Philosophy (7 Viewers)

[Nzoric]

But are we special because we have these features? What makes these particular features unique from, say, a pig's cognitive capacities, or those of a water buffalo?

Maybe there's no special difference between "humanity" and "buffaloanity". Our intellect and rationality might be features unique to our species, but many species have unique features. None of them justify special status.

So to make your position succeed, you have to hold something special, something almost supernatural about the human mind, with its capacity to reason, and exercise free will, and apprehend truth, goodness, and beauty.

I think that's a viable position to take. But scientists don't like it, because it's spooky and metaphysical. Not grounded in the scientific picture of humans as moist robots.

Its a viable position to hold if you can argue for metaphysics. The reason why philosophers and scientists stray away from Any notions of metaphysics (except for some thoughts of consciousness) is because Its logically impossible to argue how something metaphysical can have an effect on The physical. And Its not Even one of Thore cases from theoretical philosophy where you can say that Its because of lacking technology, The argument itself is impossible to construct. So, construct it and see philosophers joining your banner faster than you can publish it

Sendt fra min SM-N910F med Tapatalk

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Nzoric]

Also, free will is a crock. *leaves thread&

Sendt fra min SM-N910F med Tapatalk

 

[Layce Erayce]

Its a viable position to hold if you can argue for metaphysics. The reason why philosophers and scientists stray away from Any notions of metaphysics (except for some thoughts of consciousness) is because Its logically impossible to argue how something metaphysical can have an effect on The physical. And Its not Even one of Thore cases from theoretical philosophy where you can say that Its because of lacking technology, The argument itself is impossible to construct. So, construct it and see philosophers joining your banner faster than you can publish it

Sendt fra min SM-N910F med Tapatalk

Both sides imply metaphysical claims. The crude reductive naturalist only conceals it better. But beneath the concealment, their position implies that the totality of facts about persons are determined by happenings on the physical substrate, and there is nothing more going on.

So I don't think either side can escape metaphysics.

But I'm curious: why think it's logically impossible to argue that the metaphysical can have an effect on the physical? I'm not challenging the claim, I'm just curious why you think so. Especially why you take a position as strong as logical impossibility.

 

[Nzoric]

I havent found any argument to support the claim, and if we Are to steer clear of notions of souls, spirits etc the metaphysical needs to be, at the same time, derived from the physical while superseeding it. How it can be linked one way only while deriving from the physical is imo impossible to ascertain. Its less messy and more feasible to subscribe to panpsychism and get it over with.

Sendt fra min SM-N910F med Tapatalk

 

[Layce Erayce]

I havent found any argument to support the claim, and if we Are to steer clear of notions of souls, spirits etc the metaphysical needs to be, at the same time, derived from the physical while superseeding it. How it can be linked one way only while deriving from the physical is imo impossible to ascertain. Its less messy and more feasible to subscribe to panpsychism and get it over with.

Sendt fra min SM-N910F med Tapatalk

So since you've found no argument, it's logically impossible? That seems too strong. A more sensible stance is to say that you want an argument that has some independent empirical support, and all the spooky stuff is simply not empirically supported.

As for panpsychism (which I frankly like), I don't think it gets us to making human beings unique.

 

[Nzoric]

So since you've found no argument, it's logically impossible? That seems too strong. A more sensible stance is to say that you want an argument that has some independent empirical support, and all the spooky stuff is simply not empirically supported.

As for panpsychism (which I frankly like), I don't think it gets us to making human beings unique.

Are there really any metaphysicist left?

Sendt fra min SM-N910F med Tapatalk

 

[Layce Erayce]

You'd be surprised what's been going on since David Lewis and possible worlds semantics.

 

[swag]

I :heart2: moist robots.