Are we pieces of matter that learned to think? Or has thought learned to cloak itself in matter? Is one of those options inherently less improbable than the other? — Pantagruel
already contains within its relational dynamics the precursors of language, consciousness and thought — Joshs
I wouldn't be too sure about the "abandonment" in actual practice . . . . down deep scientists have ideas they hope will be substantiated by experiment or shown to be wrong. Preferably the former. They are, by and large, human and hope to get there first. On the other hand pure curiosity can be a driving force. — jgill
already contains within its relational dynamics the precursors of language, consciousness and thought
— Joshs
Is it animism? Is it panpsychism? Something else? — Pantagruel
The thing that makes science science are the activities of a community of self-identified members who are recognised as such by other members of the community who share a particular set of approaches, values and standards, that shifts as their perspectives change. Primary values of this community are a belief in the provisional nature of our knowledge and, as Whitehead puts it, 'a vehement and passionate interest in the relationship of general principles to irreducible and stubborn facts'. These values also currently include quantification, objectivity and replicability, but these are only included as they are seen as furthering this relationship between principles and facts. — Richard Goldstein
Nicolai Hartmann, contests this fundamental dyad of object and subject, saying it is a hypostatization of the relational nature of consciousness (i.e. an unfounded metaphysical assumption) and that there is an avenue to pure being through some kind of pre-reflective 'natural attitude.' — Pantagruel
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nicolai-HartmannAccording to his new ontology, epistemology depends on ontology, not the opposite.
Thus, the “being” of objects is a necessary prerequisite for thought or knowledge about them. The knowledge that people have of reality is itself a part of reality, as an event among other events.
One way to get at this is to consider that no epistemology can be installed without appeals to the nature of the subject. We might talk of the entanglement of epistemology and ontology, because the ontologist has to make a case for claims, and the form of such a case will presumably imply or manifest an epistemology. — plaque flag
The knowledge that people have of reality is itself a part of reality, as an event among other events
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.