![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » December 26th, 2016, 1:23 pm wrote:Quibble: I'd make it four or five decisive stages. This one is end-game.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly » December 26th, 2016, 2:01 pm wrote:I would strongly recommend reading "Prehistory: The making of the human mind" by Colin Renfrew.
The brief section "The Mind as Embodied, Extended and Distributed" is really nice. Also mentioned in Renfrew's book is Merlin Donald who outlined developmental stages in his book "Origins of the Modern Mind", will type something tomorrow ..
I would imagine both Zet and Forest would have a lot to contribute in this area, and in regard to cognitive archaeology.
Good night/morning/whatever! :)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly » December 26th, 2016, 2:01 pm wrote:I would strongly recommend reading "Prehistory: The making of the human mind" by Colin Renfrew.
The brief section "The Mind as Embodied, Extended and Distributed" is really nice. Also mentioned in Renfrew's book is Merlin Donald who outlined developmental stages in his book "Origins of the Modern Mind", will type something tomorrow .
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
hyksos » Tue Dec 27, 2016 1:26 am wrote:I wanted to submit another answer that is a little more mechanical (practical) and even less forgiving.
To do science, you must have a scientific theory. That theory must be subject to the following criteria.In a rigid, unforgiving sense, if you do not have all three of these things, you are not doing science.
- You must be able to identify and delineate the predictions that your theory makes.
- Those predictions must be able to be subjected to experiment.
- Results of experiment will corroborate or falsify your theory.
These leaves a dangling question as to what is properly considered "philosophy".
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » December 26th, 2016, 4:21 pm wrote:BadgerJelly » December 26th, 2016, 2:01 pm wrote:I would strongly recommend reading "Prehistory: The making of the human mind" by Colin Renfrew.
The brief section "The Mind as Embodied, Extended and Distributed" is really nice. Also mentioned in Renfrew's book is Merlin Donald who outlined developmental stages in his book "Origins of the Modern Mind", will type something tomorrow .
It sounds interesting - and timely. I'll make a note, but have no idea when I'll get to it. I have three heavy books going atm: World prehistory by Grahame Clark is an oldish textbook but comprehensive and accessible; Adam Kuper's The Invention of Primitive Society is about the philosophical literature of late 19th to mid-20th century scholars; a hard slog, since most of the works cited are densely verbose; Climbing Man's Family Tree is a collection of essays from 1699 to 1971, some of which are more opaque than others.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Athena » December 24th, 2016, 6:49 am wrote:Here is a video about the philosophy of science with Hilary Putnam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et8kDNF_nEc
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Athena » December 25th, 2016, 4:57 pm wrote:dandelion » December 20th, 2016, 5:21 am wrote:This talk seems to agree that philosophy can be very helpful to science and I think highlights good interactive relationships between these of the past and seems encouraging of this going forwards.
I think the talk addresses mostly those not working as scientists, including working as philosophers, in the audience, discussing helpful and less helpful influences philosophy has had on science, and amongst answers to questions at the end, includes more specific suggestions for philosophy of science.
Some philosophers in particular are commented on. For some instances, philosophers with good attitude, listening to science, such as Kant reacting to Newton, and even from amongst phenomenologists, Husserl is remarked upon near the end of the talk. There seems to be a point made that philosophy with consideration of science is good because science offers the best knowledge available at the moment about the world. So the talk emphasises I think the impact of science influenced by philosophy, influenced by science.
https://youtu.be/IJ0uPkG-pr4
Different terminology, like natural philosophy is mentioned as well. I'll add that, responding to a challenge from Samuel Taylor Coleridge (mentioned previously elsewhere here for introducing the phrase about a willing suspension of disbelief for the moment), the theologian, polymath, and philosopher, Whewell, who, among other terms introduced the term "physicist", also introduced a more general term, "scientist" (1883), that it might match the term "artist"- "...as an Artist is a Musician, Painter, or Poet, a Scientist is a Mathematician, Physicist, or Naturalist", adding to earlier terms of natural philosopher and man of science (e.g., https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Fe8 ... t.&f=false ).
Your post triggers the thought that language is everything. We can't think it without a word for it. The world is full of different languages and each one restricts knowledge in different ways. Also, our sense of reality changes when the meanings of our words become meaningless or changed.
In the US the meaning of the word "liberal" is so distorted our whole understanding of politics and morals is distorted. This makes our democracy very different from what it was a hundred years ago.
Quantum physics is a new term that is dramatically changing our sense of reality. The idea of packets of energy comes with a huge vocabulary of previously unknown words like quarks. I don't know how this science will right itself with the God of Abraham religions, but it is doing well with Buddhism and Tao. Change the language, change reality.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd » December 26th, 2016, 1:35 pm wrote:There is no starting and ending point, all life on the planet is affected by other life, what happens in one species effects the evolutionary trajectory of other species. Because we are focused on culture it is worth noting that other species have culture, mostly passed on genetically but in a few it is learned.
We have made our definitions too narrow for what philosophy is suppose to do which is to consolidate our thoughts, feelings, experience into something that is logically consistent. Culture is is most often defined as the sum of attitudes, customs, and beliefs that distinguishes one group of people from another. More broadly defined culture is everything that is passed from generation to generation external to our bodies. It may seem contradictory that I said other species pass on culture genetically by that I meant ant hills, bird nests, bee hive, spiderwebs and beaver dams. In it's broadest sense culture means manipulation of the environment.
I often think of language as the best example of how culture and genetics interplay. Without specific genetic adaptations language cannot be passed on but without language passed on our ability to manipulate the environment would be greatly diminished. Language is also one of the elements that most clearly distinguishes one culture from another. Genetics however work within an environment that determines expression. In environments where language is missing the brain develops differently. Here the ant is illustrative when considering other species. The ant communicates chemically which means it has a chemical language. Those chemicals are part of it's inherited ability to manipulate the environment.
The role of philosophy of course is not just limited to logical consistency it also serves as an aid in balancing chaos and order and idea I'm borrowing from Jordan Peterson. http://www.mind-manual.com/blog/2012/02 ... -peterson/
I'm not as pessimistic as Serpent but it is worth noting that some very smart people are saying that AI is the end of us. AI could represent the point at which genetics are no longer a part of cultural evolution. If we set evolution free of the constraints of DNA it does seem likely that accelerated evolution in non living, and perhaps non conscious entities could consume life. A future of machines that consume everything in the universe to make more of itself reminds me of Steven Kings Langoliers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_past ... Langoliers
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
How about global warming leads to our extinction and we program AI to keep our memory alive, just in case aliens discover our planet and will actually care about us.
Why can we speculate about AI and not about the possibility of a consciousness being more than atheist say it is?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » Tue Dec 27, 2016 6:05 pm wrote:I believe Dennett said something like (too lazy to Google):
"There is no such thing as science without philosophy. There is only science with its philosophical luggage taken on board unexamined".
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly » December 27th, 2016, 3:28 am wrote:I hope in future replies you can try not to assume what I am assuming.
I am not saying anything like prescientific man was incapable of reason or problem solving.
I need to find a way to establish what I am expressing by "theoretical". You seem willing in some ways to grasp this idea yet not in others. Problem solving general practical tasks is a precursor to a theoretical outlook.
What I am saying is it is taken on as a practical theme.
It is also important to understand that individuals mst likely did have lesuire time to sit around and think about things. In a small social group this doesn't really gain much purchase although some ideas and conceptions will, to soem degree, whether the storm (learning practical tehcniques and crafts looks like one obvious step in this process).
I very key factor to cultural development would be writing. This is a huge event in human history (the actual beginning of human history!).
Also, to add. If you view all people to have been scientific and philosophical, then I say this is what was referred to as "bungee jumping into fantasy land" in sense. If you meant the capacity was there I agree.
You also talk about the application of European/American thought onto foreign cultures. That is the exact thing Husserl protests against in The Vienna Lecture. He was pointing out the stark different of what the Greeks established as a community of individual "eccentrics", the role of education in their society and seems to infer how it led into the greater public sphere.
Also to say that an ancient man could not grasp todays world can be partially demonstrated by refering to certain peoples alive today.
. Btw falling down a hole is a pratical problem we are faced with, not a theoretical problem
... this then does seem to suggest that theory reaches into practical life by way of planning, or rather practical life reaches into the realm of the theoretical by making time thematic and measured in some way (a whole new bag of screaming cats to look at there!).
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Forest_Dump » Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:38 pm wrote:I would have to mention that I don't think science can be defined solely by methodology as in a kind of mental tool box. The definition, IMHO, ould also have to incorporate some consideration of the subject of enquiry and exclude engineering, technology as well as what could be called the realm of the metaphysics although, of course, "the scientific method" or variations could be used here without topics such as Creation Science or Intelligent Design becoming science. This is (but) one of the reasons why I have problems with some of the broad definitions you people are using - you are legitimizing Creationism as a science which I definitely don't agree with. My definition of science actually makes it explicitely a "western" invention of probably the 19th century.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
. All it means is that we cannot transcend our limitations so as to comprehend objective reality absolutely. The idea of the horse is more real than the horse itself to the observer simply because there is no mind outside of the brain. We can know only that which we can experience either directly or indirectly. We can produce a perfect math because it doesn't exist outside of the mind that does not mean that math is not the product of experience only that it's originating experiences are lost in time. I'm not much of a fan of emergence theory but I'm a big fan of swam intelligence and abstract reasoning. What I'm saying the abstraction is however is a useful simplification of a very complex objective reality using very complex evolved mechanisms that we may or may not be aware of.
All scientific discoveries are approximations of reality some more accurate than others but they should not be confused with reality.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Forest_Dump » December 27th, 2016, 6:38 pm wrote:I would have to mention that I don't think science can be defined solely by methodology as in a kind of mental tool box. The definition, IMHO, would also have to incorporate some consideration of the subject of enquiry and exclude engineering, technology
as well as what could be called the realm of the metaphysics
you are legitimizing Creationism as a science which I definitely don't agree with.
My definition of science actually makes it explicitely a "western" invention of probably the 19th century.
?knowledge acquired by careful observation, by deduction of laws which govern changes and conditions, and by testing these deductions by experiment; a branch of study, esp. one concerned with facts, principles and methods
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 20 guests