So blame the media not the methods of science. There have not exactly been many physicists who are able to bridge the gap in term of public relations. Feymann was certainly one guy who really was good at putting things across well.

As an example of the explanation of QM he simply stated ‘anyone who says they understand QM is lying, because no one understands it’.

When asked about creating ‘an anti-gravity device’ he said ‘a chair works perfectly well’.

The problem with many reporters in the mainstream, non-specialised, media is that they actively try to sensationalise anything they can. There is also the issue of funding experiments. Again, scientists openly admit they do ‘pretend’ to be researching one thing whilst really collecting data for something else related.

Money plays a big part in how religion and science is portrayed. Religion gets more money though.

How would you go about dealing with the world if not in terms of opposites? — Agent Smith

Possibility does this by sidestepping the question and saying something that looks like it means something but then seems utterly incapable of offering any ‘verification’ for their pretend point … because there isn’t one.

They have probably read too much Heidegger, Foucault or Derrida. Or nothing other than one of those.

I was thinking in term of cooking :)

A more serious answer in terms of evolution:

https://www.newscientist.com/question/came-first-chicken-egg/

Feymann and Einstein are ‘meglomaniacs’ because they admit they don’t have all the answers? Feymann because he is happy to state that there may or may not be some overarching formula to explain the universe?

I don’t quite understand what ‘hero’ you are about? Newton was a megalomaniac type. One example does not make a rule though. Just like not all theists believe the Earth was created in seven days and such.

Some people are more dogmatic than others. ‘Dogma’ is something believed in on authority regardless of investigation. In the past some took Aristotle’s view of gravity as the writ truth, but they changed their minds when an experiment showed his view to be wrong. This kind of ‘mind changing’ is more common amongst scientists because there is no written truth only a methodology that guides investigation.

Religions can, and do, also ‘change their mind’ due to social pressure. Science changes due to experimentation and discovery that often leads to social change. Both have a place as far as I can tell, but atm religion is struggling to adapt due to the speed of discovery we have been witnessing over tha past couple of millennia.

I prefer eggs. They are more versatile.

The ultimate goal for us physicists seems to be to know the basic workings of the universe. — EugeneW

Not really. Possibly for the more megalomaniacal scientist? Generally people who like to play football are not in pursuit of the basic workings of football. In the same way physicists are just ‘playing’ and enjoy the pursuit.

Feymann stated that the universe may or may not be reducible to a singular equation. He wasn’t really bothered either way, but it is generally more interesting for us if it isn’t. The ‘exceptions to the rule’ make life fascinating not the mundane day-to-say humdrum.

I’m always right because I know I must be partially wrong and knowing I’m partially wring means I’m right to know I am partially wrong, therefore everything I have said or will say must be right because I already know it contains something wrong within necessarily.

Am I right or am I right! Absolutely not. So I must be right :)

Accepting ignorance is the first step towards wisdom.

Turns out you were correct!

Accepting ignorance is the first step towards wisdom

Since when has it been ‘a right’ to have a mother and father? It is a biological fact, but it certainly isn’t a universal principle that children need the ‘mother and father’ present when being raised.

It is most probably fair to say that a male and female roel model are needed for children in general, but this can exist beyond mere ‘mother and father’ roles - and does in some social structures. Levi-Strauss notes this with examples around the world. In modern cases there are families in Asia where the brother of the father/mother fulfils the role we would traditionally associate with ‘father’.

When it comes to stating god exists 100% that is more or less dogmatic thinking. Believing in god does not make anyone dogmatic though. Some people are more dogmatic than others.

Scientists can be fairly dogmatic too. The main difference with the scientific approach is that it is far open to dispute/question the current way of understanding the universe and the vast majority of scientifically inclined persons are actually excited when experimentation and theory leads to something new and unknown, whilst religious doctrine (although it is adjusted sometimes) takes far, far longer to reform.

Both share something in common. They are ways and means of looking at human life in the universe and have, in part, helped each other along over the millennia.

When science hits a technological wall then philosophical and theological matters try and edge back in. When scientific investigation discovers something new both philosophers and theologians benefit from it (and sometimes try to undermine the discoveries or attach their importance to their own views).

sorry, ‘your ignorance’. About brain function and that physiology is not somehow separate from brain function.

If you are a dualist there is probably not a discussion worth having here, sorry.

I cannot cure our ignorance. That is your job. Bye bye

Just to be clear … ‘depression’ is actually an ‘illness’ of sorts. People are not depressed for a reason if they are clinically depressed.

Depression is feeling extremely low for no viable reason. It is a chemical imbalance (physical brain condition) rather than feeling sad/upset about something in your life.

Husserlian Intentiionality.

We are not simply ‘conscious’. We are, more accurately, ‘conscious of something’.

Stating ‘to be’ is ‘to be perceived’ seems like one of the most stupid things I’ve ever heard tbh. Maybe there is a bit more depth to that line than I’m aware of though?

1. Life is good over all.
2. Who is Jannet? :D
3. Thinking can make you happy or sad depending on subject matter and knowledge.

I think ‘happiness’ is a trivial thing tbh. Humans seem to excel when challenged rather than sitting in paradise idly playing with themselves.

The main item I’ve found to be the cause of ‘displeasure’ is fear. Fear stops us from trying. If we don’t try then the dark clouds form.

I’m happy to discuss with Eugene. You appear to be here to poke fun and present yourself in a poor light for some reason.

Congrats!

nice example of meaningless word salad.

Next you will claiming pain and suffering are not ‘necessary’ whatever that means? Nah! You just go ahead and make a word salad and leave me out of it thanks.

The OP is garbage. That is the truth. I explained why.

Bye

Wars exist. No use pretending they do not.

The egg

As a way of looking for some agreement I would say that in the opposite direction I think merely parroting other philosophical thoughts is not exactly ‘philosophy’ as you seem to see it. By this I mean they are scholars of philosophy but generally learn by reading what others say about others.

I’ve conversed with people about Kant who have never actually read Kant first hand and refer entirely to someone else’s commentary on Kant … I find that kind of approach strange/delusional if one then says ‘I am a philosopher’ after that when really they are just knowledgeable about said philosophy (which isn’t useless). It it something like watching a movie and then acting like you’ve read the book. At least it isn’t as bad as reading a review of a movie and acting like you’ve read the book (those are the ‘lazy’ ones). Of course there are geniuses, but they are not exactly common.

I think the most fruitful path is the harder path. Read the original text without any commentary and draw your own conclusions/questions from it. Once you’ve done that then look at commentary. Sadly, in reality, students and those interested in such mostly skim over things because there is just too much to look into.

If you haven’t read Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, at least three works by Nietzsche and have a pretty solid reading history of Plato and Aristotle, then you are not a ‘philosopher’ worth listening to but you might be a decent point of reference for the works you have some knowledge of or as someone to bounce ideas off for a ‘philosopher’.

They are not ‘categories’ just examples of how the term can be, and is, used. A ‘philosophy of life’ is colloquial whilst scholarship is technical by nature.

I hear this kind of thinking from people who are just too lazy to put the work in tbh. You might be different. I just don’t think it makes any sense for anyone to label themselves as a ‘philosopher’ if they have never actually read ( and I mean REALLY read) an actual work of philosophy.

Note: Lots of people don’t know how to read, they just ‘read the words’ and think they have read and understood something. Sadly it is skill most people don’t develop much beyond teenage years - if that!

Too many people out there (including myself) here some brief excerpt from a philosopher and think themselves enlightened because ‘we thought/knew that already’.

I don’t regard people who have been to university to study philosophy as ‘philosophers’ though. Just stating it is pretty damn silly to paint yourself as something without having partook in some rigorous and active sense with what is already there.

Stoicism is like electronics is to physics. Someone can specialise in electronics and know very little about cosmology … I have no idea where any line of distinction could be between specialist subjects and a more broader overview? I probably would not approach a stoic to get feedback about most epistemic issues as I have a fairly decent suspicion that the discussion would lead into ethical realms and that might not be of focus for me.

I have a horrible feeling we’ve talked before if you are going to lead into some long ramble about ‘creation’? If so hope you have managed to express it better (go ahead).

Either way, prove me wrong and explain what you know of the supernatural. I don’t see anything to suggest there is anything other than what is nor can I personally see a way justify dualism - ie. Supernatural (beyond nature) because I frame everything in the universe as ‘natural’ and don’t side with ‘supernatural’ as a replacement for ‘we don’t know therefore god’. That just makes no sense to me.

I don’t really ‘believe’ things I know them to some degree based on experience. So when I talk to people and they say ‘god’ I understand as I know the term (as symbolic of something human) because I cannot claim to know of some being in possession of ‘supernatural’ powers. I have no issue with someone proposing an alien race superior in intellect and knowledge to the human race. It is just speculation though based loosely on some knowledge of the universe.

I just think everyone should make some kind of effort to engage with people they clash with and try and understand the other’s perspective rather than resorting to insults and/or violence.

Basically, a modicum of respect for a fellow human being. If lines are crossed insults and violence can be a necessary deterrent whether or not we view it as an ideal place to arrive at.

In todays internet/social media age there is a rather noisy minority ready to do away with context which does nothing other than conflate the problems in society by creating imaginary narratives that are used to fuel hatred.

Note: Understanding something does not mean we need to agree with it. It just serves us better to understand I feel.

If they are not eternal and not infinite then they are just like us. So then what is the difference? We are effectively ‘gods’ in the sense you seem to have outlined.

Correct me if I’m wrong and I’ll read when I get back.

See you later :)

okay, so we’re gods. No disagreement there tbh.

Thanks. Gotta go and get some food now.

I can make some sense out if that view. We just seem to differ in what we define as ‘god’. I presume to know beyond my limited senses, so the ‘infinite’ and ‘eternal’ are not for me to comment upon much.

It is a proposed and incomplete response the question. Answers are not really part and parcel of a phenomenological investigation.

I’ve already stated this twice at least. You are talking about ‘infinite’ and ‘eternal’ as if you have personal experience of such (which you do not). And the ‘gods’ are infinite and eternal (as you say), but that means you cannot possibly know about their motivations and reasoning because you are not eternal nor infinite.

This is like asking what it is like to be a bat but on a level akin to asking what it is like to be a unicorn - I would have an easier time imagining what it would be like to be a unicorn though.

In the sense that you are framing the term ‘god’ I agree. The most common problem, as I stated, it people ‘defining’ god in low resolution so that it is pretty hard to question them about it.

Very often, for those that do make more of an effort, their view of ‘god’ is not really that much far removed from a physicists view of the universe - although the language and terminology is quite different and varied (but to be fair the same kind of goes when we get deep into cosmological talk on the physicy side!)

My story is me I guess? In that sense the culmination of all human stories is ‘god’ (as I understand it in a religious sense), but I don’t believe many people who talk of this or that god see it in that way.

My view is more like the Jungian view of the collective unconscious - we create the world we live in as much as the world creates us. The idea/archetype of ‘god’ is more or less the Heirophant (the process that delineates between them.

Is what I just said ‘true’? No. It is a theory of why we have a such strong impulses to believe in things like ‘god/s’ as ‘real’ rather than as symbolic representations of humanity. I am not dogmatic about this just fascinated by human beliefs and various other things, and this is where it generally leads me.

I don’t. My point is that if such beings exist they are beyond my conception so talking about them is futile just like talking about square circles.

I know there are things beyond my immediate experience, and certainly beyond my finite existence. That does not then give me a clear and definitive reason to state with certainty what such items ‘beyond me’ are.

The obvious question is then what makes your story real and mine a fantasy? What if other people believe their story to be true and your’s fantasy? How do we judge between them?

There are many differing religious stories. I say they all carry something that makes them undeniably similar … they are human stories. I start from that point because it is true or we wouldn’t know the stories in the first place.

We have a rather limited and finite experience of the universe. There is no evidence to suggest what you are suggesting. It is a story only.

Homosexuality was also framed as such. Times move on.

When there are numerous cases of addictions, schizophrenia and other brain disorders being cured by use of psychedelics, as well as their use in helping people live more meaningful lives, I wouldn’t call such instances as being purely ‘mental illnesses’ when they cure said ‘illnesses’ in various examples.

It is an area that is seeing more and more research thankfully. It could all just be meaningless delusional mental sludge … it might be more than that though. My personal experiences lead me to believe there is more than simply a negative effect of such experiences (although not something that may be apparent or true for all!).

I think you are making too much of a leap from story to reality. Telling a story doesn’t make it true. I could tell you a story about how I lived in a giant shoe for a year but it doesn’t make the story real. The ‘truth’ in the story is in the reason I may have chosen to express myself this way.

There can be powerful meanings in stories that are stories about actual events. The power of meaning is not the same as making something true. We can watch a movie and know it is a complete fiction yet take something profound away from it. That doesn’t make it ‘true’ just useful to us in a certain way.

The definition of ‘god’. You said they/it is ‘infinite’ and ‘eternal’ but we have no direct experience of such concepts so it does not make sense to talk about what such beings do anymore than a race of people would be able to see colour.

If something is beyond us it is nothing to us. To speak of what is nothing is a fruitless exercise.