Your categorisation is incorrect. There's physical sciences - physics and chemistry - life sciences - biology, environmental science, evolution - geological sciences, and social sciences - sociology, economics. — Wayfarer

Wayfarer!

Thank you for your contribution. Of course we'll have to agree to disagree. And that is because life science studies evolution and human beings. And human beings engage in all sorts of behaviors including religious social norms. Accordingly, cognitive science studies the religious experiences of human beings.

One metaphysical question that could be asked here is, if life science is apart of natural science, what is natural about human beings asking/wondering/hypothesizing whether all events must have a cause?

And did our evolution cause us to ask that question?

T Clark!

Thank you so much for taking the time to contribute your thoughts. If I could use an urban term, you're one of the well-respected old-schooler's around here who might be more objective in their thinking...that said, and not to digress too terribly into metaphysics (because I want to come back to what science-theoretical physics- has to offer cosmology/causation, & religious phenomena and experience/cognitive science), but over in the [my] other thread, POP asked the following:

"As a monist ( where everything is made of the same stuff ) and a believer in phenomenology I wonder If emotions play a role at the fundamental level in the same way they do in consciousness, causing integrity. The best way that I can currently put it is that things are biased to integrate, and a bias is an emotion! It sounds crazy in our time, but I can not absolutely exclude it, and I am attracted to the idea of a world where everything is conscious and emotional. I think it would be an improvement on the world we currently have. Any thoughts?"

That question was posed to 180 and I'm not sure he ever responded to it or cared enough to grapple with it in order to perhaps connect some dots. What's your take on that question?

My own interpretation was basic intentionality ala Schop's the World as W&R/metaphysical will. Or, in my studies, something like what theoretical physicist Paul Davies has mentioned-Panentheism... .

As an aside, I think these natural impulses of wonderment in itself (coming from our stream of consciousness), are consistent with other intrinsic or innate abstract apperceptions about how the world works (abstract mathematical structures) which we find useful.

Some of this still makes me think about what Einstein said about the so-called causal connection between human sentience and religion/to posit God in the first place... .

Maybe the metaphysical questions are what does it mean to perceive something as abstract? Is the concept of God abstract? Is consciousness/sentience itself abstract?

As Chomsky would say we are human beings, not angels. — Manuel

Thank you Manual. Can you contextualize that quote/paraphrase for me? I haven't studied him much... .

:100: There are many of those (on this forum) who seemingly disagree...I won't mention any names LOL.

(Mini-lesson: don't overlook the obvious.)

We like to reduce the number of causes and structures to as little rules as possible. — Manuel

I know. However, perhaps the irony is that those same "abstract structures" have more rules than we can imagine. :cool:

Imagine that.

On the other hand if we take religion as belonging to ethnoscience - sometimes called "folk science" a term which I don't like much - then we could gain some illustrations of how we look at the world in an intuitive manner. — Manuel

Manuel, nice!

I did a little digging, and found ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.

Simon Blackburn (Atheist) made that aforementioned definition/comment. I will have more to say later, but for now, it seems to me that your choice of concepts (intuition) was working 'behind the scenes' (his cognition) in his foregoing statement. Meaning, in the other thread, (I think it was PoP) who used the phrase self-organization viz consciousness, that if the result of 'self-organization' is self-awareness/consciousness itself, and intuition is part of that (and has little to no survival advantages when instinct is all that's needed to survive), then we are back to the metaphysics of curiosity itself. In other words, if he (Blackburn) was not curious about things like causation, he would not even be able to posit or postulate same.

Perhaps the consistent theme or takeaway there is;, "abstract structures" from the mind, hence:

1. intuition
2. the color red
3. wonder
4. curiosity
5. the will
6. causation
7. somethingness v. nothingness
8. mathematics
9. music theory
10. love

That's your problem, not scripture's. — 180 Proof

Not following you on that one my friend. Are you saying Scripture is somehow correct (whatever that means)?

Gotta figure it out for yourself just like the preacher say about scripture. — 180 Proof

??? Does Scripture talk about the nature of curiosity? I didn't think it did...

You're here and you're asking so in some small way it has. — 180 Proof

Hey 180!

Thank you my friend. Let's pick that one to debate if you care to. First, what exactly do you mean there? I can interpret that in numerous ways, but just want to be sure; in what way do you mean "in some small way", and "you're here and you're asking"... ?

For instance, are you suggesting that because we are here, that there is some sort of logical necessity associated with here-ness or otherwise existence? And, what 'percentage' does curiosity have vis-a-vis Darwinian evolution?

And never mind disingenuous, it is a necessary obligation and job of the judges of the court to keep what is impermissible out, for the which in real courts judges are supplied with whatever they need to accomplish that, and properly so. Agreed?

It is people who willy-nilly under the swell and sway of belief cannot stand the fact that the world does not operate on the basis of their belief, and so try to impose it. Belief is the murderer in the world, not science.

Belief the jealous, envious, green-eyed monster that what it cannot eat, it strives to kill.
— tim wood

Mr. Wood:

I see you may need a little tough love here. You've made some wild suppositions, and either-or arguments that are at best, non-sequitur's.

1. How does "the Judge" determine which "Naturalism" criteria is appropriate?
2. If the "the Judge" has a belief system (Atheist/Christian) how does that effect their rulings?

In this context, you have yet to define "Belief" other than your own arbitrary use of it. Please clarify?

(Third request, please answer.)

What relevance does this have (in the OP) with platonism and mathematical structures ?

Second request, please answer.

see a parallel between language and mathematics - taking them to be different things. Being familiar with language, we think we know language. And in an informal and uncritical sense, of course we do. And similarly with mathematics, or at least those part of mathematics we severally "know."

The book is on the table and 2+2=4. Eezy-peezy, and we find find as well that we can create in language, as well as just know it.

Alas, my recent experiences with learning a new (to me) language has reminded me of a more basic and fundamental reality. Which I will simply state briefly: we memorize language, and we memorize mathematics. And what we memorize is collective wisdom, practice, and knowledge, itself hard-earned and refined. There ain't no two, or three,..., but that someone decided there should be such, and a lot of other someones agreed was a good idea. And the same for candles, watermelons, and screwdrivers, and nouns, verbs, and the other parts of speech (which I actually know), in those languages that possess them. .

If anyone cares to argue that underlying these is a necessary mind, I agree. But the mind is/are just the human mind(s) that had the ideas and thought them good enough to embrace. — tim wood

Mr Wood,

Oh my. What relevance does this have with platonism and mathematical structures (other than substandard philosophy/jibbering)?

And never mind disingenuous, it is a necessary obligation and job of the judges of the court to keep what is impermissible out, for the which in real courts judges are supplied with whatever they need to accomplish that, and properly so. Agreed?

It is people who willy-nilly under the swell and sway of belief cannot stand the fact that the world does not operate on the basis of their belief, and so try to impose it. Belief is the murderer in the world, not science.

Belief the jealous, envious, green-eyed monster that what it cannot eat, it strives to kill.
— tim wood

Mr. Wood:

I see you may need a little tough love here. You've made some wild suppositions, and either-or arguments that are at best, non-sequitur's.

1. How does "the Judge" determine which "Naturalism" criteria is appropriate?
2. If the "the Judge" has a belief system (Atheist/Christian) how does that effect their rulings?

In this context, you have yet to define "Belief" other than your own arbitrary use of it. Please clarify?

(Second time, please answer.)

Yep/thanks, just more of a pragmatic interpretation... .

And never mind disingenuous, it is a necessary obligation and job of the judges of the court to keep what is impermissible out, for the which in real courts judges are supplied with whatever they need to accomplish that, and properly so. Agreed?

It is people who willy-nilly under the swell and sway of belief cannot stand the fact that the world does not operate on the basis of their belief, and so try to impose it. Belief is the murderer in the world, not science.

Belief the jealous, envious, green-eyed monster that what it cannot eat, it strives to kill. — tim wood

Mr. Wood:

I see you may need a little tough love here. You've made some wild suppositions, and either-or arguments that are at best, non-sequitur's.

1. How does "the Judge" determine which "Naturalism" criteria is appropriate?
2. If the "the Judge" has a belief system (Atheist/Christian) how does that effect their rulings?

In this context, you have yet to define "Belief" other than your own arbitrary use of it. Please clarify?

Great question! Just a few housekeeping matters though:

1. What is Love?
2. Altruistic Love... .
3. 'Tough Love'... .
4. Unrequited Love... .

How would Christian philosophers on here interpret this commandment and what role do they think it plays or should play in everyday life? — Apollodorus

I think loving thy neighbor may require all the above, if not more... . Of course, knowing that it's almost always through others that we achieve our goals, Love may, just be a mutual respect for those that one engages with...(doesn't mean that it precludes tough love). In that context, reciprocity goes a long way... .

1. What are "objects of reason"?
2. What makes things-in-themselves "provable"?

Third time asking, please answer these questions.

What are you afraid of Mr. Wood?

The nature of belief systems, to return to your question as asked, is that they are exemplary fictions useful, if at all, for guidance. And I add that, being fictive, it's best to take some care in the use and consumption thereof, because in their nature as grounds for anything real, they are really toxic. In this sense, belief perhaps - maybe - as medicine. But too often a kind of psychotropic drug. — tim wood

Mr. Wood,

This only leads to more confusion, because you seem to be saying in your thesis that beliefs are grounded in reality, yet you haven't even defined what reality is... . Now you're saying reality is comprised of 'fictions'. Can you explain how these 'fictions' of reality interacts with one's belief system? To help you, I will re-state the concerns:

"I did some digging, and went back to your thesis and found the foregoing. Frankly, your suppositions seem weak and unsupported. You seem to be making what some of us call in logic as an either-or argument. Nonetheless, perhaps you have the answer to these concerns, but it may be simply difficult for you to articulate. Hence, let's start with these questions, then go from there:"

1. What are "objects of reason"?
2. What makes things-in-themselves "provable"?

There are many more questions, but let's parse these first. Sorry to put you on the spot, but your thesis does not seem cogent or even well thought out. Perhaps, as you say in your metaphor, "that knowledge is our kind of beer"; I'm not sure we want to be drinking your kind of beer :joke:

And mere belief that which is merely claimed. Unsupportable and unprovable, in some cases the unprovability being an essential feature. Religion an obvious source but also experience, practice, common sense, collected community wisdom: all these used not as ground but to underpin argument by claiming to stand as proofs of premises: all these, then, great impersonators of reason. For if they were objects of reason, then they would be provable, thus no longer mere beliefs. — tim wood

Mr Wood,

I did some digging, and went back to your thesis and found the foregoing. Frankly, your suppositions seem weak and unsupported. You seem to be making what some of us call in logic as an either-or argument. Nonetheless, perhaps you have the answer to these concerns, but it may be simply difficult for you to articulate. Hence, let's start with these questions, then go from there:

1. What are "objects of reason"?
2. What makes things-in-themselves "provable"?

Great point, because I did not notice an explanation in his thesis.

What is the nature of human belief systems?

This is the third time I've asked you please answer the question.

Hey Cic!

I don't know about you, but it seemed a bit like gibberish. For one, he didn't speak to the nature of human reason relative to the relationships of human belief systems.

Did you understand what he said?

Or maybe he can elucidate some. We're patient, I'll keep asking him

The overwhelming evidence shows that most "human belief systems" are a jambalaya of (irreflective) cognitive biases, in/formal fallacies & placeholder narratives. — 180 Proof

Good point 180! We're patient, we'll wait for mr. Wood to reply

by logic you mean bivalent logic then you run into problem with its application to the world since the world does not divide neatly into either/or determinations. — Fooloso4

:up:

Yet another problem with mr. Wood's thesis:

What is the nature of human belief systems?

This is the second time I've asked you please answer the question.

It's okay you can close the thread now.

Thanks Baden.

How offer you an olive branch:

What is the nature of human belief systems?

Perhaps that will come easier to you.

This is a philosophy site mr. Wood. I will ask you for the 4th time:

What is the nature of human reason?

My goodness it's as if you don't understand philosophy at all? Don't take this the wrong way but that's incoherent gibberish. I'll ask you for the third time:

Explain the nature of human reason?

I have other questions too, with your thesis, but for now please answer the question.

Can you explain the nature of reason? ( — 3017amen

Second time, please answer the question.

I find presiding over all reason. The capacity to use tools to determine knowledge and winnow it from the chaff of unreason. — tim wood

Quite honestly I find this utter nonsense. After reading the somewhat incoherent text, and providing no references, I'm not really sure you know what you're talkin about. Can you explain the nature of reason? (This will be one question of many.)

As a monist ( where everything is made of the same stuff ) and a believer in phenomenology I wonder If emotions play a role at the fundamental level in the same way they do in consciousness, causing integrity. The best way that I can currently put it is that things are biased to integrate, and a bias is an emotion! It sounds crazy in our time, but I can not absolutely exclude it, and I am attracted to the idea of a world where everything is conscious and emotional. I think it would be an improvement on the world we currently have. Any thoughts? — Pop

Pop!

Just going back through the questions in order to get caught-up, did 180 ever provide for a Metaphysical insight to that?

My last word, with all due resect, is that you have proved by default (or at least one can reasonably infer) to be just cherry picking/trolling this thread. I provided an opportunity to have real meaningful philosophical debate, and you declined. The subject matter is too comprehensive, unless of course you accept that your belief is the only one, or you are simply not sure what your position even is... . In any case, you seem to be pleading the 5th..

Should you change your mind, I still welcome the challenge. I would suggest, read the aforementioned attachment as it will only broaden your philosophical knowledge in that area...

Also, this is not a criticism of religion or people being religious. It is merely to make clear that religion is not a natural science. Please limit your response to this one narrow topic only. — EricH

This thread is about Metaphysics, first and foremost (The Video, Items 1 thru 7, 7 of 8). If you're interested in parsing these distinctions (even for those fanatical atheists espousing their belief systems) relating to science and religion, I will graciously offer you an olive branch.

However, it comes at a price. In the spirit of doing one's homework (and not just trolling/cherry picking/malicious ad hominem...), refer to the following document below, then present your case as to why you think Natural Science is incompatible with the Life Science (phenomenology, cognitive science, religion, etc.).

In addition, to use your words, I'll even take a "different tactic". If you care to open another thread on the subject matter, I would be more than willing to explore it. Because once again, this thread is about Metaphysics; not Religion. (Unless you want to argue otherwise in a new thread that Metaphysics and Religion should be compatible.) But just to worn you, since that topic is broad/comprehensive, it includes my influences from those of David Hume, William James, Freud (among many other's).

But just to stay focused here's my OP supposition in exploring consciousness:

"8. With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion, ideally or theoretically, should philosophy and [physical] science work together to help better understand consciousness?"


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/

So I'll leave you for now, — tim wood

Gee, I was just getting started... Didn't The Rolling Stones have a song .... .

I'll anxiously await your response to my challenge. Let's check your knowledge of philosophy (Be careful what you ask for mr. Wood) LOL

Crickets!!!!
LOL

Now I'm on a roll. Why don't you put up and shut up and open a thread and call it something like the existence of God thread. I challenge you to debate me one on one.

Let me offer this to you. Your intent is to clearly troll the thread and disparage and discredit people. Unless you have something constructive to add ( review the video) your presence in my thread is no longer welcomed.

Furthermore I have answered your question and you failed to dig through the referenced material I offered you. Do your homework mr. Wood.

And if you continue to send me private messages to harass me I will report you to the moderators.

Invite all tempted to interact with 3017amen to review his comments and judge whether it's worth your time and trouble — tim wood

Indeed!!!!

Please be well Mr. Wood.

Actually your participation in this thread is not welcomed.

Apology accepted!!

You of all people 180 should know that internet forums leave little room for inflection :nerd:

Afterall: Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation---William James

LOL

you fuckin' half-wit. :snicker: — 180 Proof

You stand corrected:

“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim

LOL

180!

Thanks, but I'm not sure I'm following your logic. Does this quote apply to you too brother? Or does it just apply to

“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim


No matter, I do seem to recall, just for clarification purposes (since you like references) that Einstein had a shared concern about your belief system (particularly when it comes to disparaging people's character and personal attacks). Does all this apply to you as well, I wonder?:

'The fanatical atheists, are like [ prisoners] who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who — in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses' — cannot hear the music of the spheres.'" --Albert Einstein

Put your big boy pants on, I can troll with the best of them :joke: