "we are a bag of chemistry" and you too @Agent Smith, who first brought up this subject.

@GLEN willows

We're just a complex self-sustaining electro-chemical reaction according to science. Holists disagree, saying there's more. Bring in evolution and we're further ... reduced

Holists disagree, saying there's more — Agent Smith

I'm not sure where are you referring to with "holists" --medicine or philosophy-- but there's a very large part of people in the West and almost the whole East who disagree.

Bring in evolution and we're further ... reduced — Agent Smith

I feel squeezed by just reading this! :grimace: ... :grin:

It's rather humbling and depressing when even our loftiest thoughts, our deepest feelings can be shown to be nothing but means by which evolution keeps a particular ape species willing and even eager to play the game (of life).

I sympathize.

I sympathize — Alkis Piskas

Danke!

I understand and respect those other opinions. But how then do holists avoid dualism?

It's rather humbling and depressing when even our loftiest thoughts, our deepest feelings can be shown to be nothing but means by which evolution keeps a particular ape species willing and even eager to play the game (of life).



I honestly find this astounding. I don't find it depressing, but ok, I can see why you do. The question is - is it true? That's the issue.

Of course we haven't discovered this - nobody actually KNOWS that consciousness is part of the bag of chemicals. I believe it will be proven to be, but of course I can't prove it.

But I used to find it depressing that life has no meaning in a teleological sense. I used to find it depressing that there is no God, no heaven and just endless darkness when we die. But I found out that no "purpose" can mean freedom to create my OWN reasons to live, and no God freed me to respect thinking that was logical and required proof - not just wishful thinking.

Might I suggest dispensing with the notion that our thoughts, intentions and qualia all exist in some - never fully explained - sphere of their own (yet with the ability to dip into our biology and affect our behaviour) could be equally freeing for you?

Isn't your brain in all it's powers not astounding enough for you? Or evolutionary adaptation too mundane?

As the Roxy Music song goes "What Do You Want From Life?"

Holists are those who say 2 + 2 = 5.

. "I have a question for them, but also for everyone else here: Do you believe that we are just "chemistry"? If that is so, why don't they teach, in chemistry classes, that human thought, logic, imagination, memory and all human attributes as well as consciousness are all produced by chemical reactions and how? Or do they?"

They don't. Because (as I'm sure you know) consciousness is the hard problem, and hasn't been explained by philosophy or science. We're all just speculating here. When/if they find an empirical explanation for it, maybe they will teach it in high school...maybe they won't. I'm not hugely confident the school system will be up for it - evolution isn't even taught in a lot of American schools.

There are still people asking "if we evolved from apes...why are there still apes around?" Right?

Funny. And kudos to you for being so hard to pin down. I mean that sincerely - I wear my heart on my sleeve, which very often backfires on me.

Having said that - answer the rest of my post!! hahaha

EDIT: I meant my other post, pardone.

Well, if what we value the most is just a trick evolution plays on us to keep us addicted to the game of life, I'd be down in the dumps. I'm mildly surprised that you don't feel that way. You're an agent of the system GLEN willows and you're playing your part with a finesse I find admirable. As for me ... I'm unplugged! :cool:

I know you’re not anti-science…which is why I question the term “post-science.” If science doesn’t cause these problems any more than philosophy, why single it out as opposed to “post-philosophy”? — GLEN willows

That's true, it was an adoption of the given schema. The problem is really one of abuse and worship of technology. But then, conflation of technology and science is another current problem. There is a better term I'm sure.

They don't. — GLEN willows

I know. I'm just being polite. :smile:

consciousness is the hard problem, and hasn't been explained by philosophy or science. — GLEN willows

I know that too. This is often my answer to those who believe --some of them are quite certain-- that consciousness is a product of and ilocated in the brain.

When/if they find an empirical explanation for it ... — GLEN willows

Well, there is an empirical explanation: Consciousness can only be experienced.
It is not something physical that can be studied by science in a laboratory!
But this cannot be teached in a school. It is a philosophical subject. Otherwise, in psychology course that I took in college, I remember that they talk about consciousness as something given, and of course, it is assumed that it occurs in the brain, at least they believed until then (1974).

There are still people asking "if we evolved from apes...why are there still apes around?" Right? — GLEN willows

:up: Good question. I have thought about this too. But I give it a slack, because there's a possibility, that --according to evolutionists always-- we have been evolved from a specific, more advanced race of apes. Yet, this remains to be proved. As do hundreds of other things regarding humans!

Not so fast, bucko!

So is your philosophy based on what is the most likely/logical argument, or the one most like NOT to be depressing to you.

Me, I get more depressed by the concept of hard determinism. My whole life is predetermined. Every free move I make...isn't?

But the thing about evolution is - we can go against our instincts. And we can fully engage our homosexuality, if that is our true nature, or decide not to be parents...both of which go against the needs of the Selfish Gene. But bah - you've made up your mind and my rantings will have no further effect. Enjoy your "non-depressing" candy-coloured magical unicorn philosophy. (just kiddin')

EDIT: I just realized Agent Smith is a character in one of those Martrix movies!

You Said - 'This is often my answer to those who believe --some of them are quite certain-- that consciousness is a product of and located in the brain."

If not the brain, where is it?

. ↪Alkis Piskas , there is an empirical explanation: Consciousness can only be experienced. It is not something physical that can be studied by science in a laboratory!"

And you know this...how? And can you name a scientist that says he can PROVE consciousness is a material substance? If so, he's either the next Einstein, or an idiot,

You missed my point(s) - consciousness cannot be solved by philosophers OR scientists. You don't know it isn't physical any more than I know that it IS. At one point nobody knew about atoms, or quantum fields. Had you been around, you might have said "these atom and quantum field theories will never be empirically proven" and you'd have been wrong. With all due respect this is pretty basic stuff - so many scientific theories that were proven right were originally considered unsolvable.

(Cancer will fall soon - IMO. And who will cure it - science, or philosophy?)
— Alkis Piskas

Good question. I have thought about this too. But I give it a slack, because there's a possibility, that --according to evolutionists always-- we have been evolved from a specific, more advanced race of apes. Yet, this remains to be proved. As do hundreds of other things regarding humans! — Alkis Piskas

"

No, it's not a good question. It's a stupid question. Don't philosophers study evolution? We didn't evolve from apes...both humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor. But even if we did evolve from apes, why couldn't they still be around? As Richard Dawkins said "it's like saying "if my ancestors were from Europe, why are Europeans still around??"

"... consciousness is a product of and located in the brain."
-- Alkis Piskas
If not the brain, where is it? — GLEN willows

Oh, thought you knoew that it is not in the brain ...
Well, this is is a topic by itself. Talking about it would start a new thread and I think we are already talking off-topic

"there is an empirical explanation: Consciousness can only be experienced."
-- Alkis Piskas
And you know this...how? — GLEN willows

By experiencing it! You are experiencing it, too! But most probably you just have never thought that you do! :smile:
There are a lot of things we are experience and never think about them. Mainly because we take them as granted!

can you name a scientists that says he can PROVE consciousness is a material substance? — GLEN willows

No, I can't. Because no one has PROVED it. And this was my point!

You missed my point - consciousness cannot be solved by philosophers OR scientists. — GLEN willows

I sad I know that. I didn't say that anyone has or even can solved it. Yet, and I also said this too, it is a philosophical rather a scientific subject. That is why my motto is "Consciousness can be only experienced".

"There are still people asking "if we evolved from apes...why are there still apes around?" Right?"
-- GLEN willows
... it's not a good question. It's a stupid question. — GLEN willows

OK. I was mistaken about your intention regarding this question. Nevertheless, I believe it's a plausible question. For one thing, I have thought it myself! :grin:

But, no more about evolution, please ...

And I think it's time to stop being off topic. Agree?

Can a cat ever stop being a cat? Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but isn't a duck! :chin:

I think the binary categorization of people itself runs against some of the values I would guess it is promoting. Specifically those on the right side of Xenophobia, Punishment and Knowledge.

Actually that isn't what evolutionary theory would say. That would be teleological, with evolution somehow deciding to produce thoughts that are lofty to make us thrive. Our thoughts, any of them, may be side effects of traits that at least didn't damage our survivability.

Indeed, a byproduct, an afterthought, could turn out to be the main attraction, the primary goal so to speak. Yet, the persistence & prevalence of a plethora of cognitive biases seems to suggest otherwise.

A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason. — J. P. Morgan

↪Art48
I think the binary categorization of people itself runs against some of the values I would guess it is promoting. Specifically those on the right side of Xenophobia, Punishment and Knowledge. — Bylaw

There's a difference between describing two types of people and a binary categorization which assumes every person belongs to one of the two types.

Example: there are two types of people: those who like mangoes and those who don't. This is not binary as there are plenty of people who've never tasted a mango and therefore don't like or dislike it.