Page 23 of 27 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 270

Thread: When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?

  1. #221
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    704
    Amen (Given)
    16
    Amen (Received)
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Not so. To date ALL the actual evidence in this field has been generated by science, not philosophical argument – nor can it ever be. Philosophy does not have the tools to do so.
    Yes, all the SCIENTIFIC DATA, but you're arguing in a circle, don't you see?
    JimB: " The question is whether or not scientific data alone can ontologically reduce consciousness."
    Tassman: "Consciousness can be ultimately explained by scientific data. We know that because all the actual evidence has been generated by science."
    Jim B: "How do you define the term 'actual evidence'"?
    Tassman: "Why, as scientific data, of course! What else could it be?"

    When the question is about the explanatory scope of scientific inquiry itself, you cannot legitimately rely only on scientific data to settle the matter without clearly begging the crucial question.

    "Reasons" and "evidence" do not have to be restricted to empirical evidence, and clearly must not be when the question is about the nature and scope of empirical evidence itself.


    “First-person understanding” is the subjective illusion that we are more than just physical organisms. But there is no good reason to think that we (or any other sentient creatures such as chimpanzees) are more than physical organisms. Nor can philosophy tell us otherwise other than by an unverifiable academic argument.
    Whether or not it's an 'illusion' and what the term 'illusion' might mean is what we're debating, remember? You're begging the question again. How do you understand the term 'illusion.' Who or what is the subject upon which the illusion is being perpetrated? Experiences are appearances so in a sense they are illusions, but we have to understand what that means. We have to have conceptual clarification and have an inkling of what we're talking about first to begin to make sense out of empirical findings. We're not just fact-gathering machines, we are primarily evaluators and makers of meaning. Though Einstein wrote it about religion, this quote applies just as well: Science without philosophy is blind.


    "It Ain't Necessarily So" (to quote Sportin' Life in Porgy and Bess). Philosophical arguments alone can only reformulate the facts contained in scientific models and laws. They cannot generate new facts about nature. And I’m saying that your “good reasons and arguments to think that it is false” are purely academic arguments that can never be verified. In short, what you are arguing is merely a belief-system grounded in subjective feelings.
    Precious little is necessarily so. It's all about what we have a preponderance of reasons to believe. Philosophy does more than just reformulate facts. It clarifies concepts. Science rests on a foundation of basic a priori concepts and assumptions that are largely assumed and cannot be empirically tested. Science and philosophy and logic are all mutually interdependent.
    Last edited by Jim B.; 02-12-2020 at 02:34 PM.

  2. #222
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    26,397
    Amen (Given)
    1959
    Amen (Received)
    5476
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    Morality is like math and logic in the ways that I stated. I didn't say that the similarities applied across the board. Morality is mind-dependent so in that way it may not be like math and logic (That alone is a controversial point in the philosophy of math and logic, but we can set that aside.), but morality depends upon an objective, centerless conception of reality as do math, science and logic as formalisms., and moral truths like the truths of science, math and logic, are objective in the sense that they are true independent of anyone's psychological states.
    Jim the the idea that morality depends upon an objective, centerless conception of reality can not be demonstrated in any objective, non-psychological manner like one can demonstrate the law of contradiction.


    Again, everything you and I assert is our opinion. That 1=1 is, in a sense, your opinion because it's an occurrent thought happening inside your brain. All we have to sift out those occurrences that are reliable from those that are not are evidence, arguments and reasons.
    Then demonstrate, in a non-psychological manner, that selfishness at the expense of others is a moral wrong.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  3. #223
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    704
    Amen (Given)
    16
    Amen (Received)
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Jim the the idea that morality depends upon an objective, centerless conception of reality can not be demonstrated in any objective, non-psychological manner like one can demonstrate the law of contradiction.
    You're using the term 'psychological' in an equivocal way. The manner of demonstration for my meta-ethical theory is objective and is non-psychological in manner; ie given that there are the necessary conditions for morality then it can be objectively demonstrated how morality arises. The definitions of 'psychological' are 'affecting, relating to, arising out of the mind,' etc. So the subject matter of morality in my theory would necessarily be psychological, since minds are required as the necessary conditions, but the manner of demonstration isn't necessarily psychological if it can be 'objectively' demonstrated and doesn't depend upon any person's psychological states for belief to be necessary.

    No meta-ethical theory, including yours, can ever be demonstrated in a way analogous to the law of contradiction, especially if the theory rests on a very logically problematic premise, ie "God is the Good."





    Then demonstrate, in a non-psychological manner, that selfishness at the expense of others is a moral wrong.
    If you can stop equivocating over the term "psychological" and if you can demonstrate that you've understood what I've written so far. Otherwise, this is an exercise in futility.

  4. #224
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,635
    Amen (Given)
    1613
    Amen (Received)
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    Precious little is necessarily so. It's all about what we have a preponderance of reasons to believe. Philosophy does more than just reformulate facts. It clarifies concepts. Science rests on a foundation of basic a priori concepts and assumptions that are largely assumed and cannot be empirically tested. Science and philosophy and logic are all mutually interdependent.
    Philosophy is far more limited than you propose. It cannot provide any 'objective verifiable evidence' that justify the limits of future advances in science concerning consciousness. Your argument for the limits of future research and discoveries is genuinely an argument from ignorance to justify a metaphysical agenda, which is what you are doing, regardless of the present knowledge of science, which is considerable. It is accepted in ALL sciences that there are frontiers of scientific knowledge which contain unknowns.

    As far as first person perspective the majority of research at present is using brain scans and neurochemistry to parallel the actual memories, emotions, thoughts and physical events
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-13-2020 at 08:32 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  5. Amen Tassman amen'd this post.
  6. #225
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,000
    Amen (Given)
    2593
    Amen (Received)
    1888
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post

    "Reasons" and "evidence" do not have to be restricted to empirical evidence, and clearly must not be when the question is about the nature and scope of empirical evidence itself.
    Certainly philosophy can inform science, but overall science is self-sufficient.

    Precious little is necessarily so. It's all about what we have a preponderance of reasons to believe. Philosophy does more than just reformulate facts. It clarifies concepts. Science rests on a foundation of basic a priori concepts and assumptions that are largely assumed and cannot be empirically tested. Science and philosophy and logic are all mutually interdependent.
    Metaphysical arguments cannot arrive at verifiable evidence about the natural, material world - only science has the capacity to do this. Hence, for you to say that science cannot investigate “consciousness” is to argue for a NON-material, natural world. One that is inaccessible to science – in short, a supernatural world. But there is NO good reason to think that a supernatural world exists.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  7. #226
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    26,397
    Amen (Given)
    1959
    Amen (Received)
    5476
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    You're using the term 'psychological' in an equivocal way. The manner of demonstration for my meta-ethical theory is objective and is non-psychological in manner; ie given that there are the necessary conditions for morality then it can be objectively demonstrated how morality arises. The definitions of 'psychological' are 'affecting, relating to, arising out of the mind,' etc. So the subject matter of morality in my theory would necessarily be psychological, since minds are required as the necessary conditions, but the manner of demonstration isn't necessarily psychological if it can be 'objectively' demonstrated and doesn't depend upon any person's psychological states for belief to be necessary.

    No meta-ethical theory, including yours, can ever be demonstrated in a way analogous to the law of contradiction, especially if the theory rests on a very logically problematic premise, ie "God is the Good."

    If you can stop equivocating over the term "psychological" and if you can demonstrate that you've understood what I've written so far. Otherwise, this is an exercise in futility.
    Jim you are making the claim here, not me. So 'objectively' demonstrate that selfishness at the expense of others is a moral wrong.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  8. #227
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    704
    Amen (Given)
    16
    Amen (Received)
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Philosophy is far more limited than you propose. It cannot provide any 'objective verifiable evidence' that justify the limits of future advances in science concerning consciousness. Your argument for the limits of future research and discoveries is genuinely an argument from ignorance to justify a metaphysical agenda, which is what you are doing, regardless of the present knowledge of science, which is considerable. It is accepted in ALL sciences that there are frontiers of scientific knowledge which contain unknowns.
    You don't know the first thing about philosophy, so how can you be so sure? You don't even know what an argument from ignorance is. And you certainly don't have the slightest clue what I've been talking about here on this thread, as usual. I'm not placing any limits on scientific research into consciousness. Please stick to other topics.

    As far as first person perspective the majority of research at present is using brain scans and neurochemistry to parallel the actual memories, emotions, thoughts and physical events
    Of course, and that has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything I've been discussing. Please stick to other topics and other threads...

  9. #228
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    704
    Amen (Given)
    16
    Amen (Received)
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Certainly philosophy can inform science, but overall science is self-sufficient.
    Sorry, but that's just flat out wrong:

    https://www.danieljoachim.org/2020/0...ed-philosophy/

    https://www.pnas.org/content/116/10/3948

    https://lifeasahuman.com/2015/mind-s...ds-philosophy/

    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...EED_PHILOSOPHY

    http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/wh...ds-metaphysics

    http://www.thebsps.org/auxhyp/scient...ces-potochnik/

    Science depends upon a number of assumptions that cannot be empirically verified, such as the veridical nature of the senses, a mind-independent reality, consistency and uniformity to that reality, knowability to that reality, trust in our minds to know that reality, causation, time and space, etc. Science also depends upon the truths of logic and maths which are a priori, ie independent of sense experience.

    Science requires philosophical decisions all the time. There are many conflicting interpretations within every field of science in which the data is not and likely never will be conclusive. "Facts" themselves are not coercive; they require interpretation. A "fact" is not an atomic given; it can only exist as a fact within a conceptual fabric of many other things that we already know to be true. A fact can only exist within a context of meaning.


    Metaphysical arguments cannot arrive at verifiable evidence about the natural, material world - only science has the capacity to do this. Hence, for you to say that science cannot investigate “consciousness” is to argue for a NON-material, natural world. One that is inaccessible to science – in short, a supernatural world. But there is NO good reason to think that a supernatural world exists.
    Your 'argument', such as it is, is a perfect example of the crying need of conceptual rigor within the sciences. You are once again assuming your conclusion, which is materialism, in your premise. Naturalism does not have to entail physicalism. There ARE good reasons, which I have already given, to think that there is more to the natural world than the physical, ie structure and function. Scientists, in short, require arguments and logical and conceptual clarity and rigor all the time if they are to do their jobs well
    Last edited by Jim B.; 02-14-2020 at 06:07 PM.

  10. #229
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    704
    Amen (Given)
    16
    Amen (Received)
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Jim you are making the claim here, not me. So 'objectively' demonstrate that selfishness at the expense of others is a moral wrong.
    If I'm not mistaken, you've also been making a claim here, that God is the source of morality and that 'God is the Good'. You've made it many times, and yet, oddly enough, have never justified it. I've given detailed justifications for my theory already, which I'm not even sure you've understood, but all I've ever gotten from you are the same two or three assertions again and again...

  11. #230
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,635
    Amen (Given)
    1613
    Amen (Received)
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    You don't know the first thing about philosophy, so how can you be so sure? You don't even know what an argument from ignorance is. And you certainly don't have the slightest clue what I've been talking about here on this thread, as usual. I'm not placing any limits on scientific research into consciousness. Please stick to other topics.



    Of course, and that has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything I've been discussing. Please stick to other topics and other threads...
    I am sticking to the thread, and do understand philosophy, as Tassman argued the same approach, and you have failed to respond to our posts, and you apparently do not know the limits of philosophy.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  12. Amen Tassman amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •