Science needs philosophy. Philosophy doesn't need science. — Corvus

Sure you are wrong. That is the reason that most of the outdated philosophers are wrong.

No philosophers will go out in the white gown, and conduct experiments and tests and measurements. They just read, think and speculate for analysis and reasoning pursuing truths on the universe. — Corvus

Philosophers need to read about science if they want to do good philosophy!

Hume is one of the most important philosophers in western philosophy. To say Hume is false is like saying, philosophy is false and all knowledge is false. Nonsense. — Corvus

It is not nonsense at all. It is nonsense to accept his outdated philosophy now.

The conscious mind means that you woke from sleep. Subconscious mind means that you have a part of mind which sleep all the time, but you think it doesn't. — Corvus

Where did you get that from? Why don't you study psychology a little before commenting on the conscious and the subconscious mind?

Perception only happens when you are fully awake and alert. All your knowledge on the universe comes via perception. — Corvus

Where does all your knowledge reside when you are asleep? It cannot disappear into oblivion! How are you informed about a specific knowledge when you are awake? You are not aware of all your knowledge at once. Are you?

Perception is also backed by reasoning and logic. Without perception, you don't have knowledge. — Corvus

I think by perception Hume means the conscious mind. It is a very important part but it is not all things that define a person with the capacity to think rationally.

They exist so in this sense they are real. — MoK

Where do they exist?

I didn't say they are on the same level! — MoK

You forgot what you said.

Philosophy and science go hand in hand without science you cannot do good philosophy and vice versa. — MoK

Where do they exist? — Corvus

Electrons for example exist and move around the nucleus. They can be found free as well. Quarks exist within protons and neutrons. The conscious and subconscious minds refer to different parts of the brain.

Sure you are wrong. That is the reason that most of the outdated philosophers are wrong. — MoK

Philosophy doesn't get outdated. We still go back to the ancient philosophy and the Renaissance times for referencing on what they said. Science outdates. Did you read Popper?

Philosophers need to read about science if they want to do good philosophy! — MoK

Philosophers read everything not just science.

It is not nonsense at all. It is nonsense to accept his outdated philosophy now. — MoK

Problem with nonsense is that it doesn't know it is nonsense.

Electrons for example exist and move around the nucleus. They can be found free as well. Quarks exist within protons and neutrons. The conscious and subconscious minds refer to different parts of the brain. — MoK

They are just theories and postulations from what they saw. They don't exist as entities.

Philosophy doesn't get outdated. We still go back to the ancient philosophy and the Renaissance times for reference on what they said. Science outdates. Did you read Popper? — Corvus

Philosophy does get outdated! Consider the case of Hume.

Philosophers read everything not just science. — Corvus

Good for them. You should do the same.

Problem with nonsense is that it doesn't know it is nonsense. — Corvus

Exactly!

They are just theories and postulations from what they saw. They don't exist as entities. — Corvus

So you are denying all the body of knowledge that was created by scientists! That is not a good habit since you are denying all the things that you are using daily as well!

Where did you get that from? Why don't you study psychology a little before commenting on the conscious and the subconscious mind? — MoK

It is a common sense knowledge. You don't need to study psychology to know that.

Where does all your knowledge reside when you are asleep? It cannot disappear into oblivion! How are you informed about a specific knowledge when you are awake? You are not aware of all your knowledge at once. Are you? — MoK

The knowledge is kept in memory when asleep. When you awake from sleep, they can be accessed via reasoning. Conscious mind means that you are just awake. Dogs and cats are conscious, and some plants can be conscious, but they don't have knowledge because they are only conscious but nothing more.

I think by perception Hume means the conscious mind. It is a very important part but it is not all things that define a person with the capacity to think rationally. — MoK

No. It sounds like you haven't read Hume. Read above. Thinking rationally requires more than being conscious.

Philosophy does get outdated! Consider the case of Hume. — MoK

Hume is till being read and studied actively all over the world.

Good for them. You should do the same. — MoK

I have already done so, so why do it again.

Exactly! — MoK

Without doubt !!

So you are denying all the body of knowledge that was created by scientists! That is not a good habit since you are denying all the things that you are using daily as well! — MoK

No, when did I say anything about denying? You keep saying it. :D
It is not habit. To say habit for clarification is a categorical mistake. Have you read any Popper? Yes or No?

It is a common sense knowledge. You don't need to study psychology to know that. — Corvus

It is not common sense knowledge at all and that is why you are wrong. We are only aware of the conscious mind's activities. The term the subconscious mind was first coined by Freud before that we didn't know anything about it.

The knowledge is kept in memory when asleep. When you awake from sleep, they can be accessed via reasoning. Conscious mind means that you are just awake. — Corvus

Do you have access to your memory? The memories are stored in a part of the brain so-called synapses. Do you have direct access to synapses? If not how can you recall a memory?

No. It sounds like you haven't read Hume. Read above. Thinking rationally requires more than being conscious. — Corvus

Yes, thinking also requires the subconscious mind. That is something that Hume was not aware of in his time!

No, when did I say anything about denying? You keep saying it. :D
It is not habit. To say habit for clarification is a categorical mistake. — Corvus

You said it here:

They are just theories and postulations from what they saw. They don't exist as entities. — Corvus

Have you read any Popper? Yes or No? — Corvus

No. Why is it relevant to our discussion?

It is not common sense knowledge at all and that is why you are wrong. We are only aware of the conscious mind's activities. The term the subconscious mind was first coined by Freud before that we didn't know anything about it. — MoK

Freud's theory of sunconscious mind is subject to debates, because it is not something which can be proven objectively. If you think it is some holy grail principle of psychology, then you haven't read much psychology, it appears.

Do you have access to your memory? The memories are stored in a part of the brain so-called synapses. Do you have direct access to synapses? If not how can you recall a memory? — MoK

Philosophy don't care about where the content of memory gets stored in brain. It just knows that we have memory, and memory is in the chain of many mental operations.
Talking about biological aspects of memory in brain is a strawman fallacy in philosophical debates.

Yes, thinking also requires the subconscious mind. That is something that Hume was not aware of in his time! — MoK

Again, please read the top reply here.

No, when did I say anything about denying? You keep saying it. :D
It is not habit. To say habit for clarification is a categorical mistake.
— Corvus
You said it here: — MoK

I said it to remind you keep saying it, not me.

Have you read any Popper? Yes or No?
— Corvus
No. Why is it relevant to our discussion? — MoK

Popper said that all science gets outdated and replaced with the new theories all the time. If science cannot be proven false, then it is not science. It proves your point were all wrong so far.

Have you read any Popper? Yes or No?
— Corvus
No. Why is it relevant to our discussion? — MoK

I would advise you reading K. Popper's book in full, if you are into science.

Freud's theory of sunconscious mind is subject to debates, because it is not something which can be proven objectively. If you think it is some holy grail principle of psychology, then you haven't read much psychology, it appears. — Corvus

I am not defending Freud's theory of subconsciousness here. I just said that the term subconsciousness was first coined by him. There has been too much research on the topic of the subconscious mind since then. Anyway, I was pointing out that Hume was not aware of the subconscious mind at his time so he could not possibly have a correct theory of minds. I think that the subconscious mind is very smart. The current research indicates that the subconscious mind is smarter than what we think. You might find this article interesting.

Philosophy don't care about where the content of memory gets stored in brain. It just knows that we have memory, and memory is in the chain of many mental operations.
Talking about biological aspects of memory in brain is a strawman fallacy in philosophical debates. — Corvus

That is a part of the philosophy of the mind. You cannot simply ignore it! Could you?

I said it to remind you keep saying it, not me. — Corvus

So are you denying that there are things like electrons, quarks, etc.? Are you denying that you have a brain? You don't have direct access to your brain either.

Popper said that all science gets outdated and replaced with the new theories all the time. If science cannot be proven false, then it is not science. It proves your point were all wrong so far. — Corvus

No, I think there are limits that each theory works well, so I don't think that we can replace the outdated theories since the outdated theories have their own use at the proper limits. For example, the Newtonian theory works well in macroscopic limits but it cannot account for the quantum force which only becomes important at the microscopic level. That is why we need quantum mechanics to describe quantum phenomena. We however don't use quantum mechanics when we want to design a car. We use it only when we want to design a quantum device. So every theory has its own use.

I would advise you reading K. Popper's books in full, if you are into science. — Corvus

I don't think I need to read his book!

Technically, those are mathematical definitions which are not the same thing as the 'ontological' connecting tissue of the universe they refer to. — substantivalism

That there is an "ontological connective tissue" to be referred to remains undecided. What we have is an accurate description of what happens. What more could you want?

I am not defending Freud's theory of subconsciousness here. I just said that the term subconsciousness was first coined by him. — MoK

You brought Freud into the discussion suddenly, hence I was giving out my opinion on Freud.

Anyway, I was pointing out that Hume was not aware of the subconscious mind at his time so he could not possibly have a correct theory of minds. — MoK

Subconscious mind is unverified esoteric idea, Hume wouldn't have had been interested in it, even if he was alive now.

I think that the subconscious mind is very smart. The current research indicates that the subconscious mind is smarter than what we think. You might find this article interesting. — MoK

Subconscious mind cannot be verified, or used as basis for reasoning. It is just a postulated character of mind. It is hidden or sleeping most times, hence it cannot give you any knowledge on the world.
It can be used for explaining the reason for irrational aspect of human actions, but it is not taken as objective or verified knowledge.

That is a part of the philosophy of the mind. You cannot simply ignore it! Could you? — MoK

The classic philosophy of mind doesn't include physical brain as its topic. It is more a topic for cognitive science, neurology or clinical psychology.

So are you denying that there are things like electrons, quarks, etc.? Are you denying that you have a brain? You don't have direct access to your brain either. — MoK

You are back to keep repeating "denying". I never said anything about denying.
We all have brain, and that is all we know. Going further than that is off-topic here.

No, I think there are limits that each theory works well, so I don't think that we can replace the outdated theories since the outdated theories have their own use at the proper limits. — MoK

I was recommending you reading Popper, because you seem to think science knowledge is eternal.

Saying Hume is outdated and wrong is not a sound or intelligent statement. You could argue certain parts or some of Hume's ideas or theories are wrong with your hypothesis, verified premises and conclusions for your points.

But just saying Hume or any classic philosopher is outdated and wrong with no reason or supporting arguments is not a philosophical statement.

I would advise you reading K. Popper's books in full, if you are into science.
— Corvus
I don't think I need to read his book! — MoK

If you read it, it will refresh your incorrect ideas on science and philosophy, I am sure. But it is your choice of course.

But are the continuous movements possible without perception? — Corvus

The issue is whether continuous movement is even possible at all. Since we understand and conceptualize movement as as a succession of instants in time, continuous motion is outside our ability to understand. That's what Zeno demonstrated. This produces the issue of whether our senses deceive us when we perceive motion as continuous.

This produces the issue of whether our senses deceive us when we perceive motion as continuous. — Metaphysician Undercover

We perceive motion as continuous because it appears as continuous. If continuity means without stopping, then it is not deceiving our senses at all. There are two points on continuity.

1) Can continuity be divided into instances?
2) Or is continuity one entity, which is not divisible?

When the baseball flies in the air towards the wall, it appears continuous motion of flying without stopping in our vision. However, if we take a photo of the ball while it is flying with high speed shutter settings such as 1/10000 sec. then it can be captured in perfectly frozen image. What seems to be clear is that continuous movement is the result of our perception. Without perception, continuity doesn't arise in the movement, or even the movement itself.

Whatever the case, time is not needed for the motion logically. If time is needed for any movement, then the time needs time for its own movement (flow), and the time needs time for its own movement (flow) ... Ad Infinitum. If this was the case, then nothing can move or flow for waiting for its own time to make it possible to move or flow. But in reality, movements take place without time, and movers move freely as they wish with no idea or need of time.

Time flows without time. Because time can only flow with time doesn't make sense. Hence things flow / move without time.

That there is an "ontological connective tissue" to be referred to remains undecided. What we have is an accurate description of what happens. What more could you want? — Banno

A clarification and explicit declaration of the sorts of things that you are using to be skeptical of being 'ontological connective tissue'.

The people who espouse such skepticism usually make analogies to dot pictures, digital imagery, or macroscopic patterns that arise out of simple ruled simulations.

However, there could be a deficit to such thinking if not one that explicitly contradicts itself. In that such attempts to make it clear what it even means for there to not be causation (naive naturalistic occasionalism), not be objects but only mere structures (ontological structural realism), or processes (process philosophy of a naive sort). All these seem to always presuppose in their talk something behind which gives rise to the exact patterns that are everything we know or ever will know.

The dogmatism that one expresses towards saying we've come across certain ontological tissue means a focus on different lines of thinking which could be more fruitful.

Part of scientific thinking is the selfish and strong headed physicist who declares nature as having been uncovered with all its secrets lay bear. From that great strides can happen that someone who plays only in the most safe of descriptive assertions cannot compete with unless they also join in the game.

An interesting example of the continuity problem occurs with sounds, as can be easily seen with music. We describe a melody as "moving from start to finish"; we say the pitches "go up" or "go down"; we say that a tune is "slow" or "fast". In fact nothing like this happens -- there is no physical entity doing any "moving". It is strictly a (delightful) acoustical illusion. But our senses -- irresistibly, it would seem -- analyze the sequence of sounds as movement.

I've no idea what that post says.

I've no idea what that post says. — Banno

I'll phrase it differently then. If I put a gun to a pyrrhonian skeptics' head all of a sudden they aren't so skeptical and handwavy in many of their responses. The same in high stress situations.

I'm starting to lean in the direction, something partially attributed to Nietzsche I believe, that one's philosophical viewpoints are reflective of their personality/psyche. Ergo, when someone is so dissuasive about certainty (or ontological assertions) it almost looks like some other personal fear incarnate. Projection onto others the pain and suffering of a bad past experience with the intellectual priests of your time. That or fear of and avoidance of conflict that could imply a desire to fence set rather than jump down to enter the conversation in a serious manner. Course, this isn't unique to skeptics and can be easily extended to dogmatists.

However, to me, the only interesting stuff comes from those who actually decide to stop fence sitting, get off their ass, and then indulge in the conversation.

I can only take so much 'I don't knows' and neo-positivist 'that's not mere description so its meaningless' or pragmatic 'only descriptions' before I walk away from their dull un-creative viewpoints that will only make connections in the most bogged down manners possible.

Like a nominalist who tries to not speak in abstractions and therefore creates a language no one will use nor find any usefulness from.

These abstractions and fantasies prove their usefulness despite assertions to the contrary that nothing fantastical/abstracted/metaphorical can have any pragmatic use to talk about the 'real' world.

To a descriptivist their 'ontological tissue' is just the patterns and connections there in that they see fit to categorize with each other as significant. Such as gravitational patterns and electromagnetic phenomena or other such abstractions. It all appears rather similar to me.

Even to a descriptivist there could be preferences for different abstract representations even if they imply nothing different to the description itself. I.E. they still quibble over metaphysical notions that are devoid of experiential consequences if I want to translate this back into philosophical parlance.

There is a loose bijection here between descriptivist's and ontological realists then.