Way didn't say that "modern science" is nihilistic, but "modern thought". — Gnomon
You mean "modern thought" which includes being espoused by (philosophers like) Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Marx, Bergson, Peirce, Husserl, Cassirer, Wittgenstein, Adorno, Sartre et al? (Please spare me / us your usual litany of cherry-picked quotations in lieu of your own reasoning or arguments) Your anti-science 'scientistc reduction' of "modern thought" (i.e. the cultural west), Wayfarer, is not even wrong. :eyes:Insofar as modern thought takes science to be the arbiter of reality — Wayfarer
You mean "modern thought" which includes being espoused by (philosophers like) Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Marx, Bergon, Peirce, Husserl, Cassier, Wittgenstein, Adorno, Sartre et al? — 180 Proof
your usual litany of cherry-picked quotations — 180 Proof
You think that the idea humans are machines is a metaphor, but I tell you as a scientist, the vast amount of information we have about the human body says we are as mechanistic — Restitutor
The human body with skin pulled back is obviously mechanical with muscle, bone and tendon obviously arrange to maximize the efficiency of mechanical tasks — Restitutor
Laypeople really have no idea (sorry laypeople). — Restitutor
How neurons work is no less mechanical, — Restitutor
science would suggest that even the brain is deterministic, — Restitutor
Please understand, you do not have enough of a scientific background to understand how mechanistic science has shown the human body and all “life” to be — Restitutor
Science is screaming at us that the fundamental nature of existence is mechanistic — Restitutor
) Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Marx, Bergon, Peirce, Husserl, Cassier, Wittgenstein, Adorno, Sartre et al? — 180 Proof
As do I. So why my posts provoke such a never-ending stream of vituperation from you is not at all clear to me, but it is exceedingly tiresome, and the least productive and useful aspect of my participation here, so you will forgive me if in future I fail to response to your needless provocations. — Wayfarer
What this means is that our universe exists as a closed system where things of the physical nature such as atoms can only be influenced by other physical things. If this principle is to be believed, then any type of explanation that is not based in scientific law cannot be used when describing the causal story of physical things. Thus, explanations such as purposeful ones become impossible.
Newton's influence seems less clear to me because the idea of sui generis forces that act at a distance allowed for all sorts of ideas that included purpose. You had purpose coming from vital force as its own essential unique type of "fundemental force," and all sorts of "scientistic mysticism" in the late 19th century. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The classical mechanistic model of physics was formulated by Newton*1, but I wasn't familiar with the Neo-Mechanistic Model (NMM)*2. My understanding is that Newton's deterministic mechanics was called into question by the indeterminism of Quantum physics. Yet, for most practical scientific purposes, classical physics is still applicable, on the macro scale. But, what about the cosmic scale?IMO though, the success of neo-mechanism has plenty to do with the philosophical, religious, and social context of the late-19th and early 20th century. It didn't just support a new way of looking at the sciences, but an entire "world view," on a level with the religion its advocates were self-consciously attempting to supplant. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Feelings. These play a significant role in the choices we make. We could simulate the role of feelings in software, but neither the hardware nor software would actually experience feelings.What is the fundamental difference between information processed by a mechanical computer and a brain? — Restitutor
I am often surprised by how others feel about things. A woman once asked me how I was able to react the way I had, because she would have been angry, and wanted to learn how to be otherwise. I asked what on earth she was talking about, because I didn’t remember anything happening that should’ve made me angry. When she told me, I was just as stunned, because there is no reason I should’ve been angry about what happened. I'm sure we all witness people reacting with different emotions to things than we would have.What is the fundamental difference between information processed by a mechanical computer and a brain?
— Restitutor
Feelings. These play a significant role in the choices we make. We could simulate the role of feelings in software, but neither the hardware nor software would actually experience feelings. — Relativist
This really is what you might have expected all along. You are replacing a spiritual view of the world with a secular one. You are replacing one with meaning by one without meaning. You can try to keep as much as you can of the old picture, but you should not be surprised if in the end you lose things that were considered absolutely crucial. That is what the move from the sacred to the secular is all about. Some of us call it a loss. Others of us call it “growing up.”
Unfortunately, all of us world observers are physically limited to seeing open-ended "chains" of events without beginnings or endings. Admittedly, we star-gazing homo sapiens, having emerged in the middle of the story of cosmic evolution, can physically see only the mid-range links in the chain of change. But some of us curious creatures are un-satisfied with our physical limitations, so we engage our metaphysical powers (reason) in order to expand our view to see over the horizon.What we have here seems to be a difference between "top down" and "bottom up" explanations. The first appeals to general principles, laws, etc. that dictate ends, whereas the latter deals with decomposition and parts.
The preference for bottom up explanations is sometimes grounded in the idea that only these can explain the "causal chain of events" undergirding phenomena. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Anyhow, IMO teleology seems alive and well, it's just been naturalized and given the name "function," or gets framed in terms of "constraint." I see nothing wrong with this. There is definitely a sense in which "eyes are for seeing." If eyes didn't see, we wouldn't have them.
But it's useful to distinguish between teleological explanations that appear to invoke first person experience and volition versus ones that simply focus on the appearance or likellyhood of an end state given the characteristics of that end state. — Count Timothy von Icarus
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.