Naturalism and materialism are very similar imo. I note the difference, as proposed by such as:
'Naturalism and materialism are two philosophical concepts that differ in their approach to explaining the world. Naturalism states that the world can be explained entirely by physical, natural phenomena or laws, while materialism argues that all that exists is matter, only matter is real and so the world is just physical. The difference between the two is that materialism makes an argument about the ontology of the universe, while naturalism takes a premise (effectively that of materialism) to make an argument on how science/philosophy should function' — universeness
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, materialism and naturalism are metaphysical positions. But, for me, that seems to clash with what science is. Science is the study of the natural, material universe, is it not? Physics used to be called natural philosophy, yes? But Physics is not metaphysics. Where Is my thinking wrong here?
It might be interesting to discuss in some fashion, but as stated it's not coherent.
Consciousness is part of body, like lungs are or feet.
Plenty have philosophers seem to have become quite invested in the idea that materialism is what allows them to look the void in the eye and scream their power into it. How can we be Nietzschean overcomers without a void to overcome? How else can we congratulate ourselves over being good when there is no Good? What is the point of the Marxist struggle if we get a greater reward in the afterlife? — Count Timothy von Icarus
Does this begin to clear up the issue? , . — FrancisRay
In fact scientists usually endorse three metaphysical conjectures. First, that materialism is true. Second,, that naturalism is true,. Third, that materialism is naturalistic.It's a very muddled set of views that requires entirely ignoring metaphysics for the sake of not rocking the boat. — FrancisRay
I think it more helpful to determine what someone making the argument for or against materialism or naturalism or metaphysics means. Rather than the meaning of terms, what assumptions about the world, our inquiries, and our understanding are at issue. — Fooloso4
I would say metaphysics encompasses physics in much the same way that physics encompasses chemistry, so that physics is 'meta-chemistry'. — FrancisRay
All questions and answers need to be challenged and regularly revisited, to see if any new findings can update what we think we know, I fully agree with that.I feel you're missing something. Metaphysics, by which I mean the logical analysis of fundamental questions,proves that space-time is not fundamental. To explain space-time it is necessary to examine what is prior, and this means going beyond the methods of physics. It's physics that metaphysics must explain. A metaphysical theory must encompass physics and form its theoretical meta-system. — FrancisRay
You don't seem to understand the point of this thread. I've constructed an inductive argument based on the testimonial evidence. It's not about me presenting an opinion (if that's your point), it's about presenting a well reasoned argument. There are opinions given in the thread, but usually I try to point out where I'm speculating and where I think there is strong evidence.
What follows from the argument is an epistemological point, viz., that based on the strength of the testimonial evidence I can reasonably claim there is an afterlife. In other words, I can know there is an afterlife.
If anyone wants to argue against the argument, which I've given at various places in the thread, then you need to attack the premises of the argument. So I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the argument before you start saying things like I'm just expressing an opinion.
I understand this and have given the reasons why I believe it will always be an ineffective argument, It certainly affects the balance of probabilities, but as this thread shows it leaves people free to believe what they like. Perhaps I should have stopped there.but I was trying explain that there is better argument that is overwhelming. — FrancisRay
I'm astonished by your low epistemological standards. By these standards it would be easy to know that God exists. Your argument establishes that it would not be unreasonable to believe that there is an afterlife, just as long as you have a plausible theory of what you mean by 'afterlife'. It's your proof and you know you're not quite sure whether there is an afterlife or what it is like, let alone know it. Surely you can see this. If you can doubt it, even in principle. then you don't know it. — FrancisRay
What other criteria would help to strengthen testimonial evidence? — Sam26
Given our shared history and shared experiences, these NDE's could be akin to dreams and the appearance of shared symbols or archetypes. Sure, tge testimonials are cross cultural. But if one wished to research it, they might find striking similarities in the ways we dream of witches or falling. Yet we accept that our common dreams about witches do not translate into witches are real. — ENOAH
, I think the peculiar shared context of NDEs allows us a bit more leeway in terms of moving away from parsimony. — AmadeusD
seems to me probably untrue that consciousness dies with the individual mind. — AmadeusD
But — AmadeusD
But that it survives the body is just as perplexing. — AmadeusD
And there's the rub. How then? And I am asking sincerely, not argumentative. — ENOAH
I read this as a great question, not any kind of dig or gotcha. — AmadeusD
I see absolutely no issue with Consciousness being some more general concept, and 'a mind' being 'bodily bound consciousness' or some such. — AmadeusD
Idk lol — AmadeusD
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.