General Philosophy

The title is a common view among crackpots. They often think that the ability to imagine something means that the universe might actually be that way or could have been that way were things differently. To use philosophy words, they often think that conceivability means epistemic or metaphysical possibility. But, the question is, is that true? To find that out, we need to find something that is conceivable but is impossible. For the first sense of possibility, (how things might actually be), that is incredibly easy. All we have to do is find something that is conceivable but not the case. Have you ever been wrong about something? If you have, you've shown that concei…

This was originally going to be a response to another thread, but it would have taken it sufficiently off topic (and now the thread is closed). As I went on writing, it got really long, so I'm just turning it into a very short introduction of science. Now, Popper was on the right track, but he was off by quite a bit. Popper's naïve falsification is essentially just a modus tollens. T⊃O ~O ∴~T If the theory is true, we have a predicted observation (within a certain amount of uncertainty). When we measure something outside of that range for that predicted observation, we need to throw out the theory wholesale. Think about that. Anytime we have a falsi…

I'm sure there are some members here with their favorite philosophical writings. Let's make a sort of reading list, shall we? So, what kinds of philosophical books do you like?

Since we seem unable to define torture, perhaps we should start at a more fundamental level. Let's start by imagining we're all fundamentally good people (even the sociapath) and it's our life experience (psychology) that steers us away from being good; is that our fault? Does it deserve punishment? All you can do to another is deprive them of something but in doing so, you damage yourself; to condemn other's only condemns our soul. I'm reminded of The pearl.

Informal introduction: I've tried other places of debate and discussion (most notably Reddit and LinkedIn), but they inevitably devolve into hostility. Some are hostile and insulting from the getgo, others descend into it after a few messages. Ars Technica forum locked me even before I could even respond to questions. I'm going to give this a go one last time before giving online discussion forums a rest. Purpose of Discussion: To advance this specific topic through challenge. As of now, avenues of counterargumentation seem to have been exhausted; Additional arguments I've received after the publication of my article all fell into categories that I've alrea…

The point of departure for this thread comes from my comments in the Ontology of Time thread in the Speculations section about the insistence in relativity that there are no "preferred" frames of reference, no "correct" or "objective" measurements when comparing one frame of reference (FOR) to another. From post 182, 7/2 in that thread: So, applying the above argument to "length contraction," if there is no objective "reality" independent of various FORs, then as discussed at length in the former thread, the distance between earth and sun varies with FOR, shortening radically with high speed fly-by FORs, for instance. Likewise, earth itself, measured as above, i…

http://physicshead.blogspot.com/2008/03/feynman-philosophy-is-bullshit.html Physicshead, 3/11/’08: Feynman--”Philosophy is bullshit”.... How about the "block time" universe proposition? But that depends on contemporary philosophy of science. The classical philosophers are strawmen for Feynman and Hawking. (See below.) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html Hawking: From Philosophy Now magazine, Sept/Oct , ‘11 Hawking contra Philosophy: http://www.philosophynow.org/issue82/Hawking_contra_Philosophy (Final quote from intro): “ So our physics heroes are down on philosophy. …

Drawing from the rich history of philosophical inquiry and the ever-evolving landscape of neuroscience, the question of free will versus determinism remains a focal point of academic discussion. Building on past dialogues and incorporating the insights of modern scholars like Daniel Wegner**, what is the prevailing perspective in the field today, and how has the latest research in neuroscience and psychology advanced our comprehension of human agency and decision-making processes? How do recent findings on the neural basis of decision-making and the subconscious factors influencing choices impact the debate on whether individuals possess genuine free will or if their acti…

Is it the Universe created alone? Yes or not? Only Yes or Not. And which answer is more irrational? Yes or Not? Nobody knows the answer, but the question is very interesting by itself.

This topic talks about the relationship of philosophy, science and reality. I will expound it thru questions: 1. Is philosophy more advance than science in understanding reality because it can form ideas even when there is no experiments performed or observations (While science on the other hand can't step forward because it relies on data)? 2. Is philosophy always correct? Are there instance that science prove philosophy?If philosophy always correct, we can rely solely to philosophy than science. 3. Is philosophy as accurate as science? 4. When can we say that a question become philosophical? Can we say that philosophy is an advance science? If yes then we can concl…

I absolutely detest the question; What is the meaning of life? It's just, really poorly worded when you think about it. So I spent a decade or so, trying to just figure out a better question to ask. This is it; What is the nature of our existence? I could go on I guess, but I'd rather just let people sit with the question. As for why "What is the meaning of life?" Is a pretty shite question; that's a whole other thread!

Just a useless, worthless comment on "testing" Now, in a driving test one either passes or fails. In a school test, we might get a certain score. And when you claim a scientific theory is "tested", what would it take to fail the test? Observation disagreeing with theoretical predictions? But I think we all know by now, scientists don't do that. They'll cling to a cherished theory until something they like better comes along. This may be provocative, but hey... what fun would it be if we all bray in unison. LOL P.S. I hear a lot about evolutionary theory being "tested". Will someone please give me an example of one of these tests? Thanks. …

Hello Everyone; The words "supernatural" and "superstition" seem to be unacceptable topics in most forums, and I was wondering why, so I thought that I would ask for some clarity. I study consciousness, not the medical definition of the conscious or unconscious rational mind, but rather the philosophical definition of conscious awareness and all of the mental aspects that come under the umbrella of conscious awareness. So I look at what science has discovered, what religion has interpreted, what philosophy thinks, and also the paranormal in my investigations. But if I mention the paranormal, people state that it is "supernatural", "superstition", and spit out denials …

This is a serious question. I'd like to know how you would answer this in a few words. My answer to the question is the purpose of life is to get better, in a few words. "To get better" is evolution, adaption, and survival. If you get sick, your purpose is to get better. If you do well in anything, the purpose is to get better.

-- This is a spin-off of the thread "is space-time a physical entity [..]" -- A lot of people think that special relativity doesn't make sense and that it's hopeless to try to understand it; we are condemned to "shut up and calculate". However, I know of two physical models that can be used to explain the theoretical predictions, and possibly there is another model that I don't know of. [edit]: To be perfectly clear, with "physical models" I here mean two competing hypothetical physical entities that have been proposed to make sense of the phenomena as described by relativity theory. Right from the start it was perfectly possible to make sense of relativity by…

What's people's opinions on this: can AI become sentient? Taking the wikipedia definition: Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively Can a fundamentally quantitative system really experience subjectivity? Personally, given sentience has evolved at least once on Earth, i don't see why it can't manifest from a different substrate. But that's similar reasoning to given i'm alive at least once, i don't see why i can't live again...

In this thread I'd like to explore the various relationships that obtain between science, truth, and knowledge, and perhaps help to ameliorate some very deep confusions that have been brought to my attention through discussion with fellow members. I've noticed that, in contexts related to science, some members are extremely reluctant to make any mention of the word "truth" (and its cognates: true, truly, etc.), a tendency that struck me as quite inexplicable until the reason, I think, for this misguided reticence was exposed in a very revealing comment recently. If I may paraphrase: "The making of claims to truth would compromise the open-minded character of the…

As far as I know there are some Physicists who consider Space-Time to be an actual physical thing whereas others regard it as merely an abstract concept - Brian Greene expressed his belief that the results from Gravity Probe B confirm this. What is the general consensus of this?

This thought struck me while reading the recent traffic on the subject, so instead of dragging that one off topic, here we are in my default forum (if anyone can think of a better place, feel free to let rip 😉) I mean that philosophically, it seems little more than a semantic exercise; but if we pulled it off politically, then it could liberate millions of prisoner's because we'd understand just how culpable they were and society would be satisfied with a far lower bar, as regards justice. But what could it mean scientifically other than just knowing?

I often view philosophy as complete rubbish. Mindless mental musing with no goal, direction, or pragmatic capacity. However, upon expressing these views, I'm often immediately attacked with the claims that science cannot exist without philosophy. That we can know nothing without philosophy. The terms epistemology and sopolism are oft thrown around. As someone who understands the power of the scientific method but knows little about "proper philosophy", I may be a tad biased and uninformed in my opinion. So I'd like to ask everyone on SFN: What are your views on the field of philosophy?

Having read numerous threads in this forum and others regarding evolution, I have noted a general consensus of opinion that consciousness has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. I find this idea ridiculous and impossible to believe, as I have seen no evidence that suggests that consciousness and evolution are mutually exclusive. What I have seen is evidence that consciousness evolves, life forms evolve, and all life forms are conscious. This would seem to indicate that consciousness and evolution are not mutually exclusive, but are in fact related. Possibly even interdependent. If I have missed some important information, please tell me what it is. Gee

Are you rather a determinist or indeterminist? I am a determinist. I consider everything as cause and effect. An indeterministic effect has a cause, which makes the process deterministic. Determinism is the belief that events are caused by things that happened prior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism Indeterminism is the belief that events are not caused by things that happened prior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminism

Philosophy gave birth to science, so... I'm going to stop there, because I want this thread to evolve naturally. Discuss...

After some amazing (yet personal) events have occurred the question of how did everything begin really is important to me. The last time I was desperate to know the answer was 10 years ago when I was 8 years old. I was surrounded by Jehovah's wittiness's explaining how god created the earth and then asked the question "What was god doing before he created the earth? Where did god's life begin?". And the answer I got just annoyed the crap out of me: "God is eternal, He's always been there". Then I said "but that's impossible, everything needs to have a beginning!" I was the one who would always say "Where was god a year before he created earth, the year before that an…

What is consciousness? I'll start this with an example, let's suppose someone has Alzheimer, he can forget his name, he can forget where he lives or who he are, but he won't ever forget he's something, by the way he doesn't even have to remember it, he just is. It's like there is a sense of existence in each one of us that goes beyond our comprehension - which we can call life -. When and how something inanimated became an animated being? When it started to exists? What is it that we call existence? IMO it makes more sense to believe there's "something more" we can't explain, it can't be just our brain and its impressions. Life itself is transcedental.