I didn't know Plato had rejected infinity. Why did he do that, may I ask? — Agent Smith
I don't think Plato "rejected infinity". As you noted, his concept of a realm of Forms is functionally infinite in a Potential sense. However, Aristotle, as a realist, may have rejected the notion of "actual Infinity" as impossible in the real world of constant beginnings & endings. However. mathematics is not inherently realistic, so it can accommodate Ideal concepts.
Modern mathematics has been forced to become comfortable with the paradoxes of infinities. So, it has developed workarounds to deal with them. The easiest dodge is to define "infinity" as a large-but-countable number. Scientists though, typically prefer to avoid Infinities for practical reasons, such as the tendency to crash computers. But fearless Philosophers boldly go where scientists fear to tread : into Metaphysical Infinity, the realm of Possibility.
Plato on the infinite :
The world of Forms: is a world in which everything “always is,” it “has no becoming,” and “does not change” (Timeaus, 28a). We know this world of Being by reason (i.e. through the rational part of our souls).
https://infinityonline.valzorex.com/plato.html
Actual infinity :
Aristotle postulated that an actual infinity was impossible, because if it were possible, then something would have attained infinite magnitude, and would be "bigger than the heavens." However, he said, mathematics relating to infinity was not deprived of its applicability by this impossibility, because mathematicians did not need the infinite for their theorems, just a finite, arbitrarily large magnitude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity
Three main types of infinity may be distinguished: the mathematical, the physical, and the metaphysical.
https://www.britannica.com/science/infinity-mathematics
TPF : Non-Physical Reality
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality
So is a real particle... 
— EugeneW
Ah yes. As cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman postulated in his book : The Case Against Reality, all human mental models of Reality are essentially "illusions". By that, he simply means that our ideas are Ideal, not Real. Unfortunately, some people can't accept that their personal Reality is artificial and man-made. So, we should not take them as literally true, but as pointers to true reality. That's because each mental model of Reality is abstract & fragmentary, derived from a limited perspective and shaped by personal biases. Even the composite models of Science are incomplete. Presumably, only God, looking down on the world from outside, would have the True, Comprehensive, Objective perspective of Reality. Consequently, our abstract mental & mathematical models of Physical & Virtual particles are both "imaginary simulations" of Absolute True Reality. :joke:
The Case Against Reality :
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ty/479559/
Mental models are personal, internal representations of external reality that people use to interact with the world around them. They are constructed by individuals based on their unique life experiences, perceptions, and understandings of the world.
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art46/
"False" models as an integral part of science :
The models that scientists use are no different from the models you use in everyday life. They are simultaneously false and useful. Learning even a small amount about scientific models can be quite useful in detecting major limitations of scientific approaches. This knowledge enables one to pose relevant questions to those who developed the model.
https://utw10426.utweb.utexas.edu/Topic ... /Text.html
— EugeneWAh yes. As cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman postulated in his book : The Case Against Reality, all human mental models of Reality are essentially "illusions". By that, he simply means that our ideas are Ideal, not Real. Unfortunately, some people can't accept that their personal Reality is artificial and man-made. So, we should not take them as literally true, but as pointers to true reality. That's because each mental model of Reality is abstract & fragmentary, derived from a limited perspective and shaped by personal biases. Even the composite models of Science are incomplete. Presumably, only God, looking down on the world from outside, would have the True, Comprehensive, Objective perspective of Reality. Consequently, our abstract mental & mathematical models of Physical & Virtual particles are both "imaginary simulations" of Absolute True Reality. :joke:
The Case Against Reality :
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ty/479559/
Mental models are personal, internal representations of external reality that people use to interact with the world around them. They are constructed by individuals based on their unique life experiences, perceptions, and understandings of the world.
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art46/
"False" models as an integral part of science :
The models that scientists use are no different from the models you use in everyday life. They are simultaneously false and useful. Learning even a small amount about scientific models can be quite useful in detecting major limitations of scientific approaches. This knowledge enables one to pose relevant questions to those who developed the model.
https://utw10426.utweb.utexas.edu/Topic ... /Text.html
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality
Absolute True Reality — Gnomon
Assuming there is such a thing. — jgill
In Reality, there is no such thing as "true reality". But absolute true Ideality, is another question. That's what Plato called the realm of "Forms". Ideality is a standard of perfection against which we compare & evaluate our imperfect world. Like "Infinity", we can conceive of such a perfect state, but we know better than to begin the journey to that destination. :joke:
What is reality? Why we still don't understand the world's true nature :
It’s the ultimate scientific quest – to understand everything that there is. But the closer we get, the further away it seems. Can we ever get to grips with the true nature of reality?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... ue-nature/
Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of "Forms", he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call "Reality" consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Note __ A perfect circle is ideally defined by Pi D or PiR^2. But, in reality there are only polygons with a series of points & sides that approximate infinity.
Assuming there is such a thing. — jgill
In Reality, there is no such thing as "true reality". But absolute true Ideality, is another question. That's what Plato called the realm of "Forms". Ideality is a standard of perfection against which we compare & evaluate our imperfect world. Like "Infinity", we can conceive of such a perfect state, but we know better than to begin the journey to that destination. :joke:
What is reality? Why we still don't understand the world's true nature :
It’s the ultimate scientific quest – to understand everything that there is. But the closer we get, the further away it seems. Can we ever get to grips with the true nature of reality?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... ue-nature/
Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of "Forms", he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call "Reality" consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Note __ A perfect circle is ideally defined by Pi D or PiR^2. But, in reality there are only polygons with a series of points & sides that approximate infinity.
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality
Does this mean that, despite denying it, vehemently, we're actually using some version of paraconsistent logic? — Agent Smith
Oh yes. Inconsistency in logic is a common glitch in human reasoning. That's why the first rule of philosophy is "don't fool yourself". One way to check your own assumptions & arguments is to be aware of common fallacies. They may masquerade as commonsense, but often others will see through your facade before you do. So exchanging views on a forum like this will expose your personal "paraconsistencies" to the skeptical eye of other truth-seekers. In most cases, they will be gentle with you, because they are aware of their own shortcomings. But those who hold their own beliefs with unconditional faith, may pounce on your apparent or real errors with pitiless fervor. So, you'll need to develop a thick skin.
Oh yes. Inconsistency in logic is a common glitch in human reasoning. That's why the first rule of philosophy is "don't fool yourself". One way to check your own assumptions & arguments is to be aware of common fallacies. They may masquerade as commonsense, but often others will see through your facade before you do. So exchanging views on a forum like this will expose your personal "paraconsistencies" to the skeptical eye of other truth-seekers. In most cases, they will be gentle with you, because they are aware of their own shortcomings. But those who hold their own beliefs with unconditional faith, may pounce on your apparent or real errors with pitiless fervor. So, you'll need to develop a thick skin.
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality
True. But that doesn't mean you can't consider them objective reality. You gotta think something is real. — EugeneW
True! That's what Hoffman is talking about in his book, The Case Against Reality. He labels "what you think is real" as a mental model of reality, not reality as such (ding an sich). Those models are maps or guidebooks to Objective Reality, not the terrain itself. However, our maps are useful abstractions of the real world. If our models were not good approximations of the terrain though, we would soon get lost. Of course, you could "consider" your model to be "objective reality", but that would be self-deceptive.
Hoffman himself argues for Model Dependent Realism (MDR),concluding that “it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation.” . . .
However, he explains, “there is an objective reality. But that reality is utterly unlike our perceptions of objects in space and time.”
BothAnd Blog, post 105
We humans are permanently in subjective reality, as are all conscious life forms. Objection — Objective reality must exist independent of subjective reality. Just because we do not or cannot perceive it, does not mean it does not exist.
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Does_ob ... y_exist%3F
“Let us remember that our knowledge of the world begins not with matter but with perceptions. I know that my pain exists, my “green” exists, and my “sweet” exists. I do not need any proof of their existence, because these events are a part of me; everything else is a theory.” [ My bold ]
___ Andrei Linde, theoretical physicist (cosmological inflation)
https://e4b6rqtxami.exactdn.com/wp-cont ... sy=1&ssl=1
True! That's what Hoffman is talking about in his book, The Case Against Reality. He labels "what you think is real" as a mental model of reality, not reality as such (ding an sich). Those models are maps or guidebooks to Objective Reality, not the terrain itself. However, our maps are useful abstractions of the real world. If our models were not good approximations of the terrain though, we would soon get lost. Of course, you could "consider" your model to be "objective reality", but that would be self-deceptive.
Hoffman himself argues for Model Dependent Realism (MDR),concluding that “it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation.” . . .
However, he explains, “there is an objective reality. But that reality is utterly unlike our perceptions of objects in space and time.”
BothAnd Blog, post 105
We humans are permanently in subjective reality, as are all conscious life forms. Objection — Objective reality must exist independent of subjective reality. Just because we do not or cannot perceive it, does not mean it does not exist.
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Does_ob ... y_exist%3F
“Let us remember that our knowledge of the world begins not with matter but with perceptions. I know that my pain exists, my “green” exists, and my “sweet” exists. I do not need any proof of their existence, because these events are a part of me; everything else is a theory.” [ My bold ]
___ Andrei Linde, theoretical physicist (cosmological inflation)
https://e4b6rqtxami.exactdn.com/wp-cont ... sy=1&ssl=1
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality
So, now we are forced, and rightly so, to take the path of least resistance -- CAUSAL THEORY OF PERCEPTION. — L'éléphant
I wasn't familiar with the various theories of Perception, but the "Causal theory" seems intuitive to me. However, the "Emission Theory" seemed sensible to Plato. And Superman's X-ray Vision is a form of emission perception. So, I guess, what you Perceive is still somewhat dependent on what you Conceive.
The causal theory of perception consists roughly of the claim that necessarily, if a subject S sees an object O, then O causes S to have a visual experience. Some have held that this claim is a conceptual truth.
https://philpapers.org/browse/the-causa ... perception
Theories of Preception :
The four main bottom-up theories of form and pattern perception are direct perception, template theories, feature theories, and recognition-by-components theory. Bottom-up theories describe approaches where perception starts with the stimuli whose appearance you take in through your eye.
https://philpapers.org/browse/the-causa ... perception
Emission theory (vision) :
Emission theory or extramission theory (variants: extromission) or extromissionism is the proposal that visual perception is accomplished by eye beams ...
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Emission_theory_(visi...
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ldoUt4HfB6s/ ... 0i4eiL.gif
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/70/69/d8/7069 ... 1a9e56.jpg
I wasn't familiar with the various theories of Perception, but the "Causal theory" seems intuitive to me. However, the "Emission Theory" seemed sensible to Plato. And Superman's X-ray Vision is a form of emission perception. So, I guess, what you Perceive is still somewhat dependent on what you Conceive.
The causal theory of perception consists roughly of the claim that necessarily, if a subject S sees an object O, then O causes S to have a visual experience. Some have held that this claim is a conceptual truth.
https://philpapers.org/browse/the-causa ... perception
Theories of Preception :
The four main bottom-up theories of form and pattern perception are direct perception, template theories, feature theories, and recognition-by-components theory. Bottom-up theories describe approaches where perception starts with the stimuli whose appearance you take in through your eye.
https://philpapers.org/browse/the-causa ... perception
Emission theory (vision) :
Emission theory or extramission theory (variants: extromission) or extromissionism is the proposal that visual perception is accomplished by eye beams ...
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Emission_theory_(visi...
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ldoUt4HfB6s/ ... 0i4eiL.gif
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/70/69/d8/7069 ... 1a9e56.jpg
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality
What is perceived and understood depends on the observer. — EugeneW
Yes. The eye is not the only component in vision. The brain interprets the visual stimuli in order to understand what is being seen. And even the brain has more than one way to Perceive, as exemplified in the "Blindsight" phenomenon. Moreover, the brain can Conceive of something that isn't there, as in illusions and mirages. So human perception is a combination of physical and non-physical functions. By "non-physical" I mean the interpretation of physical inputs into non-physical meaning in the Mind. Percepts are converted into Concepts. So, "what you see, ain't always what you got".
Blindsight is the ability of people who are cortically blind due to lesions in their striate cortex, also known as the primary visual cortex or V1, to respond to visual stimuli that they do not consciously see.
___Wiki
Yes. The eye is not the only component in vision. The brain interprets the visual stimuli in order to understand what is being seen. And even the brain has more than one way to Perceive, as exemplified in the "Blindsight" phenomenon. Moreover, the brain can Conceive of something that isn't there, as in illusions and mirages. So human perception is a combination of physical and non-physical functions. By "non-physical" I mean the interpretation of physical inputs into non-physical meaning in the Mind. Percepts are converted into Concepts. So, "what you see, ain't always what you got".
Blindsight is the ability of people who are cortically blind due to lesions in their striate cortex, also known as the primary visual cortex or V1, to respond to visual stimuli that they do not consciously see.
___Wiki
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality
This sounds like a variety of deism. The philosophical problem, which I don't think you've address, is the trust you put in the word 'mind' to do so much lifting for you. — lll
Again, your perception is accurate, but your interpretation is off-target. My personal worldview is similar to Deism, but more specifically PanEnDeism. So, the "Universal Mind" is infinite & eternal, hence prior to, and outside of the space-time world. PED is an abstruse philosophical concept, not a popular religion. Unlike, the Abrahamic god, the hypothetical (mythical) deity of PED does not interfere in the workings of the world. Instead, like a Programmer, S/he created an evolutionary program, stored it in the Singularity, and executed it in the Big Bang. Metaphorically, you and I are avatars in the game, living by our wits, not by faith.
This is not a scriptural revelation, but a reasonable interpretation of 21st century science, especially Quantum & Information theories. However, if you have negative emotions about any god-concept, you can imagine the PED as a material Multiverse, or tower-of-turtles Many Worlds, or a Big Ball of creative Power, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Whatever floats your boat. In any case the Energy & Laws that enform the material stuff, necessarily existed before the Beginning. Nobody knows for sure what caused our space-time universe to pop-out of who-knows-what-or-where. And nobody is going to condemn you to hell for denying the existence of a mystery that predates your world of experience. We are all just guessing here.
Panendeism : holds that God pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time, but does not intervene in its self-organizing evolution.
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5 ... @._V1_.jpg
Again, your perception is accurate, but your interpretation is off-target. My personal worldview is similar to Deism, but more specifically PanEnDeism. So, the "Universal Mind" is infinite & eternal, hence prior to, and outside of the space-time world. PED is an abstruse philosophical concept, not a popular religion. Unlike, the Abrahamic god, the hypothetical (mythical) deity of PED does not interfere in the workings of the world. Instead, like a Programmer, S/he created an evolutionary program, stored it in the Singularity, and executed it in the Big Bang. Metaphorically, you and I are avatars in the game, living by our wits, not by faith.
This is not a scriptural revelation, but a reasonable interpretation of 21st century science, especially Quantum & Information theories. However, if you have negative emotions about any god-concept, you can imagine the PED as a material Multiverse, or tower-of-turtles Many Worlds, or a Big Ball of creative Power, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Whatever floats your boat. In any case the Energy & Laws that enform the material stuff, necessarily existed before the Beginning. Nobody knows for sure what caused our space-time universe to pop-out of who-knows-what-or-where. And nobody is going to condemn you to hell for denying the existence of a mystery that predates your world of experience. We are all just guessing here.
Panendeism : holds that God pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time, but does not intervene in its self-organizing evolution.
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5 ... @._V1_.jpg
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality
But I would say that makes the ground of reality neither objective nor subjective, that these are the poles of the nature of experienced reality; rather that it transcends the self-other distinction which is the fundamental condition of embodiment (c.f. Buddhism) — Wayfarer
Yes. In my hypothetical worldview the "ground of reality" is a singular timeless spaceless whole, which encompasses all possibilities in the form of Platonic Forms or un-formed Potentials. So it is not characterized by the particulars & polarities of human experience. But then, I have no personal experience with Ideal perfection. And, I only think outside the "fundamental condition of embodiment" for the sake of philosophical argument. For all practical purposes, I am a materialist & realist. For the "trolls" though, that non-creedal position statement may sound oxymoronic.
However, on this philosophical forum, rather than take them for granted, we still debate what's "real" and what's "material". The only way I know to reconcile disagreements on such impractical questions is to put them into a larger context. To view the variety of things & beings against a hypothetical featureless background : the Ground of Being. I suppose even the Buddha must have been forced to assume such an Ideal perfect state, by which to compare the ups & downs of reality. Yet he advised his followers to avoid becoming entangled in metaphysical speculations & derogations, as some of us on this forum do. In order to maintain peace-of-mind though, we must become tough-minded. Can we draw strength from the Universal Mind, or do we just develop mental calluses from butting our individual minds together?
I don't think Kastrup is theistic. — Wayfarer
Nor am I. I'm not sure what niche Kastrup puts his own idealistic philosophy in, but my idiosyncratic philosophical position could also be labeled as "bottom-up Panpsychism", or as "PanEnDeism". Which are not necessarily religious in nature. Again though, the "trolls" like to put such mind-centric worldviews into some conventional conceptual box, so they can more easily trash them.
Yes. In my hypothetical worldview the "ground of reality" is a singular timeless spaceless whole, which encompasses all possibilities in the form of Platonic Forms or un-formed Potentials. So it is not characterized by the particulars & polarities of human experience. But then, I have no personal experience with Ideal perfection. And, I only think outside the "fundamental condition of embodiment" for the sake of philosophical argument. For all practical purposes, I am a materialist & realist. For the "trolls" though, that non-creedal position statement may sound oxymoronic.
However, on this philosophical forum, rather than take them for granted, we still debate what's "real" and what's "material". The only way I know to reconcile disagreements on such impractical questions is to put them into a larger context. To view the variety of things & beings against a hypothetical featureless background : the Ground of Being. I suppose even the Buddha must have been forced to assume such an Ideal perfect state, by which to compare the ups & downs of reality. Yet he advised his followers to avoid becoming entangled in metaphysical speculations & derogations, as some of us on this forum do. In order to maintain peace-of-mind though, we must become tough-minded. Can we draw strength from the Universal Mind, or do we just develop mental calluses from butting our individual minds together?
I don't think Kastrup is theistic. — Wayfarer
Nor am I. I'm not sure what niche Kastrup puts his own idealistic philosophy in, but my idiosyncratic philosophical position could also be labeled as "bottom-up Panpsychism", or as "PanEnDeism". Which are not necessarily religious in nature. Again though, the "trolls" like to put such mind-centric worldviews into some conventional conceptual box, so they can more easily trash them.
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality
I get that. I've always understood it as your own invention, a brew or a stew or superscientific postreligious goo, and I like the taste of my poetry too. I've challenged you not because I resent such a harmless creation (I respect he creativity), but only philosophically for (in my eyes) being rather complacent about the concept of 'mind.' As I said initially, my nudges are from a place of 'semantic pragmatism' that generally finds folks way to satisfied where I scents ambiguity. Mind and matter? These tour in the path dump chew gather. — lll
I'm not sure what the "it" refers to in the quote above, which speaks of "universal Mind" & "PanEnDeism". Neither of which are my "own invention". Maybe you are disingenuously casting aspersions on my personal philosophical thesis : Enformationism. But I doubt that you know anything about it, other than that it sounds vaguely New Agey & manifestly Metaphysical. If you were to look into it though, you'd find that the premise was inspired by leading-edge scientific theories, and not by any far-out philosopher or giggling guru. So, in that sense, it is my "own invention".
Speaking of “inventive” ridicule, your “superscientific postreligious goo” is at least an improvement on 180prove-it's worn-out “woo”. His post-scientism sophistry takes the form of supercilious pseudo-philosophical arguments. As an incitement though, "woo" is not as effective as "n*gger". Moreover, ad hominems are so pre-medieval.
So, I'll share with you a new-to-me term of abuse : “Schizotypy”. It is an unproven psychological label (type) for odd or eccentric behavior or beliefs. But it sounds like "just-plain-crazy". I found that word in a Skeptical Inquirer article about UFO & alien invasions. “Everyday experiences, for those with schizotypal tendencies may cross an ethereal line into an unusual, idiosyncratic universe of occult importance and hidden truth”. Do you think that kind of psychological typing is "complacent about the concept of 'mind' "? Be forewarned, if you sling that schizo-sh*t at me, it will go right over my pointy little head.
The Sci-Inq article admits that “all human cultures possess beliefs in the paranormal”. And “paranormal” could apply to any novel idea that is counter-intuitive or statistically-atypical or paradigmatically unorthodox. So you could use that technical-sounding calumny to belittle anyone whose ideas you don't like, and don't want to seriously engage-with, using Philosophical Methodology .
Schizotypy : a theoretical concept that posits a continuum of personality characteristics and experiences, ranging from normal dissociative, imaginative states to extreme states of mind related to psychosis
Philosophical Methodology :
The questions in philosophical methodology do not primarily concern which philosophical claims are true, but how to determine which ones are true. . . .
The methods of philosophy differ in various respects from the methods found in the natural sciences. One important difference is that philosophy does not use experimental data obtained through measuring equipment like telescopes or cloud chambers to justify its claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_methodology
PS__The same Skeptical Inquirer magazine (mar/apr 2022) has an article on the Scientific Method. Regarding "replicability", it says "the goal of science is to understand Nature". But lest you forget, the goal of Philosophy is to understand Culture, which as you noted, includes the "ambiguity" of the human Mind. Which can blithely string together offbeat arguments such as :"These tour in the path dump chew gather." Comprende?
↪180 Proof
I'm not sure what the "it" refers to in the quote above, which speaks of "universal Mind" & "PanEnDeism". Neither of which are my "own invention". Maybe you are disingenuously casting aspersions on my personal philosophical thesis : Enformationism. But I doubt that you know anything about it, other than that it sounds vaguely New Agey & manifestly Metaphysical. If you were to look into it though, you'd find that the premise was inspired by leading-edge scientific theories, and not by any far-out philosopher or giggling guru. So, in that sense, it is my "own invention".
Speaking of “inventive” ridicule, your “superscientific postreligious goo” is at least an improvement on 180prove-it's worn-out “woo”. His post-scientism sophistry takes the form of supercilious pseudo-philosophical arguments. As an incitement though, "woo" is not as effective as "n*gger". Moreover, ad hominems are so pre-medieval.
So, I'll share with you a new-to-me term of abuse : “Schizotypy”. It is an unproven psychological label (type) for odd or eccentric behavior or beliefs. But it sounds like "just-plain-crazy". I found that word in a Skeptical Inquirer article about UFO & alien invasions. “Everyday experiences, for those with schizotypal tendencies may cross an ethereal line into an unusual, idiosyncratic universe of occult importance and hidden truth”. Do you think that kind of psychological typing is "complacent about the concept of 'mind' "? Be forewarned, if you sling that schizo-sh*t at me, it will go right over my pointy little head.
The Sci-Inq article admits that “all human cultures possess beliefs in the paranormal”. And “paranormal” could apply to any novel idea that is counter-intuitive or statistically-atypical or paradigmatically unorthodox. So you could use that technical-sounding calumny to belittle anyone whose ideas you don't like, and don't want to seriously engage-with, using Philosophical Methodology .
Schizotypy : a theoretical concept that posits a continuum of personality characteristics and experiences, ranging from normal dissociative, imaginative states to extreme states of mind related to psychosis
Philosophical Methodology :
The questions in philosophical methodology do not primarily concern which philosophical claims are true, but how to determine which ones are true. . . .
The methods of philosophy differ in various respects from the methods found in the natural sciences. One important difference is that philosophy does not use experimental data obtained through measuring equipment like telescopes or cloud chambers to justify its claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_methodology
PS__The same Skeptical Inquirer magazine (mar/apr 2022) has an article on the Scientific Method. Regarding "replicability", it says "the goal of science is to understand Nature". But lest you forget, the goal of Philosophy is to understand Culture, which as you noted, includes the "ambiguity" of the human Mind. Which can blithely string together offbeat arguments such as :"These tour in the path dump chew gather." Comprende?
↪180 Proof
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests