You could wipe out your awareness/consciousness by eliminating sodium in your diet. Is this clear? — L'éléphant
The question I have is…has intelligence always been around before this world was created prior to the Big Bang or was it simply an emergent phenomenon thereafter ? — kindred
And mental activity is neuronal. And we know that's physical. — L'éléphant
I don't think I agree that physics is mathematical in nature. I think many aspects of it can be described mathematically. Is it the same thing? — Patterner
f I experience a revelation or a "higher' insight, what is it about the experience that warrants it as knowledge? This is the question that proponents of "direct knowing" can never answer. — Janus
And I don't know if I agree that such insights are 'unique' in the sense of only pertaining to one individual. — Wayfarer
For how could it emerge if it wasn’t?
We don't know yet. — 180 Proof
Nothing except saying that amounts to an evidence-free fairytale – pseudo-science (e.g. "intelligent design") or pseudo-philosophy (e.g. "vitalism, panpsychism") – that does not explain anything.What is wrong with saying life/intelligence not just emerged but it has been there all along just not manifested to what we today recognise as life ? — kindred
No. As I've previously pointed out, the "clock analogy" doesn't work.Isn’t it like looking at the mechanism of a clock ...
Nothing except saying that amounts to an evidence-free fairytale – pseudo-science (e.g. "intelligent design") or pseudo-philosophy (e.g. "vitalism, panpsychism") – that does not explain anything. — 180 Proof
Spinoza argued that whatever exists is in God. The divine being is not some distant force, but all around us. Nothing in nature is separate from Him: not people, animals or inanimate objects. Today, the view that God is synonymous with nature is called “pantheism,” and this term is often retrospectively applied to Spinoza. Whatever the label, the view was—and still is—portrayed as a denial of God’s transcendent power. Spinoza was accused of denying the ontological difference between God and His creations, thereby trivialising the creator.
Spinoza’s philosophy does not trivialise God in the slightest. It is true that in his conception God is intimately bound up with nature. But just because God is not separate from the world that does not mean He is identical to it. Actually, He is distinct, because there is a relationship of dependence that travels only one way: we are constitutionally dependent on God, but God is not dependent on us, argues Spinoza.
For Spinoza, everything we are, and indeed the continued existence of all things, is a manifestation of God’s power. Carlisle uses the term “being-in-God” to describe this aspect of Spinoza’s thought: the way we are created by—and conceived through—God.
Alrighty. Intelligence exists before it exists. Um, no.Not something but intelligence particularly. — kindred
No again. We know exactly that it does not/cannot. You're being too informal in your language and then reifying the errors into a fantasy that you're representing as (a) reality. It's not even language on a holiday; it's language in a playpen. And the topic is not well-served by such.We know one thing for sure, that matter went from being inanimate to animate in this universe at least. — kindred
So, is your claim that something exists before it exists? Or is it something else? — tim wood
Yes we don’t but we’ve given that process a name called Abiogenesis, the alternative would be woo-woo as to how life came about and we don’t want that. — kindred
It is not hard to say what warrants as knowledge the basic forms of knowing—about what it is that we experience, the empirical and what is self-evident to us, the logical. Know-how is also easy to demonstrate. — Janus
Actually, abiogenesis is what is best described as "woo-woo". — Metaphysician Undercover
The study of abiogenesis aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life under conditions strikingly different from those on Earth today. It primarily uses tools from biology and chemistry, with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of many sciences. Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water, and builds largely upon four key families of chemicals: lipids for cell membranes, carbohydrates such as sugars, amino acids for protein metabolism, and nucleic acid DNA and RNA for the mechanisms of heredity. Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules.
Does a slime mold have "knowledge" for example? — Metaphysician Undercover
Slime molds arguably have know-how. — Janus
The burden would be on you to explain how such claims to knowledge could possibly be warranted. — Janus
From my perspective no one can ever answer the question of what it is about any experience which warrants calling it "knowing", so this comment is super unproductive. — Metaphysician Undercover
When someone such as yourself claims that abiogenesis is how life came about, that is nothing but woo-woo. Then to add that it\s a scientific theory, is nothing but to use falsity to support your woo-woo. It is not a scientific theory because it is not supported by science, meaning it is not supported by empirical evidence. That there are scientists who have sought to support abiogenesis with science, but have proven to be unsuccessful, is simply evidence that abiogenesis is nothing but woo-woo. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.