upvote

points

by AndrewKemendo7 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby svnt6 hours ago|
next
[-]
Humans are nearly defined by their access to the abstract. The abstract is definitionally non-material.
reply
upvoteby fc417fc8026 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I dunno about that, latent spaces are looking pretty material these days. I've got several variants saved to my local disk.
reply
upvoteby svnt5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Map meets territory.
reply
upvoteby unicorn_cowboy7 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Materialism is not fundamental; consciousness is. This assumes materialism as fundamental.
reply
upvoteby AndrewKemendo7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> Materialism is not fundamental; consciousness is

What is your epistemological basis for this claim? Any proof of this?

And just for extreme clarity note: at no point have I made a claim yet

reply
upvoteby strogonoff6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Whether monastic materialism or idealism is correct would be an unfalsifiable claim within the framework of natural scientific method. (That method is designed to help us make predictions; interpreting experimental outcome for a statement of objective truth is a misapplication of scientific method.) An existing natural-scientific model can be referenced in a philosophical argument, but the argument remains a philosophical statement. A philosophical argument can still be debated on other merits—e.g., which alternative grants magical objective existence to more arbitrary entities, or such.
reply
upvoteby svnt6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The human concept of materialism appears to have been produced by historical humans who were also conscious, which at least sets an order. To call this into question is to render logical debate incoherent.

Materialism is a theory, not a reality, but its adherents can't tell the difference.

reply
upvoteby fc417fc8026 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> To call this into question is to render logical debate incoherent.

Unfortunately there are quite a few things of that nature. In no case does it justify blindly picking one of the options and then following up with bold claims based on an arbitrary assumption.

reply
upvoteby svnt5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Where did I make the case that it does?
reply
upvoteby AndrewKemendo6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
So your epistemology is historicism?
reply
upvoteby svnt5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Did you recently discover the idea of epistemology or does your line of questioning have a purpose?
reply
upvoteby AndrewKemendo1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The OP suggested “The engineering-focused materialist way of looking at stuff like this makes my head and heart hurt.”

Therefore excluding “materialist way of looking at stuff” from the question of social theory

I have still yet to hear any elucidation with any type of philosophical rigor of why about the questions of humanity should exclude materialist lenses

Further, at no point was there a epistemological foundation laid for the claim that consciousness is the foundation apriori from materialism

reply
upvoteby svnt10 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
I read it as an expression of personal experience, not a declaration of anything.

"Be not arrogant because of your knowledge, but confer with the ignorant man as with the learned, for the limits of skill are not attainable."

reply
upvoteby houllan6337 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Are you interchangeable with a few mounds containing the exact same amount of the same molecules as your body?
reply
upvoteby patch_cable6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
In the exact same configuration? Yes.
reply
upvoteby throw367457 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Reducing sociology to physics is a category error?
reply
upvoteby unicorn_cowboy7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's missing the forest for the trees.
reply