And it looks like the answer is: theology. — Srap Tasmaner
The question is, why would he think that? And it looks like the answer is: theology. — Srap Tasmaner
It's hard to see how consciousness can create an awareness and point of view, without being part of a physical being. — Tom Storm
We have no knowledge or experience of any immaterial entity of process. — Fooloso4
Cite an instance when and where Newton's 3rd Law and/or any conservation laws "have been transcended" even once. — 180 Proof
As usual, we are treading in swampy terrain here, with pockets of philosophical quicksand all around. So, this post is likely to get your feet wet & squishy. will enjoy ROFLing and eye-rolling in bemused incredulity ; keeping his feet dry, by studiously avoiding the sodden speculations of theoretical Philosophy, in favor of the "hard" facts of empirical Science. Please pardon my excursion beyond the solid ground of objective Matter into the mucky bog of subjective Mind*1, on the leaky platform of a philosophy forum. :cool:(And as to whether 'abstractions are causal', that is another question altogether. But the formative role of mathematical physics in science at least points in that direction.) — Wayfarer
But already science allows such challenges. There are some really obvious examples I dare not mention. — Srap Tasmaner
think your position is that naturalism itself makes an unjustified claim to exclusivity, and you're just rebutting that. — Srap Tasmaner
Please do! — Wayfarer
I can't speak for Wayfarer, but the definitions in footnote *2 do not define my more complex integrated worldview, which is intended to combine the Objective (concrete) view of empirical science with the Subjective (abstract)*5 perspective — Gnomon
Man is that part of reality in which and through which the cosmic process has become conscious and has begun to comprehend itself. His supreme task is to increase that conscious comprehension and to apply it as fully as possible to guide the course of events. In other words, his role is to discover his destiny as an agent of the evolutionary process, in order to fulfill it more adequately. — Julian Huxley
Mostly theists opt for door number 2, and defend revelation as knowledge producing. — Srap Tasmaner
Sounds very similar to my own personal project. Which I began a few years ago, after a quantum physicist remarked on what he saw on the quantum level of reality : "it's all information". That observation seemed to confirm John A. Wheeler's 1989 "It from Bit" conjecture. His Participatory Anthropic Universe sounds a lot like Panpsychism, plus the notion that human consciousness was somehow intended from the beginning of evolution. But being a scientist, he wouldn't be expected to make a religious doctrine of what he saw as a mere fact of Nature.The model I'm trying to flesh out posits mind or consciousness as being a latent attribute or dimension of reality, which manifests when and wherever the appropriate physical conditions exist (apparently a rare occurrence) through the processes we know as evolutionary biology. This implies that the mind is not the outcome of that process, but at the source of it - but not as a creator Deity, more like Schopenhauer's Will. It is also not to say that ‘everything is conscious’ in the pantheistic sense, or that sub-atomic particles have some primitive form of experience. I see that as an attempt to rescue materialism by the injection of mind-stuff. — Wayfarer
I'm not as familiar with philosophical literature as you are, so I Googled ...
With no formal training in Philosophy, I began from the conjunction of two modern sciences --
My primitive understanding has evolved ...
:eyes: :cry: :lol:My personal worldview ... PanEnDeism ... rehash of outdated mind/body Dualism/Spiritualism.
Lewis's premise is that reasoning admits of only one description. He could have claimed that other accounts leave out what he's interested in, that they miss the reasoning in an act of reasoning and treat it like any other psychological or biological event. Instead he claims that no such description is even possible, and that nothing that could be so described and explained could be what he considers reasoning.
The question is, why would he think that? And it looks like the answer is: theology. — Srap Tasmaner
Sounds very similar to my own personal project — Gnomon
Isn't it obvious to you though, that revelation must produce knowledge? — Metaphysician Undercover
In fact you could almost say that anything designated 'revealed truth' will be discounted at the outset of any discussion. Deserves a separate thread. — Wayfarer
“Neo-Darwinism is taken as axiomatic,” he wrote in “What Darwin Got Wrong,” co-written with Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, a cognitive scientist, and published in 2010. “It goes literally unquestioned. A view that looks to contradict it, either directly or by implication, is ipso facto rejected, however plausible it may otherwise seem.”
mathematical and artistic abilities can't be accounted for in terms of the theory (of natural selection, according to Alfred Russel Wallace)
— Wayfarer
We're the only critters we know that have math and art, and we are the way we are because of natural selection, so evidently it does account for math and art. — Srap Tasmaner
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.