What do you mean by philosophy?

[swansont]

Maybe because you are not a philosopher?

Technically, I am. I have a philosophy doctorate.

 

Thank you for this statement as it makes things so much clearer. Now I know why I keep finding philosophy in the science sections of this forum, but find things like "World Peace" in the philosophy section. That "World Peace" thread reminded me of a bad Sandra Bullock film where she was a cop, who was pretending to be a beauty contestant, who wanted world peace.

 

So science is real and philosophy is fluff? If this is what science thinks that philosophy is, then it is no wonder that science thinks philosophy is dead. Would someone please get me a gun, so that I can help kill it?

Not seeing where I said that, or even implied it. But in the way we have divided the topics (both here and more or less in academia), "philosophy" is separate from the science sections. Science is derived from and is a subset of philosophy in a historical context but from an organizational standpoint, to me "philosophy" as a discussion topic means "philosophy that's not already categorized as science" (or, to use the historical nomenclature "philosophy that's not natural philosophy"

 

So if you want to discuss F=ma or other laws of nature, your discussion is in some area of science, which has some implications in terms of the discussion. Otherwise you have an organizational mess.

[Gees]

Swansont;

 

Please consider my following thoughts:

 

Technically, I am. I have a philosophy doctorate.

 

A philosophy doctorate means that you worked your butt off to gain a great deal of knowledge and have a certificate to prove that you did it. It does not make you a philosopher. Clearly, it also did not help you to understand what 1x0 meant.

 

I could spend ten years in art schools and at the end of that time, I would not be an artist. At the very best, I could be a person who is competent at duplicating other people's art.

 

A natural philosopher, who works for their doctorate, may well end up being a great philosopher, and a natural artist, who receives training, may well end up being a great artist, but talent is not taught. Passion is not taught. It can be awakened, if it is there.

 

You strike me as very much a science guy, and I suspect that your passion and trust is in science. I am a natural philosopher and have been since childhood. I sometimes wish that I could have half of the training that you have; on the other hand, I have learned some of what is taught in colleges and universities, and wonder if I am not better off without it. I am reminded of Andrew Lloyd Webber, the composer. His father told him to quit University because they had taught him all that they could and were beginning to suppress his natural talent to make it fit into their limited understanding of music.

 

Since you are very intelligent and are one of the few in this forum who can and will make a logical argument, I have decided to forgive you for being a scientist, and hope you will forgive me for being a philosopher. Actually, I respect your mind -- which does not imply that I always agree with it.

 

Not seeing where I said that, or even implied it.

 

You didn't, and I did not mean to imply that you did. You just clarified my thoughts and observations.

 

But in the way we have divided the topics (both here and more or less in academia), "philosophy" is separate from the science sections. Science is derived from and is a subset of philosophy in a historical context but from an organizational standpoint, to me "philosophy" as a discussion topic means "philosophy that's not already categorized as science" (or, to use the historical nomenclature "philosophy that's not natural philosophy"

 

Which leaves me with what? Unnatural Philosophy? Maybe it would be easier for you to simply explain what is left for Philosophy to discuss. From what I have seen philosophy in this forum is mostly people making up impossible paradoxes, people making up imaginings, people sharing their opinions, world peace, and fluff. Did I miss something? Little of this looks like philosophy to me. It looks mostly like a lot of bored people trying to "make work".

 

Even a consciousness thread, which all philosophy forums discuss, can not be seriously discussed here. It will either be put in Speculations or it will be attacked with the gusto of Pavlov's dogs on a feeding frenzy if it does not agree that consciousness comes from the brain. The really sad part of this is that I do not think that there is a Theory of Consciousness that states that consciousness comes from the brain -- unless you consider Solipsism. Oh, and there is Dennett's ideas. I keep forgetting about him, as he is so forgettable.

 

I have a thread on Emotion that I have pretty much deserted. Why? Because one of the members, who believes that consciousness comes from the brain, wants to turn it into a thread about neuroscience. If I disagree with him, then the "twitterpated click-it squad" shreds my reputation points until I have no credibility. He seems to have a loyal following -- not too bright, but very loyal.

 

Since I am a philosophy kind of gal, I have a lot of trouble accepting as coincidence, anything that has a pattern. The people, who I have noted to be philosophers, either do not stay in this forum long, or are very reticent with their posting, and often have very low reputation points if they can manage to keep themselves from the red. Very few people can and will make a logical argument unless it is to argue a popular position, so this tells me that there is a serious lacking of actual philosophers in the philosophy forum.

 

So if you want to discuss F=ma or other laws of nature, your discussion is in some area of science, which has some implications in terms of the discussion. Otherwise you have an organizational mess.

 

OK. So if I had some thoughts about a connection between Ebola and the Extinction of the Dinosaurs, and also noted that information in the Laws of Deuteronomy in the Bible could possibly be in response to some of this. Where would I discuss it? Philosophy? Science? Religion?

 

If I thought that consciousness existed outside of the body and that pheromones balance an ecosystem in the same way that hormones cause homeostasis within the body, where would I discuss it?

 

If I wanted to consider the possibilities that temperature has an effect on consciousness, and that glaciation might be connected to this idea, where would I discuss it?

 

In another forum, I would discuss these ideas in philosophy.

 

Gee

[ajb]

In another forum, I would discuss these ideas in philosophy.

At the core of this forum is science. Thus, you should expect even in the 'less scientific' sections people to want to bring it back to science. That is what we know and are comfortable with.

 

To me, philosophy is a set of guiding principals to help one organise thought. The only supporting evidence that a philosophical position is a good one is the claim that that position has served one well in the past. Seeking further evidence that your point of view is correct will be difficult, unless maybe you start to approach things scientifically i.e. try to gather information and use statistics. Even then the interpretation may not be so clear.

 

I accept I am probabily selling philosophy short here, and I accept that guiding principals on how to think are useful.

 

So Gee, what is philosophy to you?

[Strange]

Which leaves me with what? Unnatural Philosophy?

 

You clearly have a clear idea of what philosophy is, so this sort of comment seems out of place.

 

Maybe it would be easier for you to simply explain what is left for Philosophy to discuss. From what I have seen philosophy in this forum is mostly people making up impossible paradoxes, people making up imaginings, people sharing their opinions, world peace, and fluff. Did I miss something? Little of this looks like philosophy to me. It looks mostly like a lot of bored people trying to "make work"

 

That (and your other valid concerns) is not the fault of this forum, rather it is in the nature of people who have not studied philosophy to to think that it means random speculations of the sort you describe. It would be good, perhaps, if someone with some knowledge created a series of posts to define what philosophy is (e.g. the art of questioning and analysis, the use of formal logic, etc.).

[Eise]

Technically, I am. I have a philosophy doctorate.

Me to. So let me repost what I have once written before:

 

It should be clear that philosophy does not solve any scientific problem. If it did, then it would be part of a science. If it solves any problem, then it could be called an intelligibility problem. That means that philosophical problems can arise everywhere where people think.

 

Obviously, normally thinking is no problem. Science was already progressing before philosophy tried to find out how and why science progresses. But philosophy can clarify this by trying to find out when e.g. in science a statement or theory is accepted. And that is not the sociological question (when does a group of scientists accept a theory) but the methodological question: when is it justified to accept a theory.

 

Such questions become important when people, or society in general, ask themselves what they should accept as truth. Methodologically philosophy is hardly important for the scientists themselves. It partly explains the disdain scientists have for philosophy. They think that philosophy thinks that it says to scientists how they should do their work. Occasionally some philosophers also really do this, which is mostly distorting for philosophy's reputation.

 

Also in morality people know very well what to think. But to find out how they think might again be a task for philosophers. Again, not the sociological question, but the question which kind of thinking leads to a justified morality. This job is of course for ethics: to find and reflect on the criteria we use, or should use, in our moral thinking if we want to be consistent.

 

There is also a class of problems that arise from our daily thinking. One example is the problem of free will. Where nearly all people experience they have free will, it seems that science, based on the idea that laws of nature are in general deterministic, denies that we have free will. It is a task for philosophers to show how the daily use of the concept of free will differs from the concept that scientists use, and show that there is in fact no such free will problem at all. It is all based on some wrong pre-concepts that confuse the discussion.

 

So if there is some positive result from philosophy, it is intellectual clarity. If a problem disappears under this intellectual clarity, then it could be called 'solved'.

 

But intellectual clarity definitely doesn't solve empirical or in general scientific problems. That is just a false expectation.

 

So, no, philosophy is not science, but it isn't 'fluff' either.

[swansont]

Swansont;

 

Please consider my following thoughts:

 

 

A philosophy doctorate means that you worked your butt off to gain a great deal of knowledge and have a certificate to prove that you did it. It does not make you a philosopher.

No, actually it does, under the paradigm of "science is a subset/offshoot of philosophy". It does not make me a particular kind of philosopher, i.e. it doesn't mean I ask and try to answer the same questions as somebody who does a different flavor of philosophy, no more than studying physics would make me a biologist.

 

Clearly, it also did not help you to understand what 1x0 meant.

 

Clearly. That's why I asked him to explain it. But just as clearly, nobody else understood what he meant.

 

I could spend ten years in art schools and at the end of that time, I would not be an artist. At the very best, I could be a person who is competent at duplicating other people's art.

 

A natural philosopher, who works for their doctorate, may well end up being a great philosopher, and a natural artist, who receives training, may well end up being a great artist, but talent is not taught. Passion is not taught. It can be awakened, if it is there.

I disagree. You seem to be equating "artist" with "great artist" rather than "one who makes art". If you do original art, you are an artist. You could suck at it, but that just means you are a bad artist, but an artist nonetheless.

 

You strike me as very much a science guy, and I suspect that your passion and trust is in science. I am a natural philosopher and have been since childhood.

I suspect what you mean by "natural philosophy" is not the same as what I meant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

 

Which leaves me with what? Unnatural Philosophy? Maybe it would be easier for you to simply explain what is left for Philosophy to discuss. From what I have seen philosophy in this forum is mostly people making up impossible paradoxes, people making up imaginings, people sharing their opinions, world peace, and fluff. Did I miss something? Little of this looks like philosophy to me. It looks mostly like a lot of bored people trying to "make work".

There are lots of questions that science doesn't address, that philosophy does, or could try to. The forums have many examples of people asking about metaphysics, for example.

 

Even a consciousness thread, which all philosophy forums discuss, can not be seriously discussed here. It will either be put in Speculations or it will be attacked with the gusto of Pavlov's dogs on a feeding frenzy if it does not agree that consciousness comes from the brain. The really sad part of this is that I do not think that there is a Theory of Consciousness that states that consciousness comes from the brain -- unless you consider Solipsism. Oh, and there is Dennett's ideas. I keep forgetting about him, as he is so forgettable.

I haven't followed the discussion so I have no idea of the details, but if you ask a question that is in principle testable and falsifiable, then you are in the realm of science.

 

I have a thread on Emotion that I have pretty much deserted. Why? Because one of the members, who believes that consciousness comes from the brain, wants to turn it into a thread about neuroscience. If I disagree with him, then the "twitterpated click-it squad" shreds my reputation points until I have no credibility. He seems to have a loyal following -- not too bright, but very loyal.

You might consider that negative reputation can come from attitude, like saying that certain people are not too bright, or "forgiving" someone for being a scientist. Some might take that as condescension.

 

Since I am a philosophy kind of gal, I have a lot of trouble accepting as coincidence, anything that has a pattern. The people, who I have noted to be philosophers, either do not stay in this forum long, or are very reticent with their posting, and often have very low reputation points if they can manage to keep themselves from the red. Very few people can and will make a logical argument unless it is to argue a popular position, so this tells me that there is a serious lacking of actual philosophers in the philosophy forum.

Other who study this know of pareidolia.

 

OK. So if I had some thoughts about a connection between Ebola and the Extinction of the Dinosaurs, and also noted that information in the Laws of Deuteronomy in the Bible could possibly be in response to some of this. Where would I discuss it? Philosophy? Science? Religion?

Depends on the link. Seems to me this is a matter of science, but that would depend on the details of the argument.

 

If I thought that consciousness existed outside of the body and that pheromones balance an ecosystem in the same way that hormones cause homeostasis within the body, where would I discuss it?

 

If I wanted to consider the possibilities that temperature has an effect on consciousness, and that glaciation might be connected to this idea, where would I discuss it?

 

In another forum, I would discuss these ideas in philosophy.

Again, it depends on the details of the discussion. If you are trying to make an evidentiary connection between e.g. consciousness and temperature/glaciation, it would go in speculations. I'd want to know how you would quantify that.

[Phi for All]

I have a thread on Emotion that I have pretty much deserted. Why? Because one of the members, who believes that consciousness comes from the brain, wants to turn it into a thread about neuroscience. If I disagree with him, then the "twitterpated click-it squad" shreds my reputation points until I have no credibility. He seems to have a loyal following -- not too bright, but very loyal.

 

I know that thread, and my perspective is that you asked what emotion is, iNow gave his answer, and you told him he shouldn't post if he didn't understand your goal and couldn't be more constructive. Then he asked for definitions of the terms you were using, which others agreed was important. I thought you were extremely rude and condescending.

 

It's been pointed out to you numerous times that reputation is often influenced by remarks like "not too bright, but very loyal", and yet you continue to make them. How does express itself in your philosophy, and what emotions cause you to behave this way?

[Gees]

To all posters:

 

There are many more posts in this thread than I expected, and I am often slow to answer posts because I like to think about what was said and think about my response. But I am also disabled and have better days and worse days, so if you want a response from me, please try to limit your posting until I have been able to answer the posts already made. Give me at least two or three days.

 

 

Ajb;

 

Please consider my following thoughts:

 

At the core of this forum is science. Thus, you should expect even in the 'less scientific' sections people to want to bring it back to science. That is what we know and are comfortable with.

 

Of course. I have no problem with this. Why do you think that I joined a Science forum? It was to learn what science could teach me.

 

On the other hand, if I start a thread in the Philosophy forum and state clearly in the OP that it is about philosophy and also clarify that science does not have the answers to my thoughts, I expect science people to respect philosophy, just as I would respect science.

 

To me, philosophy is a set of guiding principals to help one organise thought. The only supporting evidence that a philosophical position is a good one is the claim that that position has served one well in the past. Seeking further evidence that your point of view is correct will be difficult, unless maybe you start to approach things scientifically i.e. try to gather information and use statistics. Even then the interpretation may not be so clear.

I accept I am probabily selling philosophy short here, and I accept that guiding principals on how to think are useful.

 

Your thoughts here are not surprising. Many people see philosophy as the start of how we know things, and see science as the next step, or the advanced philosophy. This kind of thinking makes philosophy obsolete, except for the principles that it initiated; hence, the idea that philosophy is dead.

 

It is assumed that science can learn all that needs to be known without philosophy, but this is not true. The scientific method does not work on unknowns, so science has moved into the arena of speculation in order to address unknowns. So now we have some people who think that philosophy is dead, and other people who can not tell the difference between speculation and philosophy. What is the difference? Discipline.

 

It is true that an idea that has served well in the past is part of philosophy; we call it wisdom. But it is also true that philosophy uses logic, reasoning, analysis, critical thinking, questioning and curiosity, and past lessons in philosophy to learn about unknowns.

 

So Gee, what is philosophy to you?

 

I have asked myself this many times as it is a common question in philosophy forums. I found the answer in Wiki, believe it or not, in the following quote; "Philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we can know it." After due consideration I accepted this definition as I believe that it explains all aspects of philosophy, but some people did not seem to understand what that means, so I added, " -- or what is real and true."

 

So in my opinion, philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we can know it -- or what is real and true. So what does philosophy study? The unknown, to try and make it known. Since there will always be 'unknowns' as long as there are people to ask questions, philosophy will never be obsolete.

 

Gee

Strange;

 

Please consider my following thoughts:

 

 

You clearly have a clear idea of what philosophy is, so this sort of comment seems out of place.

 

Well, you are right here, but my sense of humor got the best of me. When I wrote, "Unnatural Philosophy?" I was thinking of my most successful thread in this forum about the supernatural -- 15 pages and more than 10,000 hits.

 

When I first joined the forum it was to seek answers from science. I started a thread in Psychology and got no answers, then started a thread in Neurology and got no answers. I did a search in Biology to see if there was any interest in my ideas, and decided to not bother writing a thread. I was looking for specific constants in life forms -- and am still looking. This is not a reflection on the Science forums, as I tend to ask difficult questions.

 

While working on the supernatural thread, I actually found some answers to the first thread in Psychology, and always meant to go back and input the new information -- just in case anyone else is interested in that thread. This is what I found so funny, the "unnatural" gave me answers to the "natural". (chuckle chuckle)

 

That (and your other valid concerns) is not the fault of this forum, rather it is in the nature of people who have not studied philosophy to to think that it means random speculations of the sort you describe. It would be good, perhaps, if someone with some knowledge created a series of posts to define what philosophy is (e.g. the art of questioning and analysis, the use of formal logic, etc.).

 

Although I agree with your point, I have to ask if you have ever read the Rules above the Philosophy forum. The last time I checked, the Rules interchanged "debate" with "discussion" as if they were the same thing and implied that Philosophy and Religion are both based in belief. The large majority of the Rules were about people behaving themselves. The problem with this idea is, how do people behave where there are not really any rules?

 

Gee

[ajb]

It is assumed that science can learn all that needs to be known without philosophy, but this is not true.

I am note sure what this means. How do we define 'all that needs to be know'?

 

The scientific method does not work on unknowns, so science has moved into the arena of speculation in order to address unknowns.

The scientific method is the basic philosophy of science. It provides a guiding principal on how we should think in order to be 'scientific'. That is all. Science has always dealt with speculations and importantly how to test them against nature. All the scientific method really says is that we must test against nature.

 

So now we have some people who think that philosophy is dead, and other people who can not tell the difference between speculation and philosophy. What is the difference? Discipline.

A scientific speculation based on existing science is what we should mean by a speculation and not the typical thread we get in our speculations sections. Scientists speculate all the time.

 

It is true that an idea that has served well in the past is part of philosophy; we call it wisdom.

I get the impression that ultimately philosophy is the 'study of wisdom', which is quite purposely a wide arena.

 

But it is also true that philosophy uses logic, reasoning, analysis, critical thinking, questioning and curiosity, and past lessons in philosophy to learn about unknowns.

These are some of the tools of philosophy, but that does not define philosophy, right?

 

"Philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we can know it." After due consideration I accepted this definition as I believe that it explains all aspects of philosophy, but some people did not seem to understand what that means, so I added, " -- or what is real and true."

 

This sounds more like science as philosophy asks questions that we cannot have objective independent answers to. How do we understand what is meant by 'can know'? Questions on metaphysics seem to be questions that we cannot know the answer to, for example.

 

So in my opinion, philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we can know it -- or what is real and true.

I have some idea of what is 'real'; things we can measure. What do we mean by 'true'?

 

 

 

So what does philosophy study? The unknown, to try and make it known. Since there will always be 'unknowns' as long as there are people to ask questions, philosophy will never be obsolete.

This also sounds like science or even pure mathematics.

 

The key difference must be in how one asks and answers questions. Importantly, how does one test a 'philosophy'? How can I really make sense of your 'true' and 'real'?

[swansont]

 

It is assumed that science can learn all that needs to be known without philosophy, but this is not true.

 

Assumed by whom?

[studiot]

One aspect that is missing in this discussion is communucation.

[Gees]

Eise;

 

I read your post a number of times and came to the following conclusions:

 

Me to. So let me repost what I have once written before:

So, no, philosophy is not science, but it isn't 'fluff' either.

 

Although I agree that philosophy is not fluff, I do not agree with the path that you took in your post to come to that conclusion. A person who is ignorant of philosophy and science could be forgiven for reading your post and concluding that philosophy evolved out of science.

 

You seem to see philosophy as science's little helper. This is much like the position that religion took some 1500 years ago. Religion thought that it was the beginning and the end; philosophy was acceptable as long as it supported religion; and science was irrelevant as it studied things that were of no consequence -- or science was dangerous. The artificial suppression of science was quite possibly what fomented the explosion that became the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

 

I see the Disciplines, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, as all being necessary and valuable. Since it is the nature of nature to self balance, I suspect that suppressing any of the Disciplines for an extended period of time, will cause a rebalancing. Science and Religion are often at odds, but if you also view Philosophy as just a helper, then this starts to look like a repeat pattern.

 

Are we trying to send people back to their churches and start a religious war?

Gee

 

 

Swansont;

 

Having a discussion with you always feels like I am starting a game of chess with a superior opponent. But I will try. Please consider my following thoughts.

 

No, actually it does, under the paradigm of "science is a subset/offshoot of philosophy". It does not make me a particular kind of philosopher, i.e. it doesn't mean I ask and try to answer the same questions as somebody who does a different flavor of philosophy, no more than studying physics would make me a biologist.

 

So what you are saying is that there are different categories of philosophy and that studying one kind of philosophy does not give anyone the ability to intelligently discuss another kind of philosophy. Because they don't know what they are talking about.

 

But because you have a degree in philosophy, you can discuss consciousness in the philosophy forum. Are you sure that your thinking is consistent here?

 

Clearly. That's why I asked him to explain it. But just as clearly, nobody else understood what he meant.

 

I did. When a person comes to a philosophy forum, it is generally because s/he wants to discuss philosophy. If no one understands them, they will not stay. If the Moderators think like scientists, then there will be misunderstanding, confusion, and frustration, because science and philosophy use different methodologies and think differently about a topic.

 

I was very pleased that 1x0 had finally figured out and accepted that 1x0=1 was wrong. A lot of people in this forum worked to get him past that idea. But he also has a few other ideas that are confused, and I would have liked to help him with them -- but that chance is gone.

 

I disagree. You seem to be equating "artist" with "great artist" rather than "one who makes art". If you do original art, you are an artist. You could suck at it, but that just means you are a bad artist, but an artist nonetheless.

 

I disagree. If you "suck at it", then you are not an artist. My husband loved music passionately and would have liked to be a singer, but he wasn't. Waking up Christmas morning to the sound of my husband's off-key baritone voice singing, "We wish you . . . a mer--ry . . . Christmas all the way" to the tune of Jingle Bells, was charming. But nobody, and I mean nobody, called him a singer.

 

On the other hand, my brother did excellent art from early childhood. His drawings were so good that an Aunt, who taught hand painting on china, volunteered to pay for my brother's training in art school. He declined as he had no interest in it -- no passion for it. He can still draw, 50 years later, but he doesn't unless asked.

 

So it is my thought that if a person has the talent and the desire/passion, then they can be a natural artist, musician, singer, healer, teacher, or philosopher, etc. If they also get training, then they can excel at it -- or be great at it.

 

I have met a lot of people in the forums, who have studied philosophy, and they are a great source of knowledge. But they don't know how to work it. They have no talent for philosophy, so I call them students of philosophy -- not philosophers. On the other hand, Ben Franklin dropped out of school in his early teens, was self educated, and was a great statesman and philosopher. So I define philosopher differently than you do. I am talking about talent, and the desire to use that talent.

 

I suspect what you mean by "natural philosophy" is not the same as what I meant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

 

Agreed. But I said 'natural philosopher', as explained above, not 'natural philosophy'. After reviewing your link, I suppose that I do study natural philosophy and am an admirer of some of Spinoza's work.

 

There are lots of questions that science doesn't address, that philosophy does, or could try to. The forums have many examples of people asking about metaphysics, for example.

Good. I will be another person asking about metaphysics because I can not wrap my brain around that idea. I did a Google Search on metaphysics and came up with this: Introduction to Metaphysics: the study of the nature of the world, reality, and existence. That looks like it covers everything to me, so nothing would be excluded from the philosophy forum.

 

So what do you think metaphysics is?

 

I haven't followed the discussion so I have no idea of the details, but if you ask a question that is in principle testable and falsifiable, then you are in the realm of science.

 

It is not that easy Swansont. In science, consciousness is under the supervision of neurology and is an examination of brain states; such as, conscious, unconscious, subconscious, different levels of coma, in sleep, under hypnosis, etc. Recently there have been some new ideas that there is a "brain" somewhere in the gastrointestinal area that communicates with the brain in the head. Science can not separate the ideas of brain and consciousness in their thinking.

 

In Philosophy, consciousness is simply awareness, and since all life, and every cell in every body, is sentient (aware), then all life is conscious. All life does not have a brain, although some people have been trying to prove that it does. My daffodils are dumb -- trust me on this.

 

Science insists that consciousness comes from a physical source, and many of us agree, but if we try to connect consciousness with something physical, the thread is whipped into Speculations. At that point we are hammered by people, who firmly believe that consciousness comes from the brain, and the original idea is not discussed and is dismissed as not proven. This would not be problematic if consciousness actually did come from the brain, or even if neurology knew what awareness actually is, but they don't. Neurology is clueless about the actual reality of awareness -- they don't know what it is.

 

So any philosopher, who wants to seriously discuss consciousness, needs to go to another forum, or they need to hide their discussion under fluff by calling it the supernatural or emotion.

 

You might consider that negative reputation can come from attitude, like saying that certain people are not too bright, or "forgiving" someone for being a scientist. Some might take that as condescension.

 

It is all about attitude, and controlling attitude. I know how to get positive rep points, but that is not my priority.

 

The problem with the rep points is that they do not work with philosophy. If I make a good logical argument and someone puts a + on it, then I know that they agree with my argument. But if someone puts a - on it, then I know that they do not like my argument, but I do not know why. Was my argument bad? Was some of my information incorrect? Did I make a logical fallacy? If they disagree with me, in what way do they disagree? Is there something that I need to know? Or are they just taking sides?

 

In Philosophy, the argument or discussion is how we share information and learn. What can be learned from a negative rep point? Nothing, except to be more careful that you do not offend. (This is why some people refer to it as 'thought control'.) Philosophy is about learning and gaining knowledge, not about agreeing with the crowd.

 

In Philosophy, a person who can not articulate their opinion, has not earned the right to share it.

 

Regarding the "click-it squad", I used to call them the cheerleading click-it squad because they seemed to follow some people around and give them + votes for saying the most mundane things. Then I noted some very insightful and intelligent posts from this same person, but there were no + signs on it, so I started to disassociate intelligence and the "click-it squad".

 

There is absolutely no reason, right, or responsibility for me to forgive you for anything, nor for you to forgive me. The idea is absurd. What you are talking about was teasing. You know -- gentle humor? If I tease you again, and you miss it, I am going to start thinking of you as Robotman. I would never call you that, but I will think it, and you will know that I am thinking it. (Yes. I am teasing again.)

 

Other who study this know of pareidolia.

 

If you think so.

 

Depends on the link. Seems to me this is a matter of science, but that would depend on the details of the argument.

 

Which link? There would be three -- at least -- and one would be about religion.

 

Again, it depends on the details of the discussion. If you are trying to make an evidentiary connection between e.g. consciousness and temperature/glaciation, it would go in speculations. I'd want to know how you would quantify that.

 

Which would turn it from an exploratory study to something that I would have to prove. I write a lot of interesting threads in other forums, but I don't do it here.

 

Gee

 

Assumed by whom?

 

Assumed by the people who have been debating it for years since Steven Hawking, et al, stated that Philosophy is dead.

[swansont]

I did.

 

Do tell, then. Please.

So what you are saying is that there are different categories of philosophy and that studying one kind of philosophy does not give anyone the ability to intelligently discuss another kind of philosophy. Because they don't know what they are talking about.

 

But because you have a degree in philosophy, you can discuss consciousness in the philosophy forum. Are you sure that your thinking is consistent here?

As your two points seem to contradict, I don't see any inconsistency in your interpretation of something I said.

 

If you haven't studied something, then it is likely you will be limited in your ability to discuss it. (We see examples of that all the time). So if you haven't studied consciousness, why would you think you can fully participate in a discussion of it? Further, how did you pull that from what I said?

 

 

If the Moderators think like scientists, then there will be misunderstanding, confusion, and frustration, because science and philosophy use different methodologies and think differently about a topic.

 

Being able to discuss a topic and being able to recognize a topic are not the same thing. mY ability to discuss details of biology, chemistry, geology, etc. are limited, but my ability to sort the discussions into the correct category are much greater. So this is moot.

 

I disagree. If you "suck at it", then you are not an artist. My husband loved music passionately and would have liked to be a singer, but he wasn't. Waking up Christmas morning to the sound of my husband's off-key baritone voice singing, "We wish you . . . a mer--ry . . . Christmas all the way" to the tune of Jingle Bells, was charming. But nobody, and I mean nobody, called him a singer.

But that's just moving the goalposts. The previous example was about someone who had been trained and was trying to make a living doing the activity. Not someone who "dabbled"

 

Regardless, I am employed as a scientist, because I have a PhD.

 

On the other hand, my brother did excellent art from early childhood. His drawings were so good that an Aunt, who taught hand painting on china, volunteered to pay for my brother's training in art school. He declined as he had no interest in it -- no passion for it. He can still draw, 50 years later, but he doesn't unless asked.

 

So it is my thought that if a person has the talent and the desire/passion, then they can be a natural artist, musician, singer, healer, teacher, or philosopher, etc. If they also get training, then they can excel at it -- or be great at it.

Doesn't this mean that if someone is passionate about painting and does it every day, they don't get to say their hobby is painting, because they aren't any good?

 

I have met a lot of people in the forums, who have studied philosophy, and they are a great source of knowledge. But they don't know how to work it. They have no talent for philosophy, so I call them students of philosophy -- not philosophers. On the other hand, Ben Franklin dropped out of school in his early teens, was self educated, and was a great statesman and philosopher. So I define philosopher differently than you do. I am talking about talent, and the desire to use that talent.

I guess that's a 'yes'. You are using a different definition than most, as you acknowledge here. Not really the best path to communication. Can you truly articulate a position if you use different definitions than everyone else?

 

Agreed. But I said 'natural philosopher', as explained above, not 'natural philosophy'.

Still not clear on what you mean by that. Is it that you are a philosopher that hasn't formally studied philosophy?

 

Good. I will be another person asking about metaphysics because I can not wrap my brain around that idea. I did a Google Search on metaphysics and came up with this: Introduction to Metaphysics: the study of the nature of the world, reality, and existence. That looks like it covers everything to me, so nothing would be excluded from the philosophy forum.

 

So what do you think metaphysics is?

Book titles aren't definitions. Metaphysics discusses the fundamental nature of reality. What things are, rather than what they do.

 

It is not that easy Swansont. In science, consciousness is under the supervision of neurology and is an examination of brain states; such as, conscious, unconscious, subconscious, different levels of coma, in sleep, under hypnosis, etc. Recently there have been some new ideas that there is a "brain" somewhere in the gastrointestinal area that communicates with the brain in the head. Science can not separate the ideas of brain and consciousness in their thinking.

And none of that is testable in an objective way?

 

There is absolutely no reason, right, or responsibility for me to forgive you for anything, nor for you to forgive me. The idea is absurd. What you are talking about was teasing. You know -- gentle humor? If I tease you again, and you miss it, I am going to start thinking of you as Robotman. I would never call you that, but I will think it, and you will know that I am thinking it. (Yes. I am teasing again.)

Funny thing is, the targets of "gentle humor" don't always see it that way, and they are the one who get to decide how gentle it is.

 

 

Which link? There would be three -- at least -- and one would be about religion.

Which is why details matter.

 

Assumed by the people who have been debating it for years since Steven Hawking, et al, stated that Philosophy is dead.

To the best of my knowledge, Prof Hawking is not making that argument here. And if he (or others) were, then your beef is with them, and you can discuss it. It is not, as you implied, some monolithic position shared by all.

[Strange]

I see the Disciplines, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, as all being necessary and valuable.

 

Science and philosophy are bot valuable as ways of gathering knowledge - philosophy helps to define what science (and knowledge) is and how it should be performed.

 

I don't see how religion is valuable in the same way. It is obviously important to some people (and it is therefore an interesting topic of study). But it doesn't tell us anything useful about the world.

[Gees]

Phi for All;

 

Please consider my following thoughts.

 

I know that thread, and my perspective is that you asked what emotion is, [ I removed the name and will use Member instead] gave his answer, and you told him he shouldn't post if he didn't understand your goal and couldn't be more constructive. Then he asked for definitions of the terms you were using, which others agreed was important. I thought you were extremely rude and condescending.

 

Well, of course that would be what you thought, because that is what you were looking for. Everyone knows that facts and evidence are under the venue of science, so that is where one looks for facts and evidence. In philosophy it is about opinion, imagination, unsolvable puzzles, and in this forum, manners -- or where bored people come together to discuss fluff. No one would expect to find any facts or evidence in the philosophy forum -- except maybe a philosopher.

 

Now if a philosopher looked at that thread, he might find some facts and evidence; such as, the fact that Member's post was not an answer -- it was a denial. Following are the questions that I asked in the OP:

 

So what is emotion? What are its limits, its abilities, its functions? Is it necessary to life? Is it interchangeable with thought? Does it influence thought or our bodies? Does thought or our bodies influence emotion? Help me put some parameters around the subject of emotion.

 

Member's post did not answer any of the above questions -- or even try to. What Member did was to state that emotion was a 'label', was 'arbitrary', and implied that it could not be known. That is a denial -- not an answer.

 

A lot of people use this same strategy all over all of the philosophy forums. They take a philosophy topic and deny the validity of the topic, or the validity of the original poster, or the validity of the original poster's interpretation. Then they introduce a parallel topic from science and argue the point from that perspective. The thread then devolves into argument that has nothing to do with the original topic and ends up in a spitting match. Why do they do this? I suspect because there is nothing easier than to shoot an arrow in the dark at an unknown and to claim that you hit the target. It makes it easy to win.

 

I have watched Member use this strategy at least three times in this forum, and usually it ends up with the original poster getting banned. Member's contempt and disdain for philosophy is a matter of record in this forum, but I can't remember anyone stating that Member was being rude or condescending.

 

Now I can beat this strategy and have many times, but I would have to use logic and evidence, which the 'click-it squad' does not seem to understand. As soon as I read that denial, I knew what the strategy would be and knew that the parallel science topic would be neurology/neuroscience -- even though I clearly stated in the OP that this was not being opened in neurology. (more evidence) If you review Member's subsequent posts, you will note that neurology/neuroscience are mentioned in each of them, as this is the parallel topic. It works kind of like the "bait and switch" used in sales.

 

You may also note (more evidence) that Member's denial is dated 4/4/15, but my response to that post is dated 5/12/15. I answered all of the other posters and spent a good deal of time considering whether or not I could get around the strategy and the 'click-in squad'. In the end I decided on a direct frontal attack and to simply walk away from the thread as there would be no way to continue the thread without possibly losing my temper. The subject was and is very important to me.

 

As to terms, that is just Member making noise. We have been through this before as is evidenced by the following quote from another thread. If Ten oz had asked, I would have been very happy to explain the very general terms that we were using as they are understood in philosophy.

Member stated: Your questions IMO become significantly simpler when viewed through the lens of neuroscience instead of through the lens of philosophy.

Hello Member;

Well, I can see why you might think so. Neuroscience studies only a portion of what we call consciousness, but even so, it can not be called a "simpler" study. There is nothing simple about neuroscience, as it is a massive study that involves neurology, biology, psychology, endocrinology, and many more divisions of science. But it is mostly a study of animals, specifically humans.

Neuroscience studies consciousness, but what they study specifically is our ability to know that we are conscious. This is what philosophy calls being aware that we are aware. Consider that leaves, bacteria, and slugs are all sentient, so they are conscious, but do you think that they know it? I seriously doubt it. I did a break-down on the levels of awareness in species and ended up with ten distinct levels of what I think that the different species might be aware of and reasons why I think so. But knowledge of our own consciousness is mostly a human trait, so it could be said that neuroscience studies the higher level of consciousness.

Regarding philosophy, when I first started in the philosophy forums, I believed that I had a pretty good understanding of consciousness. But the other members were discussing aspects that I had not considered, so I went to the on-line SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) and studied everything under the heading of Consciousness. They had a tremendous amount of information on the states of consciousness; such as, conscious, unconscious, subconscious, the various states of consciousness in coma, in hypnotism, in sleep, etc. They also had theories of consciousness such as solipsism and panpsychism, in it's various forms, but they had little on other species, almost nothing on emotion, and avoided anything to do with religion. So I finished my studies believing that consciousness was a much more massive study than I had realized, and that the SEP did not have a clue as to what consciousness really is.

If anyone has an interest, you can Google the SEP, but it is not an easy read, and is a rather pretentious, pompous, and name dropping kind of encyclopedia. If you want understanding, I would recommend the on-line IEP (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

 

Member did not dispute any of this.

 

I should note here that the SEP is put out by/for Stanford University and is a well-respected and peer-reviewed encyclopedia. It has also been revamped and rewritten since I wrote the above, and I would now recommend it to anyone.

It's been pointed out to you numerous times that reputation is often influenced by remarks like "not too bright, but very loyal", and yet you continue to make them. How does express itself in your philosophy, and what emotions cause you to behave this way?

 

My philosophy? Or philosophy?

 

I do not usually go out of my way to offend people and will often go out of my way to not offend. You would be surprised at how often I hold my tongue. But the reality is this: Truth is not right, it is not wrong, it is not good, nor is it bad -- it simply is or is not. When we try to qualify truth with opinion, bias, imagination, perspective, or even good manners, what we do is lose truth. Truth is already elusive enough without working to hide it -- all philosophers know this.

 

Regarding the 'click-it squad', I am not the first person in this forum to question their intelligence, as I have read other posts where this is questioned. I may be the most blunt person to talk about it, but maybe bluntness is in order. Or maybe not.

 

Gee

[Gees]

Ajb;

 

Please consider my following thoughts:

 

I am note sure what this means. How do we define 'all that needs to be know'?

 

No one can know everything -- that is simple reality. So we draw our lines in the sand and decide that some things need to be known and other things don't. Do we need to know how to drive a car? Or how to put gas in it, or how to change a tire or oil, or how to do a tune up, or how to repair an engine, or how to buy a car, or build a car? The answer depends on who we are and what we need or value.

 

When I made that statement, I was talking about people who associate themselves with science and believe that science studies what is real. Philosophy may have given science its original 'guidelines', but that is already accomplished, and philosophy has no more to offer with regard to the 'real' -- so it is not really necessary. Many people in forums hold this view; some people in this forum hold this view; and I think that it could be argued that some people in this thread hold that same view.

 

The scientific method is the basic philosophy of science. It provides a guiding principal on how we should think in order to be 'scientific'. That is all. Science has always dealt with speculations and importantly how to test them against nature. All the scientific method really says is that we must test against nature.

 

When you are doing your 'speculations', you are actually doing philosophy -- reaching for an unknown; when you are doing your 'test', you are actually doing science. There is very little difference between philosophy and science. Two important differences that I see are in methodology and in science's desire to limit itself to objective study. It is actually not possible for a study to be totally objective, but science does a very fine job of understanding objectivity, probably due to the scientific method and the strict discipline of science.

 

To understand my thinking on this, consider the documentary that I recently watched. It was a study on the differences between the genders and showed a lot of different types of tests. One test was where people were shown images of actors wearing emotional expressions on their faces -- the women of all ages in all of the groups tested higher. The conclusion was that women understand emotion better than men. The guy, who was doing the documentary, tested very low and said, "What am I? Psychotic?" which I thought was very funny. I seriously doubt the validity and conclusions of the testing.

 

More than 20 years ago, I watched a documentary by Dr. Christiana Northrup on the differences between the genders. She explained that the dominant difference is that women generally have an internal perspective; whereas, men generally have an external perspective. After spending years comparing her ideas with my reality, experiences, and observations, I believe that she is correct.

 

In this recent documentary, I realized that the tests, where the women excelled, dealt with an internal perspective. The tests, where the men excelled, dealt with an external perspective. The one test that was different dealt with physical pain. The expressions of emotion on the face is an internal examination. I have been told that if you go to Montana, walk into a bar and put your back to the bar with your elbows on the bar, every man in that place will recognize it as a challenge -- no matter what expression you have on your face. Why? Because they are reading your emotions in your body. If the testing had used both facial expression (internal) and body language (external), then I suspect that the results would have been much more even.

 

I doubt that the testing was valid or that it told any truths relating to emotion as recognized by the genders. The rest of the tests were the same with men excelling at external perspectives and women excelling at internal. Do I think that the studies were intentionally corrupted? No, of course not. What I think is that they tested for what they believed to be true, and this is where the problem comes in. It is very possible to test and prove something that is simply not true.

 

So when you are doing your speculating, try to think like a philosopher. Remember that your opinions, experiences, imaginings, and biases can all corrupt what is true, so you must try to get past these prejudices before testing.

 

A scientific speculation based on existing science is what we should mean by a speculation and not the typical thread we get in our speculations sections. Scientists speculate all the time.

So what would be speculation in philosophy?

 

I have read where people will state that something is pseudoscience. Can you give me an example of pseudophilosophy? I doubt it. Even spell check has not heard of pseudophilosophy. (chuckle) Apparently, anything goes in FLUFF. We had better let Chalmers, Searle, and a few other know about this. They will be soooo disappointed. I think I am getting tired and silly.

I get the impression that ultimately philosophy is the 'study of wisdom', which is quite purposely a wide arena.

 

Yes. Philosophy means love of wisdom. But what is wisdom? Wisdom is simply an advanced level of truth. It is knowing the truth about truth, the truth about lies, and where and how truth and lies intersect. And what is truth? Knowledge.

 

This sounds more like science as philosophy asks questions that we cannot have objective independent answers to. How do we understand what is meant by 'can know'? Questions on metaphysics seem to be questions that we cannot know the answer to, for example.

 

So what you are saying is that since Science took over objectivity, I am no longer allowed to think about anything objective?

 

If you do not understand how we 'can know' something, then what are you doing in Science?

 

I must be too tired to think. Give me an example of something in metaphysics that can not be known.

I have some idea of what is 'real'; things we can measure. What do we mean by 'true'?

 

I can not measure your mind. I can not even prove that it exists. So are you saying that your mind is not real?

Truth has been studied for thousands of years by many great minds, but it is still not a simple subject. I can tell you two simple things about truth. First, it is relevant to time and perspective -- which is why Science does not want to touch it.

 

Second, it is not one explanation. I did a thread on truth and broke it down into about seven levels. I think there was Simple truth, Universals, Truisms, Acceptable truths, Common truths, Classic truths, Facts, and maybe more. I am getting too tired to think.

 

The key difference must be in how one asks and answers questions. Importantly, how does one test a 'philosophy'? How can I really make sense of your 'true' and 'real'?

 

The key difference is in methodology. Science observes or experiences then experiments and tests. Philosophy observes or experiences then sifts the information through logic and as many intelligent perspectives as can be found. Both use as much evidence as is available.

 

A theory in philosophy is tested either through time or through science.

 

I am sorry that these may not be the best answers, but I am not doing as well as I thought tonight. I will await your response and try to rectify any mistakes that I made.

 

Gee

[ajb]

If you do not understand how we 'can know' something, then what are you doing in Science?

How do we define all that we can know? That is my question.

 

Give me an example of something in metaphysics that can not be known.

Why is it that systems exist as they do?

 

(Taken from http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/questions-to-ask-yourself.html)

 

I can not measure your mind. I can not even prove that it exists. So are you saying that your mind is not real?

You can for sure measure the electrical signals within my brain; I am no more than emergent phenomena from this very complex system.

 

EDIT: Fixed link

Edited June 15, 2015 by ajb

[Gees]

Strange;

 

I am writing this post first because you have been very patient, and you have some interesting thoughts. So please consider my following thoughts.

 

 

Science and philosophy are bot valuable as ways of gathering knowledge - philosophy helps to define what science (and knowledge) is and how it should be performed.

 

I don't see how religion is valuable in the same way. It is obviously important to some people (and it is therefore an interesting topic of study). But it doesn't tell us anything useful about the world.

 

So you see science and philosophy as valuable because they gather knowledge. But why do we gather knowledge? To improve the quality of our lives. That was my point. The Disciplines each give us things that improve the quality of our lives.

 

The quote "Man is a physical, mental, and spiritual being." is a truism. This means that it has been accepted as true for thousands of years by Eastern Philosophy, Western Philosophy, Religions, and even Science. We have science that studies the "physical", philosophy that studies the "mental", and religion that studies the "spiritual". I call these studies the Disciplines as they each study a part of who and what we are, complying with Socrates' admonishment to know thyself.

 

But what is spiritual? What does that mean, as there are so many different ideas attached to that word. Well, it is easy to deduce. Just think of something that is physical and mental, and that is all -- like a computer. A computer has a physical body and does mental calculations. So looking at the difference between a computer and a human, we find feelings, moods, and emotions. When a person states that they can not get into the spirit of things, what they are saying is that they can not get into the proper mood. Religion studies emotion. Science and philosophy do their best to avoid emotion.

 

Is there evidence that religion studies emotion? Sure. Religion bases most of its teachings on morality; morality is rooted in emotion. Religion has had most of its rituals/sacraments/rites geared toward hormonal changes like birth, coming of age, marriage, and death, even before we had any idea of hormones or the connection between hormones and emotion. Religion dedicates itself to relieving events of emotional trauma like grief counseling, soup kitchens, shelters, orphans, hospitals, and charities in general. The last time I checked, the Catholic church was the second largest charity in the U.S., just behind the Federal government.

 

So is a study of emotion necessary? Yes. We now know that emotion is the only thing that can create bonding, so the bonding within a family, a community, a culture or society is all regulated through emotion. We also know that humans do not survive well without bonding, leaving them feeling isolated, rejected, and without purpose, so they often turn to booze, drugs or Prozac. This is probably why religion has been called "the glue that holds a society together".

 

Many people think that religion is bad, citing the problems in the Middle East; others think that science is bad, citing companies like Monsanto; and I know that philosophy has done some real damage with philosophies like Nazism. But in each of these cases, you will find that someone who wants power corrupted the Discipline. If you look through your history, bearing this idea in mind, I think that you will find that in each case where the Discipline was corrupted, the other Disciplines were ignored or subdued. You will also find that there is a natural rebalancing afterward. When the Disciplines are balanced, this kind of corruption does not get out of control. imo

 

Gee

[Gees]

Swansont;

 

Hi. I apologize for being so slow in responding as it makes the discussion more difficult to follow, but it seems unavoidable. You are a busy man and may have to retrace the discussion in order to respond properly, I know I had to, but I am patient. Please consider the following when you have time.

 

Do tell, then. Please.

 

This is in reference to my statement that I knew what 1x0 was talking about. Originally, I intended to simply copy my response to 1x0 into this post, but my post in 1x0's thread is gone. It is my assumption that between you splitting off this thread, and Phi for All splitting off another thread from the same post, and both of you taking the parts that interested you, the part that addressed 1x0's original post was simply deleted rather than copied. A mistake.

 

So I will give you an explanation instead. 1x0 is trying to find a connection between consciousness and reality, and is using information/data/math to try to make that connection. I suspect that he is using information because of the idea that consciousness is thought, and he is trying to use math because of the new ideas in quantum physics. I doubt that he can succeed in his endeavor because consciousness is not thought. Nonetheless, I repeated his main concepts back to him with different terminology to confirm his ideas, and then offered my water metaphor to show that I had similar thoughts about the process, but used a different medium to explain it.

 

I have been using a water metaphor to understand consciousness for more than 40 years. I use it because I think that water and consciousness share properties and because water is neutral and does not offend religion or science. It also ensures that I do not add unnecessary ideas to a concept that is already too inundated with unnecessary ideas.

 

If you require it, I could rewrite my response to 1x0 because it is very simple, but I don't see the point at this time.

 

As your two points seem to contradict, I don't see any inconsistency in your interpretation of something I said.

 

So if my interpretation was correct, it would imply that your two points seem to contradict. I knew you had a sense of humor somewhere.

 

If you haven't studied something, then it is likely you will be limited in your ability to discuss it. (We see examples of that all the time). So if you haven't studied consciousness, why would you think you can fully participate in a discussion of it? Further, how did you pull that from what I said?

 

1x0's thread was about consciousness. Were you unaware of that? From what I have seen so far, I would guess that you have not studied consciousness.

Being able to discuss a topic and being able to recognize a topic are not the same thing. mY ability to discuss details of biology, chemistry, geology, etc. are limited, but my ability to sort the discussions into the correct category are much greater. So this is moot.

 

I don't think so. I still don't see any indication that you are able to discern a philosophy thread from a science thread, or to be more precise, a philosophy thread from a speculations thread. What defines the difference? If you send everything to speculations that deals with something real (physical) then you will relegate philosophy to fluff.

 

But that's just moving the goalposts. The previous example was about someone who had been trained and was trying to make a living doing the activity. Not someone who "dabbled"

Regardless, I am employed as a scientist, because I have a PhD.

 

I apologize for losing track, but I am not sure who you are talking about here. I am not trying to move goalposts, but would like to suggest that this is another way that this forum does not support philosophy. Since working philosophy means making an argument and then having someone challenge the veracity of that argument, most forums will have insets of the first and second response within the quotes. This helps people to follow the argument. Serious philosophy forums will have up to four insets so the argument can be reviewed in a glance.

 

Doesn't this mean that if someone is passionate about painting and does it every day, they don't get to say their hobby is painting, because they aren't any good?

 

Nope. It means that they do get to say their hobby is painting. But if they decide to deduct their supplies on their IRS long form and call themselves an artist, then they had better sell some paintings. The IRS has some very strict rules as to what is a hobby and what is a profession.

 

I guess that's a 'yes'. You are using a different definition than most, as you acknowledge here. Not really the best path to communication. Can you truly articulate a position if you use different definitions than everyone else?

 

No. It makes things very difficult. I am very aware of this problem, so I try to explain everything thoroughly, but this creates new problems. Some people think that I am condescending when I break things down into their simplest form; other people completely miss what I am talking about because I skip over something that I assume they already know. It is difficult, and I am grateful to the people who will simply ask me to clarify my thoughts.

 

Still not clear on what you mean by that. Is it that you are a philosopher that hasn't formally studied philosophy?

 

Yes. I have had enough formal study in other areas to appreciate the value of it. Formal study does not only give one knowledge, it also rounds out the learning, and puts people on the same page for communication. But I did not formally study philosophy in my youth and no longer have the option.

 

Book titles aren't definitions. Metaphysics discusses the fundamental nature of reality. What things are, rather than what they do.

 

This does not make any sense and seems backward to me. First we studied what gravity did, then science (physics) told us what it is. First we studied what life did to show that it was alive, then science (biology) studied what life forms actually are.

 

I study what consciousness is by what it does and expect that one day science will explain what it is.

 

All three of the topics that I mentioned earlier in this thread are studies of systems. In each one, I am studying what happens, what it does, in order to create that system. Ajb implied in his response that systems are part of metaphysics, but his link came up as "Not Found", so I am not sure what he meant. But I am relatively sure that you would put these topics of systems in speculations.

 

And none of that is testable in an objective way?

 

This is in reference to my stating that science can not separate their thinking with regard to the brain(s) and consciousness.

 

First, please note that in philosophy, consciousness and awareness are the same thing. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy refers one to the other. I will try to use the term 'awareness' when I am specifically excluding thought.

 

So is consciousness testable in an objective way? Yes. We can test it two different ways. First with the body. If we poke it real hard and it wakes up, then it was sleeping. If we can't wake it up, then it might be unconscious or in coma, as long as it is still breathing. If after a few days, it starts to break down and smell real bad, then it is dead.

 

The second way that we test is with thought. Prior to the last 100 years or so, we tested thought using language. If you had language, then you were conscious. It is my personal opinion that this is how the "soul" idea came about and the reason why other species are thought to not have a "soul"/mind. For a long time anyone who did not have language was possibly without a "soul"/mind, so babies, deaf people, the mentally handicapped, and many tribal people (because their language was not understood) were often considered less than godly, less than human, not really conscious. We no longer look to language for our answers, except with other species, because we can actually examine the brain and find "thought".

 

So the body and thought are how we measure consciousness, but does that mean that they are consciousness? No. Too many times we have "pulled the plug" and been surprised. Some people that we are sure are gone, don't go, or even come back to live a full life. Other people straight-line on us, and can not be brought back, when there is no conceivable reason for it. This is the reason why hospitals will not take that IV out until they are absolutely sure that they won't get surprised. A healthy body does not always ensure consciousness, and a sickly body does not always ensure death, so the body is not the whole reason for consciousness. Although it is a better argument than the consciousness comes from the brain argument, as some species' bodies do not have a brain.

 

As regards thought; take your very best thoughts, write them on a piece of paper and save them. You will find that no matter how many times you check, they will not do anything. A book full of knowledge is nothing but ink and paper without a reader. We can be aware of our thoughts, but thought can not make us aware.

 

Looking into another person's mind for activity is impossible, as yet, so it is a lot like looking through a window. We can see that they have emotions, hear about their experiences and thoughts, but we are removed from their actual experiences. It is like looking through a window at the leaves that are blowing around your yard. You know there is wind because you can see the leaves moving. Neurology can know that there is consciousness because they can test the thoughts moving around -- much like the leaves. But the thoughts, themselves, are no more consciousness than the leaves are wind.

 

Many people think that consciousness comes from the brain, and I will agree that the brain processes consciousness -- not that it manufactures it -- the brain is not the source of consciousness. If it were the source, then it would be the source of all life -- grass, bacteria, slugs, would all come from the brain as they are all sentient; and therefore, conscious. (yuck)

 

Neurology studies brain states and how those brain states relate to states of consciousness, but it does not claim to know what awareness actually is. If we knew what it was then we could create life from non-life. We can grow tissue from living tissue; we can change cells by playing with them; but we can not start life from non-life because we do not know how to start awareness (consciousness).

 

Funny thing is, the targets of "gentle humor" don't always see it that way, and they are the one who get to decide how gentle it is.

 

Agreed. Do I owe you an apology? On the other hand, people who can not accept a little teasing and laugh at themselves might seem rather pompous and condescending to some.

 

I will await your response.

Gee

[ajb]

You can see what happened to my link, I accidental included the final ). Just remove it and the link works fine. I will correct what I posted/

[swansont]

So I will give you an explanation instead. 1x0 is trying to find a connection between consciousness and reality, and is using information/data/math to try to make that connection. I suspect that he is using information because of the idea that consciousness is thought, and he is trying to use math because of the new ideas in quantum physics. I doubt that he can succeed in his endeavor because consciousness is not thought. Nonetheless, I repeated his main concepts back to him with different terminology to confirm his ideas, and then offered my water metaphor to show that I had similar thoughts about the process, but used a different medium to explain it.

 

Has 1x0 confirmed this? Because in the list of questions and answers, the discussion is about the origin of the universe and physical processes.

 

Nope. It means that they do get to say their hobby is painting. But if they decide to deduct their supplies on their IRS long form and call themselves an artist, then they had better sell some paintings. The IRS has some very strict rules as to what is a hobby and what is a profession.

 

So do you make money as a philosopher? Is that what you put as your profession on your 1040?

I knew you had a sense of humor somewhere.

 

Right. I only deploy it in an emergency. I don't like to have to clean up the broken glass after I use it.

This does not make any sense and seems backward to me. First we studied what gravity did, then science (physics) told us what it is. First we studied what life did to show that it was alive, then science (biology) studied what life forms actually are.

 

That was science rather than philosophy, and I'm unsure that we know what gravity "is" even as we have a better description of how it behaves as curvature of space. Does science explain why mass curves space?

 

And does biology (or philosophy) have a firm handle on what life is?

Agreed. Do I owe you an apology? On the other hand, people who can not accept a little teasing and laugh at themselves might seem rather pompous and condescending to some.

 

Me? No. I have mild invective sent my way every now and again since I do moderator things. Casting aspersions on my intelligence or questioning my science acumen on a discussion board isn't something I take particularly seriously. I wasn't asking for an apology, I was answering your question about reasons you might be getting downvoted. Good-natured teasing implies a degree of familiarity between the participants, and a certain tone of discussion. Without that it doesn't carry the same implications.

I don't think so. I still don't see any indication that you are able to discern a philosophy thread from a science thread, or to be more precise, a philosophy thread from a speculations thread. What defines the difference? If you send everything to speculations that deals with something real (physical) then you will relegate philosophy to fluff.

 

If someone posts something that disagrees with accepted science in a science part of the forum, I generally put it in speculations. I assume they mean to discuss science, since they made a conscious act to post in a science category. However, as I have noted, there are a number of discussions that are metaphysics and I have called them out as such, so there is empirical evidence that I have discerned philosophy from science. Perhaps you simply have not taken enough data.

[Gees]

Swansont;

 

Please consider my following responses to your thoughts.

 

Has 1x0 confirmed this? Because in the list of questions and answers, the discussion is about the origin of the universe and physical processes.

 

No. I doubt that he had a chance to respond as the thread was closed right after my post. But his meaning was not difficult to ascertain. The thread title is a question, "How old am I from the physical point of view?", and the answer was his first statement in the OP, "min 13.8 billion." Now most people realize that 13.8 billion is the age of the universe, not the age of his body, so when he says "I", he is talking about his "self", his subjective self, his consciousness. When he says, "from the physical point of view", he is saying that he thinks that his consciousness is physical and was born with the universe. This is not brain surgery.

 

His prior thread was about math and consciousness, and his current thread seems to be about information and whether or not it is physical. But if you look at his third post, he answers, "The will of existence maybe?, to the question of what properties information has. Clearly, he is still trying to find the connection between information/data/math, consciousness, and physicality.

From my perspective I can not see how so many intelligent people could completely miss his point. The only thing that makes any sense to me is that unintentional bias is at work here. And no, I don't mean to insult anyone, because it is unintentional. To understand my point, consider the old Women's Lib riddle that exposed unintentional bias and was popular in the 70's, as follows:

 

'A man was driving to work and had his son in the car because he was going to drop his son at school on the way. There was a terrible accident, the man died, the son was gravely injured and taken to the nearest hospital for emergency surgery. The surgeon walked in, took one look at the boy and stated, "I can't operate on him. That is my son." So who is the surgeon?'

 

People would guess that the surgeon was the father (who was dead), a step-father, a grandfather, an adoptive father, a father-in-law, and one person stated that it could be a priest. Few could figure out the answer, even though a ten year old boy could tell you that there are only two people who call him son -- his mother and his father. The surgeon was the boy's mother.

 

The reason why people could not find the answer to this very simple riddle was unintentional bias. We associated the idea of surgeon with a male so strongly, that we could not see the obvious. This is why I keep stating that science can not separate brain from consciousness in its thinking. If one is talking about the brain, then they are talking about consciousness; if they are talking about consciousness, then they are talking about the brain. But this is no longer so.

 

On my desk, I have Greylorn's book, "Digital Universe, Analog Soul", which has some brilliant insights, some asinine nonsense, and a lot that is in between. His book has few references and was not well received. I also have Michael Talbot's, "The Holographic Universe", which has pages of references and was very well received, and also explores out-of-body experiences, which Mr. Talbot personally experienced. I also have "Quantum Enigma", which I have not yet read. All of these books deal with consciousness, but have little to do with the brain, so the studies of consciousness have broadened to include many of the sciences.

 

I do not envy you, the task of sorting through all of this, and suspect that it is going to get worse before it gets better. In my own studies of consciousness, I have questions for physics, biology, psychology, and a few for neurology, but where do I put these ideas together? I think that it has to be in philosophy.

So do you make money as a philosopher? Is that what you put as your profession on your 1040?

 

Touche. I see your point. Although I don't think philosophers get paid for being philosophers -- maybe for being teachers, writers, comedians, theologians, or consultants -- but not for being philosophers.

 

Can we agree that all people draw and paint, at least we painted in kindergarten, but that does not make all people artists? All people think, but that does not make them philosophers? Artists and philosophers can use their talent as a hobby or as a profession. Yes?

Right. I only deploy it in an emergency. I don't like to have to clean up the broken glass after I use it.

 

Deploy? This has to be one of the best straight lines I have ever read, especially when combined with your avatar, which is all that is "cool". I laughed till my eyes teared.

That was science rather than philosophy, and I'm unsure that we know what gravity "is" even as we have a better description of how it behaves as curvature of space. Does science explain why mass curves space?

And does biology (or philosophy) have a firm handle on what life is?

 

I disagree. Those things happened before science distinguished itself as a discipline with the scientific method. I know that there are many people who like to go back in history and decide that a specific person was science oriented and another person was philosophy oriented, but this puts me in mind of children going into a playroom to divide up their toys. It is still a playroom, and the children will share, trade, and snatch each other's toys. It is all philosophy; only the methodology makes it different.

 

I did not even know that mass curved space; although, I heard a rumor about it. Do you think that the person who finally explains this phenomenon will have no training in science?

 

I accept biology's definition of life, which is why I accept that viruses are not really alive. I think that philosophy will one day explain conscious life, but this is a difficult problem, so give me a few weeks. (Yes. That was a joke.)

 

Me? No. <snip> I wasn't asking for an apology, I was answering your question about reasons you might be getting downvoted.

 

Are you sure that I was asking a question? Do you think I don't know? (chuckle)

 

Good-natured teasing implies a degree of familiarity between the participants, and a certain tone of discussion. Without that it doesn't carry the same implications.

 

I see. I have read a good many of your posts and have found that I like the way you think, most of the time, so that has given me the feeling of familiarity with you. What we are talking about is unrequited familiarity. Damn.

 

If someone posts something that disagrees with accepted science in a science part of the forum, I generally put it in speculations. I assume they mean to discuss science, since they made a conscious act to post in a science category. However, as I have noted, there are a number of discussions that are metaphysics and I have called them out as such, so there is empirical evidence that I have discerned philosophy from science. Perhaps you simply have not taken enough data.

 

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. To say that philosophy is only metaphysics, would be the same as saying that science is only biology. imo

 

Gee

[swansont]

Touche. I see your point. Although I don't think philosophers get paid for being philosophers -- maybe for being teachers, writers, comedians, theologians, or consultants -- but not for being philosophers.

 

It was your criterion.

 

Can we agree that all people draw and paint, at least we painted in kindergarten, but that does not make all people artists? All people think, but that does not make them philosophers? Artists and philosophers can use their talent as a hobby or as a profession. Yes?

Yes. But that sorta misses the point. Besides, van Gogh sold very few paintings in his lifetime. Not successful. That makes him "not an artist" by your assessment.

 

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. To say that philosophy is only metaphysics, would be the same as saying that science is only biology. imo

 

Good thing I didn't say that, then.

[ajb]

Although I don't think philosophers get paid for being philosophers

I would imagine that lots of universities employ people in their philosophy department who are actively philosophising and publishing in peer-review journals.

[Gees]

Ajb;

 

Thank you for your patience. Please consider my following thoughts.

 

How do we define all that we can know? That is my question.

 

Well, I don't try to define "all that we can know" and wonder why you think that is a valid question to put to me. I have searched through this thread and can find no post of mine that talks about "all that we can know". I did make a statement about "all that needs to be known" and addressed that in the first two paragraphs of my last post to you. If my answer did not satisfy you, then please tell me why.

 

I also defined philosophy as the study of what we can know and how we can know it, which is an entirely different point. Is there a chance that you mixed my two comments together? This is why most philosophy forums have multiple insets within their quotes, so that the discussion can be followed accurately.

 

You study math, so you know that when someone mixes things that don't belong together, or changes rules that can not be changed, or adds or takes away some part of the math to suit their needs, what they do is corrupt the math. This corruption invalidates any truth that they think they have found. Although it is important to be accurate and precise when using math, I think that it is doubly important when using language, as it is so easy to corrupt language and lose truth.

 

If you are looking for an explanation of what we "can know", that is easy. We are limited by what we already know; and therefore, what we can ask. Example: We can not answer the question, "What is 5x5?" until we can ask the question, "What is 5x5?", and we can not ask the question until we understand numbers and one-to-one association and basic math. Gaining knowledge is incremental, so this alone limits what we can know.

 

 

Why is it that systems exist as they do?

(Taken from http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/questions-to-ask-yourself.html)

You ask the most outrageous questions. Is this a natural talent, or did you have to take a class for this? (chuckle) (Don't tell me it was a philosophy class.) So do you want to know why systems exist? Or why they exist as they do? Or if they actually exist? Are we assuming that there is one reason for all systems to exist? Are we assuming that different types of systems exist for the same reason? That they exist to accomplish the same goal? So the circulatory system and nervous system in our bodies, an ecosystem, and the solar system have the same cause? There are too many questions within your question for it to be valid and answerable. Some people seem to work at asking questions that have no point -- I am not one of those people.

 

Thank you for the link; it was enlightening. I now have a better understanding of what people mean when they say metaphysics. The large majority of what was listed in that link was what I would call Continental Philosophy and more in line with Heidegger's thinking about "being". Although I value all philosophers, I am not a great fan of Heidegger, and am more of a Western Philosophy person with an eye toward analytical philosophy. But Heidegger did call formal logic a schoolroom tool and did not find much value in it, so we are in agreement there.

 

Metaphysics is important and should always be considered, but I like to examine small things and look for little truths to build into larger truths. I find that it is easier to be more accurate and sure of the truths that I find if I keep it simple. It is also easier to spot deceptions, as we are all very good at lying to ourselves.

 

Thank you for correcting the link. I am not very good with the internet and Google.

You can for sure measure the electrical signals within my brain; I am no more than emergent phenomena from this very complex system.

 

Electrical signals in the brain does not explain "mind", except in that Frankenstein movie.

 

You are emergent from what "very complex system" -- your brain? your body? the universe? There is no valid theory of consciousness that fully explains mind.

 

You stated that something that is "real" is something that is measurable. I consider something "real" if it can cause an effect, so by my understanding, your mind is real.

 

Gee

I would imagine that lots of universities employ people in their philosophy department who are actively philosophising and publishing in peer-review journals.

 

I considered these people to be teachers/professors, professors in training, or writers. Did I miss something?

 

Gee