> On 31 May 2018, at 19:57, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 5/31/2018 2:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> You're a bit naughty Brent. You sometimes use this maneuver of >> nonchalantly listing something that is being discussed -- but that you >> don't like -- along with something else that is obviously outdated or >> silly. > > It's not that I "don't like" primary matter, it's that I think it's an > invented term that nobody actually postulates. I'd like to see Bruno > actually quote some well known philosophers or scientist using the term. I > think he reads people like Dennett or Churchland who defend the possibility > of a physical explanation of consciousness and, since he thinks consciousness > is more fundamental than physics, he wants to accuse them of believing in > "primary matter”.
Since 1500 years, metaphysics is no more done with the scientific method (or you get burn alive, banned, …). That is why all scientists I refer to on this subject belongs to the -500 +500 period. After that everyone identifies, most of the time unconsciously, the two notion of matter and primary matter. The first thing to do to approach metaphysics/theology with the scientific method consists in avoiding identification made in the past due to the imposition of ideas (by violence). You can sum up Aristotle by “matter = primary matter”. At least Aristotle makes that explicit, and indeed introduced the notion of primary matter to just do that identification. Then you can sum up Plato, by “maybe matter is not primary and admit some deeper and simpler explanation”. I don’t want anything, except I hope you understand the point: physicalism simply cannot work when you postulate indexical mechanism (and of course don’t throw consciousness under the rug). I am not criticising the physical science in any way. It remains the ultimate criteria of verification, even in theology. And indeed, it is the facts + mechanism which leads to the falsity of mechanism. You just seem to want both weak materialism and (weak) mechanism, but the point is that this is (epistemologically) inconsistent. It is not a matter or agreement and disagreement, it is a matter of definition and reasoning, + experimental verification. Bruno > >> >> "Oh you think that quantum mechanics and consciousness might be >> connected? How are those Deepak Chopra teachings working for you?" >> etc... >> >> So, forgetting the elan vitale, I would like you to make you position >> more precise. Do you think that tax money should only be applied to >> research that is obviously and immediately useful? > > Of course not. > >> Or are you ok with >> trusting tenured academics and peer-review to decide what gets funded? >> In the second case, I guess we must all have some tolerance for ideas >> that we don't agree with, right? > > Right. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
