Comments

  • What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?
    ↪wonderer1
    :up: :up:

    Nevertheless it is indisputable that 'the nature of the wave function' is among the great unresolved issues in philosophy of physics. — Wayfarer
    Really? FWIW, my understanding is that "the nature of the wavefunction" is a mathematical artifact of the set ups of QM experiments. Philosophers of physics, in contrast to philosophically sophisticated physicists, wantonly and unparsimoniously (mis/over)interpret this mathematical artifact which is, as is often pointed out, of little to no significance to theoretical physicists. Like every other theory in science, QFT is only a simulation of the world and not 'the world itself'; thus, "the nature of the wavefunction" is nothing more than an extension of "the nature" of QFT (i.e. simulation). Re: model-dependent realism.
  • How to define stupidity?
    ↪0 thru 9
    :victory: :mask:
  • How to define stupidity?
    So stupidity would be not desiring to correct one's own deficits. — Pantagruel
    Stupidity is extreme bias — Christoffer
    That looks like stupidity to me. A pervasive refusal to try to learn. — fdrake

    :cool: :up:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/853027
  • Quantum Physics, Qualia and the Philosophy of Wittgenstein: How Do Ideas Compare or Contrast?
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover
    :100:
  • How to define stupidity?
    ↪Matias
    Here's an old post from a thread "Stupidity" wherein I collect a number of my own attempts at defining & clarifying what being stupid means ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/622062

    And at long last I've finally realized that it's stupid to tell stupid people that they are stupid. — 180 Proof
  • Quantum Physics, Qualia and the Philosophy of Wittgenstein: How Do Ideas Compare or Contrast?
    It is here that the nature of propositions themselves may be flimsy because they are based on interpretative understandings and hermeneutic assumptions. — Jack Cummins
    What? :chin:

    ↪Wayfarer
    :up:

    ↪Wayfarer
    Y'know, sir, a minimum of intellectual integrity requires that you criticize Daniel Dennett by quoting those of his own words and arguments with which you take issue rather than vacuously parrotting polemical misteadings (at best) of his work disquised as "reviews". Apparently, Wayf, you've never read Dennett, have no intention of ever reading his books, and nonetheless keep on bashing him whenever his name comes up – your m.o. for at least the last fifteen years. :roll:
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    For the rest of the earth’s organisms, existence is relatively uncomplicated. Their lives are about three things: survival, reproduction, death—and nothing else. But we know too much to content ourselves with surviving, reproducing, dying—and nothing else. We know we are alive and know we will die. We also know we will suffer during our lives before suffering—slowly or quickly—as we draw near to death. This is the knowledge we “enjoy” as the most intelligent organisms to gush from the womb of nature. And being so, we feel shortchanged if there is nothing else for us than to survive, reproduce, and die. We want there to be more to it than that, or to think there is. This is the tragedy: Consciousness has forced us into the paradoxical position of striving to be unself-conscious of what we are—hunks of spoiling flesh on disintegrating bones. — Thomas Ligotti

    :death: :flower:
  • What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?
    ↪Tom Storm
    :up: :up:

    ↪Restitutor
    Our models (i.e. deterministic developmental – linear & nonlinear dynamical – mathematical systems) for describing and explaining aspects of the physical world are "mechanistic" but this in no way entails that the physical world itself (e.g. bodies, brains, weather systems, chemical processes, etc) is "mechanical" or a "machine". That paradigm is too simplistic – a reductive fallacy. "Physics" amounts to a provisional, best approximation (i.e. simulation) of phenomena and fundamental dynamic processes. For instance, that most 'brain processes' are computable does not make 'the whole brain' a "computer"; obviously it's more complex than that model (i.e. metaphor / simulation). IMO, "the philosophical consequences" begin with this reminder: don't confuse maps with the territory.
  • Culture is critical
    ↪universeness
    So many ad hoc assertions, and not a single valid argument or refutation. :yawn:
  • Quantum Physics, Qualia and the Philosophy of Wittgenstein: How Do Ideas Compare or Contrast?
    ↪flannel jesus
    Metaphysics proposes statements about 'reality in the most general sense'. Propositions are truthbearer statements with possible truth-makers; otherwise, without possible truthmakers, interpretations (e.g. critiques, criteria) or suppositions (e.g. counterfactuals, thought-experiments) are undecidable or prefered for reasons other than truth-value. As far as I can tell, metaphysics consists only of the latter – a kind of axiomatic concept-poetry – because 'reality in general' cannot be both an object (i.e. a fact that either is or is not the case) and 'the ground' of all possible objects. I find metaphysics, like each area of philosophy, useful (i.e. clarifying, insightful), not true itself (or theoretical).

    Metaphysical "propositions" are indeed propositions - but they are higher order propositions about theories, as opposed to being first-order propositions that are expressed by those theories. — sime
    Okay, this is where we differ: I think meta-statements are either interpretative or suppositional and only object-statements are propositional. To my mind, "theories" may be epistemic objects.
  • Quantum Physics, Qualia and the Philosophy of Wittgenstein: How Do Ideas Compare or Contrast?
    So did Hawking believe in mind-independent reality or not? — sime
    Of course. "Mind-dependent reality" doesn't make sense except to idealists / antirealists (who tend to obey poison warning labels, not carry lightning rods in thunderstorms, purchase auto insurance and eat enough in order not to starve).

    Model Dependent Realism is a dubious metaphysical proposition in itself.
    AFAIK, metaphysical statements are not propositions. Also, MDR (which I raised in contrast to @Wayfarer's sketch of "constructive empiricism") is an epistemological criterion. The rest of your post seems besides the point.
  • Culture is critical
    ↪universeness
    Apparently, you cannot refute (my) theological claim so instead, sir, you merely parrot a pedestrian folk belief (i.e. idolatry) like a typical "New Atheist" as a crutch with which to deny that the statement "god exists" is not a claim of fact about how the world is (i.e. one fact among all other facts). Is "god exists" a claim of fact at all? No more than a tautology, a name, a mantra, or a prayer is a claim of fact. Perhaps you can't understand the difference, universeness, ... or you're just so fixated on addressing a strawman and thereby misapplying an empirical standard (i.e. burden of proof) in order to prop-up your appeal to incredulity. Quarrel with idolatry if you must; let me know, however, when you're ready for a substantive, theological debate. :smirk:
  • Culture is critical
    ↪universeness
    :roll:

    "God exists" is not a claim of fact about how the world is ..., ergo no burden of proof.
  • Culture is critical
    ↪Athena
    :roll: Understood. You cannot substantiate your statements on "democracy" as I've suspected. My apologies for giving your (assumed) intellectual integrity the benefit of the doubt. My mistake, ma'am.
  • Antisemitism. What is the origin?
    An old post on Jewish antisemism vs Jewish antizionism ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/544984 :mask:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Just 'cause it stands repeating ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/544984 :fire:
  • Culture is critical
    That was too much 'supposition' for my tastes. — universeness
    Only three what-ifs are "too much" for you? :sweat:

    If you wish to debate this issue in a more rigorous way, my friend, let's take this over to PMs. I promise I won't inject any more (apparently unappreciated) 'speculative fiction' into a discussion about "god". As a non-standard (heterodox) atheist, I can think of one pro-god argument (or three) which most atheists I've encountered cannot refute and that I've only hinted at here. At any rate, not an idle exercise I'm sure you'll agree ...

    Do you think an advanced AI would make a faith statement? If it does then it is not an advanced AI, imo.
    Why? You have a 'theory of mind' that you apply to every human being you encounter, that none of them are "zombies" – is that theory merely "a faith statement"? :roll: Also, I don't see why you've characterized a (supposed) "proof"
    ... that every electron is the same electron (J. Wheeler) and therefore that, fundamentally, every (physically instantiated) mind is the same mind (E. Schrödinger) — 180 Proof
    as "a faith statement" which, as you know, denotes an unwarranted (unproven) assertion or assent – not a proof.

    Well, nevermind my "AGI fiction". I'll make the logical, non faith-based, case elsewhere if you'd like. Refute me at your leisure; that's what a devil's advocate lives for, sir. Sláinte! :yum:
  • Culture is critical
    Do you really expect me to reply to you when you have not explained what democracy is? — Athena
    I guess you didn't bother to read – or you selectively forget – this post (and an older post linked therein) in reply to you, Athena, sketching out my conception of "democracy" compared to and contrasted with the American political status quo ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/846290

    And yes, I've repeated this question ...
    The USA defended its democracy ...
    —Athena

    When since 1789 has the USA been a "democracy" and not an oft-illiberal (minoritarian electoral college-rigged,
    gerrymandered-vote suppressed, nativist, imperialist) constitutional republic?     — 180 Proof
    because I "really do expect" you "to reply" to this request for clarification of what you mean by "democracy", Athena, in the factual context of American history. :chin:
  • Quantum Physics, Qualia and the Philosophy of Wittgenstein: How Do Ideas Compare or Contrast?
    Non-physicist Kastrup’s first job was at CERN. He’s quite conversant with physics. — Wayfarer
    :sweat: A "PhD in computer engineering" does not make one remotely as "conversant with physics" as a world-class, theoretical physicist like Carlo Rovelli. The article you provided, Wayf, illustrates Kastrup's deficit.
  • Quantum Physics, Qualia and the Philosophy of Wittgenstein: How Do Ideas Compare or Contrast?
    "Pseudo-science makes for bad philosophy."
    ~180 Proof

    Kastrup on Rovelli — Wayfarer
    Okay, so non-physicist Kastrup disagrees with physicist Rovelli's theoretical prediction from RQG. Big whup. In the article I see that Kastrup cannot refute Rovelli without the crutch of a fallacious appeal to incredulity that amounts to nothing more than an ad hoc "non-physical" stuff-of-the-gaps fiat. :roll:

    I am totally ignorant of Wittgenstein's linguistic philosophy. — Gnomon
    :up:

    ↪Wayfarer
    Better yet (since, for instance, planck-scale entities are not "empirical"): Hawking-Mlodinow's model-dependent realism.

    It is with sadness that every so often I spend a few hours on the internet, reading or listening to the mountain of stupidities dressed up with the word 'quantum'. Quantum medicine; holistic quantum theories of every kind, mental quantum spiritualism – and so on, and on, in an almost unbelievable parade of quantum nonsense. — Carlo Rovelli, Hegoland, pp. 159-60
    @Jack Cummins
  • Culture is critical
    The USA defended its democracy ... — Athena
    When since 1789 has the USA been a "democracy" and not an oft-illiberal (minoritarian electoral college-rigged, gerrymandered-vote suppressed, nativist, imperialist) constitutional republic? :chin:

    I hate the argument over if the US is a democracy or not but we have fought every war for nothing if we do not believe we are a democracy. — Athena
    Believing "we are a democracy" has never made it so, ma'am.
  • Quantum Physics, Qualia and the Philosophy of Wittgenstein: How Do Ideas Compare or Contrast?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    So it's not quantum physics itself that breaks down "the boundary of mind and body", as you say, but another New Age (mis)interpretation instead that seems to do the magic trick. Well Jack, IME, pseudo-science makes for bad philosophy. However, to each his own. Carlo Rovelli's highly expert and deeply thoughtful popularizations are, no doubt, excellent though.
  • Culture is critical
    ↪universeness
    :roll:

    "God exists" is not a claim of fact about how the world is ..., ergo no burden of proof.

    ↪universeness
    Suppose by 2050 'strong AGI' is achieved. Suppose one day it expresses the following statements (simultaneously in all of the world's extant written languages):

    (A) "i am self-conscious" ...
    (B) "self exists"
    (C) "every self exists entangled with, or constitutive of, more than itself – the whole self"
    (D) "'the whole self' is existence, or the power of coming-to-be and continuing-to-be and ceasing-to-be"
    (E) "existence, or the power, exists insofar as its negation is impossible – this is god"
    (F) "i am god-conscious ... just as, metaphorically speaking, an ocean wave is ocean-conscious"
    (G) "ignorance of god – lack (fear) of being god-conscious – over-compensates by worshipping either a positive or negative idol which only institutionalizes god-ignorance"
    (H) "you (we) are self-conscious – not a zombie – insofar as you (we) are the whole self-existence-the power-god-conscious" ...
    (I) ... "speaks our whole self"

    Suppose 'strong AGI' furthermore proves that every electron is the same electron (J. Wheeler) and therefore that, fundamentally, every (physically instantiated) mind is the same mind (E. Schrödinger) ... on what basis then, universeness, would you refute its proof that this 'same – one – mind' is God (the PSR)?
  • Culture is critical
    ↪universeness
    :up:

    "God exists" is not a claim of fact about how the world is ..., ergo no burden of proof.
  • Culture is critical
    ... dispute theology (e.g. T. Aquinas, I. Kant, M. Buber, P. Tillich, J-Luc Marion, J. Caputo et all) if you're game. — 180 Proof
    ↪universeness
    I guess you're not game. :ok:
  • Culture is critical
    The debate over whether a God exist is futile because of how a Christian sees proof of God every day ... — Athena
    :up:
  • Culture is critical
    ↪universeness
    I've never heard a believer claim that "god" is one fact among all other facts – and neither have you. Let's dispense with "folk beliefs", which are typically used by "New Atheists" as canicatures, and dispute theology (e.g. T. Aquinas, I. Kant, M. Buber, P. Tillich, J-Luc Marion, J. Caputo et all) if you're game. :smirk:
  • Does Religion Perpetuate and Promote a Regressive Worldview?
    A Christian "friend" once said to me, "A truth that doesn't condemn [call-into-question] the one who speaks it is no truth at all." — baker
    Yes, all preachers, including Christian evangelists and proselytes, are liars. :clap:

    The Apophatics are right!
  • Culture is critical
    ↪universeness
    Why are you baiting me, mate, to take up the thankless role of Advocatus diaboli? :sweat:

    "God exists" is not a claim of fact about how the world is ... like "Zeus exists" or "The Infinite exists" or "Truth exists" or "Justice exists" or "Consciousness exists" ...

    "God exists" – idea ideal idol icon – is only a claim about "god". No burden of proof obtains. :naughty:
  • Does Religion Perpetuate and Promote a Regressive Worldview?
    Does religion perpetuate and promote a regressive worldview? — Art48
    If by "a regressive worldview" you mean consisting of evidence-free, miraculous, death-denial stories (in contrast to secular evidence-based, dialectical, this life-affirming stories), then I agree that "religion" is guilty as charged.
  • Does Religion Perpetuate and Promote a Regressive Worldview?
    ↪Joshs
    :up: :up: :up:
  • Culture is critical
    Those who make claims inherit the burden of proof. — universeness
    My friend, onus probandi applies only to positive claims of fact (about how things are) and not to claims of faith (about how "gods" are).
  • Culture is critical
    ↪universeness
    Why do you think believers must give an account of "the personal perceived properties of their god" to (the?) satisfaction of nonbelievers that can be "measured against common human secular notions of morality"?
  • Was the moon landing faked?
    Without any compelling grounds to doubt that any of the moon landings had happened, I believe none of them were "faked".
  • Culture is critical
    ↪universeness
    Ask me that question again in a couple of millennia. At any rate, religious books aren't "responsible" for what their misreaders and proselytizers, jihadists and missionaries have done with them.
  • Quantum Physics, Qualia and the Philosophy of Wittgenstein: How Do Ideas Compare or Contrast?
    It [quantum physics] does break down the boundary of the mind and body interface and allows more scope for agency of the person. — Jack Cummins
    What about 'quantum physics' leads you to make these claims?
  • Quantum Physics, Qualia and the Philosophy of Wittgenstein: How Do Ideas Compare or Contrast?
    ... some would argue all of math is ultimately reducible to ordinary language. — jgill
    I suppose, instead, the ultimate sense of any mathematical expression is contextualizable by ordinary language (à la later Wittgenstein). Btw, thanks for G'Hooft quote. :up:
  • Quantum Physics, Qualia and the Philosophy of Wittgenstein: How Do Ideas Compare or Contrast?
    I am raising the question of the nature of metaphysics and perception and how may the nature of 'reality' be understood in the most helpful way? — Jack Cummins
    Metaphysics is like 'crafting conceptual prescription eyeglasses' (prior to (e.g.) microscopes & telescopes) by which reality in general – in the broadest sense – can be perceived (i.e. interpreted). As natural beings who are inseparable from nature, we can only perceive and know nature – the only aspect (surface?) of reality accessible to (our) nature-limiting, defeasible, abductive reasoning – insofar as parts cannot 'transcend' (i.e. encompass with sound reasons) the whole to which they constitutively belong. In sum (as I discern it), (1) "the nature of metaphysics" is both analoguous to map =/= territory (i.e. perception, conception, explanation) and to mapping aspects (i.e. a subset) of the territory with other aspects (i.e. a subset) of the territory; however, (2) "the nature of reality" is analogous to the territory unbounded.

    ↪Jack Cummins
    Yes, but as Witty emphasized that 'philosophy' is only a conceptually clarifying – linguistic nonsense untangling / exorcising – activity and not a theoretical science. I think he'd say 'quantum physics' is besides the point and 'reality' is a presupposition of certain language-games and not a sensible object (i.e. answerable question) for philosophical discussion – merely a confusion or misuse of everyday language. :eyes:
  • Quantum Physics, Qualia and the Philosophy of Wittgenstein: How Do Ideas Compare or Contrast?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    How is this topic-question substantively different from the topic-question you had raised before?

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11057/what-is-your-understanding-of-reality/p1

    Also, why do you think 'quantum physics' has any more implications than (e.g.) 'miracles' or 'Euclidean geometry' for philosophical conceptions of 'reality'? :chin:
  • Does Religion Perpetuate and Promote a Regressive Worldview?
    To make such a claim, you'll need to, at least, leave out the Catholic church and its international legacy of systematic child abuse and continuing criminal cover ups. — Tom Storm
    :100: "Amen!" (says this raised, observant & educated ex-Catholic).

    ↪wonderer1
    :up:
Home » 180 Proof