arjand wrote: ↑May 28th, 2021, 4:30 pm
arjand wrote: ↑May 28th, 2021, 4:30 pm
empirically worthy of consideration to explain the fundamental nature of reality would apply to 'real' as a quality and wasn't intended as a consideration of what 'real' would actually be.
-Non sequitur. "empirically worthy of consideration"? as if we,as empirical thinking agents, have other ways to objectively verify any ontological claim .
(They are explanations about some phenomena that are worthy of consideration in our attempt to understand the fundamental nature of reality. Either way all our considerations will need to be empirically verified in order to be accepted as knowledge claims).
That is the only way those three words can be used in a meaningful paragraph.
- It was intended to indicate the unlikeliness that what is considered to be 'real' (physical or objective) is able to explain the fundamental nature of reality.
-Ok, so lets just stick to the descriptive part (like science does), where we observe and describe what we see in the real world at a deeper level and avoid assuming things that we don't (i.e. plants with mind properties)....
My argument is that those perceived qualities can at most be considered utilitarian value and not something 'real' on a fundamental level, questioning the idea that what is indicated, despite its qualitative distinct-ability, differs from a mental construct.
-And that is a bad argument from "word - salad bar" fallacy. You can "consider" whatever you want about i.e. a diamond the size of a freezer in your dreams or the building at the end of your road. What counts is the objective empirical validations of your impressions by your peers. These qualities creates the distinction between reality and wishful thoughts/dreams.
Whether you consider that dream diamond "more real" or "equally real" to your golden ring...well that is not a philosophical conversation(Ad Absurdum). The building at the end of your road will "stop" the car no matter what you consider.
We don't have any data to hold a meaningful discussion between the ontology of the objective things we perceive and the ontology of our mental representations of ideas. We can only point out their differences and their implications in our lives.
While repeatability provides one with what can be considered certainty within the scope of a human perspective which value can be made evident by the success of science, at question would be if the idea that that perceived quality which is termed 'scientific fact' is valid outside the scope of a perspective (i.e., without philosophy and thus without it being a mental construct) is accurate on a fundamental level.
-No one talked about certainty. Certainty (absolute certainty=red herring) can not be achieved. We are referring to reasonable knowledge base beliefs founded on current available facts.
Sure our technology improves, our observations change, new facts come in to light and our knowledge improves or changes.
BUT AGAIN, the rational thing to do is to base your beliefs on current knowledge....not on a possible shift of knowledge in the future......
We don't know which of our knowledge claims will change and which will stay the same in the future.....so that alone renders your claim an Argument from ignorance fallacy.
Conscious experience essentially expresses itself by means of pattern recognition. Since a pattern is bound by observation, the observer or 'mind' necessarily precedes reality.
-"Conscious experiences" do not have a "self" or express it. Conscious experiences are the result of a thinking being interacting with its environment and organism. We as thinking agents have a sensory system which allow us to gather information about processes in existence and produce a mental representation based on our previous experiences our emotions and the new data we receive. Our experiences are shaped by our previous experiences which have being shaped by our empirical interactions with the world.
For a mental agent to be conscious about anything, SOMETHING must first EXIST.
If not, then everything would have the same qualities with a "dream diamond".
A 'process' would already imply a pattern thus when one evaluates the concept pattern per se, one is to explain the quality pattern-ness which is 'value'.
-A process is what creates a pattern. Every pattern around you is the result of a processes. interrupt that process and the pattern "dissolves" or stops being reproduced and it weathers out.
Something exists (cosmos) that gives rise to patterns and we as observers can observe the physical processes and understand the evolution of those patterns through time. But again, without something existing we would be unable to observe anything. This is what "to be aware of" means....to be aware OF SOMETHING!
When one intends to explain the fundamental nature of reality, one is not to explore subjective experience to learn how that can have utilitarian subjective consequences. When it concerns the fundamental nature of reality, it would concern theory.
-Like it or not, if you want to explain the fundamental nature of reality, you need to study the empirical world objectively. Making up theoretical speculations without being able to test them, compare them ,verify or falsify them, you are dealing with useless pseudo philosophical stories that have zero relation to the reality we can experience and verify. Philosophy is the intellectual effort of understanding reality through wise claims about it...not to make up theories that ignore the available facts we have of the world.
BTW The test I suggested would inform you about the "Objective Consequences" that you dismiss as "not real".
-They are the only way to describe nature and the qualities we observe and define as reality.
-No, they are the only means that are considered 'plausible' within a specific context of thinking to describe subjective experience in a qualitative distinctive way. It remains just an 'option' (e.g. a choice to assign a certain qualitative distinct-ability to the indicated means).
-Again its the only way we currently got and the only one that enabled such an epistemic success. None of our previous "methods' (religion, magic, Pseudo Philosophy) managed to go so deep in the fabric of reality and provide meaningful explanations, testable predictions and technical applications. And of course science doesn't describe subjective experiences but objective facts that can be verified independently.
(2019)
Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science?
The issue should have been settled by David Hume in 1740: the facts of science provide no basis for values. Yet, like some kind of recurrent meme, the idea that science is omnipotent and will sooner or later solve the problem of values seems to resurrect with every generation.
https://sites.duke.edu/behavior/2019/04 ... f-science/
The idea that facts obtain outside the scope of a perspective has profound implications, the natural tendency to abolish morality completely being one of them.
-"The idea that facts obtain outside the scope of a perspective". You keep using this vague language based on abstracts to make your arguments. If you put them in real life perspective (actual examples) you wont have any arguments.
Science has informed our Ethics for years. We no longer accept divine morality or absolute morality. We now know there aren't intrinsic bad acts but the situation it self defines an act as such or not. Science gave us the knowledge to include all human races as equals in our circle of morality. Science pointed out the animal suffering, so science doesn't "deduce" morality. It informs our Philosophy in many ways so that it becomes better.
The facts can be obtain inside or outside someones perspective. Science is the method that help us do the latter. Science has the power to collect data independent of people's subjective perspective.
Pls don't share ideas of old philosophers. That is an argument from false authority. No one has the ultimate authority on metaphysical opinions, plus chronicling is NOT philosophy. Ok, we get it you agree with some his ideas...good for you.
From the perspective of the photon, the photon would not experience time at light speed. Thus, when it is emitted from a Galaxy billions of earth-light years away, from the perspective of the photon, it will instantly hit earth the moment that it was emitted.
....photons don't have a perspective.....................thinking agents have and it is irrelevant when it conflicts with observable facts.
From the perspective of time on a human-solar-system scale, humans would have only a fraction available in even a few hundred years time and besides that, what humans experience as 'their time' may be bound to relevancy on a level that would make it difficult to acquire an outside perspective (i.e. a human life may be served within a sort of cocoon of Nature, not physical but relative, thus outside the scope of what one could consider actual time or evolution of the whole (or fundament) of the Universe).
-I am not interested in useless perspectives or "mays". I am interested in real Philosophy, this means wise theories that can expand our understanding, help us produce knowledge, inform our lives (like we did in ethics) and use it to produce further knowledge(feed our ideas in to science). All those imaginary "perspectives" and "mays" only serve as Arguments from ignorance .
Yes we are not absolutely sure about anything, even if we reach the position of staring ultimate reality in the "face" we will never know it because we don't have a way to be sure that no more layers are available. This is why , in science, we try to falsify our current frameworks, not to accept them as proven absolute truth.
When it concerns the 'belief' in uniformitarianism, one could of course argue that one cannot claim that such is not legitimized without evidence, but it would be similar to philosopher Bertrand Russells magical teapot argument.
-Well in our case the magical teapot is "your" non-uniformitarianism. We don't know if an orbiting teapot exists and we don't know if non uniformity is possible.
The concern is primarily that in modern human reality, the belief in uniformitarianism is used as a guiding principle, for example as a basis for ideologies and practices such as eugenics.
-Uniformitarianism is verified by our current limited observations and available facts. The moments we have evidence against uniformity of reality ...then will be the time to challenge it....not sooner.
Synthetic biology, GMO or 'eugenics on Nature' is considered to be the 'next big thing in science'. It is based on the idea that plant and animal life is meaningless, which theoretical foundation is the belief in uniformitarianism.
-No...................lol. Its a ridicules set of accusations so I will ignore them
You did not answer my question. What could be an alternative if it is not random chance? And if there is no alternative, how is it possible to argue that Natural Selection is ultimately not 'driven' by random chance?
- I answered your question with a simple example. The poles of the magnets define how the magnets will bind. The conditions of the ecosystem "guide" which organism will be naturally selected...its in the word itself. So you can call it whatever you want. Its a process "guided" by natural conditions. i.e its not random that rivers flow down the hills or the path of their river beds is defined by natural obstacles and soil hardness. Processes follow the rules of their environment. So don't use false dichotomies to steer your conclusions..its a fallacy.
The "go lay down and die" argument is not evidence that life is meaningless. The species that went extinct may not have been meaningless for diverse reasons, including the ultimate evolution of the human being.
-We as agents find meaning in our lives. Nature doesn't find any meaning in any animal life. You as a thinking agent see survival and extinction "meaningful" and you assume a goal. This is what agents do...identify patterns and meaning in nature.
The truth is that meaning is not an intrinsic value of life(only of our lives and those we care/animals). You need to prove that such a value exists in nature..not just assumed it to be the case. We construct our own meanings in life. You may find our life meaningful, but the next earthquake might disagree with us...lol
The human being could go extinct by an asteroid, or it could not go extinct. The human being could go extinct in 10,000 years, or it could live rightly today and live at least a billion years.
-Or maybe a more intelligent, more kind more caring mammal could have been extincted before taking over the planet and had not allowed humans to develop catastrophic economical systems for the planet. You never know. You need to stop finding meaning , purpose and goal in nature.
Maybe homo sapiens was not the best thing to survive and dominate on this planet. But again as I said Natural Selection favored a naked chimp with a big brain...no purpose, plan or meaning behind it...it just happened.
The path that is chosen, can make a difference. It is why I believe that philosophy may become essential to secure long term prosperity for human evolution.
That is the goal of philosophy, but not in the way you use it. YOu need to base your philosophy on knowledge(current, established), not to find imaginary values in the world and believe in ineffable abstract ideas.
Pure randomness is existence without meaning, it is nonsensical but it would indicate that the simplest departure thereof would imply value or meaning.
-Again abstract concepts will never help you understand how nature works. Existence has meaning to those who exist and plan to stay alive for a while.
When it concerns subjective experience, random has a different meaning. It would imply meaning of which one would argue that one has had no 'control', which is not pure randomness.
-Again your concepts are not helpful. You are immersing your self in idealistic concepts and that blinds you from seeing that they do not exist in nature
The concept existent on a fundamental level would imply that the quality pattern-ness is applicable before it can be named an existent. Therefor, it cannot precede an existent. As such, a 'process' cannot precede a pattern.
-No it wouldn't imply that.Pattern is not a "thing" that exists....its a characteristic thinking agents identify at things in existence. REAlly bad language mode there.
(2016)
Gut bacteria and the brain: Are we controlled by microbes?
Although the interaction between our brain and gut has been studied for years, its complexities run deeper than initially thought. It seems that our minds are, in some part, controlled by the bacteria in our bowels.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/312734
- this article doesn't say what you think it does....haha.
It is simply unknown what a tree would do with it. Wouldn't you want to know? And in order to do so, would you not have to wonder and consider that the tree might be sentient?
-lol no this is not how we find out things....we don't wonder and consider. We examine the evidence!
Similarly one could argue that one is to prove that consciousness or mind is 'caused' by complex organs, for which there is no evidence.
-Consciousness is a state of the brain that enables a specific behavior (to be aware of environmental and organic stimuli(thoughts, drives etc)).
Mesh up the functions of the brain and the individual no longer has the ability to develop such states. So there is evidence that biological brains are necessary and sufficient for our conscious states(well only outside science people struggle with that simple fact).
The idea that consciousness originates in the human brain is contentious.
-Again its not an idea, its a description of facts. But...if for you the brain is just a mental "thing" why are you so obsessed with this scientific finding. After all this finding is withing the distinction of physical and mental impressions and its not an ontological claim!!!!? Sciencedescribes facts registered by our Impressions within the so called "physical world". Science doesn't say that the underlying reality of both types of our impressions (physical and mental) is not the result of a magical conscious substrate or whatever woo is in favor in our days..
There are humans who live a normal life (with job, marriage and children) with merely 5-10% brain tissue. A student with merely 5% brain tissue completed an academic degree in mathematics.
-And...are you an expert on how much brain tissue renders a normal life impossible???. We know that complex function NOT size (relevant to other samples) is important for mind properties to emerge. i.e Neanderthals had bigger brains but obviously the functions was not at par
-Well we don't have a simple example of human without a brain being able to be aware of his environment, thoughts and urges. This is more of a pseudo philosophical discussion (Poisoning the well /begging the question fallacy)
The issue isn't about shifting a burden to anyone.
If you use it to force an unfounded position then it is an issue .
What is indicated is merely that the consideration that plants could be sentient is applicable.
That is an irrational consideration. Evidence is needed for the consideration to be justified....Interpretations of what some chemical similarities in living beings might mean is not evidence.
The discovered plant physiology may be meaningless, but it is not evident by the mere notion of the discoveries.
-It has meaning to the biologists who made the discovery. They can map the mechanics of plants.
Your assumption that it is meaningless would be based on the potentially false idea that consciousness or mind is 'caused' within a brain.
-I don't assume anything....meaning needs to be demonstrated objectively and empirically, not assumed. This is what humans did for ~2000 years.
Only by removing teleology,agency, intention and purpose in nature science experienced a long run away success in epistemology.