Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • 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...

      Comment


      • 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, 07:07 PM.

        Comment


        • 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...

          Comment


          • 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.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post

              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.
              Scientific facts exist as the result of multiply-tested and verified empirical experiments – something not available to philosophical argumentation. Such “facts” may not be absolutely proven (science does not claim absolute truths), but in established science the laws and constants of the universe have shown themselves to be sufficiently consistent to be regarded as true. All our technical advances are grounded in such facts.

              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.
              I have never, at any time, argued that philosophy does not have an important role in science. But, in the end, it is science that can trust its findings to the extent it can put a man on the moon, NOT philosophy.
              “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.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                Scientific facts exist as the result of multiply-tested and verified empirical experiments – something not available to philosophical argumentation. Such “facts” may not be absolutely proven (science does not claim absolute truths), but in established science the laws and constants of the universe have shown themselves to be sufficiently consistent to be regarded as true. All our technical advances are grounded in such facts.
                Straw man argument. No one argues any of that. All of that is entirely beside the point. Science is the best at doing.... science! Alert the media! But as far as rooting out specious reasoning, fallacious argumentation, and conceptual confusion, philosophy is what's needed.



                I have never, at any time, argued that philosophy does not have an important role in science. But, in the end, it is science that can trust its findings to the extent it can put a man on the moon, NOT philosophy.
                No, when I have my open heart surgery, I will go directly to my local philosophy department, find the leading metaphysician and say "Cut me open, Doc!"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  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.
                  Then why was it that when I tried to explain to you the difference between 'substance dualism' and 'aspect dualism', you continually failed to grasp it? No matter how many times I tried and how simply I tried to break it down and how many links I posted, not only did you never have a clue as to the distinction, but you reacted with a growing level of snark and condescension at the very topic that you failed to understand, as if the fault lay with the subject matter?

                  If you understand philosophy, why is it that you exhibit absolutely no evidence that you understand what I am arguing, and that Tassman doesn't either? I can understand that you wouldn't agree with what I'm writing, but you have never shown the slightest, dimmest awareness or interest in the anti-reductionist position, as if it doesn't even warrant your attention. It is as if you are convinced that the authority of science is self-ratifying and exempts you from having to even understand any contradictory viewpoint and that it is beneath your contempt. So why post on the philosophy thread about a topic you apparently have no respect for? Why not stick to science?
                  Last edited by Jim B.; 02-16-2020, 01:45 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    Straw man argument. No one argues any of that. All of that is entirely beside the point. Science is the best at doing.... science! Alert the media! But as far as rooting out specious reasoning, fallacious argumentation, and conceptual confusion, philosophy is what's needed.
                    I agree. I’ve said all along that philosophy is the cement that holds the scientific structure together. It ensures self-consistency and prevents errors of false inference - but it has its limitations. It can only reformulate existing facts as obtain in scientific theories and laws, it cannot uncover new facts about the natural world NOR a hypothetical supernatural world.
                    Last edited by Tassman; 02-16-2020, 07:37 PM.
                    “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.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      Then why was it that when I tried to explain to you the difference between 'substance dualism' and 'aspect dualism', you continually failed to grasp it? No matter how many times I tried and how simply I tried to break it down and how many links I posted, not only did you never have a clue as to the distinction, but you reacted with a growing level of snark and condescension at the very topic that you failed to understand, as if the fault lay with the subject matter?
                      I do not believe that 'substance dualism nor 'aspect dualism is at issue here. though you seem to trying to create one. Yes Tasman is arguing physicalism, but your argument for the limits of science is not a good argument against physicalism.

                      If you understand philosophy, why is it that you exhibit absolutely no evidence that you understand what I am arguing, and that Tassman doesn't either? I can understand that you wouldn't agree with what I'm writing, but you have never shown the slightest, dimmest awareness or interest in the anti-reductionist position, as if it doesn't even warrant your attention. It is as if you are convinced that the authority of science is self-ratifying and exempts you from having to even understand any contradictory viewpoint and that it is beneath your contempt. So why post on the philosophy thread about a topic you apparently have no respect for? Why not stick to science?
                      Both Tassman and I understand philosophy very well. The problem with your line of thinking is you believe to strongly and it blinds you from the weaknesses of your argument. I have followed your posts for some time.

                      It is a good thing you stated it is IMO, because that is up front weakness in your argument:

                      Originally posted by Jim B.
                      I'm blocking an account form the current physicalist paradigm. If what is understood as 'physical' changes sufficiently to account for conscious experiences, then my argument would change. [B]Current physical concepts can't account for consciousness, IMO. [/bold] It's a different ontology. Science deals with third-person ontology. Consciousness is essentially rooted in first-person ontology.

                      The essential incompleteness of physicalism.
                      "Again I will assert you are making a metaphysical argument from ignorance. I will make some references that science does know a great deal about consciousness without first-person ontology.

                      First and foremost science is learning a great deal through brain scans showing a one to one to relationship from brain activity to emotions, thoughts and actions. Second, consciousness is pretty much universal with mammals, and they're finding in most if not all animals with complex brains and nervous systems. Third, we have no other hypothesis for any other source of consciousness than natural evolved brains and nervous systems."

                      Your main problem is in the above you are setting limits on the potential science as cited, and we are talking about science and not physicalism.



                      ;
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-16-2020, 09:47 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.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                        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...
                        Jim justified what? You have plied assertion on assertion. You have not defined "the good" apart from circular reasoning. Look, this is the bottom line. God by nature offers a source for immutable, absolute ethics that are both universal and enforceable. I don't see how you get there. Perhaps if you lay out your argument in a straight forward deductive syllogism it would be easier for me to follow your argument.
                        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...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          I agree. I’ve said all along that philosophy is the cement that holds the scientific structure together. It ensures self-consistency and prevents errors of false inference - but it has its limitations. It can only reformulate existing facts as obtain in scientific theories and laws, it cannot uncover new facts about the natural world NOR a hypothetical supernatural world.
                          Every human endeavor has its limitations. Science is a human endeavor. Therefore science has its limitations as well. And philosophy can uncover new conceptual facts about the world, new hitherto undiscovered entailments and implications; it cannot uncover new empirical facts about the world, but one cannot assume that empirical facts are the only facts about the world, without begging the crucial questions. Empirical facts don't exist in a vacuum. They are not free-standing. They exist within webs of meaning, within contexts of many other already-known things. So even 'empirical facts' are not 'neutral givens' but are themselves conceptual entities. And you're the only one who keeps talking about a "hypothetical supernatural world."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            I do not believe that 'substance dualism nor 'aspect dualism is at issue here. though you seem to trying to create one. Yes Tasman is arguing physicalism, but your argument for the limits of science is not a good argument against physicalism.



                            Both Tassman and I understand philosophy very well. The problem with your line of thinking is you believe to strongly and it blinds you from the weaknesses of your argument. I have followed your posts for some time.

                            It is a good thing you stated it is IMO, because that is up front weakness in your argument:



                            "Again I will assert you are making a metaphysical argument from ignorance. I will make some references that science does know a great deal about consciousness without first-person ontology.

                            First and foremost science is learning a great deal through brain scans showing a one to one to relationship from brain activity to emotions, thoughts and actions. Second, consciousness is pretty much universal with mammals, and they're finding in most if not all animals with complex brains and nervous systems. Third, we have no other hypothesis for any other source of consciousness than natural evolved brains and nervous systems."

                            Your main problem is in the above you are setting limits on the potential science as cited, and we are talking about science and not physicalism.



                            ;
                            First of all, I don't mean to insult you, but you seem to have real problems with the language. Perhaps this isn't your first language.

                            Second of all, you just don't seem to be able to grasp abstract concepts. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this comes after conversing with you for several frustrating years.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                              First of all, I don't mean to insult you, but you seem to have real problems with the language. Perhaps this isn't your first language.

                              Second of all, you just don't seem to be able to grasp abstract concepts. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this comes after conversing with you for several frustrating years.
                              First of all, I don't mean to insult you, but you seem to have real problems with the language. Perhaps this isn't your first language.

                              Second of all, you just don't seem to be able to grasp abstract concepts. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this comes after conversing with you for several frustrating years.

                              Tassman is far more coherent and apparently knowledgeable than you.

                              . . . besides IMO is meaningless.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-17-2020, 07:02 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.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                Every human endeavor has its limitations. Science is a human endeavor. Therefore science has its limitations as well.
                                What “limitation” does science have? “Empirical facts” exist in the natural physical world and all knowledge of the natural world is potentially capable of being verified or falsified by observation or experiment. The only “limitations” would be if you reject the notion of a purely physical natural world and posit the incoherent notion of a dualistic world.

                                And philosophy can uncover new conceptual facts about the world, new hitherto undiscovered entailments and implications; it cannot uncover new empirical facts about the world, but one cannot assume that empirical facts are the only facts about the world, without begging the crucial questions. Empirical facts don't exist in a vacuum. They are not free-standing. They exist within webs of meaning, within contexts of many other already-known things. So even 'empirical facts' are not 'neutral givens' but are themselves conceptual entities.
                                Science can also “uncover new conceptual facts about the world, new hitherto undiscovered entailments and implications” but, unlike philosophy, it can test their veracity via experimentation. Or, are you suggesting that philosophy exists in a vacuum?

                                And you're the only one who keeps talking about a "hypothetical supernatural world."
                                No, YOU are the one implying that there’s more than the natural world so, what can that “more” be if not ‘super-natural’?
                                “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.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X