You think we have it all perfect and that list of superseded theories will not grow? You are mistaken - science is a history of 2 steps forward, 1 step back, why should the future not follow the pattern of the past? — Devans99

Not what I said. I'm highly aware of the provisional nature of all scientific knowledge. I'm reading Karl Popper right now, it's his main position. Nevertheless, some components of our knowledge are more stable than others. Newtonian mechanics is no longer adequate as a cosmology, but it continues to suffice for much of our day to day needs. Euclidean geometry, calculus.

Edit: fittingly for the OP, Popper's take on scientific realism is that it is precisely criticism (critical thinking) which validates all objective knowledge. Excellent read.

One result is perhaps the number of threads here that tell us how physics or mathematics has it wrong, while demonstrating a lack of knowledge of either physics or mathematics.

Critical thinking without context is dangerous. — Banno

So true. How do you convince someone who wants more knowledge that they need more knowledge?

As far as today's science and math being "phlogistons." Come on. Not everything gets superseded. Most fields are stable up to a certain level of complexity. Most changes are refinements. If there really is a paradigm shift, it is going to evolve out of existing theories, not "around" them. Systems Philosophy is far and away the leading paradigm shift candidate that I have seen.

Not at all, I am neither irritated, frustrated nor angry. It is all part of the great debate. — A Seagull

Yes, there seem to be a lot of master-debaters hereabouts.

Or from a Systems Theoretic perspective, a thing is an existent, which itself has or is the bearer of properties:

"The antonym ‘nothing’ is helpful, however, because it suggests that ‘nothing’ is a special kind of thing, namely a ‘no-thing’. This is perhaps just a quirk of language, but it puts us on the right mental track, because we can now say that a no-thing is something that has no properties.12 If it had any, those properties would indicate what sort of thing it is, in which case it would not be a no-thing. This suggests the idea that to be an existent is to have properties. Properties cannot be free-floating but have to belong to some existent (there are no actual Cheshire cat smiles without Cheshire cats). So this gives us a concise and useful definition: an ‘existent’ is ‘a bearer of properties’, and ‘nothing’ is ‘not a bearer of properties’. "
here https://www.mdpi.com/2079-8954/6/3/32/htm

Because the query presupposes without warrant, that existence is that to which it is possible to belong. Logic and parsimony suggest that existence is not that which is belonged to, but rather, is that which belongs. — Mww

So you are saying existence is a property. So a thing can either have the property of existence, or not have the property of existence. From my readings, this type of position tends to be supported by logico-linguistic arguments, and rely on features of statements. I'd happily concede this kind of 'phantom-existence' to statements. On the other hand, I'd not agree that this is the fundamental or primary category of existence. To wit, say, at any given moment, there is some set of 'things' whose thinghood consists in their simultaneously being real, where each thing stands in a real relationship to at least one other real thing.

Imagine this; a woman of 40 years is severely injured in an accident, so severely that if she recovers then her life will be hell.

Her parents want her taken off life support to be allowed to die. Her husband wants her kept on life support until she recovers.

Setting aside legal positions, who should have the final decision? — Brett

Could there not be different right answers depending on the specific person in question? Some people might be motivated by religious ideas, others by empathy, others by selfish reasons.

In general, how can we ever know that we are doing the right thing? Especially when it comes to the welfare of others. Should people be given what they want, or what they need? Who knows best?

In the end, the best you can do is to be brutally candid with yourself about what your own motives are, then proceed from there.

Anyone arguing from scientific materialism, however would require it. — Coben

It is ignorable, unless you are point blank looking to argue with the concept of God. In which case, you are not really a scientific materialist, you are an atheist cum scientific materialist.

Arguably there are conceptions of God which do not entail intervening in the mechanics of reality.

Scientific materialism rests on this proposition:
It is possible, in principle, to demonstrate by experiment a natural cause for every event, thus scientifically eliminating God as the cause of any event. — GeorgeTheThird

I believe that the original and primary premise of materialism is that everything is the product of material interactions. Materialism doesn't comment directly on the question of God. God appeared in the context of materialism as an objection by religious thinkers. So when you say "scientifically eliminating god" that is very misleading. Not the intent of the theory at all.

In fact, you and I could form a formidable writing pair. I would provide the ideas, and you, the precise and exact references. — god must be atheist

Interesting. I feel I may have misrepresented myself somewhat. For the purposes of the forum, I tend to stick pretty close to source materials and ideas as a framework. In practice, most of what I write is extremely theoretical-conjectural and highly cross-disciplinary. A lot of stuff like ovdtogt's ill-fated speculations on space and time, but I try to remain within a framework of both historical and current-theoretical accuracy. Could consciousness be something akin to a quantum field, for example?

Honestly, I like reading the 'ground-up' theories because I know that they are the product of genuine and deep beliefs. Per Popper, they just need to be 'tested' against (possibly integrated with) whatever other relevant material is already out there. And there is a lot.

It's all learning. I have been down the 'ab initio' route of believing that I could recreate everything from first principles, and it is not without its merits. That was essentially what Descartes was doing when he decided to systematically doubt everything, then build up from a foundation of certainty.

If you can get to a point where people who had been contentious can agree on meaning, then it's the first step to common understanding and agreement. — god must be atheist

This is called "Rogerian Argument". My wife introduced me to the concept and I found it helpful.
https://www.thoughtco.com/rogerian-argument-1691920

Interestingly, Karl Popper (who I am just reading for the first time) suggests the opposite, which I found intriguing.

I'm not a prude by any stretch, but when a person posts that type of language on a public forum...well..it kinda tells you something... . — 3017amen

Kinda

The collective good is never a moral aspiration of the highest order — Wittgenstein

It most certainly is.

Ok. I just don't see how any of this establishes in any way that experience 'doesn't exist' or that existence is somehow fully qualified (limited) by experience.

The act of asceticism is in essence separating oneself from the percieved collective good and being free from the desires of the carnal self in any form, individual or collective. — Wittgenstein

Um, no, I don't think so. The practice of ascetism is all about attaining a higher spiritual or moral state. The collective good very arguably qualifies as such. Where are you getting the idea that ascetism is about renouncing the collective good? This seems prima facie not true, as I just suggested.

Marxism is a theory and communism is the final product of Marxism. — Wittgenstein

Yes, Communism is an application of Marxism. In the same way that all different varieties of democracies are applications of democracy. My point is just that "Marxism" is specifically the theories of Karl Marx, so if you are making a significant claim like "Marxism isn't compatible with human freedom" then that needs to be substantiated, or corrected if it isn't true. Which in this case I don't think it is.

The individual will has to be negated in favour of the collective will — Wittgenstein

Arguably, this needs to happen in every society, if there were some valid means of quantifying and identifying the 'collective good.'

Ok, so you are talking about how typical communist states work as opposed to some actual feature of core Marxist theory then? Because a failure of applied communism is not necessarily a failing of Marxist philosophy.

Is this your own position? I thought you were taking a Kantian approach based on your use of the transcendental argument.

What is LNC?

Marxists do not favour hedonism but they cannot be in any way ascetic as they lack the element of freedom despite refraining from sensual pleasures. — Wittgenstein

Although I'm aligned with general Marxist principles, I'm not exceptionally well-read. I've not looked at Das Kapital for example. Could you explain to me how Marxists "lack the element of freedom"?

I think all branches of knowledge ultimately must inter-validate. It is up to 'practical thinkers' (who pursue something as an avocation) to keep academics grounded. And sometimes to introduce novelty.

I wish I had stuck with the Philosophy program. Would, could, should.

Not at all. I concurred with your estimation of academic philosophy at the time, with the ensuing results for myself. I didn't attribute any more to you than what you said. I don't think I implied it either.

Added quote to my post for clarity.

Existence, the pure concept of understanding, permits nothing else than a necessary condition. — Mww

I don't understand your explication. Existence is minimally presupposed for experience to be the case. What more can be derived (needs to be derived) than that? By saying existence is "nothing more than this" you are making existence conditional upon what is in fact, conditional upon it (experience).

i.e. Existence is a condition of experience, but experience is not a limitation of existence

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Thus, Kant can claim that only the form of experience is mind-dependent, not its matter; the matter of experience depends upon a source outside of the mind.[12]

Philosophy, if taken seriously, is quite hard, it's not, in my opinion, just 'reckoning some stuff'. This means that a) you'd be crazy not to read at least a summary of what people before you have already thought on the matter, — Isaac

Yes, you might want to weigh in on my Lounge thread "What constitutes Philosophy?" I think it is valuable to occasionally re-establish a fundamental lexicon, so to speak.

I was of the same opinion as Schopenhauer regarding academic philosophy,

To me, academic economics and philosophy programs are the most egregious versions of elitist. — schopenhauer1

and thought that it would somehow hinder my ability to freely explore my own ideas. Practically speaking though, I could have been paid to read and write about all the books I have had to squeeze into my free time in the last thirty years. Biggest mistake of my life.

Existence is nothing but a necessary condition for the possibility of human phenomenal experience. Nothing more, nothing less. — Mww

Even if it is true that it is a necessary condition for the possibility of experience (transcendental argument) it doesn't follow that it is "nothing more" than that. What are the ramifications you suppose this has?

ie. Yes...

It could also be said to be a necessary condition for any experience, that doesn’t imply that existence reduces to a necessary condition, it is more than that, the experience that you’re presumably having now is part of existence too. — leo

The whole anthropomorphic deity thing is really a construct of specific religions, Christianity certainly being a major contributor. There are numerous world religious traditions which focus on the higher self, enlightenment, spiritual perfection without having to invoke the oversight of an over-mind. Buddhism, Confucianism, Yogic spiritual texts.

Based solely on the evidence of the history and capacities of consciousness, I am a solid advocate of personal consciousness-development, a.k.a spirituality. Can consciousness evolve to become more than it is? Absolutely. Are such experiences "divine?" I guess that depends on the person and the experience. From my own personal 'enantiodromia', I would say...close enough.

↪Isaac If there's something you desperately want to discuss without interruption, do it by PM. — frank

This has also worked for me.

I guess the dream is to discover an island of sanity in the chaos of online attitudes. A subset of energetic minds that have already digested a lot of interesting books in a lot of interesting areas. Novel and substantial perspectives. Instead there seems to be almost exclusively polemics, punctuated by quite a bit of dark and off-colour humour. Maybe something I'd expect in a satirical movie, but not in a thread of any serious philosophical intention.

Then again, it is the internet. Such is the lot of all serious thought in the online world. What can you do? The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and there seems to be no shortage of greasy commentaries.

The truth is massively overrated.
— Isaac — Metaphysician Undercover

isn't this a "banal one-liner" in the exact sense you were lamenting Isaac?

It is not likely that I will put in similar effort in future. — Amity

Isn't the effort its own reward though? When is effort truly wasted?

"What can be said can and should always be said more and more simply and clearly"
~Karl Popper

Found this interesting quote at the beginning of Popper's 'Realism and the aim of science', about comparing "opposite systems" and finding a way the merge their "chief theories". Which is a propos of the OP. This suggests that periods of paradigm shift are optimally conducive to this process.

So much is certain, that nothing is better adapted to form a mind which is capable of a great development, than living and participating in great scientific revolutions. I would therefore counsel all to whom the period they live in has not naturally presented with this advantage, to procure it artificially for themselves, by reading the writings of those periods in which the sciences have suffered great changes. To peruse the writings of the most opposite systems, and to extract their hidden truth, to answer questions raised by these opposite systems, to transfer the chief theories of the one system into the other, is an exercise which cannot be sufficiently recommended to the student. He would certainly be rewarded for this labour,by becoming as independent as possible of the narrow opinions of his age.
~Hans Oersted

Interestingly, I read quite an early book by Paul Churchland called "Neurocomputational Perspective" and he talked about how, if we could come to attain a deep enough understanding of the neurochemical processes of the brain, we might be able to come to have a direct subjective experience of what those processes are doing, in the same way we experience a wavelength of light as "red". It was an interesting direction to take neurocomputation for sure.

Human multi-tasking. Continuous Partial attention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_multitasking

You can infer whatever you choose, it doesn't alter the fact that Jack is doing exactly what he is doing. I don't have to explain it, since he is doing it, which you yourself allow since it forms part of your argument. Consciousness isn't bound to be rational or even consistent. People have chaotic conscious experiences all the time. Possible some people are "more conscious" than others and maybe those people do tend to be more "self-aware" in lets say avoiding such internally contradictory states as you describe. But that's another issue.

Okay gotcha. Let's start with this.

Driving while daydreaming, and sleepwalking thus:

Jack is driving and not driving= true or false statement?

Jack is sleeping and not sleeping= true or false statement?

Please, you may re-word the phenomenon anyway you like to make it logical. — 3017amen

Jack is actually doing whatever he is doing at the time he is doing it. Whatever that is. If he is driving and daydreaming, then he is driving and daydreaming. It is just the way that you are rephrasing the statements that is causing the apparent contradiction. Daydreaming does not equal not driving. Sleepwalking does not equal not-sleeping. You are equivocating in the most question-begging way possible.

Because it breaks the laws of non-contradiction — 3017amen

Consciousness isn't a statement or a proposition. The law of non-contradiction applies to statements or propositions.

Ok, I think this will clarify my perspective for both you guys. I just grabbed a free Scribd account and did a quick skim through the book you recommended, "Philosophy in the Flesh". Where I follow Varela, Thompson, and Rosch is cited on page 94:

More recently, Varela, Thompson, and Rosch have drawn on embodied cognitive science...to explain their "enactive" notion of experience..."First, that cognition depends on the kinds of experience that come from having a body, and second, that these individual sensorimotor capacities are themselves embeddded in a more encompassing biological, psychological, and cultural context" p94

i.e. It is all fine to consider the sensorimotor nexus as the correlate of consciousness, but that nexus itself necessarily operates within a complex context, and that context itself forms part of the framework of consciousness.

So, maybe you don't agree, or go this far, but, yes, this is my own position too.

K. Your basic position is that consciousness is a "whole body experience". This is extremely close to that, extends a little further but essentially is compatible.

Unless there are two ovdtogt's on here and you're the other one?