Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 2:03 pm Cutting through the chatter …

Please consider for a moment the declaration that science represents a “gold standard”.

Thinking about this, it seems to me that, yes, it has to do with science performed in the laboratory, and all the technological tests and readings, but also about the way that we believe we are approaching the hard and strange questions that still roil us. The “gold standard” is an attitude we take in respect to our own methodologies and that which we seek to communicate.

For example, consider the ENTIRETY of Mike’s presentation. Really, it is not an argument as much as it is (sorry Mike) a performance of an attitude of certainty. It states “I have invincible knowledge! I can crush all other perspectives!”

The facts are: that there is wide-ranging debate going on in “PhD circles” about the question of “free will” but moreover about the nature of consciousness itself and a great deal else. One might suppose that one epistemological system is on the verge of being challenged by a newer version, even a revisionist one.

Indeed there are idealist physicists who assert that mind determines matter (that being is mind of some sort), and who propose that mind does not emerge from matter (which is a determining concept and fences in the parameters of what is considerable) and their speculations (intuited models?) turn toward other descriptive models.

Even those who consider these far-reaching ideas are involved in that “gold standard” which could be understood as an explanatory method or a style of presentation. Or is it an attitude of speculative openness?

Now, I cannot help it that I naturally move from that rather pedestrian “gold standard” to a “platinum standard”, so please people don’t blame me …

Ah yes, the “platinum standard,” Alexis’ ever-elusive upgrade to human understanding, accessible only to those enlightened enough to intuit it. But let’s cut through the performative mysticism and get to the core of your rhetorical dodge.

You start with a seemingly fair-minded approach—questioning whether the "gold standard" of science is just an attitude rather than a methodological framework. But then, like clockwork, you slide into the same old equivocation: “There’s debate in PhD circles,” as if that somehow undermines the foundational principles that science operates on. There’s also debate about whether reality is a simulation, whether time exists, and whether the entire universe is just a complex mathematical structure—but none of that changes the practical reliability of empirically tested science over speculative metaphysics.

You cite “idealist physicists” who believe mind determines matter, but this is just another version of the same tired trick: plucking fringe ideas from theoretical discourse and presenting them as if they carry equal epistemic weight to rigorously tested scientific models. This is the equivalent of saying, “Well, some scientists question relativity, so who’s to say what’s real?” It’s a transparent attempt to make every position seem equally valid, when in reality, they are not. The vast majority of physicists, neuroscientists, and cognitive researchers overwhelmingly support the idea that consciousness emerges from physical processes. The burden is on the idealists to overturn that, and as of yet, they haven’t.

And then comes the pièce de résistance: the subtle appeal to “speculative openness,” which, conveniently, allows you to entertain any esoteric notion without needing to ground it in demonstrable evidence. This isn’t intellectual curiosity—it’s a hedge, a way to keep your beliefs safe from scrutiny by reframing skepticism as close-mindedness.

So no, Alexis, this isn’t about me declaring “I have invincible knowledge!”—it’s about refusing to pretend that unverified metaphysical speculation deserves the same epistemic status as scientifically supported claims. You can wrap it in platinum, sprinkle it with cosmic poetry, and gesture vaguely at the limits of human knowledge all you want, but at the end of the day, the scientific method remains the most reliable tool we have. Everything else? A performance.

All that, Mike, is essentially more of the same from you. You do not well enough understand what I am saying because, every time, that established, that honed, attitude of certainty kicks in. And there you are back again with your invincible (religiously expressed) assertions.

You can wrap it in platinum, sprinkle it with cosmic poetry, and gesture vaguely at the limits of human knowledge all you want, but at the end of the day, the scientific method remains the most reliable tool we have. Everything else? A performance.

My purpose when I encounter and confront a mind and a personality (a psychology) that operates as yours does, is largely and importantly (but not exclusively) to point out how “core predicates” both allow conceptualization and restrain it.

Ideas have consequences.

We have been over this a dozen times: you seek to establish, as a fundamentalism, a new anthropological definition of Man. It is that sprawling, that adamant, that consequential. You have a bizarre socio-political agenda which arises out of your ideations and your ideology.

It is that which really moves you, enthuses you, and powers your rhetorical machinery.

At every juncture you refer back to your assertion: “No! This is settled science!”

But it is not settled.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 3:18 pm

What would you say is Mike's most compelling argument, AJ?

Me, I don't think anything he's offer'd has much umph.

He's adamant (rigid), fanatical even, but substantive? Pffft!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 3:18 pm All that, Mike, is essentially more of the same from you. You do not well enough understand what I am saying because, every time, that established, that honed, attitude of certainty kicks in. And there you are back again with your invincible (religiously expressed) assertions.

You can wrap it in platinum, sprinkle it with cosmic poetry, and gesture vaguely at the limits of human knowledge all you want, but at the end of the day, the scientific method remains the most reliable tool we have. Everything else? A performance.

My purpose when I encounter and confront a mind and a personality (a psychology) that operates as yours does is largely and importantly to point out how “core predicates” both allow conceptualization and restrain it.

Ideas have consequences.

We have been over this a dozen times: you seek to establish, as a fundamentalism, a new anthropological definition of Man. It is that sprawling, that adamant, that consequential. You have a bizarre socio-political agenda which arises out of your ideations and your ideology.

It is that which really moves you, enthuses you, and powers your rhetorical machinery.

At every juncture you refer back to your assertion: “No! This is settled science!”

But it is not settled.

Oh, Alexis, here we go again—another long-winded dodge wrapped in grandiose philosophical posturing, all to avoid answering a simple question: Do you disagree with my fundamental premises (conservation laws and fundamental interactions), or do you just refuse to accept their conclusions?

You dance around this like an acrobat, hurling accusations of “invincible certainty” and “religiously expressed assertions” as if that somehow discredits the foundations of physics. But you never actually engage with those foundations. You don’t refute them. You don’t counter them with superior evidence. You just hand-wave them away as the product of my supposed ideological fanaticism. How convenient.

And now you’re trying to turn this into a question of psychological predisposition—I am trapped in a rigid conceptual structure, I am blinded by my own premises, I am driven by some mysterious “socio-political agenda.” This is classic projection. You, the one clinging to metaphysical abstractions, accusing me of fundamentalism? Laughable.

But let’s clarify something: I am not the one making vague pronouncements about human nature based on personal intuition. I am not the one invoking speculative philosophy to sidestep empirical reality. I am not the one treating physics as an optional perspective rather than the framework that dictates everything that happens. You are. And when I call you out on it, your only defense is to claim that “it’s not settled.”

So, again, is it the premises you reject, or just the parts that make you uncomfortable? If it’s the former, let’s hear your alternative—one that actually overturns the conservation laws and fundamental interactions that govern reality. If it’s the latter, then admit you just don’t like where the evidence leads. Either way, drop the evasions.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 4:03 pm Do you disagree with my fundamental premises (conservation laws and fundamental interactions), or do you just refuse to accept their conclusions?

Within notable restraints and conditioning, you me and the next guy have access to decisive choice. We are not, as you maintain, “rolling rocks” (you fucked yourself with that simile).

Everything hinges on this issue. And the entire conversation that spins out of it, derives from this core issue.

I refuse to accept your assertions which undermine everything that is human, including the intellect of man. And I remain deeply suspicious of your socio-politics and your neo-anthropological ideology.

[I may have to send a squad to round you up, take you to the Human Unit Modification Center so they can fix the software glitch.]

You understand none of this. You are immune to the notion of consequences. And you have no way to engage with those who see the faults in your “argument” and who try to correct you.

I fully get that you are stuck, and will remain stuck, in your perspective. So no problem there.

I am trying to amplify the issue of “consequences” and also to tie-back the problem of fanaticism to other issues strongly present in our day.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 3:33 pm What would you say is Mike's most compelling argument, AJ?

The arguments about the ultimate locus of consciousness are the most compelling.

syn: compel, impel agree in the idea of forcing someone to be or do something. compel implies an external force; it may be a persuasive urging from another person or a constraining reason or circumstance: Bad health compelled him to resign. impel suggests an internal motivation deriving either from a moral constraint or personal feeling: Guilt impelled him to offer money.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 5:31 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 4:03 pm Do you disagree with my fundamental premises (conservation laws and fundamental interactions), or do you just refuse to accept their conclusions?

Within notable restraints and conditioning, you me and the next guy have access to decisive choice. We are not, as you maintain, “rolling rocks” (you fucked yourself with that simile).

[I may have to send a squad to round you up, take you to the Human Unit Modification Center so they can fix the software glitch.]

The following applies to all of us...

Metaphorically speaking, BigMike is like a 2-D character in a video game who somehow acquired just enough consciousness to be cognizant of his surroundings and of what he needs to do to fit-in with the game's programming,...

...but he is not quite conscious enough to recognize the deeper truth of his (our) situation.

And the point is that if it is possible that the "programmer" of the game "intended" for the game's characters to believe that the phenomenal features of the game were not only real, but literally all there is to "reality itself",...

...then BigMike, with his heartfelt (but naive and erroneous) confidence in the "reality" of a world that, in truth, is nothing more than a programmed "illusion",...

...makes BigMike an essential character in the game because he helps to fulfill the programmer's intention.

How?

Because, again, BigMikes sincere and heartfelt belief in (and rigorous promotion of) hardcore materialism is what helps to maintain the integrity and believability of the illusion for the sake of all of its participants.

And the ultimate point is that even though the BigMikes of the world provide the essential service of helping to maintain the integrity of this "Grand Illusion" that we are all participating in,...

...they (the naive assertions of the BigMikes of the world) must be counterbalanced by the assertions of those of us who have at least been able to recognize that the universe (again, metaphorically speaking) is indeed a video game-like illusion,...

...an illusion whose software-like (informationally-based) underpinning seems to have been purposely "programmed" (purposely and deftly encoded) in such a way as to allow for new minds (new souls) to effloresce (emerge) from the very fabric of the illusion itself.
_______

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 5:31 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 4:03 pm Do you disagree with my fundamental premises (conservation laws and fundamental interactions), or do you just refuse to accept their conclusions?

Within notable restraints and conditioning, you me and the next guy have access to decisive choice. We are not, as you maintain, “rolling rocks” (you fucked yourself with that simile).

Everything hinges on this issue. And the entire conversation that spins out of it, derives from this core issue.

I refuse to accept your assertions which undermine everything that is human, including the intellect of man. And I remain deeply suspicious of your socio-politics and your neo-anthropological ideology.

[I may have to send a squad to round you up, take you to the Human Unit Modification Center so they can fix the software glitch.]

You understand none of this. You are immune to the notion of consequences. And you have no way to engage with those who see the faults in your “argument” and who try to correct you.

I fully get that you are stuck, and will remain stuck, in your perspective. So no problem there.

I am trying to amplify the issue of “consequences” and also to tie-back the problem of fanaticism to other issues strongly present in our day.

Ah, so now we’re back to the desperate flailing—grasping at every rhetorical trick in the book to avoid answering the question. You won’t say outright that you reject the conservation laws or the fundamental interactions, because you know doing so would make you look absurd. And yet, you also can’t accept the logical consequences of those very same physical principles because they lead somewhere that makes you uncomfortable.

Instead, you throw up this smokescreen about “decisive choice” and the ever-so-dreaded “undermining of everything that is human.” But here’s the thing, Alexis: science doesn’t care about your feelings. The laws of physics do not owe you a comforting narrative about human agency, nor do they pause for a moment of silence before crushing your quaint belief in “decisive choice.” Your insistence that humans are somehow exempt from the deterministic fabric of reality is not an argument—it’s just wishful thinking dressed up in philosophical babble.

And then there’s your real tell: “I refuse to accept your assertions.” That’s it, isn’t it? You don’t actually have a counterargument. You don’t present a model that disproves determinism. You don’t refute the conservation laws or the fundamental forces. You just refuse—because it makes you feel better to reject conclusions you don’t like.

So spare me the paranoid rambling about my “socio-politics” and “neo-anthropological ideology.” You’re not challenging my premises, you’re just running from their implications. That’s not philosophy, Alexis. That’s denial.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 7:37 pm You don’t actually have a counterargument. You don’t present a model that disproves determinism.

There is no decisive argument one way or the other. From all that I have been able to ascertain. Very “qualified” people go in both directions. I believe that in regard to important questions — decisions that we make — that we have agency. And as you know I describe it in conservative terms: in currents that we must accept as having been determined (our genetics, upbringing, education) and in a world-system (in a biological body, within a material environment, etc.) that we have a degree of free choice (agency is a better word).

If you ask (demand) that I prove this to you, I think this is a waste of time. One because your mind is made up, but two because it (agency) can be neither definitively proved or disproved.

What I have done here (I did this from the beginning) is to demonstrate the degree to which determinism can be a valid position. While I simultaneously hold that, within reason, and in some degree, we can act as causal agents.

Who are you trying to convince ultimately Mike?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 2:36 am
If the scientific FS is not to be the gold standard of credibility and objectivity, what is your alternative? or give the possibility there could be a better approach?

The scientific FS, as you put it, in no way needs to be the gold standard of credibility and objectivity. It is, to my mind, superfluous to mention it as such. A gold standard does not preclude others from existing against which the GS is judged to be the highest and most affirmative. What makes your question unnecessary is that rivals to the scientific method don't exist. Its methodology depends completely on its entries into a probability index which, of course, is subject to revision by upgrading or downgrading as more information becomes available. Being human, we have only trial and error accessible to us which creates, in effect, a probability ladder which continually shifts. A GS, in contrast, describes that which is relative and most adhered to in the current age...relative to other possibilities. The scientific FS stands alone in that function; there are no other rivals. It's misleading to designate it as a Gold Standard having relevance to other standards which, in this case, don't exist.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 5:36 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 3:33 pm What would you say is Mike's most compelling argument, AJ?

The arguments about the ultimate locus of consciousness are the most compelling.

As usual: I don't get it.

Mebbe you can give me the caveman version.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 9:15 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 5:36 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 3:33 pm What would you say is Mike's most compelling argument, AJ?

The arguments about the ultimate locus of consciousness are the most compelling.

As usual: I don't get it.

Mebbe you can give me the caveman version.

Mike believes that consciousness is located exclusively in the brain. That’s the “locus” of man, awareness, consciousness, etc.

That is a strongly “compelling” argument.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 8:55 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 7:37 pm You don’t actually have a counterargument. You don’t present a model that disproves determinism.

There is no decisive argument one way or the other. From all that I have been able to ascertain. Very “qualified” people go in both directions. I believe that in regard to important questions — decisions that we make — that we have agency. And as you know I describe it in conservative terms: in currents that we must accept as having been determined (our genetics, upbringing, education) and in a world-system (in a biological body, within a material environment, etc.) that we have a degree of free choice (agency is a better word).

If you ask (demand) that I prove this to you, I think this is a waste of time. One because your mind is made up, but two because it (agency) can be neither definitively proved or disproved.

What I have done here (I did this from the beginning) is to demonstrate the degree to which determinism can be a valid position. While I simultaneously hold that, within reason, and in some degree, we can act as causal agents.

Who are you trying to convince ultimately Mike?

Oh, so now we’re back to the “no decisive argument one way or another” routine? That’s cute. When confronted with the undeniable implications of determinism, suddenly everything is vague, open-ended, and unknowable. Never mind that physics, neuroscience, and every rigorous attempt to analyze causality all point in one direction—no, we must make room for this nebulous degree of “agency” that somehow exists despite having no explanatory mechanism, no empirical support, and no logical coherence.

And let’s be clear: you don’t get to smuggle in “agency” just because you feel like it should be there. That’s Russell’s teapot in action—throwing out an unprovable assertion (that humans magically exert some causal influence independent of physical laws) and then claiming it’s equally valid because it can’t be disproven. But that’s not how falsification works, Alexis. The burden of proof isn’t on me to disprove your supernatural agency—it’s on you to demonstrate that it exists at all.

And what do we get from you instead? A retreat into the cowardly position of “well, it can neither be definitively proved nor disproved.” That’s intellectual dishonesty at its finest. Science doesn’t entertain every half-baked notion just because it can’t be immediately ruled out. We don’t waste time on ghosts, fairy tales, or celestial teapots orbiting Mars simply because no one can definitively disprove them. We dismiss them because they lack evidence, because they introduce unnecessary assumptions, and because they contradict what we already do know.

So I’ll ask again: do you reject the conservation laws and fundamental interactions, or do you just refuse to accept their implications? Because your whole position is nothing more than an appeal to ignorance, propped up by personal incredulity.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 9:43 pm And what do we get from you instead? A retreat into the cowardly position of “well, it can neither be definitively proved nor disproved.” That’s intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

Actually it is the very opposite of what you assert it is.

You can, and you will, characterize my position as it serves you to. You know that I don’t have a problem with that, I hope.

My position though is not one concocted by cowardice but rather circumspection, and — as I said at the start of— elements of my own experience.

Additionally, I submit that some scientists are not convinced by the hard determinism model. Consider that anecdotal if you wish.

The issue of “being” (with all sorts of levels of mystery) is ultimately where my intuition’s fulcrum is located. And I know and we all know what you think of knowledge of that sort!

I am not so much interested in this conversation if it simply turns over and over in the same pattern. Yet you seem to wish to have your understanding validated.

Very well: consider it validated.

Myself, I am far more interested in the implications of having agency than of argumentation that undermines it. That has direct bearing on issues of immediate concern.

Give them a few days, Mike, and pack a suitcase with a few changes of clothes. You will be taken in and refurbished soon!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 10:08 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 9:43 pm And what do we get from you instead? A retreat into the cowardly position of “well, it can neither be definitively proved nor disproved.” That’s intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

Actually it is the very opposite of what you assert it is.

You can, and you will, characterize my position as it serves you to. You know that I don’t have a problem with that, I hope.

My position though is not one concocted by cowardice but rather circumspection, and — as I said at the start of— elements of my own experience.

Additionally, I submit that some scientists are not convinced by the hard determinism model. Consider that anecdotal if you wish.

The issue of “being” (with all sorts of levels of mystery) is ultimately where my intuition’s fulcrum is located. And I know and we all know what you think of knowledge of that sort!

I am not so much interested in this conversation if it simply turns over and over in the same pattern. Yet you seem to wish to have your understanding validated.

Very well: consider it validated.

Myself, I am far more interested in the implications of having agency than of argumentation that undermines it. That has direct bearing on issues of immediate concern.

Give them a few days, Mike, and pack a suitcase with a few changes of clothes. You will be taken in and refurbished soon!

Ah yes, the classic I’m not retreating, I’m just being circumspect defense. It’s remarkable how conveniently this brand of “circumspection” only ever manifests when faced with conclusions one finds uncomfortable. You see, Alexis, actual intellectual rigor doesn’t involve dancing around hard truths with vague appeals to “experience” and “intuition.” It requires demonstrating why those intuitions hold any weight outside of personal sentiment.

And here we go again with the some scientists aren’t convinced by hard determinism routine. You want to frame it as an ongoing debate among serious thinkers, but let’s be honest: you’re not engaging with the actual science. You’re cherry-picking dissenters who, at best, offer speculative philosophy, not empirical refutations. This isn’t “anecdotal,” it’s grasping at straws. If determinism were on shaky ground, you’d be able to point to an actual competing framework that explains causality without contradiction. But you can’t. Instead, we get this performance of thoughtful skepticism that conveniently avoids the inconvenient task of presenting a viable alternative.

And let’s talk about your obsession with having agency. You want agency, therefore you insist it must be real. That’s the whole game here, isn’t it? This isn’t an argument—it’s a refusal to let go of an emotionally satisfying narrative. But wanting something to be true doesn’t make it so. The implications of determinism are uncomfortable, sure. But the role of reason isn’t to comfort us—it’s to align our understanding with reality, whether we like it or not.

But by all means, keep packing that suitcase of intuition and experience. Just don’t expect it to hold up when reality comes knocking.