3 ms·

Is it not pure speculation to assume that the world was present before living beings inhabited it? Who made these observations of a purely physicalist realm th

by sova 6y ago

Is it not pure speculation to assume that the world was present before living beings inhabited it? Who made these observations of a purely physicalist realm that predates beings with awareness? It may be true, but its unconfirmable, so we have to ask questions about what we can confirm. Chirality in the present is confirmable. A world made of physical matter and mind is confirmable. But strong questions about ontological declarations of life from purely physicalist material speculative histories are not only hard to answer, they assume more than they reveal. Edit: must have hit a nerve

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dvt 6y ago
I don't think you hit a nerve; your post is not only confusing, but it seems wrong. > Is it not pure speculation to assume that the world was present before living beings inhabited it? You need to carefully define terms here. What do you mean by "world," what do you mean by "living beings," and what do you mean by "inhabited." In any case, the answer to the question you pose is almost certainly answerable in the negative. > But strong questions about ontological declarations of life from purely physicalist material speculative histories are not only hard to answer, they assume more than they reveal. I'm not a materialist, but this isn't correct. In fact, a major criticism of physicalism is that it's too reductive -- not that it has no explanatory power. It has a lot of it; that's partly why most professional philosophers are materialists.
ridgeguy 6y ago
Nobody's making that assumption. It's a hypothesis. All evidence we have is consistent with a "world being present before living beings inhabited it". Therefore the hypothesis is not disproved, which is all science ultimately says about facts.
- sova 6y ago
  Chirality is either an underlying property of biological life, or an epigenetic (so-to-speak) result from having a Spinning Something and then throwing Life into it. Reality itself could have a spin or orientation and therefore Biological Life would be subservient to such. In my opinion long-term adaptations have about as much pertinence to chirality as it does to magnetism. Either it turns or it doesn't, it doesn't slowly decide to over millions of years.

by sova 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dvt 6y ago

I don't think you hit a nerve; your post is not only confusing, but it seems wrong. > Is it not pure speculation to assume that the world was present before living beings inhabited it? You need to carefully define terms here. What do you mean by "world," what do you mean by "living beings," and what do you mean by "inhabited." In any case, the answer to the question you pose is almost certainly answerable in the negative. > But strong questions about ontological declarations of life from purely physicalist material speculative histories are not only hard to answer, they assume more than they reveal. I'm not a materialist, but this isn't correct. In fact, a major criticism of physicalism is that it's too reductive -- not that it has no explanatory power. It has a lot of it; that's partly why most professional philosophers are materialists.

ridgeguy 6y ago

Nobody's making that assumption. It's a hypothesis. All evidence we have is consistent with a "world being present before living beings inhabited it". Therefore the hypothesis is not disproved, which is all science ultimately says about facts.

sova 6y ago
Chirality is either an underlying property of biological life, or an epigenetic (so-to-speak) result from having a Spinning Something and then throwing Life into it. Reality itself could have a spin or orientation and therefore Biological Life would be subservient to such. In my opinion long-term adaptations have about as much pertinence to chirality as it does to magnetism. Either it turns or it doesn't, it doesn't slowly decide to over millions of years.