Egnor tells us that Tam Hunt offers some good ideas at Scientific American but his dismissal of objectivity is cause for concern: There is a better way.
Hunt is right that the scientific study of consciousness using merely third-person objective data is flawed—it is the idiotic flaw of behaviorism—but the notion that “objective” data needs scare quotes opens the door to a deconstruction of our knowledge of the natural world that is every bit as idiotic and dangerous as the crude materialist objectification of consciousness.
Indeed. That way lies the war on math, the war on science and endless Sokal hoaxes that don’t really matter because serious science is no longer possible. All that remains is persecuting unpopular groups in science.
___
Subjective Experience and Objective Existence:
I’m fascinated by people who claim there is nothing beyond the brain. They devalue their own self in an attempt to accept the flaws of their own beliefs. Humans do not act as other animals act. Animals put no thought into their actions, but humans put thought into everything. The responses given to cites like Uncommon Descent are based on careful consideration of which words to use. We do not simply enter words mechanically, since that would shows far more commonality in responses than what is actually observed. The words chosen are carefully considered in order to achieve a result that will impact readers.
@2 BobRyan:
Darwinists will spew out some garbage ‘explanation’ about those words and the logic behind them being the result of structures that came about thanks to:
– ‘natural’ selection. If it does not work, then:
– ‘free riding’/ ‘spandrels formation’ is their second favorite choice. If it does not work, then:
– ‘random’ genetic drift comes to the rescue and caused them.
The fact that they can not prove any of the above does not bother them. At all.
___
An Excellent Article on Hylemorphism:
Attention: for the intellectually lazy (darwinists, I am looking at you): this is far more complicated than ‘naturalprocessesdidit’, it requires actual and careful thinking.
Truthfreedom, 4:
I was unaware of the philosophical hypothesis of hylomorphism. How interesting! I’m not really capable of entering into a really serious discussion of its benefits and flaws but I was interested in the following from Wikipedia:
Do either of those two resolutions sound right to you? I’m not sure Aristotle would have been aware of the science behind the two resolutions. Which brings up another question: do we interpret Aristotle from our modern perspective or from his? Might that change our acceptance of his notions?
@5 JVL
I do not understand the ‘problem’ highlighted by Wikipedia.
-The bronze sphere never was alive to begin with. It never had a soul.
-The dead body is a body that has lost its soul. That is why it is so different from its living state (it loses its form-properties-decomposes).
Truthfreedom and beauty, 6: I do not understand the ‘problem’ highlighted by Wikipedia.
Okay! Just wondering!!
___
Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication
Part II: Materialism’s Encroachment on Science
https://strangenotions.com/materialisms-failures-hylemorphisms-vindication/
*(added).
Aristotle thought men had more teeth than women and that some people are born to be slaves. And that the Earth had already existed for eternity.
He was probably a very smart guy compared to other people at the time, but If he were around today he’d be considered an idiot.
@9 Jim Thibodeau
Proof please?
More idiot than the ‘New Atheists’ for example? Less? What do you think?
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/12/new-atheism-a-shipwreck-of-fools/
@9 Jim Thibodeau
Your Logical Fallacies
Ad Hominem (Abusive)
argumentum ad hominem
(also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, refutation by caricature, against the person, against the man)
Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Abusive
The logical fallacy known as ad hominem is an argument of the form ‘he’s an idiot *therefore* he’s wrong’. That’s not what I did. I just called him an idiot. The other use of the term ad hominem is to describe an insult, which is what I did. But that’s not the logical fallacy.
Galileo and Newton both showed him to be wrong. He was wrong about most everything.
@12 JimThibodeau
Well, what you did was elegantly display your ignorance. 🙂
Aristotle’s philosophy has exerted a unique influence on almost every form of knowledge in the West and it continues to be a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.
No proof of your hmm ‘assertions’ of course. By the way, do you understand that the man lived 2300+ years ago? He was not a modern scientist. Google is your friend, it explains things, but if you find the subject very dense, I might offer some help. Oh myyyy, Aristotle did not invent neither the Interneeeet nor the iPad!
Lol. Like our materialist friends, for example?
Materialism’s Epistemological Blunder
https://strangenotions.com/materialisms-failures-hylemorphisms-vindication/
Jim Thibodeau:
Only if he still held those idiotic views.
ET, 14: Only if he still held those idiotic views.
Yes! Which he probably would not do since he would have been brought up under a completely different educational system with more data and more knowledge.
Regarding ‘evolution’ and the human brain, I found this article:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2018/05/06/how-the-evolution-of-the-mind-needed-more-than-natural-selection/amp/
Of course Kenneth R. Miller does not explain how the self-correcting mechanism appeared.
– evolution has created brains with self-correcting capabilities.
Yes, our brains are tricked by ‘illusions’ but we can ‘escape’ those illusions because evolution knows the truth and it is communicating it to us?
___
http://clearysviewpoint.blogsp.....g.html?m=1