This is a question about *being*, not explanations. Objective reality exists, solipsism is false. We should treat science purely as a description and a prediction machine; no jumps to an ontology. We know the being of qualities immediately, from the inside. The very being of physical is unknowable - ThreadSky

kruasan.bsky.social • 90 days ago

This is a question about *being*, not explanations.

Objective reality exists, solipsism is false. We should treat science purely as a description and a prediction machine; no jumps to an ontology.

We know the being of qualities immediately, from the inside. The very being of physical is unknowable

Comments

jccust.bsky.social•90 days ago

Again, ‘physical’ here means only that it falls within the range of fundamental physical interactions; this is the ontological realm of science. If one is presupposing another ontological substance for issues in philosophy of mind, then one is engaging in pseudoscience (or religion, mysticism…

jamesdmac.bsky.social•90 days ago

There is an interesting distinction to be made between ontology as it approached through measurement (science) and ontology as it is approached through first-person awareness. The ‘physical’ given by science is third-person description. The ‘physical’ given by consciousness is prior to descriptions.

jamesdmac.bsky.social•90 days ago

Whatever the actual ontology of the ‘physical’ is (whether strings or fields, etc), the fact is that we are ourselves an expression or disposition of the ‘physical’; and our immediate experience or consciousness of awareness is the nearest we will ever get to it. This is not a proof of anything…

jamesdmac.bsky.social•90 days ago

…it’s merely something to notice, which maybe irrelevant or deeply significant. Some people find it irrelevant and others find it significant.

jccust.bsky.social•90 days ago

Most cognitive scientists don’t see consciousness as that fundamental. It is just another evolutionary adaptive function/ process/ attribute that provided some advantages for the organism

jamesdmac.bsky.social•90 days ago

Clearly the brain and the senses are evolutionary adaptive functions; but whether 1st person consciousness or awareness is similarly the product of mechanical processes is unclear. This is why some philosophers of mind say that there is a “hard problem” unexplained by cognitive scientists.

jccust.bsky.social•90 days ago

If ‘physical’ means within the range of fundamental physical interactions, then it is not, a priori, pseudoscience. Take notice though that consciousness can be understood very differently. In cognitive sciences the tendency is that it is just a contextualization hub of information for the organism.

jamesdmac.bsky.social•90 days ago

Who said anything about pseudoscience? All we are saying is that the two approaches - 1st person and 3rd person - are distinct. The ‘physical’ as measured and quantified in the 3rd person is science. The ‘physical’ as we know it in the 1st person, as a conscious entity, is distinct from this.

jccust.bsky.social•90 days ago

It really seems like you are just using these supposed two meanings of ‘physical’ to hide your substance dualism position. If that’s the case, you are engaging in pseudoscience, because from a scientific point of view, substance dualism has already been ruled out.

jamesdmac.bsky.social•90 days ago

It would be nice to discuss these things without accusing people of ‘pseudoscience’, etc. I didn’t give 2 meanings of ‘physical’, but rather 2 approaches to the same thing. ‘Physical’ is (as far as my understanding of science goes) unknown. It can be approached in the 3rd and 1st person. That’s all.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply