Closer to the latter. Good science should say, re consciousness and subjectivity, "We just don't know. Stay tuned." Scientism, in contrast, rules out the non-physical, and favors mechanistic bottom-up explanation. — J

I can't see how science can deal with the non-physical. And I also can't see how it can factor into any of our thinking, although I suppose it depends on what you mean by "non-physical".

I don't understand top-down explanations, explanations in terms of global laws and constraints as being non-physical.

Well, it seems obvious to you and me, but it's very difficult for a physicalist to explain how or why this can be. What sort of thing is a "judgment"? Does it have propositional content? Truth-value? But what could such things amount to, if everything is physical? BTW, it's still a problem even if we agree that subjects are real -- the Hard Problem, in fact. — J

I think the so-called Hard Problem is overrated, overplayed. It is a prejudice of mechanistic thinking that matter could not possibly perceive, experience, think and judge. Granted we don't understand how it happens, but the question being asked is perhaps an impossible one. If it is to be answered, I can't see how it could be anything but science that answers it. If it is unanswerable, then what conclusions could we draw from that?

It tells me that you are very lenient on your emotional writings to others, but very sensitive and paranoid on other folks response to your postings. — Corvus

:roll: Well you're wrong. What I write on here are not "emotional writings", not emotional apart from impatience and annoyance when people distort what I have written or do not respond to reasoned critiques reasonably but deflect and wriggle just as you do.

This: “without minds, there are no possible worlds" is what Corvus is maintaining. He thinks it a counter you your “It is possible for there to be a world without minds”. Of course, it isn't.

Corvus is incapable of shouldering critique. Been that way for years. Hence his response here is to attack you and I, to do anything but reconsider. — Banno

That's just how I see it too. I for one will not waste any more time. on his childish shenanigans.

Your stupidity is doing my head in. I'll have to leave you to it. You and your ilk are a large part of why philosophy is not taken seriously in certain circles. It's not enough just to make shit up, as you do. — Banno

Sadly, what you say here is true.

:up:

So are you claiming that theoretical explanation is not within the purview of science? — Leontiskos

Not at all. I'm claiming that theories cannot be demonstrated to be true, they can only be provisionally accepted on the basis that what they predict is always reliably observed.

I think there is all manner of bleed between the two spheres. — Leontiskos

I agree, of course. I think philosophy, at least epistemology and ontology/ metaphysics if not ethics and aesthetics should be informed by science.

For that reason 'objectivity' seems to be a concept which could only apply to consensus. — AmadeusD

I'd change that to "unbiased consensus".

It seems I'm talking about science, and you are talking about philosophy. I haven't claimed that philosophy can ever become an entirely objective endeavor.

Even science can only be objective in regard to what is actually observed. Theoretical explanation of what is observed are another matter.

Do you think we all do that, or do you think rather that we all have a natural tendency to do that; a tendency which can be overcome by critical reason?
— Janus

I don't know. Sure, some people change views, but then people also fall in and out of love. I'm not confident that it is reasoning that crystallises choices and values. And some people are just more obvious about their process. — Tom Storm

I did say "can be overcome by critical reason". I didn't say that biases commonly are overcome by critical reason. I think a clear and general view of human life would quickly disabuse anyone of the latter idea.

The way that the modern period in its progression has encountered the perennial problem of universals seems to be as follows:

1. If knowledge is objective, then it isn't subjective.
2. If knowledge is subjective, then it isn't objective.

(KO → ~KS)
(And the bijection also tends to hold)

What happens is that on this view in order to secure the objectivity of knowledge one must never talk about the subjectivity of the knower, and the subjectivity of the knower thus becomes a black hole. — Leontiskos

I don't get this. It's like the 'blind spot of science' argument. I just don't think anyone who has really thought about the question denies that science deals with the world as it is perceived by us. I've asked the question many times as to what 'including the subject' could look like in the sciences that investigate the non-human. The subject is simply not the subject of inquiry in those sciences, but of course the inquiry itself is carried out by humans (subjects).

Cheers.

It has long been noticed you have well established group of folks supporting each other when one gets criticism due to their ill manners. Hence no surprise. :wink: — Corvus

There have been no "ill manners". You are being over-sensitive. As far as I have witnessed Banno agrees when he genuinely agrees—and we have had our share of disagreements, so your fantasy of a "well established group" is looking a bit like a case of paranoia.

Taking critiques of or disagreements with your arguments personally makes doing philosophy in a fruitful way difficult if not impossible. It should be an opportunity to learn—to sharpen your arguments or find the humility to concede to a more well reasoned view.

In fact, this might be two distinct difficulties. First, as you say, subjectivity appears to be left out of scientism. — J

I'm not sure what you mean by "scientism" here. Do you just mean science or the obviously incorrect idea that everything about humans and other living beings can be explained by physics?

I think that subjectivity is rightly left out of science (unless you count sociology, psychology and phenomenology as sciences (and even there it would depend on what you mean by 'leaving out subjectivity'). Also 'objectivity' in my view should be taken to mean nothing more than 'lack of bias'.

What does it mean to "have an opinion" if there is no subject to judge? — J

There obviously are subjects (individuals) who make judgements, so what's the problem? Are you worried about the human lack of absolute certainty? Why does the reality that our ideas and beliefs are neural processes rule out the validity of giving and asking for reasons? I've never understood that view, and I've never heard a reasoned argument to support it. It seems perfectly obvious that our ideas and beliefs are both neural processes, and that they are held for reasons both valid and invalid, sound and unsound, and that they are all defeasible.

It certainly is experienced that way by me. But critics will simply say we've inherited the godless secularism of our age. We're in that fuckin' cave, Cobber. — Tom Storm

Yes, but is there any reason to think such a criticism is not tendentiously self-serving? Why should we give credence to arguments that lack evidence or logic to support them; arguments that are not really arguments at all, but mere polemical cultural tropes that are often in the service of misplaced moral crusades.

The modern critical mind has dispensed with God because there is no need for it other than for those who, on account of childhood conditioning or insecurity in the face of the knowledge of suffering and death, cannot rid themselves of the comforting fantasy. Why should we wish to live in thrall to tradition, as Hegel said, "Under the aegis of tutelage"?

As you no doubt know I have no problem with people's personal faiths, but they have no place in philosophical discussion just because there is no critical, evidential or logical support for them. When people delude themselves that their personal faiths must be objectively true, then the door to fundamentalism has swung open. Ideology is the greatest scourge of humankind in my view. In extremis, people will kill and die for ideologies, and that really is absurd.

I have no significant commitments to any particular perspective except that my intuition and observations suggest (to me) that life is intrinsically meaningless. But we do generate contingent value and meaning collectively and individually through experience. — Tom Storm

But you do think that some worldviews are more plausible than others, no? For example, why should we think that life is inherently meaningful in some overarching way, when there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case, and no logical reason why it should be the case?

Of course, life is not meaningless to individual humans or other animals—we all have things that matter to us.

We are emotional creatures. It seems to me that our reasoning and preferences are shaped by our affective relationships with the world, and we then construct post hoc rationalizations. — Tom Storm

Do you think we all do that, or do you think rather that we all have a natural tendency to do that; a tendency which can be overcome by critical reason? I see broadly two types on these forums and in my experience of philosophical discussions with my university friends: there are those who want things to be a certain way and spend time and effort marshalling evidence to support their biases, and there are those of a more scientific spirit, who are open to changing their minds if they find reasons or evidence more compelling than what they have been aware of.

I also generally prefer Bach' music to Mozart's, although in my assessment there are some profound pieces from the latter. Beethoven and Bach are my two favorites.

It blows my mind that a clump of matter is aware of its own existence, its own awareness, its own thoughts. We are aware of some things that no other species is. — Patterner

I agree it is a source of wonderment. I'm glad to see you are apparently not one of those who go on to insist there must be something more than the merely material going on.

But then this makes me wonder about that:

The blind laws of physics do not bring about everything that can exist. We are doing things that the universe cannot do without us. Knowingly and intentionally, which are qualities no other part of the universe possesses. — Patterner

Why could not mind be an emergent material phenomenon? I agree that mind cannot be explained in terms of physics, but then neither can geology, chemistry, biology, ethology, ethnology, economics, psychology, the arts and so on.

It is one thing to say that there are many things which cannot be explained in terms of physics and another to say that those things are therefore the result of something beyond the physical or material.

The point here was about logic, but you seem to talking about your own imagination. Anyhow this is not even main topic in this thread. Please refrain from posting off-topic trivialities. — Corvus

Logic is about what we can coherently imagine.

and if yours cannot imagine a world without minds then I can only pity you.
— Janus
Should it not be self-pity on your part? :lol: — Corvus

Why take it personally? I don't believe you cannot imagine a world without minds, so I wasn't saying I pity you, I was saying I would pity you if you really could not imagine a world without minds. That is not the same as saying you cannot imagine a world without having a mind. You seem to be confusing the two.

Indeed it is. There is a distinction between “it is possible for there to be a world without minds”, ↪Janus account, and your “without minds, there are possible worlds”.


You may well be right that this last is false. But it is not what is being suggested. — Banno

Did you mean "your “without minds, there are no possible worlds”"?

You are one of the people I respect most on TPF. I can't remember ever seeing you lose patience, which is more than can be said about many, including myself. I wish you well and hope you continue to contribute.

What do you mean by trivially true? Why is it trivially true? — Corvus

It's trivially true because it's obvious that only minds imagine. It's not even worth stating it's so obvious.

It says nothing about the ability of a mind to imagine anything.
— Janus
Isn't it obvious? Imagination is a mental operation which is one of the functions of mind. How else would you imagine something without mind? — Corvus

Are you being obtuse on purpose? The point is not that you need a mind in order to imagine, the point is that that bleedingly obvious fact says nothing about what particular things are possible for the mind to imagine. It says nothing about whether the mind can imagine a world without minds.

Anyway, I know my mind can imagine a world without minds, and if yours cannot imagine a world without minds then I can only pity you.

Yes, it's subjective. I find human awareness/consciousness more fascinating and attractive than diamonds, chocolate, the aurora borealis, or anything else. Even more than music, which wouldn't exist without us. But I know different people feel different ways. — Patterner

You have offered fairly extensive reasons for why you feel as you do. It left me wondering if you feel the way you do for those reasons or if they are just a rationalization of how you would feel regardless of whether you consciously formulated those reasons.

I have no argument against your feelings even though I don't share them. I find animal awareness just as fascinating as human awareness. Of course, my own awareness is the most fascinating since it is the only awareness I have direct access to. It is only on account of personal communication as well as the arts: literature, poetry, music and the visual arts that I have any access to the awareness of other humans, and of course that is a far greater access than I have to animal awarenesses, and also being human myself it is more familiar. But then my experience of the arts and literature etc., is my experience and not anyone else's.

I don't count human lives other than those I am familiar with as more important than animal lives though. And obviously an animal life, say one of my dogs, I am most familiar with is more important to me than most human lives. There is no way I would save a stranger at the expense of sacrificing one of my dogs; I would not consider it even for a moment. But then we are all different, eh?

Demonstrating the nature of truth, and the other things you mention cannot be done. If it could be it would have been by now after more than two thousand years of trying.

Those are not scientific questions, they are semantic follies, but the nature of the world can only be investigated by science, not by imagination or logic alone. — Janus

They have been demonstrated, but not scientifically. I don't know why one would expect it to be proven scientifically when it is presupposed for science to work in the first place.

If you really don't believe we know what truth is, then you can't do science properly; because it depends on investigating the truth. — Bob Ross

The nature of truth has not been definitively demonstrated if what you mean by 'demonstrated' involves any kind of thesis. There are several conceptions of truth for example and there are problems with the JTB notion of knowledge.

I haven't said we don't know what truth is, just that we cannot give a definitive account of it. The Tarski sentence is just a formulation of the common understanding that truth is what accords with actuality. But then the question as to what actuality is can be asked and so on it goes. If you keep asking for the definitions of things you will go around in circles.

We can recognize what is true and what is not when it comes to direct statements about what is observed and we also know what is true by definition, and we can do science, and it is obvious that it works, and that it has come to form a vast body of conceptually coherent knowledge. We don't need more than that.

We cannot determine with certainty whether scientific theories are true...it is always possible that any theory will be superceded or improved upon. We count a theory as true provisionally if what it predicts is consistently observed to obtain.

If you had no mind, would you be able to imagine a world?, or be able to imagine anything? — Corvus

Of course, not, but that is trivially true...so what? It says nothing about the ability of a mind to imagine anything.

OK, I had thought that you were claiming that humans are more important than other animals per se, and not merely in your opinion. If that is how you feel, of course there is no argument against it other than to question just why you might feel that way. I mean it's easy to understand why you would feel that way when it comes to friends or loved ones. Do you think one should feel that way, even when it comes to those you don't know personally?

A world independent of mind is a world which exists without mind.
Imagination is a function of mind.
Without mind, there is no imagination.
Therefore a world independent of mind cannot be imagined. (or It is impossible to imagine a world independent of mind.)

That was my argument. It seems to be free from logical inconsistency here, but you claim, it doesn't follow. I was asking you why you assert it doesn't follow. What is your ground or reason for claiming that it doesn't follow. — Corvus

If you imagine a world without mind of course there is no mind by stipulation. The fact that you are using a mind to imagine a world without mind is not illogical. When you are, for example, just imagining a landscape you are not imagining it to have a mind.

The part of your claim that is unargued is as to why it should be impossible to use a mind to imagine something that has no mind.

Eh, scientism doesn't work nor logical positivism. E.g., you can't scientifically determine the nature of truth, logic, mathematics, knowledge, some a priori modes of cognition, etc.

There is nothing science can say of, e.g., the nature of a proposition.

Likewise, metaphysics which is not derived from science may still be informed by it; and the parts that are not are guided by that application of reason to evidence---not the imagination (if it is done properly). — Bob Ross

Demonstrating the nature of truth, and the other things you mention cannot be done. If it could be it would have been by now after more than two thousand years of trying.

Those are not scientific questions, they are semantic follies, but the nature of the world can only be investigated by science, not by imagination or logic alone.

As to why the ability to judge should be argued to be of special importance—it very obviously is
— Janus

Why is the ability to judge of "special" importance? I agree that it is an important philosophical question, but why more important than other philosophical questions, such as those of space, time, existence, consciousness, the quantum theory, knowledge, the origin of the Universe, etc? — RussellA

As to why the ability to judge should be argued to be of special importance—it very obviously is, but only in a few domains I can think of: for examples, the domain of argument itself (obviously) and the domain of adaptability and the domains of the arts and sciences. — Janus

:roll: Try reading and quoting the whole thing in context.

For what it's worth I agree with your arguments against human exceptionalism.

Yes, it is. Humans are more important. In some bizarre scenario in which a human is about to be killed, some glorious natural wonder is about to be destroyed, and I can only prevent one, I'm saving the human. It's not even a close call. I will say, "Damn! What a shame! That was very pretty!" — Patterner

All that says is that humans are more important to you. Could be just your conditioning. I'd save the natural wonder unless the person was important to me. I'd save my dog before a person who meant nothing to me.

This is a contradiction in terms: ontology is philosophy, not science. Science cannot get at ontology, being merely the study of the relation of things and not the nature of things. — Bob Ross

Ontology is the study of what exists—metaphysics is the study of the nature of what exists. Science is the only possible guide to both enquiries. Imagination alone won't do. Logic alone won't do. So, what are we left with?

Science involves both imagination and logic of course, but it does not stop there—it observes and studies the phenomena we encounter and the perceived invariances and speculates about how things are in ways that can be tested.

Life may be common throughout the Universe, and H.sapiens may not be the only example of something that can judge the world around it. In which case, being able to judge may be a natural expression of the nature of the world.

Yes, something having the ability to judge, such as a human, is different to something that doesn't have the ability to judge, such as a tree, but how can this be argued to be of special importance, if no more than a natural expression of nature.

Why is the difference between being able to judge and not being able to judge more philosophically important than the difference between the electron and the Higgs Bosun? — RussellA

Even if H sapiens is the only example in the whole universe of an animal that can formulate judgements in symbolic linguistic form why would that fact by itself not qualify such an ability as natural? What would be the alternative? I can only think of two—that it is an unnatural ability or that it is a supernatural ability, and the first of those seems absurd and the second tendentious and ultimately incoherent.

As to why the ability to judge should be argued to be of special importance—it very obviously is, but only in a few domains I can think of: for examples, the domain of argument itself (obviously) and the domain of adaptability and the domains of the arts and sciences.

What was the name of the bosun on the good ship 'higgs'?

Sorry I missed your response. The exchange thus far in reverse order has been:

I need to see an argument before I can tell you whether or not I think it follows.
— Janus

It was a simple statement with no complexities in its point. But you pointed out something doesn't follow in the statement, which indicates you have an argument why it doesn't follow. You couldn't have said it doesn't follow without your argument why it doesn't follow. :) — Corvus

That doesn't seem to follow. Do you have an argument for why and how the fact that imagining is a function of mind precludes the possibility of imagining that the world is independent of mind?
— Janus

Tell us first why it doesn't seem to follow. — Corvus

You made a bare assertion, to wit:

It sounds illogical to be able to imagine a world independent of mind, when imagining is a function mind. — Corvus

It doesn't sound illogical to me, so I wanted to know why you think it sounds illogical. Do you think it just sounds illogical but is not, or do you think it not only sounds illogical but is illogical. I see no logical contradiction in saying that we can imagine that the world is independent of mind or even that we can imagine a world independent of mind.

I never did :) — Arcane Sandwich

Tell me something I don't know.

I'm a Smart Fox :)
I'm a Firefox! :D
:fire: — Arcane Sandwich

OK.... if you say so.

Don't worry about it.

The question in the first response to you from me in this thread.

I didn't say it was anyone's fault. Are you going to answer the question?

You didn't get the point. Should beliefs alone (in the absence of respectable argument) be respected in the context of discussion?

And I'm saying, that your beliefs are respectable. When have I disrespected you? — Arcane Sandwich

What's the difference between disrespecting someone's beliefs and disagreeing with them? Is it just a matter of not telling them you disagree and why? Should arrant dogma be respected?

That is indeed his perennial confusion, which I also have pointed out to no avail many times. perhps it's a diificult point to understand—hopefully one day he'll get it.

I need to see an argument before I can tell you whether or not I think it follows.

Are past precedents always the best guides to action? Some would think the currently precarious situation the US (and the world) is in qualifies as a time of crisis. As I said earlier this is a significant development, it is certainly no "business as usual". But what is really needed? Just more business as usual? Don't get me wrong—I don't agree with much of what Trump seems to be doing and least of all with his (lack of) environmental policies.

It's going to be very interesting to see how this all pans out.

How are they actually stopping the people responsible for disbursing the funds from disbursing them? Can you answer that?

"Stiirng the pot"! You presumptuous person! I am interested in understanding what is going on, and I don't just believe anything I read, I try to understand both sides of the argument and reserve judgement until more information comes to light, unlike hysterical people like you who are always jumping ti unwarranted conclusions on some moral crusade.

So, it would seem the legality of what the DOGE are doing turns on the question of whether or not this is a "time of crisis"?

Right, and I think that, ethically speaking, the stopping of funds should come only after an investigation that shows extensive corruption and waste. If there were no legal mechanism in place allowing this freezing of funds, then how is it being effected. It's a genuine question since I know little about the US system.

The point about DOGE's activities is that NOBODY knows on what basis all of these wild claims about 'fraud and corruption' are being made. — Wayfarer

You are assuming the claims have no substance. How could you know that? And also, you are forgetting "waste". One man's waste is another man's judicious spending. the American people voted for Trump and so will be subject to his definition of waste.

If you read the article I linked you will find the claim that it is congress that will enact Trump's policies, and that the DOGE are only gathering the information re corruption, waste etc that congress needs in order to act. I don't know enough to know if the article is correct. But whatever Trump and Co does one would think must be within the law or it would be stopped.

I think your interpretation is overblown and a tad hysterical, even though I think that what Trump is doing is not a good idea and is probably, on balance, unethical.

He can realistically have claimed only that what he does will bring down prices, he cannot directly control the markets. It seems that what he is doing will actually inflate prices, so it seems he was mistaken to think he could bring down prices, or else it was just empty rhetoric designed to hoodwink those who are struggling economically.

I don't think that what Trump is doing is a good idea, but I think it must be admitted that he is doing just what he said he would. So, anyone who voted for him has no justification for complaint.
Is he actually flouting the law, the courts? I don't know, but if what the stupid article I linked a few posts ago claims is correct, he is not, and it will be congress that acts on the DOGE's 'intelligence'.

It seems to me that it is the various explanations for how and why the world we perceive is as it is that involve various conceptual lenses (conceptual schemes), and that is not that what we perceive is determined by conceptual lenses, but rather by what is noticed, what is selected, which in turn is determined by what is of interest or use.