Occams Hatchet and Is Materialism "Special"

[Neo-Scholastic]

…Questioning the philosophical moves of Descartes, Hume and Kant is something unthinkable to anyone who is either unwilling or unable to consider how the larger culture channels their thinking toward the mechanistic assumptions that inform their commitments to materialism/physicalism.

As for the "metaphors of machine production," I see that in today's idea that our minds are "programs running in computer brains."

It may help you to know that I find myself increasing moving toward Thomistic philosophy. The mind-body problem did not arise until Descartes redefined substance. The binding problem did not exist until Hume re-defined efficient cause. And the materialism versus idealism debate did not exist until Kant re-defined concept formation. Each of these was a questionable philosophical move based on misinterpretations of Scholastic terms and concepts. I have tried to explain this in several threads for at least 3 years and it is only now that I understand that some other AF members are not so much resistant to the ideas; but rather, the mechanistic worldview is so pervasive that very few people can see how it channels their thinking.

I know it's hard to get across, but my main point is that we are not "things in a world," that we really don't know what we are.

With respect to questions about the fundamental nature of reality, these are not all-or-nothing propositions. Some things cannot be known, like simulated reality scenarios. Some things cannot be fully known, like objects-in-themselves. Some things can be known absolutely, like the Principle of Non-Contradiction.