Seriously? You yourself accepted Chalmers's conclusion (Hard problem of consciousness) and played favorites with a specific philosophical conclusion (non materialists).
Is something you want to change in your statement?
Why are you avoiding my challenge? I can analyze all my objections, provide resources for all my statements if you are willing to test your beliefs.

So you admit that you can't prove me to be unfair in my evaluations?

I think this is the "real" hard problem, actually. The problem is matter in general, not consciousness more narrowly considered. — Manuel

Correct , the diversity of properties emerging from different arrangements of matter is the amazing thing. Asking "why" this is possible its like a kid asking his mum ....why the sky is blue as if there is a purpose behind it.

Brother you need to practice some intellectual humility. — TheMadMan

But I am not the one declaring the existence of "hard problems" in specific field of study that I know nothing about (from a scientific aspect that is)....you are displaying a type of intellectual arrogance by ignoring that epistemology.(and avoiding to answer any of my objections).

Your are just making statement authoritatively not allowing space. — TheMadMan

I am only pointing the obvious, you are free to challenge my statements.

You talk about doing philosophy properly and yet your statements are monologic. — TheMadMan

Logic is hard and it forces rules. Its not my fault though. But again, you are the one who attempts to create an echo chamber by saying " I'm not trying to argue with physicalists here.
As I said this is directed to those who consider the fundamental reality as non-material."
So why accusing me for something that you are literally trying to do.

True philosophy is dialogic. — TheMadMan

I exposed my position to you...now its on you to turn this interaction in to a dialogue.
You can start by addressing my Objections..or you can keep accusing me for things I didn't do...which isn't productive at all.

First of all they have PhD's (doctor of philosophy) so technically they all are philosophers.
Second important point is that they all publish literature reflective on our current knowledge and its implication on specific fields of study and beyond.
Any one can be a philosopher as long as he contributes to a specific category. Some philosophers (i.e. Chalmers) are way worse in contributing even if they carry the label.

Some of the people you mentioned are considered philosophers — like John Searle — but as I mentioned before, I see them as mostly academics and fail to see any real contribution. May be good teachers— but that’s different. — Mikie

He has major contributions to Philosophy of mind, language and social philosophy.
His ideas on the mind are verified by Neuroscience today.

Haidt,Zimbardo,Weinberg, Fresco,Josheph, Sandel,Kagan,Ogilvie,Ramachandran and I am not sure if I must include Pinker

Well PhD's aren't necessary, what's important are the contributions to our Philosophy.
Hoyningen, Sanders, Harris, Kraus, Carroll,Sapolsky,Solomon,Harari,Searle,Becker,Adams, Carrier, Al Khalili, Solms, Wilczekm, Greene, Seth, Bloom, Mate', Fischer,Ariely, Diamond,Dawkins, Hawking,Wyman,Fallon,Churchland,etc etc etc etc.

Can one be arrogant enough to believe he is the sole source and author of all great music, all architectural marvels and technological achievements, the author of all our epistemology and the content found in all youtube videos.
And if he does believe that...why getting in the trouble to debate it with him self in a public forum?

The physicalists have the hard problem of consciousness where consciousness is emergent from matter. — TheMadMan

There isn't such a thing as a hard problem of consciousness. Chalmer's "Hard problem" is nothing more than fallacious teleological "why" questions.
There are hard problems in Neuroscience on how specific characteristics of our conscious states arise but none of them are "why" questions.

So this question is more towards those who don't find physicalism convincing anymore: How does matter arise from consciousness? — TheMadMan

It doesn't. In order to be conscious of anything, Something must exist in the first place. To be conscious means to be conscious of something. By studying our world we observe properties of matter giving rise to the everything around us...not the other way our.

And in this case consciousness is the ontological primitive, I don't mean wakening consciousness — TheMadMan

"God did it" claims do not qualify as good philosophy! Making up substances/entities/agents/primitives by borrowing labels from observable processes is a medieval way to practice philosophy. I thought we were done with Phlogiston, Miasma,Orgone energy, Philosopher's stone etc etc.
An existential claim needs to be demonstrated not asserted.

There are many other questions that arise from that question so feel free to put the forward. — TheMadMan

Yes they are and its a trap. This is how Pseudo Philosophy sounds You begin with an unfounded assumption (an questionable existential claim...at best) and you drift away from the real goal of Philosophy.(arriving to a wise conclusion with epistemic and instrumental value).

Update: I'm not trying to argue with physicalists here.
As I said this is directed to those who consider the fundamental reality as non-material. — TheMadMan

Physicalism, materialism, idealism, non materialism are pseudo philosophical worldviews. Why even engaging those pseudo ideas in a philosophical thread?

I want to inquire how do you think matter comes to be out of consciousness/mind-at-large/sunyata/the-one/unmoved-mover/etc. — TheMadMan

That's a fallacy. (Poisoning the well) How can you even start a philosophical conversation with an epistemically and philosophically outdated , self refuting assumption? Well you can but its no longer a philosophical discussion.

Hang on. The fact changed? So the fact was that the Sun went around the earth, and now the Earth goes around the sun? — Banno

-The facts/data available to us changed.Advances in technology improve our observations which in turn allow us to gather more data .

I put it to you that the Earth ahs always gone around the sun, that this was true even when we believed that the Sun went around the Earth, and that the fact, the truth, has not changed. — Banno

Hindsight, sure. Unfortunately our evaluation on the quality of Truth is limited by our ability to observe the whole picture.

That our evaluation of the truth of a statement is not the very same as the truth of a statement. That belief is different to truth. — Banno

Again you are confusing the act of accepting/believing in a claim because it is true with the abstract ideal value of truth.
We are justified to accept a statement true/not true when our epistemology supports it.
The quality of truth only renders out belief in a statement rational or irrational.

anyone with a PhD) and with important contributions. Just pick a field, Natural Philosophy (science),Philosophy of Science, Atheism, Secular Ethics etc. btw Scientific Literature is a great way to find great Philosophers.

Νο obviously I don't. Evaluations of truth aren't defined by the ideal of absolute knowledge but by whatever facts you currently have access to.
Again, what we are able to say about something (map/ statement) it only describes our current view of it (current knowledge) and it doesn't change the actual thing in question (territory/ Actual condition).
Most of our evaluations on the quality of Truth are limited by our observations. Hindsight might trick you to believe that because we corrected our previous statement the current must surely be the right one (ultimate one).
As I already stated the quality of "precision" can only evaluate a specific aspect of a map but not the depicted territory . In the same way "truth" is only relevant to a specific claim based on our current epistemology.

there are many modern philosophers who produce valuable work. My opinion is that we the audience are polluted by worldviews( pseudo philosophy) keeping us from appreciating their work.

It may be irrelevant to what you think of as the nature of philosophy, but there are different kinds of philosophy with different questions, concerns, methods, and answers. Socratic philosophy is concerned with human being and the self, that is, with particular persons, oneself and others. — Fooloso4

There are various philosophical methods. Philosophical methods are not for the sake of method. The method is not independent of what it is one seeks to know or understand or clarify, or, the case you are defending, the problems it is trying to solve. The latter is a part not the whole — Fooloso4

Are you claiming that there are philosophical methods that ignore those two basics steps(all our epistemology ) but they still managed to steer our frameworks to wisdom?
Can you list such breakthroughs and the methods used?
How one can even make any judgements without having actual material to judge?

Statements do not stand alone, they are part of his dialectical method. Statements are subject to elenchus. An account defending statements in response to questioning must be given. Socratic philosophy is not about making or collecting "wise statements". It is zetetic skepticism. — Fooloso4

-Again, irrelevant! He made observations of the phenomenon in questions and he arrived to a wise claim.
You are confusing the content of his philosophy with the general quality of all philosophical statements.

There are philosophers who eschew talk of wisdom. For Socratic philosophy is the desire for wisdom, a desire that is never fulfilled. A goal that is never reached. The question of human nature is only a part of the larger questions of the the just, the beautiful, and the good, as well as that of the whole. — Fooloso4

Same error you confuse the content with the quality that provides philosophical value at a statement!

sorry for rejecting your argument but I think it will complicate this discussion even more
— Nickolasgaspar

As I see it, the question of what philosophy is cannot be separated from criticism of it. Questioning Bunge's assumption that the purpose of philosophy is to solve problems does not complicate the discussion, it is at the root of it. — Fooloso4

That is not what I rejected. I was referring to Plato's/Socrates

It may be irrelevant to what you think of as the nature of philosophy, but there are different kinds of philosophy with different questions, concerns, methods, and answers. Socratic philosophy is concerned with human being and the self, that is, with particular persons, oneself and others. — Fooloso4

Again, same error....the content of a philosophical Inquiry is irrelevant on how we evaluate the final product. Our (or Socrates) conclusions need to have a specific quality (wisdom) in order to be philosophical. This can only be achieved through epistemic verification.

What is the objective empirical verification that informs self-knowledge? — Fooloso4

Any objective , empirical data that allow a reality check over our conclusions. We will need an example.

Aristotle includes Epistemology and Physika in his method.
— Nickolasgaspar

Aristotle's Metaphysics begins:

All men naturally desire knowledge.
(980a)

and goes on to say:

Thus it is clear that Wisdom is knowledge of certain principles and causes.
(982a)

Knowledge of principles and causes is not knowledge of how to solve problems. — Fooloso4

Solving problems is only an inescapable side effect . After all certaib principles and causes allow science to solve problems.
But he is correct, not all knowledge is wisdom. I.e. tautologies (deduction) / simple facts are not wisdom. Induction/abduction demand judgement. Aka wisdom

I've been arguing honestly, but you and I are speaking in completely different ways. — Metaphysician Undercover

Bad language mode is common in these threads unfortunately.

That is the honest truth, and it's been obvious since the beginning of this exchange, when you asserted that there is no such thing as a specific scientific method, and insisted that there is a specific method which constitutes the philosophical method — Metaphysician Undercover

So you will keep insisting on that while ignoring all the academic material I offered you on that specific topic? Those are courses on Philosophy of science for crying out loud!!!
The problem isn't our different opinions but your inability to support yours with academic material and real life examples like I do.
So you keep calling them "my ideas" which means you decided to ignore the material I sent you . With all do respect
I will insist using the characterization "dishonest". I beg you to prove unfair.

I don't think folk can provide a definition of truth, at least not one beyond the simple T-sentence: "P" is true IFF P. This is so because of the special place attributing truth to a statement has in language. — Banno

It was Ayn Rand and Wittgenstein who pointed out (I paraphrase) don't attempt anything before your definitions become clear .
The term "truth" is used to identify a specific quality of a statement (t's agreement with current available knowledge/facts.) Nothing more nothing less.
There is a course on logic 101 by Oxford University where the professor highlights the failure of many people to realize the true nature of human evaluations of qualities like truth, knowledge, information, calculation etc (values found in statements). We tend to project them in Nature as if they are intrinsic values of the cosmos when they are only evaluations of a quality we care about.

But if, as it seems from the remainder of your post, "evaluation" is to be understood as a relation between a statement and someone, then as explained, that's not truth, but belief. — Banno

- truth is the evaluation of a specific quality of a statement while a belief is the result after we accept/ being convinced by that specific quality of the statement (to be true).

So folk apparently used to believe geocentrism. Now they believe heliocentrism, or something more complex still. While the belief has changed, the truth hasn't. Our evaluation changed, but the truth didn't. — Banno

Of course it changed. The claim for Geocentrism is no longer accepted as true. What also changed was our available data (knowledge) which in turn changed the truth value of that specific claim.
What doesn't change is the nature and condition of the phenomenon (unknown tonus) that we are trying to describe with these statements. Sure, only one specific statement can be true but without the data we can't evaluate it.
I think it's a classic fallacy of confusing the map for the territory. The map(statement)can be precise or not (true or not true) but we can never call the territory "precise". That is a quality of a map(statement) can have.
So true or not true...only a statement can be...but never the phenomenon in question.
Sure , by using ideal values we tend to project those qualities on to anything...but this is a slippery slope because this is how we end up with new age theologies arguing in favor of energy and information and minds etc etc in addition to Nature (bad language mode).

First, there is a sense in which knowledge is observer-relative but truth isn't. Both knowing and believing something can be represented as a relation between someone and a proposition: Nick knows that Paris is in France; Banno believes that apples are a fruit. But truth does not have this relational characteristic. It's true that Paris is in France and that apples are fruit. Statements of truth differ from statements of knowledge or belief in this important regard: Knowledge and belief are always relative to the one who knows or believes. Truth has no such constraint. — Banno

Truth is an evaluation term of a quality we apply on claims based on our current available epistemology(knowledge). (Do you agree with the definition that Truth is an evaluation term of a specific quality? if not pls provide your definition)

If our claim is with agreement with current facts then we accept it to be true.
If our knowledge changes (i.e. Heliocentrism vs Geocentrism or Pluto as a planet or a dwarf planet) then our truth evaluation has to change too (tentative nature of knowledge and truth).
You are making an argument from Hindsight and you advocate for an idealistic nature of Truth.The Truth is only an ideal goal we strive for. Sure we can apply this version of "truth" on our past claims, but it is useless when we want to know the real truth value of current knowledge.

And second, truth is not always fixed by observation. Specific things can be true, or false, regardless of their having been observed. Now to be sure we might only know that something is true as a result of making an observation. The observation can serve as the justification for our claim to know or believe what is observed. But the observation does not generally fix the truth vale. — Banno

- Of course it is fixed to an observer, any evaluated quality is. Without an observer you don't have an evaluation to begin with...or the actual statement to evaluate.
Maybe your definition of Truth differs. Maybe truth is not an quality value for you!
Pls share your defintion.

***Specific things can be true, or false, regardless of their having been observed.***
Specific statements can be true or not true regardless of their having been observed...So a statement that isn't supported by data can not be an evaluated for its truth value.

In my opinion this is the problem when idealistic thought allows abstract concepts to gain an autonomous presence in our world.

To arrive at wise statements is not the goal of Socratic philosophy. Socrates wisdom is knowledge of ignorance. Knowing you are ignorant is only the first step. The question is: how best to live knowing we do no know how best to live. It is not about statements or intellectual endeavors, but about how best to live. — Fooloso4

I think we have a misunderstanding here.
You are confusing Socrate's interest in a specific topic (how best to live) with the overarching Philosophical method. His famous quotes, which btw were wise statements, were the "tools" he used to make sense of that aspect of Human life.
Philosophy goal is wisdom, a philosophers goal is to understand a phenomenon (i.e. human nature) by arriving wise statements. This can be achieved by gathering facts, assembling them in to knowledge and finally reflecting on them to find meaning. If that is done successfully the produced framework contains wisdom.

If you mean that it is not true that to be wise is to solve problems in the world, then we are in agreement against Bunge. — Fooloso4

-No I don't mean that. Bunge points out that when a statement is wise,it can be used to address real world issues. (sorry for rejecting your argument but I think it will complicate this discussion even more).

Consider Plato's Republic. It is not intended to be a plan for an actual city. It is made clear that such a city is highly improbable. The city in speech is said to be to see the soul writ large, and this for the purpose of seeing what justice is. For a soul to be just is possible. A just city is not something he even aims at. If this city were to be made actual we would not think it just. — Fooloso4

-Lets not go there,its irrelevant to the Nature of Philosophy.Try finding an example of a well accepted wise statement that isn't based on verified knowledge(any type).

What is the measure of whether or not a decision was wise? If someone is not wise they might think an unwise decision wise. Someone might accumulate knowledge of how to attain a certain result and think it wise when they attain it, but there is a difference between getting what you want and what is wise to want. — Fooloso4

-This is why Objective Empirical Verification is necessary for any statement in order to be acknowledged as "wise". This is why Mario includes "problem solving" and Aristotle includes Epistemology and Physika in his method.

I don't disagree (how can I, when I have no real view on the matter?) but I'd like to explore this with you some more if that's ok. — Tom Storm

-its more than ok!

Is not a 'wise statement' always measured or understood against some form of value system or worldview? How do you account for the perspectival nature of such values? What is wise for some may seem like a banal nothing to others. — Tom Storm

-True. As humans we are curious and we value learning facts about our world. Its human nature. We observe it in small kids asking "why this/why that" all the time. We observe it in "older kids" who go on and make up their own "answers" and what is right or wise to do (religions with rules traditions and dogma).
Making sense of the world is what we are "hardwired" for. Anil Seth describes our brain function as a "prediction machine", an organ constantly scanning our environment for facts helpful in the prediction of near future events .
ITs so valuable that we also have a biological mechanism ready to reward us with a "soup of endorphins" every time we realize we are right on an assessment.
It turns out , this specific characteristic increases our percentage of survival and flourishing.(increase happiness/avoid suffering).
So a Wisdom is not just a " great story" , it also carries an instrumental value and as empirical beasts we do like practical "advises".

What is wise for some may seem like a banal nothing to others. — Tom Storm

Sure, but that doesn't reduce the value of wisdom in a claim! i.e. The value is not affected by the magnitude of our excitement. i.e. An order "don't use an elevator during an earthquake" is wise to be followed and we teach it to our children even if it sound banal to grown ups who live in tall buildings.

What does philosophy tell us about identifying the wise from the faux wise? — Tom Storm

-That's a very good question! Natural Philosophy abandon the Academic "ship" and became an independent Philosophical "category", established really strict peer reviewing process and high standards of evaluation just to be sure for the quality of Wisdom in its Theoretical Frameworks.
We systematized Logic in order to be able to evaluate the sound foundations of our claims.
If you look up the definition of "Wise" you'll see that almost all include the following.
"Good judgment/Having or showing good judgment(to say, to decide, to act)".
So there must be something to judge in the first place.
In Philosophy its knowledge, in everyday life ..facts.
Not my best post...but its really late over here! =)

You and I are often in agreement about philosophical issues, but I disagree with just about all of your points here. — T Clark

-That's true ! I must say though I was pretty sure we were going to disagree on this one!

No surprise - the definition and meaning of metaphysics is one of the most contentious and confusing issues on the forum and, I assume, in philosophy in general. — T Clark

- I agree , words don't have absolute meanings, they have common usages and they tend to change over time.
My problem is not with which definition one uses but my argument is that only the Aristotelian definition (well Andronicus of Rhodes came up with the word/ definition) is relevant to philosophy.
And by that I mean: the Metaphysical hypotheses/questions sprouting(starting point) from credible epistemology are meaningful and have the chance to be evaluated for their wisdom.
i.e. Only after knowing the existence of gravity we can conclude about the wisdom of a claim that includes using a top floor window as a shortcut to our car.

Religions are a great example on how epistemically divorced metaphysical claims(they also happen to be supernatural) can be so unwise.
I am really interested to hear examples of epistemically disconnected "metaphysics" which can or have guided us to wisdom.

I moved in Greece really early in my life, where Philosophy was a standard dish in school. The definition(metaphysics) we were taught was the classical one (Using our epistemology to theorize beyond our current knowledge and understanding). So Carrier's definition was nothing special or new to me. These last 15 years I found out that many use the meanings of the words "meta/μέτα" and "yper(super)/υπέρ" interchangeably.

Love of wisdom can mean different things. — Fooloso4

-Not really, but feel free to describe different meanings.
I can only boil it down to one thing:"our love to arrive to wise statements fuels our intellectual endeavors". I find it really simple and precise.

. The assumption here is that to be wise is to solve problems in the world. — Fooloso4

-No that's not true. Problem solving is an inescapable side effect, a pragmatic necessity that bind any wise claim about our world.

It is outward directed. — Fooloso4

-It doesn't have a specific direction. Inner problems are also part of this world.(if I understand you correctly, feel free to correct me).

This view characterizes modern philosophy and is grounded in scientific advances and the control of nature. The ancients were more concerned with self-knowledge. How to live versus how to change the world. — Fooloso4

-Your last sentence provides you the answer. Any type of "knowledge-" even "self-knowledge" is evaluated by its empirical results. (the way you live and the way you can change your world).
From your health metrics to your impact in your world ...we can use them to see whether the "knowledge" you accumulated did help you to take wise decisions.

Cherry picking is a fallacy. You just hide behind a negative which says nothing about his theory's claims.

He proposed that there is a QM mechanism in the brain and also stated that he saw no means of QM happening in the brain. — I like sushi

QM mechanisms are in every Biological System....there is this thing called Quantum Biology, the study of these phenomena.
I rest my case.

Sure, philosophy, like plumbing, can be done very badly. And when it is done badly, it is smelly and messy.

Is the answer to not do any plumbing? — Banno

The real problem is that most "philosophers" do "plumbing" while they think they are doing Philosophy.

Because you seem to misunderstand the difference between axioms and scientifically proven hypotheses, Nickolasgaspar, I suggest that you look a little more closely into the difference between what is derived from science, and what is derived from ontology. — Metaphysician Undercover

-Again please educate your self on Science. Learn what a Scientific Hypothesis (Metaphysics) and try to address the writings of your interlocutor. I don't have time to waste on your ignorance and your strawmen...sorry.

That a principle is useful in application, and therefore can be used in making predictions, does not imply that the principle is "scientific". — Metaphysician Undercover

I think now you are just being dishonest. We are TALKING about a scientific theory formed by a Physicist who also provided a Falsification Method, which was challenged by an Astronomer who verified the specific results prediced by General relativity.
Whether this Theory(better what it describes) is used as a principle or not ITS irrelevant to what I saying, so please when you decide to argue honestly let me know.

Its a very accurate critique on a failing Academia especially when a specific Philosophical Category (Natural Philosophy) is doing great mainly because of a system capable to get rid off all ten issues.

There is much here that I agree with, but his criticism is guided by a questionable assumption, that the goal of philosophy is to address and solve problems, to contribute "new knowledge", to be useful in the narrow sense of problem solving. — Fooloso4

-Its not an assumption. It is defined by the etymology of the term "philosophy" (love of sophia(wisdom).
Knowledge is what verifies claims as Wise. So the Aristotelian Method (1.epistemology 2. Physika 3. Metaphysika etc) is not arbitrary or optional but mandatory.
We need knowledge to reflect upon and structure our metaphysics or else the outcome can never be recognized as "wise".
A verified Wise claim isn't something that we put in our trophy cabinet and forget about it but it carries epistemic value on its own. Again(I wrote it before) great example is Natural Philosophy and how Philosophy can take current knowledge, ask the correct question and construct Metaphysical hypotheses for Science to evaluate. ALL scientific Hypotheses are Metaphysics and all Scientific Theories are Philosophy capable to solve problems and produce additional knowledge.
Epistemic value in wise claims is inevitable and this is what makes Philosophy so important!
So I would add one more thing (Carrier agrees on that) in addition to problem solving and Knowledge. Asking the correct questions even when we are unable to arrive to solutions or knowledge.

I think his view of Metaphysics is the only meaningful one. After all Philosophy's goal is nothing more than our efforts to produce wise claims about our world(etymology). In order for any claim to be wise it needs to interpret verified knowledge and reflect on the consequences of it. So by default Metaphysics provide solutions to questions and problems.
The best example of how good philosophy can be in problem solving can be found in Scientific Frameworks (Theories).

I have been posting this video for many years in this platform. Its good to see that you appreciate it.
You are right , Carrier is an atheist and a Methodological Naturalist (NOT a materialist) and its because of what he presents in his talk "Is philosophy stupid".

Maybe you don't really know what the Orch OR theory states.The core claim is that consciousness originates at a quantum level. Computational or not computational only defines a different characteristic. So the problem of Penrose's idea if far more serious than that.
Please stop hiding behind that word...this is NOT the main or single claim of the theory.
Check the references in the Wikipedia page. read the abstract , it will help you understand my objection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

let me help you, don't take my word for it...just google "General relativity , everyday applications"

The Downtown ReviewThe Downtown Review
Volume 5 Issue 1 Article 3
December 2018
The Theory of Relativity and Applications: A Simple IntroductionThe Theory of Relativity and Applications: A Simple Introduction
Ellen ReaCleveland State University
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1071&context=tdr

It's incredible the way you just make things up. Are you a professional fiction writer? — Metaphysician Undercover

Seriously you are the one who ignores science and you accuse me for being a professional fiction writer?????
You do understand that General relativity predicted many phenomena years before they were observed, including black holes, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing, the expansion of the universe and the different rates clocks run in a gravitational field.
That means that your freaking GPS on your phone works because GR formulation allows us to adjust our satellite clocks every single day. (now every time you use your car navigation you will feel embarrassed! lol)
That means that Gravitational lensing(bending light) is what allowed Eddington to verify Einstein's theory

The same is true for CRT screens and laser beams. (You can google this freaking things mate!)

Why are you posting opinions on scientific knowledge you know nothing about[/b]...and to make it worse you do that with an attitude?
Can you now see that basic scientific epistemology fuels your pseudo philosophy????

But not truth. The assumptions and the conclusions can be true, but not the argument. — Banno

...If it is unvalid...

Do not attribute to me arguments I have not made — Banno

Never accused you for an argument. I don't even know what you are arguing about because your responses are short and irrelevant to my points.

I have written extensively on this forum about the logic of truth, defending Davidson and Tarski and attempting to articulate their approach with WIttgensien's meaning as use. If you wish to continue such discussions, have a look at what I have actually said. — Banno

I will need to revisit my critique on you. I am sure I address something different. I give you the benefit of the doubt and I will return by quoting my critique on your specific statement.
I want to be sure we are on the same page...because it doesn't feel that we are now.

Mine are for sure! I true them myself!

Instead of using Einstein's relativity as an example of how science is tainted, you ought to simply realize that this theory is unscientific. The principle of relativity, upon which Einstein's theory is based, is unverifiable, therefore not science, it's ontology. — Metaphysician Undercover

- No it isn't. Its a scientific theory that ticks all boxes. It provides a sufficient narrative, hasdescriptive power non extreme conditions and it offers accurate predictions allowing us to producetechnical applications. The three criteria (description, prediction, application) are all met.
Sure in extreme scenario the theory breaks down, but that can easily be due to Emergence of phenomena.
So its 100% scientific. Remember scientific doesn't mean 100% correct. Scientific frameworks can only provide tentative positions due to the nature of our ever evolving observations.

. The principle of relativity, upon which Einstein's theory is based, is unverifiable, therefore not science, it's ontology — Metaphysician Undercover

-Again that's is wrong. General relativity could easily have been falsified if Dyson and Eddington hadn't observed what Einstein's theory predicted. ALL THEORIES are falsifiable when make PREDICTIONS.
Is it a theory on the ontology of the universe. Sure and it became our epistemology when it was verified. Of course.
IS it wrong. Probably since it break down in extreme scenarios plus it doesn't fit with the rest of our theories on smaller scales. Can that be due to Emergence? Probably.
Either way the Quasi Dogmatic Principle in science (Paul Hoyningen) uses all theories as Black Boxes allowing us to study them until they are crashed and burned. This is how science advances by studying our mistakes.

That's strange, I have a degree in philosophy and I was never taught any of this. it's very fictional, and not at all representative of how philosophy is actually taught, in my experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

-I know, Philosophical studies are mainly based on chronicling than how it should be practiced.
This is the main reason behind Academic Philosophy's failure to remain relevant to our Epistemology (except most philosophical practices within Natural Philosophy of course).
In Greece, the birth place of Western Philosophy , we tend to focus on Aristotle's (non philosophical) work on Logic and systematization of Philosophy. Sure, its all out of irrational national pride, but at the end it did benefit our thought process.

Right, most philosophers are shocked when they hear of your "philosophical method", because it's absolutely foreign to them. Why do you call them "philosophers", when the philosophical method is foreign to them? — Metaphysician Undercover

-They can always learn about it...plus its a social convention for people with a diploma from the academy. Even Scientists are acknowledge as Doctors of Philosophy when they get their PhD's. This is what PhD means.
In reality ONLY scientists follow the true Philosophical method...with the addition of the empirical tool

For the sake of it. There you go. Neither myself nor Penrose makes any such claim. His point was - to repeat again - that what the brain does is more than mere computations (authority Godel). — I like sushi

-How such a generalization can ever be helpful in figuring out what the brain does?? My motor bike does more than taking me to my work and back....does that provide any information about my additional activities with it??
I mean if someone wonders how a "deepity" sounds...its right there!
So we can agree that neither Hameroff or anyone else can use Penrose's ideas to say anything about our brains functions and emergent properties.
Can we agree that the best way to learn anything about the brain is by studying neuroscience?
So here is the important question: Why does this thread exists when neither you or the author of the thread think much about Penrose /Hameroff's ideas?
I am seriously puzzled....
Btw I never accused you for saying anything of the above. My critique on Penrose is legit. He is a physicist and without an updated knowledge he tries to say what brain does or doesn't.(or does more).

The conclusion of a valid argument can is also be evaluated for Soundness....

Again you are confusing two different meanings of the word.
In real life ONLY claims and Arguments can be true or not. (Oxford Un.Logic 101). Changes in our observations affect their value.
In your idealistic view of reality you see "truth" existing independent of our claims or limitations in our observations...but you ignore that its only an observer dependent evaluation.
Since you use hindsight (we were wrong about something) to promote an unchangeable nature of "truth"....you bet you are working with the version of an absolute truth.
Take care.

The scientific method is very explicit, consisting of hypothesis, experimentation, observation, etc.. Why do you think that there is no such thing as the scientific method? — Metaphysician Undercover

I will suggest Paul Hoyningen's Lectures(philosophy of science) on the Nature of Science where he explains why there isn't a specific method (set of steps) followed by scientists.(like the 6 steps in philosophy).
Hakob Barseghyan lectures on Philosophy of science also starts his lectures with "popular science mythology" and he includes the scientific method. (all available on youtube and free).

Great example commonly used in favor of this argument is Albert Einstein's approach in developing the Theory of General Relativity. Something that is also important is that the Theory was "Verified" and accepted a over a night after a historic observation without having the chance of any falsification period! (so falsification is not always important too!).
Sure we have a general description of a popular progress but its far from becoming a Method that binds our scientific endeavors.
Here is an article on the subject ( If you are interested I can send you links for every reference).
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-scientific-method-is-a-myth.

I do not see how this describes a method at all, you just name a bunch of subjects. — Metaphysician Undercover

-Well a method defines the steps we follow in order to preserve the quality of our inquiry. Obviously those are titles of the method but it seems like that haven't dig deeper on the subject of Systematicity in Philosophy.
Richard Carrier's lecture is a great way to start understanding our methods of demarcation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lvg4di3sAw
After all if I ask you to describe the scientific method...you will end up naming a bunch of actions.
The same is true for Philosophy.
1. epistemology (first learn what we know and how we know something -on a specific subject).
2. Physika (reevaluate or update your epistemology through empirical evaluation).
3. Metaphysics. reflect on that updated knowledge and use it to construct hypotheses reaching beyond our current knowledge
4.5.6. What are the implication of those hypotheses in Ethics , Aesthetics and Politics.
Restart...project your conclusions on our current body of knowledge ...etc.

Well, naming a bunch of subjects does not provide a "philosophical method". Perhaps if there was such a thing as "the steps of the philosophical method", it might be a simple matter for the person to get trained in the philosophical method. However, unlike the explicit scientific method, I really do not think that there is an explicit philosophical method which a person could follow. — Metaphysician Undercover

-Sorry , as I just explained you are wrong. Are you familiar with the Aristotle's work on the systematization of Logic and Philosophy? Have a go with the links I gave you and we can revisit your "objections"....if they are still there.
I know that most philosophers are shocked when they hear these things for the first time, but I find them to be far more important than any other aspect of Philosophy...if our goal is to become good Philosophers.

You are arguing against ghosts. I read first part of your response and stopped dead because you are (clearly unintentionally) making out either myself or Penrose has made such a claim. — I like sushi

You will need to quote that part if you want me to accept your objection. If not, I can only assume you are trying to dodge a corner there. Please copy where I am trying to strawman you and why you think that.

Try reading/listening to his recent thought on this matter. — I like sushi

As I told you in my initial post , I won't listen to a Biologist talking about QM, so I won't do that for Penrose when he talks about Biology.

To repeat, his position is (via Godel) that the brain does not merely ‘compute’ and that reason therefore dictates that something else is going on — I like sushi

-So you want me to accept Penrose's statement when we have already observe quantum computation in Plants???
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-it-comes-to-photosynthesis-plants-perform-quantum-computation/

When someone says they do not have an answer it does not mean they believe in fairies. — I like sushi

-Correct, this is why I respect Penrose's efforts but I don't waste my time on his philosophical takes while I ridicule Hameroff's pseudo scientific conclusions.