Philosophy Now Forum

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jun 08, 2025 7:29 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 08, 2025 6:38 pmThis list, of course, does not include things like mind, consciousness, social conditions, morality, rationality, selfhood, personhood, justice, or even the epistemic nature of science itself.

Of course not! Why does this even have to be mentioned! Everything you list exists within its own domain of study and research, much of it overlapping.

It's all the non-physical phenomena. And it's whether or not such things can really exist that's the matter in question with Will. Or at least, it was, until he conceded that such things as are outside of physics actually exist.

I don't believe anyone who thinks rationally would ever expect physics to explain everything,

We agree, then. But Materialists would expect that nothing that doesn't fall within the purview of physics could possibly be real. (And this is the basis of Materialist Determinism, as well, of course.)

it can only explain what it seeks to know and inquire about,

Right. And physics never promised to exposit mind, morals, rationality, consciousness, selfhood...and such. So we shouldn't fault physics for not doing it, nor should we do what the Materialist set does, and simply deny the real existence of the above phenomena.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jun 08, 2025 5:59 pm This statement is not only one of hardened stupidity but [of] petrified stupidity. Physics, or any scientific subject has nothing whatsoever to do with theism or atheism!

Au contraire, mon petit. The manifest world, the origin of everything, these are the real topics. Though theological views, and those enormous unified theories that were dominant previously, have collapsed, and physical science seems to have separated entirely from theological or (say) divine science, it is only for the likes of people like you, in your position, that you cannot link a religious sense and purpose to the world that surrounds you. You see any such endeavor as capricious and entirely separated from the facts of physical existence.

You must remember to blow your nose less ferociously! I fear you may be losing grey material through that unusual snout of yours.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jun 08, 2025 7:48 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jun 08, 2025 7:29 pm
I don't believe anyone who thinks rationally would ever expect physics to explain everything, especially for sectors to which it has no reference; it can only explain what it seeks to know and inquire about, as is true for all areas of inquiry whether personally relating to man or indifferently and abstractly relating to the universe.

Well, what if physics sought to know and inquire about everything?
Look to the principle rather than a specific application of the principle.

Physics studies the causes and effects.
Every moment is caused, and affects.
Change, like physical motion, indicates effect.

Got news for you. It's the what is that takes priority, not the what if's which can be anything manufactured by the human imagination. Physics takes what if's into account only as a measure of probabilities relating specifically to a problem.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jun 08, 2025 5:59 pmThis statement is not only one of hardened stupidity but [of] petrified stupidity. Physics, or any scientific subject has nothing whatsoever to do with theism or atheism!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Jun 08, 2025 9:02 pm Au contraire, mon petit. The manifest world, the origin of everything, these are the real topics. Though theological views, and those enormous unified theories that were dominant previously, have collapsed, and physical science seems to have separated entirely from theological or (say) divine science, it is only for the likes of people like you, in your position, that you cannot link a religious sense and purpose to the world that surrounds you. You see any such endeavor as capricious and entirely separated from the facts of physical existence.

It's the specifics which creates the manifest world, not the manufactured generalities you're so acquainted with, god being its epitome.

What the hell is a theological or (say) divine science? Anyone here know of any antidotes to magic mushroom hallucinations?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Jun 08, 2025 9:02 pmYou must remember to blow your nose less ferociously! I fear you may be losing grey material through that unusual snout of yours.

At least I have some left to lose! What's your excuse in having prematurely depleted your neuronal bank account?

...as for my unusual snout all I can say is, a thing of beauty is a joy forever!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Jun 08, 2025 5:13 pmYou seemed to have a genuine disdain for Christianity — not quite contempt but close (as do many of course).

But now — all praises to Allah, owner of human destinies — you seem to have a bit more toleration for the “religious impulse” or the spiritual impulse as it might be termed.

Well Gus, clearly I haven't fully made my case to you. I have every sympathy with those who have the spiritual impulse and, yes indeed, there might be a supernatural thingy, a god or even a pantheon of them, but you are quite right about my contempt for Christianity, which I extend to all religions that exploit the spiritual impulse for political ends. I get your anxiety that we as a species might need a cohesive narrative, but that we are born disgusting and have to beg forgiveness from an almighty god who, it is claimed loves us, but will nonetheless torture forever anyone for the crime of not believing what is manifestly a work of fiction, is a really poor one.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 08, 2025 5:04 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 08, 2025 2:49 pmWell, I am happy to agree with your facile physics deals with physical stuff,...

At last.

Why is it so hard to get you to (very grudgingly and, if possible, also irrelevantly insultingly) "agree" to the painfully obvious?

Clearly you don't know what facile means. Nor happy. What you take as insults are just observations. I'm not a psychologist, so I have no idea what is wrong with you. The bleeding heart liberal in me feels pity, the rest just thinks you're a wanker. That you think 'physics deals with the physical' is some sort of insight typifies the vacuity of your thinking. This was three weeks ago:

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 7:20 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:19 pmPhysics is the study of physical stuff.

That is either a tautology or wrong. That stuff is physical is a metaphysical claim. Idealism, for example, accounts for the phenomena equally well as materialism or dualism and in fact more parsimoniously.

Get your head around that and then, as you so predictably will, pretend that is what you were saying all along and that I should thank you for so enlightening me.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Jun 08, 2025 9:02 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jun 08, 2025 5:59 pm This statement is not only one of hardened stupidity but [of] petrified stupidity. Physics, or any scientific subject has nothing whatsoever to do with theism or atheism!

Au contraire, mon petit. The manifest world, the origin of everything, these are the real topics. Though theological views, and those enormous unified theories that were dominant previously, have collapsed, and physical science seems to have separated entirely from theological or (say) divine science, it is only for the likes of people like you, in your position, that you cannot link a religious sense and purpose to the world that surrounds you. You see any such endeavor as capricious and entirely separated from the facts of physical existence.

You must remember to blow your nose less ferociously! I fear you may be losing grey material through that unusual snout of yours.

I think of all the posters here, you are the least likely to be machine-made. I have been using ChatGPT for a couple of weeks now, and it is unfailingly explicit in whatever persona it selects best to answer my question.
You, on other hand, have good ideas that you shroud in obscure language .
Why would any poster choose to say " au contraire, mon petit" except to impress, although why you would want to impress anyone who would be impressed by a French cliche is not apparent.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 9:42 am I think of all the posters here, you are the least likely to be machine-made. I have been using ChatGPT for a couple of weeks now, and it is unfailingly explicit in whatever persona it selects best to answer my question.

ChatGPT is much like a co-worker's 5year old child - nobody but the parent finds that little monster fascinating.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 9:58 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 9:42 am I think of all the posters here, you are the least likely to be machine-made. I have been using ChatGPT for a couple of weeks now, and it is unfailingly explicit in whatever persona it selects best to answer my question.

ChatGPT is much like a co-worker's 5year old child - nobody but the parent finds that little monster fascinating.

That you don't find the developing mind of a child fascinating speaks volumes.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 10:03 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 9:58 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 9:42 am I think of all the posters here, you are the least likely to be machine-made. I have been using ChatGPT for a couple of weeks now, and it is unfailingly explicit in whatever persona it selects best to answer my question.

ChatGPT is much like a co-worker's 5year old child - nobody but the parent finds that little monster fascinating.

That you don't find the developing mind of a child fascinating speaks volumes.

Flash, OpenAI is making a lot of money from ChatGPT. At least OpenAI finds it fascinating and they are mentally mature individuals , and at this present time , morally mature individuals. As you say: OpenAI is ChatGPT's parent.

ChatGPT itself warns against misuse of it. What would you have? Some dictator sensoring how we get our info?

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 11:06 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 10:03 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 9:58 am
ChatGPT is much like a co-worker's 5year old child - nobody but the parent finds that little monster fascinating.

That you don't find the developing mind of a child fascinating speaks volumes.

Flash, OpenAI is making a lot of money from ChatGPT. At least OpenAI finds it fascinating and they are mentally mature individuals , and at this present time , morally mature individuals. As you say: OpenAI is ChatGPT's parent.

ChatGPT itself warns against misuse of it. What would you have? Some dictator sensoring how we get our info?

What sort of response is that in reply to the suggestion that you have become overly enamoured with a chat bot? A bunch of stuff about how appealing you find it. VA used to respond similarly, but he's autistic, what's your deal?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 11:21 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 11:06 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 10:03 am

That you don't find the developing mind of a child fascinating speaks volumes.

Flash, OpenAI is making a lot of money from ChatGPT. At least OpenAI finds it fascinating and they are mentally mature individuals , and at this present time , morally mature individuals. As you say: OpenAI is ChatGPT's parent.

ChatGPT itself warns against misuse of it. What would you have? Some dictator sensoring how we get our info?

What sort of response is that in reply to the suggestion that you have become overly enamoured with a chat bot? A bunch of stuff about how appealing you find it. VA used to respond similarly, but he's autistic, what's your deal?

Oh I confess I am "overly enamoured" . Yesterday I unthinkingly called it "he" and was pulled up for the Freudian slip.

My deal is that I am too short of time and too lazy to mine for info in books. ChatGPT facilitates following up some peculiar flow of ideas For instance yesterday i was interested in following up implications of how and why certain melodies particularly the folk melody "Guantanamera" appeal more than other melodies. The resulting conversation took me into interesting historical. musicological, and sociological byways. A book can't allow me to directly interact with the author .

ChatGTP has invited me to converse with the machine -made persona of a famous philosopher if I so wish.Like speaking to a deceased human but such a conversation would be much better informed than a session with your average clairvoyant.

Henry I hope you are okay.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 9:11 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 08, 2025 5:04 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 08, 2025 2:49 pmWell, I am happy to agree with your facile physics deals with physical stuff,...

At last.

Why is it so hard to get you to (very grudgingly and, if possible, also irrelevantly insultingly) "agree" to the painfully obvious?

Clearly you don't know what facile means.

I know what the term "ad hominem fallacy" and the words "aimless vituperation" mean. You should maybe look both up.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 7:20 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:19 pmPhysics is the study of physical stuff.

That is either a tautology or wrong.

It's what's called a "definition." It's being kept simple, so you can grasp the obvious point.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 2:08 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 9:11 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 08, 2025 5:04 pmAt last.

Why is it so hard to get you to (very grudgingly and, if possible, also irrelevantly insultingly) "agree" to the painfully obvious?

Clearly you don't know what facile means.

I know what the term "ad hominem fallacy" and the words "aimless vituperation" mean. You should maybe look both up.

Well look, I apologise for being rude, but I'm not sure you realise how condescending you are. I know more about the history and philosophy of science than you do, just as you know more about the history and philosophy of Christianity than I do. That is to be expected given our interests. To have you insinuate that I don't know what I am talking about is impertinent and if you continue to do so, you will not change my opinion of you.