How Can Molecules Think?

[Bradskii]

No, I have, but what I meant was that the experiences I have had were nothing like what most people like to write about and discuss...

So how about you write about them and we can discuss them. To see if they're odd and unexplainable. Which is exactly the bone of contention as we stand.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"Silly" field of philosophy? Are you actually serious about that comment? Wow. Such a statement clearly tells me you know precisely nothing about the subject. It isn't just about old Greeks (like Plato) in robes dreaming about people in a cave seeing shadows on the wall, or Frenchmen in a Paris cafe going on about how "absurd" life is.

Pretty much. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone bring philosophy into a conversation here that was in any way useful. Mostly just bunch of hypothetical speculation and twisted attempts to avoid actual evidence with "arguments".

 

[Hans Blaster]

You've taken my comment out of context, a comment I made to Hans Blaster, who wrote:
"I have had no experiences that would make me think that my mind and body are somehow 'separate'."
He was giving a personal reason for his beliefs, and I pointed out that I have had experiences that have drawn me in the opposite direction. My point was that just because we may not have experienced something first-hand, that that, in and of itself, isn't a good enough reason to entirely discount whatever it is that one is sceptical about.

And you fail to keep mine in context. You offered the notion that without a philosophical bias it is natural to conclude mind/body "dualism". So I offered a counter example that was personal. I don't have other examples on the ready, because I'm not sure I'd ever considered that "natural conclusion" claim. I'm also not versed in the psychology of perception and self -- the field that would seem to be the most informative to this question about what is natural to conclude. It's not quite a falsification of your claim since you had multiple caveats, but it does argue against it.

 

[AV1611VET]

So no, they aren't advocates of 'scientism'.

QV please:

Scientism in one version or another has probably been around as long as science has existed. From about 1970 to 2000, however, a number of distinguished natural scientists, including Francis Crick (b. 1916), Richard Dawkins (b. 1941), and Edward O. Wilson (b. 1929), have advocated scientism in one form or another. Some promoters of scientism are more ambitious in their extension of the boundaries of science than others. In its most ambitious form, scientism states that science has no boundaries: eventually science will answer all human problems. All the tasks human beings face will eventually be solved by science alone.

SOURCE

 

[AV1611VET]

I gave you examples. I'm not going to waste any more time with someone who clearly just doesn't care about the truth.

It's almost like they're ashamed of their own kind.

 

[Bradskii]

QV please:

I used to be surprised that you never seemed to understand the points being made to you. I'm not any more.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Pretty much. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone bring philosophy into a conversation here that was in any way useful. Mostly just bunch of hypothetical speculation and twisted attempts to avoid actual evidence with "arguments".

That must be the typical underestimation of "philosophy". But the truth is that everyone has a metaphysical vision of what reality might be and how to live in it. Everyone has some evaluation of what gives their lives meaning purpose. Unfortunately, many people are also unaware of the assumptions they unconsciously make that align with their own unspoken philosophy of life. And so much then remains unexamined.

 

[AV1611VET]

I used to be surprised that you never seemed to understand the points being made to you. I'm not any more.

Just don't tell me there are no names of people who give the nod to scientism and expect me to believe you.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That must be the typical underestimation of "philosophy". But the truth is that everyone has a metaphysical vision of what reality might be and how to live in it. Everyone has some evaluation of what gives their lives meaning purpose. Unfortunately, many people are also unaware of the assumptions they unconsciously make that align with their own unspoken philosophy of life. And so much then remains unexamined.

But this wasn't about "the meaning of life" (largely none of anyone else's business) or "life philosophy". It wasn't even about epistemology. Nope it was just a notion that some self-satisfied thinking about what mind meant would sort this all out. So I made a crack about philosophy. It's hyperbole. I've done it before and I'll slam philosophy again when people bring it up as a substitute for evidence.

 

[Bradskii]

Just don't tell me there are no names of people who give the nod to scientism and expect me to believe you.

I gave up trying to tell you anything quite some time ago. Well, the odd exception when I'm waiting for my wife to get ready and I've a few minutes to spare. Like now...

...so scientism is a derogatory term used by those who are annoyed that they are expected to produce facts and evidence for their claims. You never do so it's a suitable fail safe you can use.

Quote: So you think that science has all the answer? Hah! Scientism rears its ugly head! It can take a hike.
Translation: I haven't got any facts or evidence to back up what I just claimed.

I mean...how long does it take to put on a frock?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

But this wasn't about "the meaning of life" (largely none of anyone else's business) or "life philosophy". It wasn't even about epistemology. Nope it was just a notion that some self-satisfied thinking about what mind meant would sort this all out. So I made a crack about philosophy. It's hyperbole. I've done it before and I'll slam philosophy again when people bring it up as a substitute for evidence.

I am a HUGE fan of hyperbole. But limiting our thoughts and imagination only to what we perceive as evidence lack the kind of creativity that has gotten us so far.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am a HUGE fan of hyperbole. But limiting our thoughts and imagination only to what we perceive as evidence lack the kind of creativity that has gotten us so far.

Philosophical "debate" about the mind isn't going to figure out how it occurs. That's what was suggested and I rejected.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Philosophical "debate" about the mind isn't going to figure out how it occurs.

And science wont give us the "why".

 

[AV1611VET]

I gave up trying to tell you anything quite some time ago.

Let me get this straight.

A challenges B to come up with some names.

C chimes in with names.

D chimes in and says C is wrong.

C shows D even more names.

D "gives up trying to tell me anything" -- even though I was the one doing the telling.

Is that about right?

 

[Hans Blaster]

And science wont give us the "why".

What makes you think there needs to be a "why"?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

What makes you think there needs to be a "why"?

Because I am human and that is what we do.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Because I am human and that is what we do.

And we know that humans have a huge problem seeing agency (intent) where there is none. Learning to filter out false agency and meaningless "meaning" is important to a healthy mind and society.

Rain on your wedding day is not only not "ironic", but it is not a sign from anyone or thing. Rain is a weather phenomenon driven by the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere. It is not a sign from any being, karmic retribution, etc.

 

[Bradskii]

Is that about right?

No.

 

[AV1611VET]

No.

 

[Yaaten]

Pretty much. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone bring philosophy into a conversation here that was in any way useful. Mostly just bunch of hypothetical speculation and twisted attempts to avoid actual evidence with "arguments".

Philosophy includes everything from whether or not life has meaning and purpose, the manner in which we interpret evidence, logic, aesthetic appreciation (i.e. what it is that makes something beautiful or ugly), the manner in which we use language and how and why words mean what they do, whether or not our senses can be relied upon to give us accurate information about a reality that may or may not be objective (i.e. phenomenology), ethics, how to live a good life, and... wait for it - SCIENCE!
Yes, science itself is a mere branch of philosophy. Why? Well, for starters it has philosophical presuppositions built into it. For example, the belief that the scientific method actually can answer most, if not all, of the questions that one may conceivably ask. Then there's the belief (with no evidence, by the way) that material reality is all there is (materialism). There's 'logical positivism', a.k.a. scientism.
I could go on.
Philosophy is KING! Without it science wouldn't even exist!