knightoffaith

8 ms·

31.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
>I can't see how it's not perfectly fine to rationally discuss subjective claims You're correct, I was thinking that in defending reproduction being our purpose that you were claiming that this is true and that people who
32.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
Underrated joke.
33.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
1. I observe that people do not base their actions on sensory experience do stupid things. 2. Therefore, true knowledge or justification comes only from sensory experience and empirical evidence. All that I'm saying is that (2) does no
34.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
I mean, talking about what things exist, and what things don't, and what it means for something to exist are things that philosophers do as part of philosophy (specifically ontology). I suppose there's nothing wrong with Deutsch&#
35.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
Fine, I'll just pick some random books: Feyerabend's Against Method , Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions , Nietzsche's The Antichrist , Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling , Descartes's Meditations ,
36.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
For one, this isn't an ontological argument, this is a version of the cosmological argument. I mean, I'm not even concerned about the truth or falsity of the conclusion of this argument. I posed this argument to you, and right awa
37.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
I'm sure there are some people who do. But books for popular audiences like Consciousness Explained are taken seriously by philosophers too. I don't see why there's any relevant difference between philosophy and music here.
38.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
I mean, the first mention of empiricism was about classifying alchemy as a type of empiricism, which leads one to believe the discussion can't be about empiricism in the technical philosophical sense because being an empiricist or not
39.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
I mean, there are plenty of people who read philosophy and enjoy it but don't publish papers in philosophy conferences or journals, discuss topics with academic philosophers, etc. Reading a work of philosophy without writing a work of
40.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
OK, I'd like nothing better than for you to show me that there's no such area. Since we're talking about contingency... I'll just lay out a version of the argument from contingency: 1. A contingent being (a being such th
41.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
Oh, I see, since we were talking about science, I figured you really just meant induction, I didn't think you meant empiricism, the philosophical school of thought (in contrast to rationalism), that's my bad. But it seems that emp
42.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
>Not quite I just mean to say that Dennett denies that there is anything that is "ineffable, intrinsic, private, [and] directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness". But my point is that this is a particular philosoph
43.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
Wait, I'm sorry - philosophy has no audience beyond its own practitioners? Just look at all the people interested in philosophy in this thread. I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that the majority of people who have implicitl
44.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
I'm disputing something very specific. I'm not disputing that empirical reasoning is rational. What I'm disputing is that empirical reasoning is justified by empirical reasoning. This not being circular is not logically relat
45.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
>How ironic that you would say that in a thread about Daniel Dennett's passing. You have obviously not read "Consciousness Explained." I mean, Dennett is denying the existence of qualia altogether, as I said, via philosoph
46.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
What are you expecting exactly? Most people aren't going to have a massive effect on the world, whether in philosophy or not. Philosophy is far from the only academic discipline in which most practitioners don't have a significant
47.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
I suppose the confusion still remains about how empiricism can be self-justifying. You've laid out a case for why it's empirical reasoning is pragmatic, fine, but that doesn't mean that empirical reasoning is grounded in empi
48.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
I see where you're coming from, but none of this really means that justifying inductive reasoning through inductive reasoning isn't circular. Hume himself thinks that inductive reasoning is grounded in "custom or habit",
49.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
I mean, I think philosophers defending religious fundamentalism are also exceptions rather than the rule.
50.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
Philosophers make arguments for/against claims, I don't see why that doesn't count as doing something. I mean, maybe you're complaining that they're not building rockets or feeding the poor, but philosophers are far
51.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
Thanks for the citation, I failed to get through GEB but you've piqued my interest in IAASL. Could you say something more about him being an anti-science apologist? I can see your case that his arguments fail, but I don't see the
52.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
>There's nothing brains do that cannot be explained in terms of atoms. But the relationship between brain chemistry and consciousness is at best correlating certain conscious states with certain neurological states. The question is
53.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
It finds application for atheists making arguments against religion as well. It finds application in defenses of free will. Scientists seem to subscribe to a Popperian falsifiability. Logic, part of philosophy, has found widespread use, as
54.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
How does it answer why consciousness or laws of nature exist? I included atoms as only one of the items on the list for a reason. Not to say science isn't useful or that it hasn't made progress in explaining things. But the line o
55.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
Literally every philosophical stance compatible with atheism, no? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.
56.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
True, it's basically indisputable that engineers are better at engineering than philosophers are. But that seems orthogonal to the issues raised in the problem of induction.
57.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
Why is it not circular reasoning to justify empirical reasoning via empirical reasoning? (The formal problem of induction argument with its charge of circularity is best and most simply put here https://plato.stanford.edu/en
58.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
Thanks for the links! On religious apologetics, that fundamentalists use philosophical arguments to justify their positions doesn't mean philosophy is largely transparent cover for religious apologetics, does it? I imagine fundamentali
59.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
I think the spirit of the question is why anything---atoms, consciousnesses, laws of nature, quantum fields, etc.---exists, instead of nothing at all---no atoms, consciousnesses, laws of nature, fields, etc. QFT doesn't answer this que
60.
by knightoffaith 2y ago
But Popper wasn't saying that empiricism could be justified empirically, was he? In his own words, in the section on the problem of induction in The Logic of Scientific Discovery : "My own view is that the various diﬃculties of i

More ›