The Good Place

With respect to definitions of words:

https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/our-s...ctionaries

Linda

I have no idea what you mean in the first sentence.

If you don’t generally read those posts, how would you know whether they’re clearly stated or not?

First sentence tells me you've not heard us until today.

I read your posts directed at me in the thread and germane to the thread. Other than that I tend not to read anything you might post on another sub forum topic.

Yet nobody suggests that it’s no longer science or physics or even physicalism, which all seem to be flexible enough to subsume any new discoveries (as you pointed out)..

First question here for me is: Is it objectively accurate to conflate science, physics, and physicalism?  I'm not sure that it is so would like to hear others' thoughts.

Secondly, and more an observation, this sentence seems to conjure a bit of goalpost moving so to speak.  Its probably semantics but any "ism" that is presented with the promise of flexibility to include future knowledge as yet unknown sounds a bit "woo'ish".  Sort of how so many react to the God of the Gaps game.

First question here for me is: Is it objectively accurate to conflate science, physics, and physicalism?  I'm not sure that it is so would like to hear others' thoughts.

Secondly, and more an observation, this sentence seems to conjure a bit of goalpost moving so to speak.  Its probably semantics but any "ism" that is presented with the promise of flexibility to include future knowledge as yet unknown sounds a bit "woo'ish".  Sort of how so many react to the God of the Gaps game.

Which is probably why thinking about what ‘model of reality’ one subscribes to shouldn’t occupy most people’s time. This is where modern philosophy has lost its way a bit (imo). Something like ‘stoicism’, might just unite all of us

First sentence tells me you've not heard us until today.

Since I literally just said that these are my own thoughts, which I have held for awhile, and that they were not spawned in response to anyone else's posts, this makes no sense. 

I didn't read your posts, or Linda's posts, and have some awakening where I suddenly understood. These are things I have thought for a long time. I did not suddenly "hear" you. It seems instead that it is the case that you actually heard me for once or understood what I was saying for the first time. Again, this is certainly not the first time I have expressed those thoughts here. Perhaps it's the first time I was clear enough for you to understand my meaning, but it is absolutely not the case that I haven't "heard you" or had those thoughts until today. 

I read your posts directed at me in the thread and germane to the thread. Other than that I tend not to read anything you might post on another sub forum topic.

When I said that I had mentioned this previously, I meant that I had mentioned it to you previously. I know for certain I have said something to this effect to Linda in the past. Perhaps I am mistaken, but that is what I meant. I did not mean that you should have read every post I have ever made on this forum, even when it has nothing to do with you or a topic you're not participating in.

Which is probably why thinking about what ‘model of reality’ one subscribes to shouldn’t occupy most people’s time.

I agree with malf.

First question here for me is: Is it objectively accurate to conflate science, physics, and physicalism?  I'm not sure that it is so would like to hear others' thoughts.

I agree that they shouldn’t be treated as equivalent - they are not equivalent. The similarity between the three is more about whether someone has said, at one time or another, that science  or physics or physicalism excludes immaterialism. They do not.

Secondly, and more an observation, this sentence seems to conjure a bit of goalpost moving so to speak.  Its probably semantics but any "ism" that is presented with the promise of flexibility to include future knowledge as yet unknown sounds a bit "woo'ish".  Sort of how so many react to the God of the Gaps game.

I agree. Which is partly why I avoid “ism’s”. If your interest is in scientific discoveries, there is no point in locking in what you think unknown future discoveries will look like. Leave it open to see what arises. If your “ism” is well defined, it will almost certainly be wrong with respect to future discoveries. And if it isn’t well defined, then it won’t be useful.

Linda

Perhaps it might be appropriate to interject a reminder that we have already discussed scientific or methodological naturalism previously on this forum. So there are metaphysical boundaries imposed upon what science can or cannot investigate. I'd echo what Typoz rightly pointed out about the dangers of circular logic.

Methodological naturalism concerns itself with methods of learning what nature is. These methods are useful in the evaluation of claims about existence and knowledge and in identifying causal mechanisms responsible for the emergence of physical phenomena. It attempts to explain and test scientific endeavors, hypotheses, and events with reference to natural causes and events. This second sense of the term "naturalism" seeks to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature

When it comes to the question of consciousness (whether it may be fundamental), it is interesting to note the caution  expressed by Kastrup with regard to panpsychism. There does seem to be a current trend towards panpsychism but, as Kastrup notes, scientists such as Koch appear to be attempting to accommodate panpsychism within that naturalistic framework mentioned in the above Wikipedia quote.
We should also note the words of the philosopher perhaps most associated with theories about consciousness, David Chalmers.

Such theories sound incredible, and perhaps they are. But then again, so is every other possible theory that explains consciousness. “The more I think about [any theory], the less plausible it becomes,” says Chalmers. “One starts as a materialist, then turns into a dualist, then a panpsychist, then an idealist,” he adds, echoing his paper on the subject. Idealism holds that physical matter does not exist at all and conscious experience is the only thing there is. From that perspective, panpsychism is quite moderate.

Which is probably why thinking about what ‘model of reality’ one subscribes to shouldn’t occupy most people’s time. This is where modern philosophy has lost its way a bit (imo). Something like ‘stoicism’, might just unite all of us

Unite us all until oblivion. What's the point of that ?

Since I literally just said that these are my own thoughts, which I have held for awhile, and that they were not spawned in response to anyone else's posts, this makes no sense. 

I didn't read your posts, or Linda's posts, and have some awakening where I suddenly understood. These are things I have thought for a long time. I did not suddenly "hear" you. It seems instead that it is the case that you actually heard me for once or understood what I was saying for the first time. Again, this is certainly not the first time I have expressed those thoughts here. Perhaps it's the first time I was clear enough for you to understand my meaning, but it is absolutely not the case that I haven't "heard you" or had those thoughts until today. 


When I said that I had mentioned this previously, I meant that I had mentioned it to you previously. I know for certain I have said something to this effect to Linda in the past. Perhaps I am mistaken, but that is what I meant. I did not mean that you should have read every post I have ever made on this forum, even when it has nothing to do with you or a topic you're not participating in.

You were clearer in that post. That's the important point that should be the focus.