Yes, agreed, I have frequently written that daily life and the human experience doesn't revolve around knowledge and awareness of particle physics, organic chemistry, oceanography. Relationships, truth, justice, fairness, equality, freedom, friendships, values , rituals, ethics are really at the core of human experience.
Idealism without God
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
Litmus
Verified User
idealism does not mean everything is a manifestation of the mental.In your new book, you ask how the mind can influence matter. Are we any closer to answering that question today than when Descartes posited it nearly four centuries ago?
There’s materialism, which is now known as physicalism, which says that only physical really exists, and there is no mental.
Then there’s idealism, which is now enjoying a mini-renaissance, but by and large has not been popular in the 20th and early 21st century, which says that everything fundamentally is a manifestation of the mental.
Then there is classical dualism, which says there’s clearly physical matter and there’s the mental, and they somehow have to interact. It’s been challenging to understand how the mental interacts with the physical—that’s known as the causation problem.
And then there are other things like panpsychism, that’s now becoming very popular again, which is a very ancient faith. It says that fundamentally everything is “ensouled”—that everything, even elementary particles, feel a little bit like something.
What Counts as Consciousness
Neuroscientist Christof Koch on human minds, AI, and bacteria.nautil.us
it means there are ideals, or values or models to live up to, that some ways of living are better (more ideal) than others.
your definitions are gay and you're stupid.
Litmus
Verified User
Litmus
Verified User
you're getting warmer.
This arbitrary segregation of science from things like "relationships, truth, justice, etc." belies a perhaps lack of understanding of what science actually IS. Science is nothing more than a rubric, a system of testing claims. Many people, especially those for whom science is not their specialty, seem to think science requires test tubes and big machines but it really is from a common fount just like the concepts you mention as being outside of science.
I have never understood the desire to somehow set science aside as if someone has to buy a white lab coat and buy a clipboard and an RPN calculator to do it.
Let's talk "justice" as a good example.
Justice utilizes almost the EXACT SAME REASONING as science does. I've already belabored the whole "null hypothesis" in regards to science but it is EXACTLY how courts of law work. You start with the null ("Not guilty") and test against the null. (which is part of why people are not found "innocent" but rather "not guilty"). Evidence is brought to test against the null.
But they could without necessarily messing up concepts like "justice" or "relationships". There's noting magical about the human experience that would in any way make it impossible to square the experience with science or utilize science as a structural form for a life.
I think too many people have a "cartoon view" of science and think that you have to have a white labcoat and test tubes to do science.
Let's get the language straight. When people use the word science, they are talking about the inductive experimental science articulated by Francis Bacon, and practiced by Galileo, Newton, Einstein.
You are attempting to co-opt deductive logic, situational awareness, cultural values, social ethics, cognitive reasoning and place them all under the umbrella of 'science' to get your argument to work.
Socrates and Plato were using logic, reasoning, cultural values thousands of years before experimental science.
Friendship, fairness, freedom, equality have never been dependent ona mathmatical equation, an experimental method, a scientific approach. People have been using deductive logic, situational awareness, cultural values for thousands of years.
Your attempt to confiscate these long- standing human powers of reasoning, and assign them to the scientific method doesn't cut the mustard.
In attempting to get your argument to work, you're trying to confiscate all the powers of human reasoning that have been practiced for tens of thousands of years (deductive logic, situational awareness, risk calculation, cultural values) and shoehorn them all under the umbrella of the inductive scientific method.
That is not a convincing or rational argument.
It is perfectly rational. You are free to disagree with it or find it unconvincing but perfectly rational.
Logic is, effectively math.
Science requires reasoning.
Again you seem to be limiting science to only that which is done with a white labcoat and a clipboard. Why do you keep using the epithet "experimental"? Do you think that observation is not its own form of experiment?
Why are you so against observation and testing of truth claims as a rubric which can be applied to everything?
^^ Totally unconvincing.
To get your argument to work, you are attempting to round up all aspects of human cognitive powers that have been in existence for thousands of years -- i.e., logic, reasoning, subjective value judgement, situational awareness -- and cram, squeeze, and shoehorn them to fit under the umbrella of science.
I've got news for you: Socrates, Plato, Ghandi, Jesus, Confucious, Thoreau, Nietzsche, Sidartha Gautama were not doing science
I am surprised you don't see the commonalities between a system of observation and reason using math and logic and the systems of philosophy. It is even more striking when you consider that scientists used to be called "natural philosophers"
Litmus
Verified User
But maybe religion is know how to act with other people and not actually about explaining reality.The author makes a good case why we should trust our own experience to judge what is real.
Science only reports on physical facts. Religion talks about what god believes to be true.
"If idealism requires a traditional Judeo-Christian God, that strikes me as a cost. My book, The View from Everywhere, argues that idealism does not require such a God.
God is traditionally taken to be an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient agent."
The universe is made of experiences, not things | Helen Yetter-Chappell
The scientific materialist worldview robs reality of its colour, temperature, smell… and in fact, any conscious experience is removed from reality altogether. This cannot be the most accurate picture of the universe we can come up with. Reality is made of experiences, woven together into an...iai.tv
Litmus
Verified User
Philosophy and morality they were doing also.
Thr scientism satanists try to make everything spergy and oversimplified.
One does not need religion for that.
"Scientism satanists". Niiiiice.
I'm always fascinated at how much seething hatred Christ's followers can muster for people they don't understand.
Enjoy the hate!
Litmus
Verified User
seething hatred?
where?
i see more hatred in the scientism satanists trying to inject everyone with poison.
Litmus
Verified User
its a factual assessment of people trying inject Nazi big pharma death juice into everyone.