This is tantamount to proposing that sensibility thinks, from which follows that given that understanding is the faculty of thought, there are now two thinking faculties in the same system. What a mess that would turn out to be. — Mww

Yes, and what a mess the human being is. We're torn apart by the difference between rational thought and bodily desires, such that we are sometimes overwhelmed by emotional feelings, anxiety and stress. Plato found many examples, (of what you crudely express as "two thinking faculties in the same system"), such as the thirsty man who knows that the available water is not potable. This man is torn by the two "faculties" in the same system. Therefore the evidence supports what I said, two distinct sources of "judgement" inclining us toward contrary actions.

You tell me. Something tastes good, turns out to make you sick, so……what, it really didn’t taste good?

Have it your way. — Mww

Of course, because you realize I'm right. How would you define "good"? Or would you simply equivocate with two senses of "good", one for things that taste "good", and another for what is beneficial to your survival, or "rationally good"?

I'm not wasting further time on your distortions. — Janus

Of course not. Like Mww above, it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that I am right. When the meaning of what you say is actually analyzed, it is revealed to be an absurdity.



That a principle is useful in application, and therefore can be used in making predictions, does not imply that the principle is "scientific". The axioms of mathematics are very useful in making predictions, but they are not scientific. Do you recognize the difference between a scientifically proven hypothesis and an axiom? Any way that you might formulate the principle of relativity, it is always an expression of an ontological principle, an axiom, not a scientific theory. Consider the following formulations;

The principle of relativity states that there is no physical way to differentiate between a body moving at a constant speed and an immobile body. It is of course possible to determine that one body is moving relative to the other, but it is impossible to determine which of them is moving and which is immobile. — https://www.tau.ac.il

In physics, the principle of relativity is the requirement that the equations describing the laws of physics have the same form in all admissible frames of reference. — Wikipedia: Principle of relativity

Notice that the first formulation is a statement of what is impossible. it is impossible to differentiate between an immobile body, and a body moving at a constant speed. How do you think that this, if it was presented as an hypothesis rather than as an axiom, could be tested in experimentation, so as to confirm it as a scientific theory?

The second formulation is a derivative of the first. It affirms that any body moving at a constant speed can serve as the grounding for a frame of reference, a point of rest (rest frame), and the laws of physics will be equally applicable from each. Notice how this is a grounding principle for the laws of physics, as stated in the quoted passage, describing how the laws of physics may be applied. It is expressed as a "requirement" for the laws of physics, thereby separating the principle of relativity from the laws of physics. It is not itself one of the laws of physics, but an ontological principle, an axiom, which dictates the applicability of the laws of physics.

Because you seem to misunderstand the difference between axioms and scientifically proven hypotheses, Nickolasgaspar, I suggest that you look a little more closely into the difference between what is derived from science, and what is derived from ontology. That ought to improve your understanding.

Of course, because you realize I'm right. — Metaphysician Undercover

Day-um, man!! How big is your ego, anyway??? You got “you realize I’m right” out of “have it your way”? Like….the only possible analysis of the one reduces to the other? If I made such a preposterous deduction, I would not be so inclined to admit to having a degree in philosophy.

Be interesting to see what has to say about your claim that it’s….

…overwhelmingly obvious that I am right. — Metaphysician Undercover

Bet it won’t be pretty, and justifiable so, insofar as the causes of the disrespect on both our parts is so easy to present. One little sample among many:

Me: two thinking faculties in one system;
You: two “faculties” in one system.

From which it becomes obvious to you that you’re right, not by correcting a wrong, but by changing content to force a right.

So…..have it your way.

That a principle is useful in application, and therefore can be used in making predictions, does not imply that the principle is "scientific". — Metaphysician Undercover

I think now you are just being dishonest. We are TALKING about a scientific theory formed by a Physicist who also provided a Falsification Method, which was challenged by an Astronomer who verified the specific results prediced by General relativity.
Whether this Theory(better what it describes) is used as a principle or not ITS irrelevant to what I saying, so please when you decide to argue honestly let me know.

Because you seem to misunderstand the difference between axioms and scientifically proven hypotheses, Nickolasgaspar, I suggest that you look a little more closely into the difference between what is derived from science, and what is derived from ontology. — Metaphysician Undercover

-Again please educate your self on Science. Learn what a Scientific Hypothesis (Metaphysics) and try to address the writings of your interlocutor. I don't have time to waste on your ignorance and your strawmen...sorry.

Of course not. Like Mww above, it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that I am right. When the meaning of what you say is actually analyzed, it is revealed to be an absurdity. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you think there is only one possible interpretation of metaphysical, phenomenological or epistemological statements, then I'm sorry to say it but; but you are simply simple-minded. From where I sit, I see you distorting the arguments of others in ridiculous ways in order to "win" the argument.This is not good faith or good philosophical practice, dude.

And your inconsistencies are glaringly obvious: you claim that we are all so different we don't even share a common world, and yet you think that your particular (mostly absurd) interpretations of others' arguments are the only possible ones, that each word only has one meaning (the one that suits you of course).

I agree with what you say: I think MU needs a "reality check". He seems to be headed deeper into a methodological solipsism.

There is a deeper non-material reality which we perceive as physical matter in spacetime. (Hoffman's headset metaphor). The deeper reality is not static; it changes. From within our headset, we perceive those changes as evolution. — Art48

And if evolution is nothing more than our perceptions, then it didn't really occur.

The view still undermines itself.

Like….the only possible analysis of the one reduces to the other? If I made such a preposterous deduction, I would not be so inclined to admit to having a degree in philosophy. — Mww

You actually made an even more preposterous reduction Mww. I explained very clearly why there must be some form of "judgement" inherent within sensibility, and you then reduced this "judgement" to a faculty of "thinking", deducing that only an act of thinking could produce a "judgement".

Surely you must understand that subconscious mental activity is just as much a part of the human psyche as conscious mental activity. Why not acknowledge that this subconscious activity involves some form of "judgement" just like conscious mental activity involves judgement?

Or, we could have it your way, and insist that "judgement' implies "thinking", so that we would have 'conscious thinking' and 'subconscious thinking'. But 'subconscious thinking' really doesn't make sense because thinking is considered to be the act of the conscious mind. And that\s why you were right to suggest that we should have it my way. And in saying that, you are just as right as I am.

I think MU needs a "reality check". — Janus

That's rich, coming from the person who insists on something called "shared experience". And when asked to explain how this makes sense, you refer to a shared plate of food as an example. Reality check: a plate of food is not at all the same type of thing as experience.

If you would have explained how we share our experiences through language and communication, I would have accepted this as a valid justification of "shared experience". Instead, you wanted to pose "shared experience" as a necessary requirement for language and communication, instead of accepting the reality that language and communication are a necessary requirement for "shared experience".



I've been arguing honestly, but you and I are speaking in completely different ways. That is the honest truth, and it's been obvious since the beginning of this exchange, when you asserted that there is no such thing as a specific scientific method, and insisted that there is a specific method which constitutes the philosophical method. We obviously have contrary opinions as to what constitutes "science" and "philosophy". Whether the ideas you express are what you honestly believe, or not, doesn't really concern me, I simply recognize them as fiction.

I've been arguing honestly, but you and I are speaking in completely different ways. — Metaphysician Undercover

Bad language mode is common in these threads unfortunately.

That is the honest truth, and it's been obvious since the beginning of this exchange, when you asserted that there is no such thing as a specific scientific method, and insisted that there is a specific method which constitutes the philosophical method — Metaphysician Undercover

So you will keep insisting on that while ignoring all the academic material I offered you on that specific topic? Those are courses on Philosophy of science for crying out loud!!!
The problem isn't our different opinions but your inability to support yours with academic material and real life examples like I do.
So you keep calling them "my ideas" which means you decided to ignore the material I sent you . With all do respect
I will insist using the characterization "dishonest". I beg you to prove unfair.

And if evolution is nothing more than our perceptions, then it didn't really occur.

The view still undermines itself. — Banno

You're persisting in straw-manning idealism. There might be one version which says that there are individual minds and their perceptions. with no connection between them. That view fails to account for what is obvious in everyday experience; that we inhabit a shared world.

But if the reality is thought to consist in not mind-independent existents, but ideas in a universal mind, of which we are all a part, then the problem of shared reality disappears, and so does the problem of evolution not really occurring.

I don't hold to one view or the other, but they are both possibilities and we have no way of knowing which obtains, or if there is some other explanation we cannot even conceive of.

You are right, idealism must posit something like a universal mind in order to achieve coherence.

But instead of credulity, better to treat this as a reductio. If that's what idealism needs in order to explain apples, then so much the worse for idealism.

but if the reality is thought to consist in not mind-independent existents, but ideas in a universal mind — Janus

I think of in terms of ‘the collective mind’ - as members of a species, language group and culture then we inhabit a shared reality. Is there a need to posit a mind other than that?

I don't think being members of a species, language group and culture is sufficient to explain the fact that we all see the same things in the same places at the same times. Even my dogs, judging from their behavior see the doorways where I see them, the ball where I've thrown it and so on. This can be explained by mind-independent existents or by existents which are ideas in a collective mind we would all have to be connected to.

If that's what idealism needs in order to explain apples, then so much the worse for idealism. — Banno

Right, that's your preference, but idealism in the collective mind sense is an imaginable possibility, and it might avoid other issues that plague the idea of mind-independent material existents. All views seem to have their shortcomings and aporias if pushed hard enough.

...an imaginable possibility... — Janus

As is

...the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. — Douglas Adams

...and while I am quoting Mr Adams, here's one for :

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? — Douglas Adams

See if you can get a snapshot for us.

Now you're just being stupid.

:confused:

You give an explicit insult after three posts. Brief, even for you.

The point is simply that not all imagined possibilities are worthy of consideration. But of course, the Jatravartid differ as to the details.

You give an explicit insult after three posts. Brief, even for you.

The point is simply that not all imagined possibilities are worthy of consideration. But of course, the Jatravartid differ as to the details. — Banno

I wasn't insulting you; I was saying your example is a stupid one. The idea that there is a universal consciousness as opposed to the idea that there is just a brute materiality has an extensive and very reasonable provenance. It is one of just two imaginable possibilities: universal consciousness or no universal consciousness.

Presenting universes being sneezed out, flying spaghetti monsters or teapots as being equally reasonable alternatives is just a silly attempt to bring the idea of universal consciousness down to the same stupid level; it is an unworthy, disrespectful, merely rhetorical attempt to discredit the idea,in lieu of being able to provide a decent argument against it. Such "arguments" are themselves insults to your interlocutor's intelligence; it's a "schooltard" tactic, and you should know better.

:roll:

By all means roll your eyes if that's all you can come up with...

It's all your posts deserve.

Bye.

I beg you to prove unfair. — Nickolasgaspar

Beg all you want, it just doesn't move me.

So you admit that you can't prove me to be unfair in my evaluations?

No, I see that you are extremely biased and opinionated, you pay no attention to reason, therefore I have no inclination to give you what you beg for. Your suffering has no emotional affect on me.

Well I am biased towards logic and objective evidence. Opinions without epistemic validation are weak. Mine are strong because they are backed up by facts. I offered you objective facts (academic material) on why there isn't just one set of steps in a scientific method (one scientific method)and you had nothing to offer in return.
I guess we both know why you are avoiding this challenge and to be fair when I lay facts on the table...nobody really want's fight for a lost cause.
Its your right, enjoy whatever this is (but its not philosophy).

Anyone can search the internet for material to back up one's biased opinions. Your referenced "academic material" was off topic and not interesting to me. Sorry Nickolasgaspar. (Now I apologize, so I am somewhat affected by your suffering, or maybe just being polite).

I guess we both know why you are avoiding this challenge and to be fair when I lay facts on the table...nobody really want's fight for a lost cause.
Its your right, enjoy whatever this is (but its not philosophy). — Nickolasgaspar

The more you beg the less I am inclined toward submission. I will enjoy, while you suffer, but I'll make it perfectly clear, in all honesty, my enjoyment is derived from what I am doing, not from your suffering. There is no "shared experience" here (to quote Janus), because you've had no success in your attempt to communicate.

Anyone can search the internet for material to back up one's biased opinions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well this is why we have Logic....
Logic is what renders the material important and conclusive.

Your referenced "academic material" was off topic and not interesting to me. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course it wasn't. My material render your claims wrong...this is why you are not interested in them.After all this material is only taught in all major Universities....lol

Sorry Nickolasgaspar. (Now I apologize, so I am somewhat affected by your suffering, or maybe just being polite). — Metaphysician Undercover

-Sophistry.

The more you beg the less I am inclined toward submission. I will enjoy, while you suffer, but I'll make it perfectly clear, in all honesty, my enjoyment is derived from what I am doing, not from your suffering. There is no "shared experience" here (to quote Janus), because you've had no success in your attempt to communicate. — Metaphysician Undercover

-Ignoring Academic knowledge won't make your claims true.
You made claims that are factually wrong and I was kind enough to provide resources for your information.
Now your education is your suffering...not my job.

Surely you must understand that subconscious mental activity is just as much a part of the human psyche as conscious mental activity. Why not acknowledge that this subconscious activity involves some form of "judgement" just like conscious mental activity involves judgement? — Metaphysician Undercover

The validity of the one does not necessarily follow from the validity of the other. There is no necessary relation between a form of subconscious “judgement” in intuition, merely from judgement as a given conscious mental activity in understanding.

And if evolution is nothing more than our perceptions, then it didn't really occur. — Banno

Yes. And the whole notion of perception seems to take organisms with sense organs in a world for granted. Yet this is part of the 'illusion' or 'interface' being used to justify that interface.

Perception also implicitly invokes the self, but the self-other-world distinction depends on the taking interface for truth. Those who think they assume the minimum assume the holy trinity of self-world-others without realizing it.

I think of in terms of ‘the collective mind’ - as members of a species, language group and culture then we inhabit a shared reality. Is there a need to posit a mind other than that? — Wayfarer

I think the issue is putting our bodies somewhere. For instance, are our eyes actually what makes possible our seeing ? Or does some divine mind switch off vision when the eyes are injured, so that both are causes.

I say that we have bodies of flesh in a shared world. But I'd also say that we can't make good metaphysical sense of pure mind or pure matter. Instead we have a rough continuum for practical purposes. This or that is closer to mind than matter or the reverse. Consider the real number system as a metaphor, which does not include the infinities often used to represent it. $\Bbb R = (-\infty, \infty).$. (Math itself would be about as mental as we could make things, perhaps along with raw feels.)