ba ba ba bum bum!!

[Louie Dawgs]

and to be honest, I got generally bored with metaphysics a long, long time ago. I generally prefer epistemology and ethics/political philosophy. There was a time when I wanted to do a PHD in epistemology.

[Louie Dawgs]

and to be honest, I got generally bored with metaphysics a long, long time ago. I generally prefer epistemology and ethics/political philosophy. There was a time when I wanted to do a PHD in epistemology.

This, in a sense could deal with epistemology. Look at it from the point of view of knowledge, seeing the soul as a physical object seems to be the point of view of an empiricist. Empiricism is one of the most prominent stands in modern epistemology, is it not?

This, in a sense could deal with epistemology. Look at it from the point of view of knowledge, seeing the soul as a physical object seems to be the point of view of an empiricist. Empiricism is one of the most prominent stands in modern epistemology, is it not?

[Louie Dawgs]

Originally Posted by BL_NK

“Some years ago, there was a lovely philosopher of science and journalist in Italy named Giulio Giorello, and he did an interview with me. And I don’t know if he wrote it or not, but the headline in Corriere della Sera when it was published was "Sì, abbiamo un'anima. Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot – "Yes, we have a soul, but it’s made of lots of tiny robots." And I thought, exactly. That’s the view. Yes, we have a soul, but in what sense? In the sense that our brains, unlike the brains even of dogs and cats and chimpanzees and dolphins, our brains have functional structures that give our brains powers that no other brains have - powers of look-ahead, primarily. We can understand our position in the world, we can see the future, we can understand where we came from. We know that we’re here. No buffalo knows it’s a buffalo, but we jolly well know that we’re members of Homo sapiens, and it’s the knowledge that we have and the can-do, our capacity to think ahead and to reflect and to evaluate and to evaluate our evaluations, and evaluate the grounds for our evaluations.

It’s this expandable capacity to represent reasons that we have that gives us a soul. But what’s it made of? It’s made of neurons. It’s made of lots of tiny robots. And we can actually explain the structure and operation of that kind of soul, whereas an eternal, immortal, immaterial soul is just a metaphysical rug under which you sweep your embarrassment for not having any explanation.”
― Daniel C. Dennett

Okay, here's what I'm reading.

His definition of a "soul" is essentially, "what makes us human?"

His answer to this is reason. We can think, we have self actualization, we have higher order processing. It's a bit of a "different" conception that was I was thinking of, and I guess if you want to classify the "soul" as the "essence of humanity" or "what makes us human" this is a generally decent argument.

---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------

Originally Posted by BL_NK

This, in a sense could deal with epistemology. Look at it from the point of view of knowledge, seeing the soul as a physical object seems to be the point of view of an empiricist. Empiricism is one of the most prominent stands in modern epistemology, is it not?

I consider empiricism to tote the line between the two. I consider myself a pretty straight down the line classic empiricist, although I do have some (related) questions about dissent and truth.

As an empiricist, I can't state that I'm trying to see a "soul" or whatever, but simply what is measurable. I don't think that there is a soul in the spiritual and transcendent sense, and I don't accept that a "soul" can be "human essence", as it seems your guy is stating.

[Louie Dawgs]

Originally Posted by BL_NK

“Some years ago, there was a lovely philosopher of science and journalist in Italy named Giulio Giorello, and he did an interview with me. And I don’t know if he wrote it or not, but the headline in Corriere della Sera when it was published was "Sì, abbiamo un'anima. Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot – "Yes, we have a soul, but it’s made of lots of tiny robots." And I thought, exactly. That’s the view. Yes, we have a soul, but in what sense? In the sense that our brains, unlike the brains even of dogs and cats and chimpanzees and dolphins, our brains have functional structures that give our brains powers that no other brains have - powers of look-ahead, primarily. We can understand our position in the world, we can see the future, we can understand where we came from. We know that we’re here. No buffalo knows it’s a buffalo, but we jolly well know that we’re members of Homo sapiens, and it’s the knowledge that we have and the can-do, our capacity to think ahead and to reflect and to evaluate and to evaluate our evaluations, and evaluate the grounds for our evaluations.

It’s this expandable capacity to represent reasons that we have that gives us a soul. But what’s it made of? It’s made of neurons. It’s made of lots of tiny robots. And we can actually explain the structure and operation of that kind of soul, whereas an eternal, immortal, immaterial soul is just a metaphysical rug under which you sweep your embarrassment for not having any explanation.”
― Daniel C. Dennett

Okay, here's what I'm reading.

His definition of a "soul" is essentially, "what makes us human?"

His answer to this is reason. We can think, we have self actualization, we have higher order processing. It's a bit of a "different" conception that was I was thinking of, and I guess if you want to classify the "soul" as the "essence of humanity" or "what makes us human" this is a generally decent argument.

---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------

Originally Posted by BL_NK

This, in a sense could deal with epistemology. Look at it from the point of view of knowledge, seeing the soul as a physical object seems to be the point of view of an empiricist. Empiricism is one of the most prominent stands in modern epistemology, is it not?

I consider empiricism to tote the line between the two. I consider myself a pretty straight down the line classic empiricist, although I do have some (related) questions about dissent and truth.

As an empiricist, I can't state that I'm trying to see a "soul" or whatever, but simply what is measurable. I don't think that there is a soul in the spiritual and transcendent sense, and I don't accept that a "soul" can be "human essence", as it seems your guy is stating.

[Lizman]

I Don't Know Who To Vote For

[Lizman]

I Don't Know Who To Vote For

I consider myself to be a rationalist, but, I would go as far as to use empirical evidence as reasoning for an argument.

I consider myself to be a rationalist, but, I would go as far as to use empirical evidence as reasoning for an argument.

[Lizman]

Yes You Would
Whats Empirical?

---------- Post added at 12:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 AM ----------

Originally Posted by BL_NK

You know what I think the soul is, Ad?

I sort of share the same premise as Daniel Dennet, he said something along the lines of: "yes I have a soul, but it's lots of tiny robots." Which he further elaborated on, in which he stated that those tiny robots were in fact neurons in the brain. I feel as though this extends to include not just the neurons at work in our mind which fire between neuro transmitters causing our spatial memory to appear as though it's some hologram in our minds, while it's being imprinted there to recall later, but all chemicals that our at work in our minds, incuding seratonin, and dopamine, and acetylcholorine, which I think I may have misremembered the name of. And etc.

Oh No, I Would Certainly Agree [Posh British Voice]
Similarly To How Love Is Merely A Score Of Chemical Reactions

[Lizman]

Yes You Would
Whats Empirical?

---------- Post added at 12:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 AM ----------

Originally Posted by BL_NK

You know what I think the soul is, Ad?

I sort of share the same premise as Daniel Dennet, he said something along the lines of: "yes I have a soul, but it's lots of tiny robots." Which he further elaborated on, in which he stated that those tiny robots were in fact neurons in the brain. I feel as though this extends to include not just the neurons at work in our mind which fire between neuro transmitters causing our spatial memory to appear as though it's some hologram in our minds, while it's being imprinted there to recall later, but all chemicals that our at work in our minds, incuding seratonin, and dopamine, and acetylcholorine, which I think I may have misremembered the name of. And etc.

Oh No, I Would Certainly Agree [Posh British Voice]
Similarly To How Love Is Merely A Score Of Chemical Reactions

[Louie Dawgs]

Originally Posted by BL_NK

I consider myself to be a rationalist, but, I would go as far as to use empirical evidence as reasoning for an argument.

I have problems with rationalism.

Actually, I could have a problem with empiricism as well, depending on how you judge it.

Here's my problem with rationalism (or at least pre-postmodern rationalism), and this is in fact the part of epistemology which most interests me.

My question is dissent. Why does it happen?

Let me give some background. I love politics. Honestly, I do. I read blogs, I read opinion articles, I post on forums. I consider myself a liberal, almost to the point of being a social democrat.

For the longest time, I was sure as fuck that I could, at least theoretically argue someone out of a position. It's an old idea, if we have a disagreement, we argue about it and the best argument wins, people change their mind to see true reason.

This never happens.

Why? You can take one of several paths.

1. You can state that one is right, one is wrong and the wrong one has struggled to see the error in his ways because he doesn't have all the relevent facts, he has faulty logic, ect ect...

Classically, this would be the rationalist view. (I hate to generalize, but bear with)

I disagree. There are people, many people who are highly educated and have a mastery over a subject and disagree on basic levels. I don't think that some of these people have faulty reasoning, I think it's something else...

That being path #2. That there is some measure of objective truth, however we all use fundamentally flawed logic at some level or another, so the best we can do is simply draw closer to the truth...(perhaps, I"m not so sure about this part). Anyway, when we accept this I think (I'm not totally sure) that we must accept that since we all use flawed reasoning, multiple lines of reasoning can make sense to different people.

Furthermore, I posit that there are multiple rational solutions to a problem that lead to vastly different answers.

I generally subscribe to #2.

#3. The postmodern view.

There is no objective truth.

Perhaps true in some sense, but certainly not as a general rule.

---------- Post added at 05:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 PM ----------

Originally Posted by _Lizman_

Yes You Would
Whats Empirical?

---------- Post added at 12:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 AM ----------



Oh No, I Would Certainly Agree [Posh British Voice]
Similarly To How Love Is Merely A Score Of Chemical Reactions

:facepalm:

[Louie Dawgs]

Originally Posted by BL_NK

I consider myself to be a rationalist, but, I would go as far as to use empirical evidence as reasoning for an argument.

I have problems with rationalism.

Actually, I could have a problem with empiricism as well, depending on how you judge it.

Here's my problem with rationalism (or at least pre-postmodern rationalism), and this is in fact the part of epistemology which most interests me.

My question is dissent. Why does it happen?

Let me give some background. I love politics. Honestly, I do. I read blogs, I read opinion articles, I post on forums. I consider myself a liberal, almost to the point of being a social democrat.

For the longest time, I was sure as fuck that I could, at least theoretically argue someone out of a position. It's an old idea, if we have a disagreement, we argue about it and the best argument wins, people change their mind to see true reason.

This never happens.

Why? You can take one of several paths.

1. You can state that one is right, one is wrong and the wrong one has struggled to see the error in his ways because he doesn't have all the relevent facts, he has faulty logic, ect ect...

Classically, this would be the rationalist view. (I hate to generalize, but bear with)

I disagree. There are people, many people who are highly educated and have a mastery over a subject and disagree on basic levels. I don't think that some of these people have faulty reasoning, I think it's something else...

That being path #2. That there is some measure of objective truth, however we all use fundamentally flawed logic at some level or another, so the best we can do is simply draw closer to the truth...(perhaps, I"m not so sure about this part). Anyway, when we accept this I think (I'm not totally sure) that we must accept that since we all use flawed reasoning, multiple lines of reasoning can make sense to different people.

Furthermore, I posit that there are multiple rational solutions to a problem that lead to vastly different answers.

I generally subscribe to #2.

#3. The postmodern view.

There is no objective truth.

Perhaps true in some sense, but certainly not as a general rule.

---------- Post added at 05:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 PM ----------

Originally Posted by _Lizman_

Yes You Would
Whats Empirical?

---------- Post added at 12:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 AM ----------



Oh No, I Would Certainly Agree [Posh British Voice]
Similarly To How Love Is Merely A Score Of Chemical Reactions

:facepalm:

I think that whether one could obtain objective truth would depend on what one would consider truth to be in the first place. Is it not true that one can measure the distance between point a, and point b, objectively?

I think that whether one could obtain objective truth would depend on what one would consider truth to be in the first place. Is it not true that one can measure the distance between point a, and point b, objectively?

[Louie Dawgs]

Originally Posted by BL_NK

I think that whether one could obtain objective truth would depend on what one would consider truth to be in the first place. Is it not true that one can measure the distance between point a, and point b, objectively?

correct, and this question is why I accept some parts of the post modernist viewpoint.

[Louie Dawgs]

Originally Posted by BL_NK

I think that whether one could obtain objective truth would depend on what one would consider truth to be in the first place. Is it not true that one can measure the distance between point a, and point b, objectively?

correct, and this question is why I accept some parts of the post modernist viewpoint.

I also think however, that there are situations in which there is only one reasonable way to come to that measure of objective truth. A set of conditional circumstances in which something needs to be true.

I also think however, that there are situations in which there is only one reasonable way to come to that measure of objective truth. A set of conditional circumstances in which something needs to be true.