By mindless I don't mean blind, I'm walking back my statement from possibly being misconstrued as an assertion of pan-consciousness.
-
-
Replying to @higherOrderNet @Baalren and
My apologies. Sure that's something we can tentatively agree on. But I wouldn't call it theology. Because when we talk about theology a lot of extrinsic factors creep in.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @Baalren and
The reason I do this is to derive is from ought. Christ's God/Allah may have been a mirage, but ultimate reality certainly isn't, and it's worthy of the same level of devotion because it's even more terrifying.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @higherOrderNet @Baalren and
You see that's when we should draw the line. For science, there is no ultimate reality. Ultimate reality is just another word for mystery or natural secrets. We shouldn't confuse our theoretical ignorance with the idea that nature is mysterious. That's not the business of science
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @Baalren and
Nature exists but our ability to perceive it is limited, so we have to use models to infer things about it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @higherOrderNet @Baalren and
The existence of particular entities are co-constitutive with our models. We can't treat them separately.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @Baalren and
But isn't that an assertion that our models are infallible?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @higherOrderNet @NegarestaniReza and
Just go and read Sellars if you want to get what Reza's saying, instead of continuing this unproductive back and forth.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Psychonothing1 @NegarestaniReza and
What do you recommend by him?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @higherOrderNet @NegarestaniReza and
Empiricism and the philosophy of mind engages directly with these questions of reality and enquiry, and while being a bit long and complex, is still utterly amazing.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
I second @Psychonothing1 's suggestion. But if you don't want to dive into the maw of the beast outright, I also suggest James O'Shea's Wilfrid Sellars: Naturalism with a Normative Turn. A very clear and solid introduction.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.