The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE

[Robin]

Of course philosophy is not a science.

That's why it is called philosophy.

And Deepak Chopra? Spare me.

He is not a philosopher. He didn't train as a philosopher he trained in medicine.

He never worked as a philosopher and as far as I know no mainstream philosopher will give him the time of day.

He claims to be doing science, he keeps bringing up things like quantum physics to support his nonsense.

So I know some of you are apoplectic at philosophy for some reason, but please, keep Deepak, philosophy never wanted him.

 

[Robin]

What's wrong with you? I call you out for mindlessly repeating your claims over and over again and all you do is repeating your claims?

He is repeating what he said because you are claiming he said something he didn't say.

In that case it is perfectly reasonable to repeat what he actually did say

 

[Robin]

To demonstrate that, one only has to look at the charlatans who fall under the umbrella of "philosophy"



Deepak Chopra, David Wilcox, Jim Fetzer all fall under the umbrella of philosophy. And they are utter cranks. Yet they are philosophers.

As I pointed out earlier Chopra doesn't fall under the philosophy umbrella.

I had to look the other two up. I assume that David Wilcock is intended, and he also is not under the philosophy umbrella.

The only one who does fall under the philosophy umbrella here is Fetzer, but his conspiracy theories are not presented as philosophy and his former university distanced itself from those views.

As far as I can see his views on consciousness line up with the anti-philosophy crowd here so feel free to use him as an example.

The other two are charlatans who operate under the "science" umbrella.

 

[xjx388]

Chopra falls under the same branch of philosophy as we see on display here: acknowledge science but say there is something more without ever saying what that “something more is.” Use science terms but turn them into something else.

Deepak Chopra isn’t a formal philosopher but he is the kind of philosopher that just makes stuff up as he goes along to fit into his particular, fundamentally philosophical, worldview.

Quantum fields and chaos theory and Eastern Mysticism! I’m doing science!

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Chopra falls under the same branch of philosophy as we see on display here: acknowledge science but say there is something more without ever saying what that “something more is.” Use science terms but turn them into something else.

Examples?

 

[Robin]

Chopra falls under the same branch of philosophy as we see on display here: acknowledge science but say there is something more without ever saying what that “something more is.” Use science terms but turn them into something else.

Deepak Chopra isn’t a formal philosopher but he is the kind of philosopher that just makes stuff up as he goes along to fit into his particular, fundamentally philosophical, worldview.

Quantum fields and chaos theory and Eastern Mysticism! I’m doing science!

Chopra is no more a philosopher than you are a philosopher or Abbadon or JoeMorgue are philosophers.

Again, if your criticism of philosophy depends upon pretending that Chopra is a philosopher, then your criticism fails.

It is like criticising science by saying that Kenneth Copeland is a scientist, but not a formal scientist.

 

[xjx388]

Chopra is no more a philosopher than you are a philosopher or Abbadon or JoeMorgue are philosophers.

Again, if your criticism of philosophy depends upon pretending that Chopra is a philosopher, then your criticism fails.

It is like criticising science by saying that Kenneth Copeland is a scientist, but not a formal scientist.

I would never say Kenneth Copeland is a scientist. He is firmly in the philosophy camp.

A better example would be L Ron Hubbard. He insisted he was a scientist. I think many of the posters in this thread are closet Scientologists.

Anyone who says Hubbard is a scientist does not understand what science is.

 

[Robin]

I would never say Kenneth Copeland is a scientist. He is firmly in the philosophy camp.

A better example would be L Ron Hubbard. He insisted he was a scientist. I think many of the posters in this thread are closet Scientologists.

Anyone who says Hubbard is a scientist does not understand what science is.

Saying Hubbard is a scientist would be more reasonable than claiming Chopra is a philosopher.

Indeed claiming Chopra is a scientist would be more reasonable than claiming Chopra is a philosopher.

 

[Robin]

I would never say Kenneth Copeland is a scientist. He is firmly in the philosophy camp.
.

And again, of course Copeland is nowhere near the philosophy camp.

 

[xjx388]

Saying Hubbard is a scientist would be more reasonable than claiming Chopra is a philosopher.

Oh yes, yes, yes....

<checks to see if being followed by scientologists>

What are you smoking, dude? Do you know anything about Hubbard???

Indeed claiming Chopra is a scientist would be more reasonable than claiming Chopra is a philosopher.

Hmm... no science being used at all...makes stuff up to fit his ideas...sounds like philosophy to me.

 

[bruto]

Plenty of people over the ages have straddled occupations. Philosophers have been scientists, mathematicians, novelists, and no doubt many other things. What you can call some people has little if anything to do with whether philosophy is a worthwhile concern. The fact that Deepak Chopra might be considered a philosopher does not discredit all philosophy any more than Rod McKuen discredits poetry.

 

[xjx388]

And again, of course Copeland is nowhere near the philosophy camp.

So what camp is he in? He’s a “Christian,” which is a belief system firmly in the philosophy camp.

 

[xjx388]

Plenty of people over the ages have straddled occupations. Philosophers have been scientists, mathematicians, novelists, and no doubt many other things. What you can call some people has little if anything to do with whether philosophy is a worthwhile concern. The fact that Deepak Chopra might be considered a philosopher does not discredit all philosophy any more than Rod McKuen discredits poetry.

Yes, indeed. I am a management professional in the medical field. But what I have to say about love will bring a tear to your eye.

 

[Robin]

So what camp is he in? He’s a “Christian,” which is a belief system firmly in the philosophy camp.

So he fits your prejudices about philosophy and so he must be a philosopher.

And since he is a philosopher and fits your prejudices therefore your prejudices are confirmed.

Brilliant.

Next you will tell me he weighs the same as a duck.

 

[Robin]

So what camp is he in? He’s a “Christian,” which is a belief system firmly in the philosophy camp.

Nope, it is a claim about how the world actually is, therefore a scientist.

 

[Robin]

Kenneth Copeland makes claims about how the universe began, for example, which is right out of bounds for philosophy.

So we have firmly established Copeland under the science umbrella, right?

 

[MohamedTaqi]

Oh they are very expected, they just aren't valid.

This is a subform not a "Everyone agree with me and tell me how deep and wise I am" safe space.

Yes this is a philosophy subform. We have a Conspiracy Theory subforum as well and it's not a place for Conspiracy Theorists to spout off stuff unchallenged.

So you and everyone else sod off with the "Well if you don't want to talk philosophy why are you here?" arguments.

David Chalmers, among others, has a PhD in philosophy, and he asks the very same questions that I have.

My arguments were clear, you didn't address any of them .. start with this one for example , just in case :

Premise 1 : IF you cannot know that a simple system is not conscious just by observing it , THEN you cannot know that a complex system is conscious by observing it.

Premise 2 : You cannot know that a simple system (two atoms) is not conscious by observing it.

Conclusion : Therefore, you cannot know that a complex system is conscious by observing it.

From now on, I will ignore anything that does not address this argument. My argument's sole purpose is to show that consciousness is forever unknown for us, we can never explain this phenomenon, in other words, we can never infer the quality of an experience just from looking at neurons.


Tell me which premise you don't agree with, and we are done, instead of just repeating the same old story : "I hate such or such questions".

 

[Robin]

"We define ourselves as everything so we can't be criticized because any criticism is using our method" strikes me as more then incongruous, ...

Sure it is incongruous.

But who on earth said such a thing?

And why don't you take this up with whoever said it instead of mentioning it here?

 

[jrhowell]

But my point in this analogy is that consciousness cannot perfectly explain itself, just as an imaginary printer cannot perfectly print itself, with 100% accuracy.

Both the premise and the conclusion seem wrong to me. Equivalent to "DNA cannot contain the instructions to replicate itself therefore we will never be able to see a human eyeball."

 

[Robin]

Tell me which premise you don't agree with, and we are done, instead of just repeating the same old story : "I hate such or such questions".

Premise 1 needs to be supported.

I don't see how you can argue about the whole based on properties of the parts.

It is like saying that if you cannot tell that a simple two particle system obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics then you cannot tell that a heat engine obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics