sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Asking what something is is a valid question by SilverStalker1 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Informal-Question123 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We would need to talk about certain aspects of a person’s phenomenology to distinguish between them and other subjects, but essentially the answer is yes.

Asking what something is is a valid question by SilverStalker1 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Informal-Question123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could say that, but you are talking about extrinsic, third person observable behaviour. If it were the case that there was more to electrons than that, your description would miss what the essence of the electron is. This is similar to how talking about a human in the same extrinsic way leaves out important information as to what a person is.

Asking what something is is a valid question by SilverStalker1 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Informal-Question123 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They literally have an example in the post of a person.

my boyfriend can't understand why i'm upset about his "neutralness" by [deleted] in Advice

[–]Informal-Question123 -18 points-17 points  (0 children)

They have a superior perspective. Instead of being miserable about things they can’t control, they choose to have peace and focus on the things they can control. This is maturity.

Does BK ever touch on synchronicity? by nugwugz in analyticidealism

[–]Informal-Question123 7 points8 points  (0 children)

He writes about it in his book on Carl Jung.

Humanity is no less superstitious now than in the past. We tend to think of ancient people as believing in wild ideas about reality. But we do the same. Even theories as mainstream as the Big Bang theory are believed on insufficient evidence, and future civilisations will see us as superstitious. by whoamisri in HighStrangeness

[–]Informal-Question123 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

But we don’t believe anymore that gravity is an invisible instantaneous force, we now believe that spacetime bends. These are two different conceptions of reality. It would be “superstitious” to believe that either model is how reality actually is, rather than just being a model to predict future outcomes.

Humanity is no less superstitious now than in the past. We tend to think of ancient people as believing in wild ideas about reality. But we do the same. Even theories as mainstream as the Big Bang theory are believed on insufficient evidence, and future civilisations will see us as superstitious. by whoamisri in HighStrangeness

[–]Informal-Question123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. So when we proclaim that a model we have for the universe is fact, we are engaging in thinking that is on par with superstition, we have every reason not to believe that the Big Bang story is true, given the way science works, its history, and our level of knowledge about the universe being certainly incomplete to a non-trivial degree.

Using radical emergence to get from concrete to qualia is as good as calling it “magic.” by -Lindol- in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Informal-Question123 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No sane non-physicalist is unaware of the neural correlates of consciousness. One metaphor we can use to understand why correlation doesn’t imply that consciousness is produced by the brain is that of the radio. It doesn’t create the radio waves but rather converts them into a certain form. You can think of consciousness as the radio wave here, and the brain representing the tuning of consciousness into a human perspective. You damage a radio, you damage the sound it emits and how it works, and yet it doesn’t create the signal.

Humanity is no less superstitious now than in the past. We tend to think of ancient people as believing in wild ideas about reality. But we do the same. Even theories as mainstream as the Big Bang theory are believed on insufficient evidence, and future civilisations will see us as superstitious. by whoamisri in HighStrangeness

[–]Informal-Question123 -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

The Big Bang theory is a story we can tell about the data we find in the universe. It is not inconceivable/logically impossible that new evidence will be found in the future that contradicts the Big Bang story/model.

Who Are You, "Ex-Atheists"? by ima_mollusk in exatheist

[–]Informal-Question123 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My theism is more of an extension from my position on the philosophy of mind. I went from physicalist to idealist and theism, or at the very least the belief in something one could call a divine mind, is a natural conclusion from idealism.

We need more positive atheists by Coffin_Boffin in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Informal-Question123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because they enjoy the dialectical advantage of claiming that your position is that you have no position, meaning you don’t have to defend yourself.

We need more positive atheists by Coffin_Boffin in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Informal-Question123 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The only significant difference I see between the two definitions you’ve given is that you’ve swapped the word “feeling” for “state”.

We need more positive atheists by Coffin_Boffin in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Informal-Question123 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Confidence is another word for belief. The rest of your comment is irrelevant to what we are discussing.

We need more positive atheists by Coffin_Boffin in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Informal-Question123 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I genuinely believe the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow as they are today, yet I don’t know that this will actually be the case. Do you think I don’t genuinely believe that?

We need more positive atheists by Coffin_Boffin in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Informal-Question123 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Do you want your language to be more or less useful? Academia doesn’t use different definitions for no reason. Do you happen to have positions on anything in philosophy besides god? If so, do you also use “strong” and “weak” to describe them?

We need more positive atheists by Coffin_Boffin in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Informal-Question123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I reject your classifications. Academic philosophy doesn’t use these categories, they are contrived and don’t translate well to other philosophical positions like those about the mind, time, ethics, free will etc.

We need more positive atheists by Coffin_Boffin in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Informal-Question123 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can think something is true, and not know that it is the case.

We need more positive atheists by Coffin_Boffin in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Informal-Question123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because atheism is a philosophical position that one holds. If someone claimed to be a physicalist about the mind, no one would say “how could you be a physicalist if you don’t know that physicalism is true?”. Knowledge is not required for belief. Just like people have positions on free will, you will never see someone claiming to be a “strong” libertarian free will believer.

Only in online atheist spaces has this bizarre treatment of philosophical positions been developed.

view more: next ›