As I have said repeatedly I am not positing the non-physical; I have been discussing 2 distinct approaches to the ‘physical’ (whatever its ontology is): one from the 3rd person (science), and one from the 1st person (awareness, conscious being, or whatever descriptor fits). Both have their place. - ThreadSky

jamesdmac.bsky.social • 90 days ago

As I have said repeatedly I am not positing the non-physical; I have been discussing 2 distinct approaches to the ‘physical’ (whatever its ontology is): one from the 3rd person (science), and one from the 1st person (awareness, conscious being, or whatever descriptor fits). Both have their place.

Comments

jccust.bsky.social•90 days ago

See, you cannot say that you are advocating for an approach that is different from the scientific approach and, at the same time, claim that you are not being unscientific (or engaging in pseudoscience).

jamesdmac.bsky.social•90 days ago

This is silly. Are you saying that any activity which is not a practice of measurement and description is ipso facto ‘pseudoscience’? So just being alive is ‘pseudoscience’? This is why I said up-thread that you seem to be dismissive of the 1st person perspective, or pay it scant attention.

jccust.bsky.social•90 days ago

Obviously I'm talking about theories and not about "any activity" (I don't know where you got that from). Theories about humans and/or any aspect of reality are either scientific or non-scientific. Non-scientific approaches are unscientific and, therefore, pseudoscience. Silly is not getting this!

jamesdmac.bsky.social•90 days ago

I think we are talking past each other a little? I have been discussing an activity/approach that *is* distinct from 3rd person science, but which is *not* ‘pseudoscience’ (i.e. does not propose theories contrary to science). 1st person awareness is not theoretical science, nor is it pseudoscience.

jccust.bsky.social•90 days ago

Nonetheless, if this 'approach from awareness' makes claims that are not empirically verifiable (in the sense that they are not shareable) or is dependent on some non-physical conception, I cannot see how it is not unscientific. It all depends on how you justify the claims (through science or not).

jamesdmac.bsky.social•90 days ago

I have not been discussing (as far as i am aware) unverifiable “claims” or “non-physical conceptions”. I have simply been drawing attention to the ‘approach from awareness’ (as you put it). You seemed to dismiss it, that’s all. 1st person awareness is its own domain, distinct from 3rd person science

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply