The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
GE Morton wrote: ↑December 16th, 2022, 9:21 pmSurely, you're not suggesting empirical observation are fundamental? Why would our neurons cause us to make empirical observations!?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 12:48 pmThat comparison is specious. Mathematical reasoning can be a priori only because its conclusions depends solely on the definitions of its terms, not upon any external facts. Some logical propositions can also verified a priori, for the same reason, e.g., "All bachelors are unmarried."
According to science, deductive reasoning is the most secure form of reasoning, hence the comparison to a priori mathematics.
Scientific propositions and deductions, however, depend upon premises whose truth can only be determined empirically. Logic can inform you that if there are 2 trees with 100 apples on each, you can conclude a priori that you have a total of 200 apples. But no amount of logic will tell you how many apples are on either tree. Only observation will tell you that. That holds for anything external to your own mind you wish to claim exists.
3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 19th, 2022, 9:09 amYes indeed. Those percepts are the a priori foundation upon which all postulated externalities --- postulated in order to supply a cause for those percepts --- rests and from which all useful ontological theories proceed. You have, and can have, no information concerning any externalities other than that you can validate via those percepts.
Surely, you're not suggesting empirical observation are fundamental?
GE Morton wrote: ↑December 19th, 2022, 12:18 pmIt's a miracle!! How could Gammy's neurons cause her to posit those theories?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 19th, 2022, 9:09 amYes indeed. Those percepts are the a priori foundation upon which all postulated externalities --- postulated in order to supply a cause for those percepts --- rests and from which all useful ontological theories proceed. You have, and can have, no information concerning any externalities other than that you can validate via those percepts.
Surely, you're not suggesting empirical observation are fundamental?
3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 19th, 2022, 12:33 pmNo miracle. Just a consistent, replicable, predictable phenomenon generated by certain neural networks. Disable the network and . . . poof! . . . no more theories.
It's a miracle!! How could Gammy's neurons cause her to posit those theories?
GE Morton wrote: ↑December 19th, 2022, 12:50 pmBut Gammy said it was a miracle that her neurons caused her to postulate your theory? Where's the "proof" in that?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 19th, 2022, 12:33 pmNo miracle. Just a consistent, replicable, predictable phenomenon generated by certain neural networks. Disable the network and . . . poof! . . . no more theories.
It's a miracle!! How could Gammy's neurons cause her to posit those theories?
3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 19th, 2022, 1:04 pmI just gave it. But you don't recognize it because you don't understand what (scientific) proof is, what constitutes it.
But Gammy said it was a miracle that her neurons caused her to postulate your theory? Where's the "proof" in that?
GE Morton wrote: ↑December 19th, 2022, 1:21 pmBut wait a minute GE! You haven't even explained what, when, who, why or how Gammy's neurons caused her to posit your theory to begin with? You know, those same neurons that caused her to put you in time-out (because your neurons were misbehaving)!!??3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 19th, 2022, 1:04 pmI just gave it. But you don't recognize it because you don't understand what (scientific) proof is, what constitutes it.
But Gammy said it was a miracle that her neurons caused her to postulate your theory? Where's the "proof" in that?
godblog wrote: ↑December 17th, 2022, 7:13 pm In the beginning God- A singularity consciousness (1) in a universe of nothingness (0).The universe does not have time point of its emergence. Just is. The Big Bang never happened. The universe means Something and Nothing. Nothing cannot create Something and Something cannot turn into Nothing.
That singularity started vibrating 1001110In my opinion, matter originated by chance from primordial ether, in other words pre-matter. Thus, matter is a complex form of ether.
Niebieskieucho wrote: ↑December 20th, 2022, 6:32 am[/quote]godblog wrote: ↑December 17th, 2022, 7:13 pm In the beginning God- A singularity consciousness (1) in a universe of nothingness (0).The universe does not have time point of its emergence. Just is. The Big Bang never happened. The universe means Something and Nothing. Nothing cannot create Something and Something cannot turn into Nothing.That singularity started vibrating 1001110In my opinion, matter originated by chance from primordial ether, in other words pre-matter. Thus, matter is a complex form of ether.
How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023
No. Not really. When you hit your thumb […]
I don’t see why SRSIMs could not also evolve […]
But if we do try to live by the rule of thumb t[…]