Log In   or  Sign Up for Free

Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

Philosophy Discussion Forums
A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.

This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.


Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
#468698
Pattern-chaser wrote: October 7th, 2024, 10:01 am [Except that we have no choice. Even though we (should) know it's wrong, we can't grok the Universe in one bite, so we have to practice reductionism, dividing and subdividing until the pieces are small enough for us to grasp in our tiny mental fingers. But there is no reason or logic, in theory or in practice, that says this is OK, that it's a good idea. That could be because it's NOT OK, and it's NOT a good idea?]
Fanman wrote: October 7th, 2024, 12:05 pm An astute observation Pattern-chaser: For the purposes of learning and understanding, I think it is fine to divide the universe into bitesize chunks. For example, if we’re studying/researching the field of astrophysics, we can isolate that aspect of the universe’s characteristics and the processes inherent to it [temporarily]. Whilst doing that, if we also study/research the other characteristics of the universe that our understanding of astrophysics is contingent upon. Then we have to factor those parts in as well, and so on, until we’ve completely lost sight (or watered down) of what we were originally intending to research. So, in light of that, we focus strictly on astrophysics and make conservative guesses (or programs and calculations) compensating for the other parts that it is contingent upon. I would say that for a process like this, it makes complete sense to divide the universe into different bitesize aspects, as trying to learn and understand everything (every characteristic of the universe that we know) at once (as you point out), is contrary to the way that human beings learn and are capable of. The more that we divide the universe in this way, when we reach a more ‘complete’ understanding of each characteristic. Using those conservative calculations, we can piece together slowly, and understand how it works as more than just one component I feel that it will be many years before we can understand the universe as a whole entity. Somewhat ironically, I think that holism is the goal.

I hope this is in line with the point you were making 🙂.
Yes, it is. But it's not "fine", nor does it make "complete sense"; it's necessary, and it's (philosophically) wrong; incorrect. My words describe our *excuse* for what we do, but they don't and can't justify it, because (I believe) there is no such justification. The breakthrough, the realisation, is that there is no reasonable or logical reason to divide the Universe. And *that* is the justification for holism, I think.
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
#468700
It is justifiable to study the parts in order to arrive at some understanding of the whole because doing so works. It's the only way science can work. To call it philosophically wrong or incorrect seems like inconsequential pedantry.
Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche Location: Antipodes
#468714
Hi, Pattern-chaser
Yes, it is. But it's not "fine", nor does it make "complete sense"; it's necessary, and it's (philosophically) wrong; incorrect. My words describe our *excuse* for what we do, but they don't and can't justify it, because (I believe) there is no such justification. The breakthrough, the realisation, is that there is no reasonable or logical reason to divide the Universe. And *that* is the justification for holism, I think.
What are your beliefs, I wonder? My many years as a theist caused me to have an eye for feeling offended like this, but maybe I am wrong. I recall you mentioning something about having Gaian beliefs. Does your objection stem from this? I can't think of any other reason why you would object to this kind of process as we do it all of the time. It is a necessity.
#468715
Pattern-chaser wrote: October 6th, 2024, 10:56 am
Gee wrote: October 5th, 2024, 6:39 pm I can see where design would cause a person to consider and reflect on different ways to perceive an idea, but this has nothing to do with religion. When I was very young, I thought that the 'hol' in holism was about something being 'holy' so I associated it with religion, but it is more about something being whole. Holistic thought is about the way one processes information.
Yes. But holistic thought is much simpler than that, I think. It involves seeing and understanding Everything to be connected, to be an indivisible part of the one Whole that we call "the Universe". And so yes, "holistic thought is about the way one processes information", and more than that too.
Yes. I agree that holistic thought is about the whole of an idea and also about the parts that make up that whole, but I don't think it is simple. Connecting a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to the alternator of a '57 Chevy will not garner you much information. They may both be part of the whole, but they don't share a relationship that is relevant and can teach us anything.
Pattern-chaser wrote: October 6th, 2024, 10:56 am
Gee wrote: October 5th, 2024, 6:39 pm Gathering a lot of different things/ideas together in order to see if any relate is not a scientific principle and is as far from scientific testing as a person can get, this is the opposite of isolating something to test it and why I said that it is not a scientific practice. Gathering different and often unrelated things is more like working a puzzle, an investigative tool which would be used more by philosophy, which does not make it less logical or reasonable.
Mathematical category theory is a "scientific principle", isn't it? It covers abstraction, which is part of what you're talking about here. Abstraction is about bringing categories together, in accordance with their similarities and differences, while also retaining rigour. But it does resemble detective work, as you imply here.
I will have to take your word for it because I have no idea of what Mathematical Category Theory is, but it sounds right. Einstein used his mind to study the ideas that formed his theory of Relativity, but he used math to prove his ideas.
Pattern-chaser wrote: October 6th, 2024, 10:56 am
Gee wrote: October 5th, 2024, 6:39 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: October 4th, 2024, 7:15 am Any properly-trained scientist will tell you that "scientific fact" is as much an oxymoron as "military intelligence".
This is not true. You are being cute now. A philosopher might state that, but no scientist, who has spent years in training in order to be able to identify what is fact and what is not is going to say something so ridiculous.
Sorry, you missed my point. There is no such thing as a scientific fact. All that science offers, on any subject, is its best current understanding, with the very clear understanding that it will stand only until something better is discovered.
Spoken like a true philosopher. A scientific fact is something that has been proven through objective observation and testing. It will remain a fact until/unless proven otherwise by subsequent testing. Truth is another matter; philosophers like truth.
Pattern-chaser wrote: October 6th, 2024, 10:56 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: October 4th, 2024, 7:15 am The view that science gives of emotion, as you describe, is *external*. It is the view that a Star Trek© Vulcan or Romulan might develop if they studied humans, the view of someone on the outside. But as we all know well, the view from the *inside* of a human is very different. So different that I am willing to suggest that the scientific view of emotion is next to useless.
Gee wrote: October 5th, 2024, 6:39 pm You are talking about subjective and objective, not internal and external.
No, I'm talking about how emotion affects real human beings, in the real world, living their real lives. Emotion can no more be apprehended from the outside than autism, or giving birth, can. Some things have to be experienced before we can fully understand them. Emotions are one such thing, I suggest.
You are talking about 'subjective' and 'internal' and 'human' emotions, which is NOT a study of emotion, it is a study of humans. I don't study 'humans', I study consciousness and that means I also study emotion.

All multi-celled species have hormones; these hormones direct the self-preservation, or survival instincts, of the life form; all of these instincts are activated by feeling, which can be as simple as a 'want' or as strong as a passion. Every species that has survival instincts and hormones that work inside the body also has pheromones that work outside the body and between bodies and in some cases between species -- these are also activated through feeling. So between the plants, insects, birds, fish, and animals, there are an unfathomable number of pheromones zipping around a forest all the time, which is probably why a forest smells so good. Except for the part where I speculated about a forest smelling good, all the above is verifiable.

Also consider that we recognize emotion in others with more than just body language. I suspect that we actually see strong emotion but do not really recognize what we are seeing. The reason that I think so is because we write about it and talk about it. Read a novel and you will come across expressions like, "Joy radiated from the newly wed.", or "Anger rolled off of him in waves.", or "Their terror was tangible.", or "The child stood in a pool of innocence." I suspect that some animals can actually see our strong emotions.

But you will not read, "Thoughts radiated from the newly wed.", or "Calculation rolled off of him in waves.", or "Their plans were tangible.", or "The child stood in a pool of thoughtlessness." Because we do not describe thought as having form or being outside of the body, but we do it with emotion routinely. This is just another example of what led me to conclude that thought is internal and private, but emotion is external and shared. And of course, there is bonding.

Gee
Location: Michigan, US
#468716
Belinda wrote: October 7th, 2024, 3:40 am In the context of feelings, 'brainminds' is better than 'brains' . You seem to be denying that mind is not part of your normal experience and implying that mind is synonymous with brain.
Did you never consider that mind is the immeasurable and subjective aspect of brain.

You are not a brain, as I guess you would agree. Neither are you a mind. On the contrary, you are composed of mind, brain, and body-proper.
It is a no-brainer that the brain is as good as synonymous to mind. Aside from the existence of tiny amounts of neural matter in the gut and heart, the brain is what generates all mental activity.
There is no mental activity unless the brain is in good working order ,and the cessation of brain activity is the end of anything you can call "mind".
In essence the mind is what the brain DOES.
It is simply disabling to pretend otherwise and not really a helpful dualism.
#468717
Count Lucanor wrote: October 7th, 2024, 2:22 am
Sculptor1 wrote: October 6th, 2024, 5:41 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: October 6th, 2024, 4:33 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: October 4th, 2024, 11:11 am

Yes. which some might characterise as "spiritual"
Well...if one goes to the extreme of specifically calling it non-spiritual, emphasizing material, fleshy embodiment, just to leave no doubt that it does not adhere to any of the common conceptions of spiritual, and still a person will come up to say "hey, that's spiritual", there's not much I can do for that person and I don't think I would even want.
Materialists do not deny that people have feelings. From how you might love your children or a dog to seeing a sunset.
Tell me exactly why that is any different from whatever "common conceptions of spiritual," is supposed to mean?
From my experience people that call themselves "spiritual" are not more emotionally effected by buauty; a sunset; a puppy; or love for their family.
On the contrary I have known those claiming to be spiritual as sometimes lofty and fail to see beauty in life but are stuck in themsleves.
I see no reason to think that is nothing more than deluded introspection.
Feelings only happen in someone's body, nowhere else. All that makes it "a feeling" has to do with that material body, not reduced to the brain, but the whole body that participates in it.
No. Not really.
When you hit your thumb with a hammer, it is felt in the brain.
#468719
Pattern-chaser wrote: October 8th, 2024, 6:52 am Yes, it is. But it's not "fine", nor does it make "complete sense"; it's necessary, and it's (philosophically) wrong; incorrect. My words describe our *excuse* for what we do, but they don't and can't justify it, because (I believe) there is no such justification. The breakthrough, the realisation, is that there is no reasonable or logical reason to divide the Universe. And *that* is the justification for holism, I think.
Fanman wrote: October 9th, 2024, 2:35 am What are your beliefs, I wonder? My many years as a theist caused me to have an eye for feeling offended like this, but maybe I am wrong. I recall you mentioning something about having Gaian beliefs. Does your objection stem from this? I can't think of any other reason why you would object to this kind of process as we do it all of the time. It is a necessity.
I'm not offended, and I'm only "objecting" in the sense that we comment, here on this philosophy forum, if we disagree with what has previously been said.

My Gaian beliefs are a perspective on holism, I think.

Yes, it is a necessity, as you say, and as I had also said above. But this is just an aside, correct though it is. My point is that neither philosophy nor logic nor reason offer any support for dividing and subdividing the Universe. It is necessary, yes, but it is wrong (as in incorrect).
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
#468722
Pattern-chaser,

I'm not offended, and I'm only "objecting" in the sense that we comment, here on this philosophy forum, if we disagree with what has previously been said.

Okay. Your objection seemed heartfelt. So I suspected there was more than a mild subjective opinion behind it.

My Gaian beliefs are a perspective on holism, I think.

I respect your beliefs. 🙂

Yes, it is a necessity, as you say, and as I had also said above. But this is just an aside, correct though it is. My point is that neither philosophy nor logic nor reason offer any support for dividing and subdividing the Universe. It is necessary, yes, but it is wrong (as in incorrect).

But if we (for the sake of argument) call philosophy the pursuit of truth through reason, logic, understanding and wisdom. According to which of those faculties is dividing and subdividing the Universe not supported? And also, according to which of those faculties, is it incorrect?
#468723
Gee wrote: October 9th, 2024, 4:03 am Connecting a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to the alternator of a '57 Chevy will not garner you much information. They may both be part of the whole, but they don't share a relationship that is relevant and can teach us anything.
I think perhaps your human-centric view is confusing you? You think those two things "don't share a relationship" because of relevance (🤔) and whether we can learn from them? The two things you mention, more or less like any two things, share many different connections, starting with a mutual gravitational attraction, but not ending with that.

Do you really think that relevance (to humans) is a factor when we're wondering if two things are, or could be, connected?


Pattern-chaser wrote: October 6th, 2024, 10:56 am Sorry, you missed my point. There is no such thing as a scientific fact. All that science offers, on any subject, is its best current understanding, with the very clear understanding that it will stand only until something better is discovered.
Gee wrote: October 9th, 2024, 4:03 am Spoken like a true philosopher. A scientific fact is something that has been proven through objective observation and testing. It will remain a fact until/unless proven otherwise by subsequent testing. Truth is another matter; philosophers like truth.
On the contrary: spoken like a scientist. Testing occurs, but is not relevant to what I described. Even after exhaustive testing, scientific findings are always tentative, allowing for the arrival of new data or new understanding. [Oh, and claiming objectivity only introduces another confusion.]

Like 'facts', science does not deliver "proof" either. No, I don't mean like mathematical 'proofs', that only demonstrate conformity with preceding equations (or the like). I mean proof that something is factual. The hyperbole starts to become interlocked...


Gee wrote: October 9th, 2024, 4:03 am You are talking about 'subjective' and 'internal' and 'human' emotions, which is NOT a study of emotion, it is a study of humans. I don't study 'humans', I study consciousness and that means I also study emotion.
I don't really understand your descriptions here. You seem to mean something different than most people do when they say "emotion".
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
#468724
Pattern-chaser wrote: October 9th, 2024, 7:39 am Yes, it is a necessity, as you say, and as I had also said above. But this is just an aside, correct though it is. My point is that neither philosophy nor logic nor reason offer any support for dividing and subdividing the Universe. It is necessary, yes, but it is wrong (as in incorrect).
Fanman wrote: October 9th, 2024, 10:12 am But if we (for the sake of argument) call philosophy the pursuit of truth through reason, logic, understanding and wisdom. According to which of those faculties is dividing and subdividing the Universe not supported? And also, according to which of those faculties, is it incorrect?
I didn't say those things refute, or even forbid, division. I said they don't *support* it. I'm coming from the viewpoint that we don't do anything without a reason; a good reason. And there is no Axiom of Division, or Theorem of Reductionism, as far as I know. If we start from the Universe, one thing, and decide to divide it up into parts that are separate and independent, why? What is our justification for doing this? There is none, as far as I know. Do you know differently?

There is only one justification for division: we humans can't understand the Universe without it. That doesn't make it right (correct), it only makes it necessary (for us). We need to do something that is apparently without any form of justification, because we can't manage without it. The problem is us, not the Universe.
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
#468729
Science delivers “facts” alright, if by facts we mean things that are true. Some things just are true. For example, that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen is a scientific fact that will never be overturned. That the entropy of an isolated system left to spontaneous evolution cannot decrease with time is another scientific fact that will never be overturned. E=Mc2 is another such truth. These scientific facts are unassailable. Pompous, solipsistic, pedants in their philosophical armchairs cannot touch them.
Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche Location: Antipodes
#468745
Sculptor1 wrote: October 9th, 2024, 4:50 am
Belinda wrote: October 7th, 2024, 3:40 am In the context of feelings, 'brainminds' is better than 'brains' . You seem to be denying that mind is not part of your normal experience and implying that mind is synonymous with brain.
Did you never consider that mind is the immeasurable and subjective aspect of brain.

You are not a brain, as I guess you would agree. Neither are you a mind. On the contrary, you are composed of mind, brain, and body-proper.
It is a no-brainer that the brain is as good as synonymous to mind. Aside from the existence of tiny amounts of neural matter in the gut and heart, the brain is what generates all mental activity.
There is no mental activity unless the brain is in good working order ,and the cessation of brain activity is the end of anything you can call "mind".
In essence the mind is what the brain DOES.
It is simply disabling to pretend otherwise and not really a helpful dualism.
But you probably use the word 'mind' to refer to not only that part of the anatomy that thinks, but also to mean the content of your thought.
One is not necessarily a Cartesian dualist to claim brain and mind are not identical. One can claim as do I that 'brain' and 'mind' are respectively the objective and subjective aspects of brainmind.
Location: UK
#468760
Belinda wrote: October 10th, 2024, 7:49 am One is not necessarily a Cartesian dualist to claim brain and mind are not identical.
One is a philosopher if one simply wonders if brain and mind might not be identical. Perhaps a "claim" might be delayed until supporting evidence of some sort is available? But yes, let's not just accept claims at face value. Why would we? 👍
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
  • 1
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 46

Current Philosophy Book of the Month

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...
by Indignus Servus
November 2024

2025 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

They Love You Until You Start Thinking For Yourself

They Love You Until You Start Thinking For Yourself
by Monica Omorodion Swaida
February 2025

2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...
by Indignus Servus
November 2024

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age
by Elliott B. Martin, Jr.
October 2024

Zen and the Art of Writing

Zen and the Art of Writing
by Ray Hodgson
September 2024

How is God Involved in Evolution?

How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters
by Howard Wolk
July 2024

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side
by Thomas Richard Spradlin
June 2024

Neither Safe Nor Effective

Neither Safe Nor Effective
by Dr. Colleen Huber
May 2024

Now or Never

Now or Never
by Mary Wasche
April 2024

Meditations

Meditations
by Marcus Aurelius
March 2024

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

The In-Between: Life in the Micro

The In-Between: Life in the Micro
by Christian Espinosa
January 2024

2023 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021


DEI and Doublespeak

This is a competitive world. Not everyone wi[…]

Materialism Vs Idealism

After writing that I was thinking that, in a se[…]

It seems to me that a "true atheist" is […]

It doesn't matter who's in power - sheer populatio[…]