@sarahsalviander A mathematical theory (science!) becomes philosophy—metaphysics in particular—when you claim it explains the physical world while being in principle unfalsifiable.
Without 'in principle,' we enter a grey area.
@hookskat After being on X for almost a year: yes, unfortunately.
However, I think many contemporary scientists would have been monks if they had been born a millennium ago. Literacy is the stepping stone to rationality.
@PhilosopherJoeC People are bad at metaphysics—including many philosophy students.
Most scientists remain stuck in Cartesian dualism (geometry outside, qualia inside).
If the more intelligent specimens show such inertia, what about the others?
Luckily, there are so many disciplines.
@PhilosopherJoeC I have not shared my personal opinion about the transcendental (I am actually a proponent of univocity).
Rather, I wanted to show that there are different views on causality and that focusing on scholastic syllogisms is a dead end.
The example I gave is based on Leibniz.
@IAI_TV Peirce holds that interpretation pervades reality: it is an aspect of every process or phenomenon, which he calls 'thirdness' (law, mediation).
The other two aspects are 'firstness' (potentiality) and 'secondness' (realization), and they are linked through thirdness.
@PhysInHistory Besides being a brilliant physicist and thinker, Newton was obsessed with finding patterns in the Bible.
He is celebrated for his physics, while his other pursuits are historical curiosities.
@PhilosopherJoeC You misinterpret the analogy by taking it too literally: I am not a creature in the virtual "spacetime" engendered by a performance of my piece.
And there is no logical problem with an INFINITE sequence (with no beginning, like the integers) being invented by entities—or not.
@PhilosopherJoeC I read the post and many comments; if you want to explore this further, you must debunk the notion of causality, which is highly ambiguous.
If I design a piece of music, I am its "transcendental" cause, whereas the progression of notes represents a different causal phenomenon.
@NightSkyNow According to Spinoza, God equals Nature. Brilliant, but this kind of God is far removed from the gods people usually believe in—except perhaps Brahman.
#Brahman
The unifying role of God in the systems of Leibniz and Whitehead is unnecessary.
Remove the harmony of the monads and you get a chaos of monads with small islands of order.
Remove the unity of all Platonic forms, and those forms become occasions themselves.
#Leibniz#Whitehead
There are some fascinating similarities and differences between Leibniz’s Monadology and Whitehead’s process theory.
Both invoke a God to make things work.
Leibniz’s monads are self‑contained units, while Whitehead’s actual occasions penetrate one another.
#Leibniz#Whitehead
According to Leibniz, there's no external physical world; God ensures each monad experiences the same virtual reality.
For Whitehead, God contains and evaluates all "Platonic forms"; actual occasions (events) must acquire forms to be realized.
#Leibniz#Whitehead
@StuartHameroff Microtubules can host quantum effects. Very interesting, but this does not yet yield a theory of consciousness. Invoking the spirit of Penrose doesn't help. Neither does misinterpreting Anil Seth.
@sopharicks According to Dennett, yes—but probably with some side notes. As I said, I would rather ask for more: in order to be conscious, the LLM must at least itself apply the intentional stance to us. The circularity of this idea is a bit unsettling.
@InterstellarUAP Exorcists are cool in movies. In the real world, I'd be a bit skeptical about what they say.
The primary risks associated with tattoos are infection and unsatisfactory aesthetic outcomes.