That's an abbreviated way of referring to processes one has gone through which were "lived." It just seems like a stupid term, where we're adding words where there's no need to add words--adding words to make it sound more "intellectual"/theoretical. We can't come up with an example where simply "experience," unmodified by a redundant adjective, wouldn't do just as well. — Terrapin Station
How about addressing the fact that you're forwarding strawmen? — Terrapin Station
And there is a distinction between going through a process and referring to a process, between experiencing a feeling and talking about a feeling. In saying "lived experience" we're putting the focus on what it's like to go through that experience, rather than merely referring to it. The "neglect of lived experience" is the neglect of what it's like to experience, rather than the neglect of the experience you listed in your resume when we decide whether to hire you or not. You not seeing the distinction does not mean we're "adding words to make it sound more intellectual/theoretical". — leo
How about describing what you see as strawmen, instead of expecting others to do the work for you? — leo
You completely ignored that referring to experience is referring to something that was necessarily "lived," necessarily processual. — Terrapin Station
For example, no materialist neglects ("lived") experience. — Terrapin Station
That an experience was necessarily lived does not imply that "the neglect of experience" has only one meaning. Again, if I hire you without looking at the experience you listed in your resume, I neglect experience. — leo
What is the non-lived sense of experience that you'd be referring to there?
Let's just solve that first, because this is going way too many rounds without you clarifying that. — Terrapin Station
As succinctly as I can, the physicist neglects the fact that he experiences when he builds his models of reality, while the employer neglects the experiences listed on a resume. — leo
Why are you talking about neglecting experiences in that section anyway? That part wasn't about that. This quote: "You completely ignored that referring to experience is referring to something that was necessarily "lived," necessarily processual" is about whether "lived" is redundant.
You're confusing the second half with the first half. (Hence a reason why the best course of action is to stick to one thing at a time . . . against my better judgment, I addressed more than one thing in a post and you're conflating the two.) — Terrapin Station
Well the irony is that one point of this approach is to heal the ‘Cartesian split’ which has given rise to this sense of ‘otherness’. The whole point of emphasizing ‘lived experience’ is to draw attention to the fact that science is a human enterprise, and that perspective is an ineliminable part of it. Whereas the whole gist of Galilean science has been that ‘what can be quantified’ is what most truly exists. — Wayfarer
Sure an experience was necessarily lived. I claim that this does not imply that "lived experience" is redundant, because "lived experience" can be used to refer to something that "experience" alone cannot. — leo
Do you agree that "neglecting an experience" is not the same as "neglecting the fact that you experience"? — leo
What can it refer to that experience alone can not, if experience is necessarily lived? — Terrapin Station
I explained that in the second paragraph. "Lived experience" can refer to "the fact that you experience", while experience refers to "an experience you have". — leo
Nobody who advocates physicalism would admit this, would they? The whole point of physicalism is specifically to deny such a claim. — Wayfarer
I really can't type more than one sentence with you, or you'll ignore stuff. — Terrapin Station
At the risk of a second sentence, what's the difference between the fact that you experience and an experience you have? — Terrapin Station
This all serves to set up the thesis that science neglects experience and the human perspective when, to the contrary, science has always been grounded in experience and observation. That's why it works. — Andrew M
All I will give you here is an analogy. "The fact that there is a thing in a box" is not the same as "the thing that is in the box". — leo
Here are some things informed physicalists acknowledge we do not yet understand:
Dark matter. Dark energy. Quantum gravity. String theory. Multiverse. Time. Beginning of time. Life. Unity of micro/macroscopic. — Fooloso4
the article itself presents a dualist framing. It repeatedly makes claims with dubious modifiers such as "reality as it is in itself", "a God's eye view of nature", "experiential time", "lived experience", "absolute knowledge" and so on. This all serves to set up the thesis that science neglects experience and the human perspective when, to the contrary, science has always been grounded in experience and observation. That's why it works. — Andrew M
Is it possible to reconcile the uniqueness of human existence with being “at home” in the world? Can we live authentically human lives – ones fundamentally different from those of any other beings – without being compelled to regard ourselves as “aliens”, set apart from the rest of reality? To this question, Heidegger gave a single answer throughout his career, albeit one that was significantly modified. This answer was that we must overcome “the forgetfulness of Being”, for to “recall” and reflect on Being (Sein) enables us both to appreciate our uniqueness and to feel at home in the world.
It just happens to be the one that was purportedly concerned with 'the fundamental constituents of reality'. And that does have philosophical significance, because of the way in which physics has been seen as paradigmatic for other sciences. — Wayfarer
Should that result surprise us given also the general fact that how we think about things is not the things themselves, but a dualistically oriented reflection of experience? — Janus
You are assuming without evidence that those who reject the OP are scientifically illiterate.if we discuss the subject on philosophy forums we are met with people who don't see the problem because they are mostly scientifically illiterate — leo
That's the thing, it would be so different that you can't imagine what that would be like while reasoning within the framework of a mind-independent world. — leo
What we desire shapes geology and the climate, it shapes everything we do, which shapes geology and the climate. — leo
And it would put back living beings in an important place, as beings that can shape the world through their will, rather than seeing ourselves and others as meaningless accidents, as heaps of particles that blindly follow physical laws while having the illusion of choice. — leo
And why cannot we just accept that we don't know consciousness just as we don't know dark matter etc?On the other hand, those who reject physicalism will point to consciousness as if it is well enough understood to demonstrate that it cannot be explain in physical terms. — Fooloso4
As you said above, this doesn't go through at all.That we might be thought of as "heaps of particles that blindly follow physical laws while having the illusion of choice" just shows one way of thinking that obviously does not tell the whole story of human, or even animal, beings. Contemporary science is not so reductive as this outmoded Newtonian vision; but that seems to be taking longer to sink in with some of those who like to call themselves philosophers than it should. By reacting against this reductionist model you are actually perpetuating it, because you see only the "either/or" of (necessarily reductively materialist) science versus some kind of idealism. A painfully facile approach! — Janus
Here are some things informed physicalists acknowledge we do not yet understand:
Dark matter. Dark energy. Quantum gravity. String theory. Multiverse. Time. Beginning of time. Life. Unity of micro/macroscopic.
— Fooloso4
Indeed! And these are among the reasons for the 'decline of materialism'. — Wayfarer
However the conundrums about dark matter have only become apparent about 50 years ago - they weren't known in materialism's heyday. — Wayfarer
But convinced materialists will still insist that all these issues are amenable in principle to physicalist explanations - Karl Popper's 'promissory notes of materialism'. Which is why, maybe, the theory is one of dark matter - 'matter' being the suitable metaphor to stand in for some unknown force. — Wayfarer
And why cannot we just accept that we don't know consciousness just as we don't know dark matter etc? — ssu
By reacting against this reductionist model you are actually perpetuating it, because you see only the "either/or" of (necessarily reductively materialist) science versus some kind of idealism. A painfully facile approach! — Janus
. It's in Wayfarer's interest that science remain a shitty, reductive undertaking: he feeds off it. — StreetlightX
Our understanding of what the "stuff" that the universe is made of has changed. That is the way science works. Some prefer the term 'physical' or 'natural' to 'material' since the term is easily misunderstood. — Fooloso4
if ‘physical reality’ means reality according to some future and complete physics, then the claim that there is nothing else but physical reality is empty, because we have no idea what such a future physics will look like, especially in relation to consciousness.
This problem is known as Hempel’s dilemma, named after the illustrious philosopher of science Carl Gustav Hempel (1905-97). Faced with this quandary, some philosophers argue that we should define ‘physical’ such that it rules out radical emergentism (that life and the mind are emergent from but irreducible to physical reality) and panpsychism (that mind is fundamental and exists everywhere, including at the microphysical level). This move would give physicalism a definite content, but at the cost of trying to legislate in advance what ‘physical’ can mean, instead of leaving its meaning to be determined by physics.
We reject this move.
I am also philosophically literate, and am not a reductive materialist. It's perfectly possible that plenty of others that point out how the OP is an attention-seeking straw man are similarly literate in both science and philosophy. Simply assuming that anybody that doesn't agree must be scientifically illiterate is nonsense. — andrewk
Science has becomes more wholistic, more systems-based. — Janus
Our account of the Blind Spot is based on the work of two major philosophers and mathematicians, Edmund Husserl and Alfred North Whitehead. Husserl, the German thinker who founded the philosophical movement of phenomenology, argued that lived experience is the source of science. It’s absurd, in principle, to think that science can step outside it. The ‘life-world’ of human experience is the ‘grounding soil’ of science, and the existential and spiritual crisis of modern scientific culture – what we are calling the Blind Spot – comes from forgetting its primacy.
The story you tell above is just one tiny thread in the tapestry of history, an interpretation derived from a certain perspective, a particular tendentious story. — Janus
And the essay is just an example of this fact. The authors note:
Our account of the Blind Spot is based on the work of two major philosophers and mathematicians, Edmund Husserl and Alfred North Whitehead. Husserl, the German thinker who founded the philosophical movement of phenomenology, argued that lived experience is the source of science. It’s absurd, in principle, to think that science can step outside it. The ‘life-world’ of human experience is the ‘grounding soil’ of science, and the existential and spiritual crisis of modern scientific culture – what we are calling the Blind Spot – comes from forgetting its primacy. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.