(January 9, 2016 at 10:45 am)bennyboy Wrote: You know-- things like why there is existence rather than a lack of it, or what beauty is, or goodness, or even life.  Things like how we should best live out our short lives.  Useless shit like that.

There is no why to existence, there is only a how it came to be. Beauty is an emotional reaction, and emotions are mapped in the brain. I doubt an iguana sees beauty, for example. Define goodness, and I might be able to give a scientific reason behind it. If it's altruism, doing good acts to one another and etc., then that is an evolved survival mechanism. How we best live out our short lives can't be answered by science, I'll give you that one.

Similar to what has already been said, I routinely answer the question thIs way...

Science can give us the ability to build nuclear weapons and can accurately predict the consequences of their use, but philosophy is needed to decide to build or deploy them.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithab...ic-method/

The above link is an article that discusses last month's meeting in Munich where scientists and philosophers discussed the current state and future of the philosophy of science. The impetus for the meeting stems from certain scientists raising concerns regarding other scientists vigorously defending the validity of theories with non-empirical criteria; e.g., elegance.

It will be some time before the formal report is generated from the conference, but there is a plethora of comments from participants and observers floating the internet. I recommend the four links in the last paragraph of the linked article pointing to Massimo Pigliucci. He gives thorough notes on the proceedings as well as his thoughts on the discussion.

Pigliucci is an evolutionary biologist turned philosopher. It was Pigliucci's public engagement with Krauss that resulted in the latter's change of opinion regarding the utility of philosophy. Pigliucci also champions academia getting out of the ivory tower and engaging the public. The referenced links take you to his site Plato's Footnote, which I recommend for anyone interested in this topic or useful philosophy in general. I give the word useful here the meaning of a Venn diagram intersection between the analytic and continental schools of thought as they are applied to practical considerations of the world we live in.

(January 9, 2016 at 11:16 am)Mechaghostman2 Wrote: Define goodness, and I might be able to give a scientific reason behind it. . .

Define mind, and you'll find it.  Define feelings, and you'll study them.  Define existence, and you'll look through a telescope.

Basically, you're saying "Use philosophy, and we'll see if science can say anything useful about it."

(January 9, 2016 at 11:16 am)Mechaghostman2 Wrote: Define goodness, and I might be able to give a scientific reason behind it. . .

Define mind, and you'll find it.  Define feelings, and you'll study them.  Define existence, and you'll look through a telescope.

Basically, you're saying "Use philosophy, and we'll see if science can say anything useful about it."

(January 10, 2016 at 3:00 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 11:16 am)Mechaghostman2 Wrote: Define goodness, and I might be able to give a scientific reason behind it. . .

Define mind, and you'll find it.  Define feelings, and you'll study them.  Define existence, and you'll look through a telescope.

Basically, you're saying "Use philosophy, and we'll see if science can say anything useful about it."

The mind is nothing more than electrical impulses between neurons. Feelings the same thing set in a particular part of the brain. Existence is the state of being in an objective reality, but that can't be defined with science. It can be proven with science, though.

(January 9, 2016 at 6:21 am)Quantum Wrote: It's not a decision between philosophy or science. I dare you to make an interesting scientific statement without making philosophical assumptions at the same time.

(Piggybacking on your post)

I'll go further, I double dog dare him.

Philosophy is the bedrock upon which science is built.

That's not to say that there isn't shit philosophy and shit philosophers. There are. But I guarangoddamntee you that if you discard all of philosophy, then there is no basis by which to draw interesting scientific conclusions.

Put slightly more vulgarly, anyone that claims that there aren't unprovable, unfalisfiable axioms in science is full of shit. Hmm, I wonder where those axioms come from? Those assumptions are used not because they are necessarily true, but because they are tremendously *useful* and denying them is to embrace epistemological nihilism. See how well that works out for you.

(January 10, 2016 at 3:21 am)Mechaghostman2 Wrote: The mind is nothing more than electrical impulses between neurons.

Is it?

(January 10, 2016 at 3:21 am)Mechaghostman2 Wrote: Existence is the state of being in an objective reality, but that can't be defined with science. It can be proven with science, though.

Can it?

You make many assertions, but those problems are considered unsolved for a reason. The person who solves it will undoubtedly win a Nobel Prize.

CD: Well put.

Ultimately, we are stuck in this weird place. Our choices are pragmatism, stupidity or inaction.

bump

accidental mult-post

(January 10, 2016 at 3:21 am)Mechaghostman2 Wrote: The mind is nothing more than electrical impulses between neurons. Feelings the same thing set in a particular part of the brain. Existence is the state of being in an objective reality, but that can't be defined with science. It can be proven with science, though.

You confidently assert things, and say they are provable with science, that you cannot actually support.

First of all, you define mind as electrical impulses. My brain in sleep is not conscious, and yet there are certainly electrical impulses between neurons. You will go on to explain that it is a special configuration of neurons, and a special set of impulses, that constitute mind, and upon studying will find that there is no single brain center responsible for consciousness.

Nor, without making philosophical assumptions unsupportable by scientific observation, can you even establish whether ANY physical system, neuronal or otherwise, human or otherwise, actually has the subjective awareness of experiences and ideas we call mind.

You still sure that science is ready to usurp philosophy?