No Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory??

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, let's accept those parts of science, even when noumena are involved, that seem to support our positions, and question or deny those that we don't care about or cause us problems. This is the way to a less violent more empathetic future!

"Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown."

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes, let's accept those parts of science, even when noumena are involved, that seem to support our positions, and question or deny those that we don't care about or cause us problems. This is the way to a less violent more empathetic future!

"Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown."

Yeah it does feel odd that he says scientific knowledge is the most objective FSK, and then just kinda picks and chooses which science to accept. Evolution is one of the most well-evidenced scientific ideas out there, comparable to the atomic theory of chemistry. His willingness to reject it, for what appears to be personal philosophical problems, puts his entire 'objective FSKs' on thin ice.

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, let's accept those parts of science, even when noumena are involved, that seem to support our positions, and question or deny those that we don't care about or cause us problems. This is the way to a less violent more empathetic future!

"Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown."

Yeah it does feel odd that he says scientific knowledge is the most objective FSK, and then just kinda picks and chooses which science to accept. Evolution is one of the most well-evidenced scientific ideas out there, comparable to the atomic theory of chemistry. His willingness to reject it, for what appears to be personal philosophical problems, puts his entire 'objective FSKs' on thin ice.

Thanks, my intuitive reaction is more clear to me when you frame it like this.

What FSK is his knowledge of what parts of science can be dismissed conditioned on?

It's obviously not science. So, it seems he values some unnamed FSK higher than science.

[Flannel Jesus]

It's obviously not science. So, it seems he values some unnamed FSK higher than science.

Seems to be his own philosophical intuitions. Those are, somehow, more objective than the science fsks.

[Atla]

There might be some loss if we deny the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory [Bottom-Up] (which is reasonable up to a point), but the tradeoff for Emergence [Top-Down] is a lose-win [net-win] situation.

Just saying, emergence is by definition bottom-up. On the other hand, Big Bang and Evolution theory work perfectly well in top-down philosophy if we don't make silly assumptions about the beginning of the universe. As usual this moron got everything backwards, but try explaining it to him. All he will hear is "this fucking gnat wants to stop me from wrecking Islam".

[Flannel Jesus]

There might be some loss if we deny the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory [Bottom-Up] (which is reasonable up to a point), but the tradeoff for Emergence [Top-Down] is a lose-win [net-win] situation.

Just saying, emergence is by definition bottom-up.

Weak emergence, yeah. Strong emergence is frequently described as "top down causation", but the validity of strong emergence is contentious and still unproven.

[Atla]

There might be some loss if we deny the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory [Bottom-Up] (which is reasonable up to a point), but the tradeoff for Emergence [Top-Down] is a lose-win [net-win] situation.

Just saying, emergence is by definition bottom-up.

Weak emergence, yeah. Strong emergence is frequently described as "top down causation", but the validity of strong emergence is contentious and still unproven.

Strong emergence is just magic. If that's what VA is on about then so be it.

[Flannel Jesus]

Just saying, emergence is by definition bottom-up.

Weak emergence, yeah. Strong emergence is frequently described as "top down causation", but the validity of strong emergence is contentious and still unproven.

Strong emergence is just magic. If that's what VA is on about then so be it.

Well yes, I think he basically is on about magic. How else is he going to explain the existence of humans without evolution? (And the existence of the mountains of evidence for evolution as well, while we're at it)

[Iwannaplato]

Well yes, I think he basically is on about magic. How else is he going to explain the existence of humans without evolution? (And the existence of the mountains of evidence for evolution as well, while we're at it)

Well, there was no universe before humans arose (out of nothing) or at least before the earliest ancestor. So, he has his own big bang. Life and everything necessary for life popped into existence in the same moment. He may turn out to be a panpsychist, in the end, to fix this.