One thing that seems to me to be absurd, and perhaps even unethical, is to live one's life with the expectation and aim of gaining merit for an existence after death; I think that idea has the potential of radically devaluing this life. — Janus
Whatever works, and we are all different, right? — Janus
If only for the fact that most metaphysical views or scientific theories make no difference to how I live my life or what choices I make. — Tom Storm
I'm sure they nevertheless have at least a subliminal influence in our worldview and self-understanding. — Wayfarer
I will add that the principle difference between the neo-Kantian Cassirer, and standard view of physicalism, is that the latter sees mind and being as the emergent products of physical processes which are understood to be inherently non-intentional and non-teleological. The former recognises the role of mind in the constitution of the world which is the context within which all judgements about what constitutes 'the physical' are made. — Wayfarer
I will add that the principle difference between the neo-Kantian Cassirer, and standard view of physicalism, is that the latter sees mind and being as the emergent products of physical processes which are understood to be inherently non-intentional and non-teleological. — Wayfarer
I'm aware of that book, but no, haven't read it. — Wayfarer
I'm certainly not suggesting you should be interested in the things I'm interested in. — wonderer1
maybe we could switch to discussing the argument from reason that you mentioned? — wonderer1
Yes, scientism becoming the predominant view.In very summary terms, scientific methodology has yielded many amazing and indispensable discoveries and innovations, but it doesn't necessarily comprehend or address the problems of philosophy, and the attempt to squeeze those problems into the procrustean bed of the objective sciences has deleterious consequences. — Wayfarer
An experiment is performed. A machine registers the outcome. This is when the "collapse" occurs. An hour later a scientist reads the measurement - his reading doesn't mystically create an answer. — jgill
Mind is, in this sense, ontologically prior to the physical, not in the sense of being a class of object or substance that temporally exists before the physical, but as the fundamental ground for which and in which the physical is made manifest. — Quixodian
I don't know where I sit precisely. I do believe we 'construct' the world, our cognitive apparatus has foibles and limitations and there is embodied cognition - along the lines of phenomenology. I'm not sure any of this matters to how I go about my daily business. — Tom Storm
In some sense, spirit is a self-modification of nature — plaque flag
The fundamental condition of existence is alterity. (c) — Quixodian
I think the difficulty here is the red herring of independence of physics and its objects from any particular embodied physicist — plaque flag
It's a weird point, so I'm not surprised if I didn't find the best words.How is this "dependence" upon a particular "embodied" scientist?
Perhaps I'm not interpreting what you say properly. — jgill
The fundamental condition of existence is alterity.
— Quixodian
It is a classic theme. Derrida tried to make difference god.
Is Reality is a self-differentiating self-perceiving self-thinking godstuff ? Maybe kinda sorta ? — plaque flag
They perform the experiment, then cluster around the computer screen to read the result - they all agree they see the same thing. The experiment is replicated numerous times, with the same result. How is this "dependence" upon a particular "embodied" scientist? — jgill
If there were no boundary, it is simply subject to whatever chemical and physical influences act on it - it would dissolve or break up. Whereas an organism has to maintain itself (which is homeostasis), seek nutrition, avoid threats, and replicate. That is the origin of the self-other divide. — Quixodian
The very first thing that any proto-organism has to do is enact the boundary between itself and the environment. — Quixodian
Or was it just far more convenient to train a brain to be one person ? — plaque flag
But that is precisely what has been called into question by experiments . . . — Quixodian
One brain per body, no? — Janus
Is it impossible for a brain to be trained to run two personalities? — plaque flag
Is it impossible for a brain to be trained to run two personalities? It'd probably be difficult, but maybe possible, if folks were mean enough to experiment on children that way. Two discursive selves would be held responsible for the coherence of two different sets of beliefs/claims. Maybe there's Weekend Willy and Weekday Walt. — plaque flag
The well-documented cases of multiple personality disorder show that one person may experience being multiple personalities. From the common perspective it is one person, and the multiple personalities are a disordering of what is the 'normal' order. — Janus
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.