Did Jesus practice what he preached?

[Baruch]

At the risk of greatly oversimplifying, reductionism means that complex interactions up to and including human consciousness follow the same rules as simple interactions of fundamental particles. So for example we can describe and predict the behavior of a small collection of particles using Quantum Field Theory, often times using Path Integral Formulations devised by Richard Feynman. We can't use these techniques to describe and predict the behavior of a person, but it's not because somewhere up the chain from a few particles to a huge number of particles the particles start to behave differently. It's because the computational complexity is simply out of the question.

As a side note, in modern physics using terms like "prediction" needs a bit of explaining. Interactions between particles are probabilistic, not deterministic. This is not because of incomplete knowledge or computational complexity as is the case with the use of probability and statistics in domains like thermodynamics. The particles really behave probabilistically. So when discussing "prediction" the predictions are of the probability of future state given a present state.

That is the philosophy.  But there are problems with it (it is a philosophy, not science).  Philosophy only adds newer/better questions, it never provides answers.

Scientism is related, but one could follow "scientism" without being reductionist.  Scientism is also a philosophy.  It isn't the same as "current scientific method".

Epiphenomenalism is another.  Namely that by combining simple elements, if you have enough elements in complicated enough arrangement, that new qualitative things happen like life and consciousness.  This is also a philosophy, not a science.

Vitalism mostly is debunked, because organic molecules can be produced by non-organic means.  However the manner in which advanced cells came about, is missing, because they weren't fossilized.  That leaves an unavoidable pre-Cambrian gap.  But we can accept that living cells/flora/fauna exist, even if we don't fully understand them.  We won't get better info on this, unless we can extend exobiology to the newly discovered exoplanets.  With mind, there is "The Consciousness Problem".  The attempt is made, to skip over this problem (given that we don't have a lot of fossils details on brains) by assuming, that a computer program is conscious (AI).

The materialist argument for reductionism, scientism, epiphenomenalism ... is "there is no other choice".  Much like the arguments in favor of superstrings.

I definitely don't support reductionism (as a panacea).  I don't support in-organicism (rocks and cats are the same).  I don't support AI (other than as flawed algorithms for video game non-human players).

[Baruch]

And that they actually know less than people who watch no news at all.

If you avoid the news, you avoid both CIA and KGB brainwashing.  But you have a dirtier mind ;-)

[Baruch]

That's probably true of most people who watch FUX Gnus.

CNN, for total fools.

[Baruch]

It has been demonstrated that the longer people watch faux the stupider they become.

But they are helped in Bible studies and cleaning their assault weapons.

[aileron]

That is the philosophy.  But there are problems with it (it is a philosophy, not science).

No, it's not. It's a scientific proposition. It's mathematically precise and makes quantifiable, testable predictions.

[Baruch]

No, it's not. It's a scientific proposition. It's mathematically precise and makes quantifiable, testable predictions.

If by that, you mean the three items I listed, then I must respectfully disagree.  But that is philosophy for you ;-)

Current quantitative scientific method is very good at what it does.  But those other things are not.

[aileron]

If by that, you mean the three items I listed, then I must respectfully disagree.  But that is philosophy for you ;-)

Current quantitative scientific method is very good at what it does.  But those other things are not.

The "other things" like the so-called conscientiousness problem? It's probably only a problem because of our conceit. Many long-intractable scientific problems turned out to be a problem of conceit.

[Baruch]

The "other things" like the so-called conscientiousness problem? It's probably only a problem because of our conceit. Many scientific problems were a problem of conceit.

Yes, materialists are expected to "talk down" humanity.

[aileron]

Yes, materialists are expected to "talk down" humanity.

Is-ought fallacy. Hume is waging a finger disapprovingly.

[josephpalazzo]

Highjack not equal to kibitz.  Also I respond mostly, not initiate.  I am happy to add distraction to a string that has already gone astray.

Oh so now you even play God with this forum. That alone deserves a ban.

[Cavebear]

Is-ought fallacy. Hume is waging a finger disapprovingly.

I took an online philosophy survey a few years ago.  Not greatly to my surprise, I was 100% Kant and 75% Hume.  I just laugh reading modern philosophers.

[Baruch]

I took an online philosophy survey a few years ago.  Not greatly to my surprise, I was 100% Kant and 75% Hume.  I just laugh reading modern philosophers.

You know, that is a combination that tends toward spontaneous combustion?  Kant + Hume = a priori Scottish skepticism?  Might hurt your a posteriori if you do that ;-)

[Baruch]

Is-ought fallacy. Hume is waging a finger disapprovingly.

Haha ... good one.  Oh shit .. you weren't kidding?

[Baruch]

Oh so now you even play God with this forum. That alone deserves a ban.

Which is your only reason for returning, right?  Because as Professor ... you get to F anyone you disagree with?

[josephpalazzo]

Which is your only reason for returning, right?  Because as Professor ... you get to F anyone you disagree with?

No, the F is just for you...