Don't waste your time arguing against the omniscient.

I am not sure how this relates to my post, may you clarify the connection to me?

I am not sure how this relates to my post, may you clarify the connection to me? — IP060903

Sorry. I may have clicked on your link by mistake when I meant to link back to the OP. :yikes:

Don't waste your time arguing against the omniscient. — Wayfarer

As a wrap-up review -- to this and the Non-Physical thread -- what do you think of my assessment that the opposing positions are viewed as A> Real Science vs un-real Pseudo-science by conservative hard-liners, but as B> Reductive Science vs Holistic Science by more progressive pioneers of unexplored territory ? The result of such binary framing is that we end-up debating different questions from polarized positions. Unfortunately, the Science=Truth posters, don't accept that there is another way to do scientific research. And of course, it's easy to go wrong, when you go beyond "settled science" into open-ended questions. But that's the difference between tinkering Technology and Progressive Science, otherwise known as Pure Science or Basic Research.

What I'm labeling as a Holistic approach to science, or Systems Science, would in theory include most reductive evidence, but not be limited to it. Yet, some on the holistic side could go the the extreme of "disregard for known science fallacy", as GT put it. However, the pro-thought posters on this thread seem to be merely more interested in "Soft Science" with theoretical evidence (concepts), than in "Hard Science" with empirical evidence (things).

Another way to frame the debate is between Inductive & Deductive reasoning. Empirical science is supposed to be strictly Deductive from direct experience (experiment). But a lot of modern science, especially the Soft Sciences, have little hard evidence to work with, so most of their reasoning is Inductive, from a general hypothesis to a more developed theory (what if?). Yet again, trying to prove a prior belief, without skeptical pruning can result in a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, I can't blame the Realists for their hard interrogation. In fact, that why I invite such challenges for my somewhat fringey notions. :nerd:


Holism in science, and holistic science, is an approach to research that emphasizes the study of complex systems. Systems are approached as coherent wholes whose component parts are best understood in context and in relation to one another and to the whole.
This practice is in contrast to a purely analytic tradition (sometimes called reductionism) which aims to gain understanding of systems by dividing them into smaller composing elements and gaining understanding of the system through understanding their elemental properties.[1] The holism-reductionism dichotomy is often evident in conflicting interpretations of experimental findings and in setting priorities for future research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science

Empirical vs Theoretical evidence :
Empirical: Based on data gathered by original experiments or observations. Theoretical: Analyzes and makes connections between empirical studies to define or advance a theoretical position.
https://coloradocollege.libguides.com/c.php?g=286871&p=1911416

Inductive vs Deductive reasoning :
The main difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is that inductive reasoning aims at developing a [new] theory while deductive reasoning aims at testing an existing theory.
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/inductive-deductive-reasoning/

As a wrap-up review -- to this and the Non-Physical thread -- what do you think of my assessment that the opposing positions are viewed as A> Real Science vs un-real Pseudo-science by conservative hard-liners, but as B> Reductive Science vs Holistic Science by more progressive pioneers of unexplored territory ? — Gnomon

Agree with your analysis, on the whole.

Another way to frame the debate is between Inductive & Deductive reasoning. Empirical science is supposed to be strictly Deductive from direct experience (experiment). But a lot of modern science, especially the Soft Sciences, have little hard evidence to work with, so most of their reasoning is Inductive, from a general hypothesis to a more developed theory (what if?). — Gnomon

C S Pierce also included abductive reasoning - reasoning from effect to probable cause. But the issue is that underlying 'scientism' is 'positivism' - that being, in a loose sense, the view that science and mathematical extrapolations of empirical observations are the sole forms of valid knowledge.

Is it your position – extrapolating from Pinker's objection to Lakoff & Johnson's thesis ("metaphor") – that mind is disembodied?

Are there determinate entities we might call "thoughts". I would say 'no' because thinking is a process. There is certainly thinking. When we say there are determinate entities it is usually because we can look at and examine them. Can we do this with thoughts? I don't think so, thoughts are known only in the thinking of them, or reflexively known only in remembering that we have thought them; which amounts to thinking them again. — Janus

Great point. In phenomenology, thought is a negative, meaning it has has no actuality. In other words, thought belongs to possibility and is that which determines what is possible. The only connection that thought has to the actual is in approximating its possibilities (with more or less certainty).

So computation is the basis for thoughts (and presumably consciousness)?
— RogueAI

As far as what is currently understood in modern cognitive neuroscience, and by that I mean every single piece of available data when analyzed together, beyond any question — Garrett Travers

There is nothing computed in the brain. This is a common misconception. The brain (be it that of an ant or that of people) resonates selectively with structures in the world. These structures leave traces, memories. And because of these structured traces, all structures in nature can resonate in the brain. But nothing is computed, as nothing is computed in nature. Only computers compute.

↪Gnomon
Is it your position – extrapolating from Pinker's objection to Lakoff & Johnson's thesis ("metaphor") – that mind is disembodied? — 180 Proof

No. Just that non-physical Mind & physical Body are philosophically distinct concepts. The latter is subject to empirical investigation, but the former is subject only to theoretical exploration. Philosophers only do thought experiments, which are always debatable. That may be why Mind is more interesting to them than Brains. You don't have to get your hands mucky.

The notion of a disembodied soul is a legitimate topic for philosophical discussion, but would be absurd for empirical dissection. Personally, I'm skeptical of ghosts & afterlife & reincarnation, but I'm willing to discuss such topics on an intellectual level, without eye-rolling. My interest would be why so many people with normal brains find the notion of disembodied Souls intuitively believable. :smile:

Agree with your analysis, on the whole. — Wayfarer

"Whole" . . . "holistic" . . . I get it. :joke:

C S Pierce also included abductive reasoning - reasoning from effect to probable cause. But the issue is that underlying 'scientism' is 'positivism' - that being, in a loose sense, the view that science and mathematical extrapolations of empirical observations are the sole forms of valid knowledge. — Wayfarer

Sure. But Positivism was mainly concerned with weeding-out Metaphysics. And most of modern Philosophy falls in that non-physical category, by default. If it ain't physical, it's metaphysical (i.e. religious faith). Which is why many philosophers try to dissociate themselves from Scholastic Metaphysics. :cool:

Positivism : a philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism.

Metaphysics :
It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject-matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”. It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, for two reasons. First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or unchanging things—would now be considered to be making thereby a metaphysical assertion. Second, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things—the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
PS___That's why I'm still searching for another simple term, besides "metaphysics" to distinguish the scope of Philosophy from that of Physical Sciences. So far, "non-physical" is a candidate. But even that discrimination seems to elicit negative reviews from those for whom "physical" means Real, and non-physical means un-real, hence non-existent. In what sense does Mind exist, if not as an illusory figment of imagination? It seems to be a no-win contest of perspectives. :sad:

But Positivism was mainly concerned with weeding-out Metaphysics — Gnomon

It's broader than that, although though that is part of it. 'A philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting [anything that is not]'. Few will admit to being positivist, although many implicitly are, although spelling it out sounds like an accusation, when really it's just a description. In fact for a lot of people it's simply common sense. (Which is fair enough, but then it shouldn't be mistaken for philosophy proper.)

It is not easy to say what metaphysics is.... — Gnomon

It's been discussed a lot but I always say, never loose sight of its connection to Aristotle, for whom the term was coined. Otherwise metaphysics becomes a catch-all term for any kind of woo. That is why I try and understand topics within the context of history of ideas and comparative religion - it provides some context. I've grown to understand the Western metaphysical tradition through understanding something about Platonism and Aristotelianism. (Feser has helped in that.)

In what sense does Mind exist, if not as an illusory figment of imagination? — Gnomon

There's a key insight from non-dualism here, which is very hard to spell out because it's not a concept, but a shift in perspective. Kind of like a gestalt shift. The way I try and explain it is that mind is never an object of cognition (which seems obvious to me, but which seems to cause all manner of confusion). But it is real as the subject of experience. It is something which is central to Asian philosophy, but you have to feel your way into it - realise it, I suppose you could say.

The problem with "Western" thinking generally is that it is utterly confined to the symbolic-conceptual mode of thought. Of course it has power within its scope but there are entire domains that it is blind to. But seeing through that takes philosophical therapy. That's what it is for.

Philosophers only do thought experiments, which are always debatable. That may be why Mind is more interesting to them than Brains. — Gnomon

Nonsense. This preferred "interest" may be only true – symptomatic – of idealists, platonists or cartesians. You need to study (more) modern philosophy such as works by Spinoza, Hume, Peirce/Dewey, Jaspers, Merleau-Ponty, Dennett, Flanagan, Maturana/Varela, Hofstadter, Lakoff/Johnson, Damasio, Metzinger ... also some synopses (e.g.) neurophilosophy and neurophenomenology. Get your mind's "hands mucky", Gnomon. :eyes:

The notion of a disembodied soul is a legitimate topic for philosophical discussion...

Easy to say; make a conceptually coherent, logically sound case for this "notion's" "legitimacy" (i.e. that "disembodied soul" (or disembodied mind) is not vacuous, just-so, woo-woo). Show me, intellect to intellect, G, don't just tell me (bloviate). :sweat:

Yes, there are thoughts. I think therefore I thought. :cool:

Why did 14% say there are no thoughts? Are they thinking what Dennett says about consciousness being an illusion?

It's been discussed a lot but I always say, never loose sight of its connection to Aristotle, for whom the term was coined. Otherwise metaphysics becomes a catch-all term for any kind of woo. — Wayfarer

Yes. For the purposes of my Enformationism thesis, I typically define "metaphysics" in terms of the topics Aristotle discussed in the second volume of his treatise in Nature. There, he was not describing physical things, but ideas about things, or about Nature in general, including the human Mind and its Thoughts. Volume 1 was the primitive forerunner of modern Science, while volume 2 was the prescient ancestor of modern Philosophy. :smile:

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Nonsense. — 180 Proof

As usual, you missed the point of my description of what distinguishes Philosophy from Science. Some professional scientists with mucky hands, also do some philosophical speculation on the side. Apparently, you think that Philosophers should be required to present empirical evidence for their conjectures.

Do you consider yourself a Philosopher, perhaps an amateur like me? If so, what "mucky" physical experiments have you done? Do you tinker with real stuff in your basement? Or do you simply express personal opinions as Facts on forums? Do you simply quote the Scriptures of Science as evidence for your claims of what's Real, and what's not? :joke:


Science vs Philosophy :
The main difference between science and philosophy is that science deals with hypothesis testing based on factual data whereas philosophy deals with logical analysis based on reason.
https://askanydifference.com/difference-between-science-and-philosophy/

Do you consider yourself a Philosopher, perhaps an amateur like me? — Gnomon

I consider myself a freethinker (and naturalist) who studies philosophy.

If so, what "mucky" physical experiments have you done?

Three years of graduate lab work (Cognitive Science / Psychology). Engineering projects and physics + chemistry lab work as an undergrad. Paralegal and mortgage underwriting work for decades (pre-pandemic). Left-Green political activism for decades (pre-9/11). I'd say I've been quite "mucky" in various ways ...

Do you tinker with real stuff in your basement?

I don't have a basement.

Or do you simply express personal opinions as Facts on forums?

I cite publicly available, corroborable evidence and fact-based interpretations which support my "personal opinions" in the spirit of inviting dialectical challenges (against which "personal opinions" like the usual woo-of-the-gaps, such as yours, sir, that usually does not hold up under the slightest scrutiny).

Do you simply quote the Scriptures of Science as evidence for your claims of what's Real, and what's not?

I only cite findings of science to corroborate my challenges to the pseudo-science woo-of-the-gaps silliness graffitied on these fora by you hordes of "amateur philosopher" poseurs. My own speculations – what I call "the Real" – are open to being challenged. I welcome the dialectic, but like you, Gnomon, most retreat back into their own self-consoling, "scripture" quoting, "personal opinions" (i.e. dogmas) instead.

Three years of graduate lab work (Cognitive Science / Psychology). Engineering projects and physics + chemistry lab work as an undergrad. Paralegal and mortgage underwriting work for decades (pre-pandemic). Left-Green political activism for decades (pre-9/11). I'd say I've been quite "mucky" in various ways ... — 180 Proof

As an untrained dilettante philosopher, I bow before your self-proclaimed Omniscience. But, I still don't appreciate your "dogmatic" (your word) True-Believer-in-Scientism shtick on this non-ideological forum. Most of us amateurs are well-informed about modern science in general, but we are not narrowly-focused specialists in any particular sub-field. So, our worldviews may be broader and more inclusive than yours. If that open-mindedness is what you call "woo", then woo-hoo give me a tattoo! :joke:

TPF Site Guidelines :
Types of posters who are welcome here:
Those with a genuine interest in/curiosity about philosophy and the ability to express this in an intelligent way, and those who are willing to give their interlocutors a fair reading and not make unwarranted assumptions about their intentions

Types of posters who are not welcome here:
Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

As an untrained dilettante philosopher, I bow before your self-proclaimed Omniscience. But, I still don't appreciate your "dogmatic" (your word) True-Believer-in-Scientism shtick on this non-ideological forum. — Gnomon

Well, your "untrained dilettante" ad hominems, sir, miss their mark by a wide country mile with projections of your own philosophical defects. :sweat:

Just wondering how many forum members are prepared to say there are no thoughts. — ZzzoneiroCosm

The path with flowers on it is that of the rejection of the existence of thoughts. This is not the rejection of language, which would be even more offensively absurd. Nor is it strictly a denial. It is rather a trial, in which the stuff of the final ghost sorry (go story) is found guilty.

The mind is a terrible thing to chase.