So we can’t use the letter G as the subvenient term in a supervenience relation between the strictly physical and the strictly mental. — J

Right. Your recognition of a G supervenes on a much more complex system involving your eyes, optic nerves, and processing in neural networks in your brain.

In which case there'd be a philosophy of science ... tho not governing, at least influencing scientific practice. — Moliere

Sure. I was specifically pointing out that it would be a misunderstanding to think that philosophy governs science.

Popper and Kuhn elucidated things that have been valuable to scientific thought, but I'd say that if it makes any sense to talk of something governing science 'Mother Nature' is the one laying down the laws.

If philosophy of science has no practical application, what value do philosophers find within it? — ucarr

I didn't say philosophy of science has no practical application. I said PoS doesn't govern science.

I can't speak much to what value philosophers find in PoS. It appears to me that a substantial fraction of philosophers (or at least those who fancy themselves philosophers) find PoS to be justification for being pretty ignorant of science.

If philosophy of science governs scientific practice, then does it follow that philosophy, being the source of the rules, equates itself with metaphysics? — ucarr

Philosophy of science does not govern scientific practice.

Agreed. Here's a Protestant who also agrees. — Relativist

Very interesting article.

Many times these problems actually need very nuanced and specific solutions, not radical and dramatic solutions like "World government". — ssu

:up:

I've read it. I guess I was wondering if you were interested in considering a different perspective.

Knowledge is an assertation of identity backed by deductive reasoning. — Philosophim

It's not rare for me to accept that I know things, based on my intuition having been highly trained and tested in some fairly specific areas. Is there some reason I should accept your definition?

If we trace your logic back to its roots, we are going to find intuitions anyway, don't you think?

Something else to consider:

https://www.mathnasium.com/ca/blog/20160422-math-in-nature-a-prime-life-cycle-for-periodical-cicadas

Is there any chance of raising their awareness? — Athena

Yes.

The Evangelical preachers with modern media have a huge advantage compared to the Nazi party doing surveys and then renting a dance hall to rile up support for the Nazi party. — Athena

Despite modern media, religion has been in steady decline in the US for decades now.

Here's a good article about the science community's reaction to panpsychism:
https://www.salon.com/2024/04/01/the-most-anti-science-belief-you-can-hold-is-that-science-is-a-religion/ — RogueAI

Pretty bad article, but at least the author is trying to update their thinking:

https://www.salon.com/2024/04/02/some-people-may-see-more-images-per-second-than-others-study-finds/

Go ahead, explain fully what you meant, not just in-a-nutshell. — NotAristotle

Go ahead and answer my questions and we can go from there.

In a nut shell, the purpose is to investigate whether you can recognize the argument from ignorance you are suggesting.

I think someone on the forum said this already, but life seems categorically, discretely, quantumly different than non-life; a difference that does not seem explicable by physical mechanisms, no matter the complexity. — NotAristotle

Are you someone who is good at understanding complex physical mechanisms?

Is there some reason to think that the way things seem to you is the result of you being better informed than physicists, chemists, and biologists?

Indeed! — Patterner

It makes sense. When one wants to believe oneself to be a god, and all of the evidence points to one being a genetically modified primate, there is bound to be some irritability.

I guess we know Khan's position on consciousness. — Patterner

Perhaps it explains his being so wrathful.

But I'm trying to show that a reductive materialistic explanation can go much further in explaining conscious phenomenology than is generally accepted by those who dismiss reductive materialism. — Malcolm Lett

:up:

The atoms, by extension and as parts of the organism, act differently than were they part of something dead. — NotAristotle

Superficially, we might say that the carbon atoms in gunpowder act differently than the carbon atoms in pencil leads. Still, the physicists and chemists will see beyond that superficiality. The way atoms act is a function of the context they are in in any case, without a distinction between living and non-living being what makes the difference.

I have to credit @Luke for pointing it out to me.

You might find it interesting to consider how the view expressed in the following article complements and/or contrasts with your own.

https://aeon.co/essays/how-blindsight-answers-the-hard-problem-of-consciousness

Or perhaps humans have only ever mistakenly believed that they themselves, or anyone else, has communicated with God.

How do we consider evidence for and against e.g. God communicating with Moses? I don't even know what it would mean for God to speak to Moses. If we were transported back to Moses's day and heard a booming voice thundering down would that be God? Could be aliens. Or we could be hallucinating. — BitconnectCarlos

One place to start is, "Why think there was an actual Moses?"

Are we to consider the evidence for and against such a claim?
— BitconnectCarlos

Yes, we are. — AmadeusD

:up:

More BS — Lionino

And yet he still has you giving him attention.

Don't feed the troll? — Banno

I get that, I'm just pointing out that this thread has been thoroughly de-railed and that we should try to at least engage with the OP in some way. — ToothyMaw

Ok.

If we wish to understand the thought processes of the Islamic State or the Taliban, we need only read the Old Testament. — alan1000

No that is not all we need. We need to understand as well, the neuroscience of tribalism, along with other things.

So, most of your post has nothing to do with the discussion started by the OP. I know that's obvious, but I still felt the need to say it. — ToothyMaw

Correct. My response was to .

The mass propaganda of Protestants against Catholics is well known.
— javi2541997
Is it? By whom? Which particular Protestants are waging what propaganda campaigns? If you accuse someone, you're expected to provide evidence. If you accuse millions of anonymous people, we should just let it slide? — Vera Mont

I'm not going to put a lot of effort into presenting evidence, but if you read enough old Chick tracts, and observe enough of the people who pass them out, you will have your answer.

We are members of a species inherently wired for tribalism. Surely if systemic racism and sexism are worthwhile concepts, (and I'm inclined to think they are) then systemic anti-Catholicism doesn't sound implausible. In the US today there is not as much anti-Catholicism as their used to be. The Protestant tribe is feeling surrounded and feels the need for allies. (Not to mention the Supreme Court is packed with Catholics.) US Protestans see tribes other than Catholics as being of much greater concern for the time being.

As a preachers kid I've seen 'how the sausage is made'. I have first hand experience with having a pumped up oxytocin and/or vasopressin level at church camp. To see myself as at 'one with' and deeply loving and loved by those around me. To see such a mind altering experience as surely an experience with God, because how else could I explain such a dramatically altered state of mind? In that state of mind, we could see that it is clearly US that are on the right track.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-reboot/202307/the-neuroscience-of-tribalism

I still feel lost. Now, I have a closer approach to Christianity, but only the surface. Yet I am aware that I can sound contradictory about stating that philosophy doesn't fill my ethical notions but religion does, etc. I feel I am trapped in a cage. — javi2541997

It sound to me like you need to find...

Although I was dubious about religion, I became sure that enlightenment was real, and had some vivid epiphanies at quite a young age. — Wayfarer

I'm aware of Armstrong, that he is author of Materialist Theory of Mind, which has always been anathema to me. — Wayfarer

I find that second quote interesting in light of M. Scott Peck's thinking on stages of spiritual growth from The Different Drum.

Of Stage III Peck says:

Skeptic, Individual, questioner, including atheists, agnostics and those scientifically minded who demand a measurable, well researched and logical explanation. Although frequently "nonbelievers," people in Stage III are generally more spiritually developed than many content to remain in Stage II. Although individualistic, they are not the least bit antisocial. To the contrary, they are often deeply involved in and committed to social causes. They make up their own minds about things and are no more likely to believe everything they read in the papers than to believe it is necessary for someone to acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior (as opposed to Buddha or Mao or Socrates) in order to be saved. They make loving, intensely dedicated parents. As skeptics they are often scientists, and as such they are again highly submitted to principle. Indeed, what we call the scientific method is a collection of conventions and procedures that have been designed to combat our extraordinary capacity to deceive ourselves in the interest of submission to something higher than our own immediate emotional or intellectual comfort--namely truth. Advanced Stage III men and women are active truth seekers.

Despite being scientifically minded, in many cases even atheists, they are on a higher spiritual level than Stage II, being a required stage of growth to enter into Stage IV. The churches age old dilemma: how to bring people from Stage II to Stage IV, without allowing them to enter Stage III.

I'm curious as to your thoughts on Peck's view.

Certainty is, on some accounts, indubitable belief.

Now there are all sorts of things that go undoubted. Are we certain of them all?

Or do we need reason, justification, warrant, to doubt? — Banno

Unfortunately I haven't read On Certainty. Off the top of my head I'd say it's a big subject and I'm apt to start talking about our neurology and how it can result in doubt arising subconsciously in a way such that reason, justification, and warrant aren't the most applicable terms to be using.

On the other hand, I consciously consider doubt in the reliability of the cognitive faculties of myself and others to be a matter of good epistemic hygiene.

In any case, I'm not good at knowing how to respond to such an open ended question. So I'll leave it for you to clarify if you want to discuss things with a more specific focus.

Previous experience has shown that Corvus will not correct his errors nor accept any interpretation not at one with his own, apparently now to the point of extremis.

On the other hand, he has quite successfully made this thread about himself. — Banno

As I said quite a ways back in the thread...

It can be helpful to understand that some posters post seeking narcissistic supply, and admitting having been wrong is never part of that 'plan'. In such cases, it's good to be able to recognize that one has made a mistake oneself, in thinking that one is dealing with a reasonable person. — wonderer1

Still, I was hoping you could falsify my working hypothesis.

For better or worse, life has trained me to have strong pattern recognition of narcissism. (Both grandiose and vulnerable type.) I would have preferred being shown to be wrong.

Why - because that would be entertaining? — Banno

No, because if you are able to get through to Corvus, observing how you did so might provide me with insight that I don't have at present.

Are You Not Entertained? — Maximus, and Banno

Hoping to be edified.

And if you’ll are mad that God messes with Abraham’s head well I’ve got some news for you… — Moses

I'm not mad, but I'm curious about the news you are alluding to.

In Corvus world, there's only one way for the ground to get wet. — flannel jesus

I recommend sitting back and observing whether or not Banno can get through to Corvus. Here, have some popcorn.

P 1: If I am thinking then I must exist
P2: I am thinking
C: Therefore I exist.

That seems valid but it may not be sound I suppose, although it is hard to see what is wrong with it. — Janus

One problem I note is that "I" is not well defined. Does "I" refer to some immaterial thing which interacts with the pineal gland?

Of course we all have some conception(s) associated with "I", but how accurate is that conception?

I agree. My recent discussion of Kahneman's fast and slow thinking was an attempt to convey something similar.

They think the real danger is that we have a dangerous tool to use against each other. — Metaphyzik

:up:

...(singularity is near / kurzweil).

I find the whole subject to be surrounded by religious-like zeal. In a positive way. We all want to (most of us anyways) embrace a positive fantastic advancement. It’s just that the emperor has no clothes most of the time. — Metaphyzik

I've never been a singularity enthusiast, and haven't read much from those who have been really into the topic. But I've been thinking along the lines of Geoffrey Hinton for about a year now:

In 2023, Hinton expressed concerns about the rapid progress of AI.[32][31] Hinton previously believed that artificial general intelligence (AGI) was "30 to 50 years or even longer away."[31] However, in a March 2023 interview with CBS, he stated that "general-purpose AI" may be fewer than 20 years away and could bring about changes "comparable in scale with the Industrial Revolution or electricity."[32]

In an interview with The New York Times published on 1 May 2023,[31] Hinton announced his resignation from Google so he could "talk about the dangers of AI without considering how this impacts Google."[66] He noted that "a part of him now regrets his life's work" due to his concerns and he expressed fears about a race between Google and Microsoft.[31]

In early May 2023, Hinton revealed in an interview with BBC that AI might soon surpass the information capacity of the human brain. He described some of the risks posed by these chatbots as "quite scary". Hinton explained that chatbots have the ability to learn independently and share knowledge. This means that whenever one copy acquires new information, it is automatically disseminated to the entire group. This allows AI chatbots to have the capability to accumulate knowledge far beyond the capacity of any individual.

I do marvel at the learning that happens and how patterns can be put together.

I just balk at calling that intelligence / mental abilities / on the way to consciousness. It is a leap. A neural net is like a pattern buffer (that is just over simplifying it of course) that makes the patterns and logic behind the structure of it grow. — Metaphyzik

I'd say it is quite justified to see machine learning as analogous to aspects of what we experience as our intelligence. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking, Fast and Slow.

The case is strong for the sort of low level neural behavior illustrated in the video providing the basis for what Kahneman refers to as "fast thinking". It's the capacity for fast thinking, that we share with lots of other animals, that automates our perceptions and allows for us making important split second decisions regarding the four F's in order to successfully pass on one's genes in the jungle.

But again, that is just an aspect of what we experience as thinking. Kahneman's "slow thinking" is a substantially more neurologically mysterious matter.

What seems to be missing is the important part - the intent, or whatever you may consider to be the drive or will or self-awareness. An AGI would still be able to say: I think therefore I am (or whatever variant you prefer). — Metaphyzik

Well I would say there are many important parts that are missing to get to AGI. I don't see AGI as just around the corner or inevitable. However, we've reached the performance of modern bots, with much cruder hardware than I thought would be capable of doing what Claude 3 is able to do. So I don't see my ability to predict the future regarding this subject as nearly as good as it used to be. Wax up your singularity surfboard.