iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

jccust @jccust.bsky.social · 13/04/2026

You know that’s how it starts, and im all for it!

jccust @jccust.bsky.social · 15/08/2025

It is so sad what Hegel and Marx did to dialectics…

000

jccust @jccust.bsky.social · 08/08/2025

South Park has always covered news more accurately than the media!

000

jccust @jccust.bsky.social · 03/07/2025

I understand your point, but I prefer Dennett and the Dennettians over Chalmers and the Chalmerians any time of the day. In my opinion, Chalmers has done (and continues to do) an immense disservice to philosophy and science with this kind of talk

jccust @jccust.bsky.social · 03/07/2025

And if it is used as an “alternative” to contemporary cognitive science, that’s just scientific denial in disguise.

110

jccust @jccust.bsky.social · 03/07/2025

If this first-person experience is meant to be entirely subjective, then it is not only unscientific but, by definition, forever beyond the reach of any kind of shared knowledge—perhaps a theme more suited to poetry or religion.

120

jccust @jccust.bsky.social · 01/07/2025

Should just call them science deniers, until people realize thats pretty much it 🤓

100

Reposted by jccust

jccust @jccust.bsky.social · 27/06/2025

In my view, the zombie argument is among the weakest in philosophy, as it commits a petitio principii fallacy: by hypothesizing that an exact duplicate of a functional human being could lack consciousness, one is already presupposing the falsity of physicalism.

121

jccust @jccust.bsky.social · 28/06/2025

The zombie argument not only refrains from assuming that physicalism is true (as many of its proponents claim), but in fact presupposes its falsity, and if its false, it cannot be necessarily true. The argument is epistemologically innocuous as it provides no independent reason to doubt physicalism.

110

jccust @jccust.bsky.social · 27/06/2025

121

jccust @jccust.bsky.social · 27/06/2025

And non-physicalists approaches is even older

100

jccust @jccust.bsky.social · 21/04/2025

Paraphrasing Sheldon Cooper; nature, the heartless bitch.

000

jccust @jccust.bsky.social · 14/04/2025

Thats pretty much what Eliminative Materialism is about!

000

jccust @jccust.bsky.social · 14/04/2025

Aren’t you describing emergent properties of complex systems?

000

jccust @jccust.bsky.social · 14/04/2025

#Consciousness may be an illusion and yet still possess ethical significance! #ethics #philmind #philski #phisci

030

And see, that’s exactly why Chalmers’ position in philosophy of mind isn’t considered scientific. While he’s not a "substance dualist", he’s clearly a "property dualist"—placing his view outside empiricism and physicalism.

020

If by “operate under physicalism” you mean using physics terms while addressing emergent concepts and laws, I agree—each science has its level of description. But science today doesn’t see those phenomena as occurring beyond the four fundamental physical interactions, and so: physicalism.

000

I confess I don’t see your point—non-physicalism, by definition, implies a break from the laws of physics (e.g., dualist positions in philosophy of mind). If a phenomenon is understood within the scope of the four fundamental physical interactions, then it is *not* non-physicalism.

200

I mean, if you can empirically demonstrate that there are phenomena that clearly happen outside the scope of these four fundamental physical interactions, you would likely be regarded as the most important scientist of the century!

100

In other words, I fail to see how an empirical test could be conducted outside the scope of the four fundamental physical interactions. If something occurs in empirical reality, it must ultimately arise from those interactions—that's why they are called fundamental in the physical sense.

100

I tend to disagree. All empirical sciences operate this way. Even emergent phenomena— laws of chemistry, population biology...— is understood within the scientific framework not as new ontological realms but as falling under the four fundamental physical interactions (with degrees of complexity).

100

When I said 'scientific context,' I was not excluding the part of philosophy that is done close to empirical science; philosophy of science—at least since Popper—is usually developed within a scientific context and by thinkers trained in science. The same with philosophy of mathematics and so on...

000

That's a very strange question: the discussion about 'physicalism' (and other terms like 'causation') is clearly part of the philosophy of science, even when conducted by trained scientists—or conversely, by philosophers trained in science. And I genuinely fail to see the relevance of the question.

200

Yes, the terminology changed. 'Physicalism' today has a much more objective meaning than 'materialism'— a mere fossil of hylemorphism—and imo is far from meaningless. In scientific contexts, physicalism usually refers to everything within the scope of the four fundamental physical interactions.

100

Physicalism is not merely a marginal view in science, but central to its methodology and underlying conception of nature. Non-physicalist positions go against the very core of scientific inquiry, rendering such theories incompatible with the scientific framework (if not ignoring empirical findings).

100

And there are empirically robust theories of consciousness today supported by findings in cognitive science (for example GWT). I acknowledge it's a (rapidly) developing field with many unresolved aspects. Still, we don't fully understand gravity either. In both cases, we need more science, not less

100

The lack of a well-established scientific theory of consciousness is understandable, given that it's a new and highly complex field. This does not mean we should abandon empirical scientific practices in studying it; had we done so in other fields, science wouldn’t be here today.

100

I would say that physicalism is not just a marginal theory, but central to scientific endeavor—not only methodologically, but also in its view of nature. Non-physicalism opposes the very core of science. We’d need extremely strong evidence that it’s false before even considering setting it aside.

Those theories are largely considered scientific. They do not merely share a loose connection with cognitive neuroscience but they arise from and are intrinsically linked to findings in the discipline. Baars’ book Cognition, Brain, and Consciousness, for example, makes this connection very clear.

000

Being anti-scientific is not only always problematic but also highly dangerous in today’s society. If something has not yet been sufficiently explained by #science (like #consciousness), it simply means we need more science—not less. #philsci #philmind #philosophy

082

Being anti-scientific is not only always problematic but also highly dangerous in today’s society. If something has not yet been sufficiently explained by science, it simply means we need more science—not less.

000

This doesnt reflect the current position of scientific research on consciousness. And, see, if we didn’t understand how heat is generated, claiming that it is the breath of dwarves—a hypothesis completely incompatible with the scientific view of nature, just like non-physicalism—is as bad as it gets

100

If emergence is not treated as Property Dualism (as in Chalmers’ view), I completely agree. Unfortunately, much of the current discourse on emergence in philosophy is simply dualism re-entering through the back door.

Imo reading this as a philosophical curiosity about scientifically incorrect theories can be enjoyable (just as reading about phlogiston in thermodynamics can be) but to treat such theories as epistemically relevant today is another example of philosophers deliberately ignoring scientific progress.

021

jccust @jccust.bsky.social · 10/04/2025

Regardless of one’s stance, it is crucial to acknowledge that this work concerns anti-scientific theories of consciousness (a point the author seems to concede). Those positions today hold the same level of scientific relevance as flat-Earth theories, astrology and psychoanalysis. #philmind #philsci

361

I completely agree. Imo, despite all the problems of analytic philosophy, its proximity to science has always given it a solid pragmatic foundation, whereas continental philosophy—with its ‘critical’ stance toward science—is leading itself toward an epistemological fate similar to that of astrology.

000

jccust @jccust.bsky.social · 07/04/2025

Continental philosophers tend to sound more artistic, while analytic philosophers come across as more scientific. That’s an obvious and somewhat flawed generalization, but it’s not entirely inaccurate—so perhaps that explains your perception.

Many good scientists are also philosophers of science, the same applies to mathematicians and the philosophy of mathematics, and so on. But that’s not what I meant by ‘outside’—I mean when philosophers who are not trained in the field believe they have the right to criticize the entire discipline.

100

No, science deniers ignore scientific findings, promote ideas that go against well-corroborated scientific theories, continue to push pseudoscientific ideas into schools and public services, keep “criticizing” science from outside science, among other strategies…

110

The metaphysics of science is not an absolute theoretical structure as some philosophers tend to assume, but rather a pragmatic foundation. It is corroborated when it gives rise to theories that are themselves corroborated, and it is rejected when it fails to do so. It is simpler and less mysterious

000

Imo we can and must question science, but not from outside science—that’s what science deniers do. The only way to show that a scientific idea is wrong is by demonstrating that it is incompatible with the data and/or with other well-corroborated scientific theories — but that’s what scientists do!

210

Imo, theres no ‘philosophical way.’ Science is the answer philosophy gave to the question: ‘How can we tell if our theories about reality are wrong?’ So we must approach science in a scientific way. Any other approach is actually detrimental to science and helps pseudoscience and science denial

120

Unfortunately many philosophers today appear ill-equipped to address pressing intellectual challenges, often demonstrating a limited understanding of science, politics and ethics. This has, in some cases, rendered them inadvertent allies of pseudoscientific claims and rigid ideological frameworks ;(

Hey ChatGPT, what does Wikipedia say about…

In Brazil we had Bolsonaro, who was the most brainless loudmouth I ever saw in politics, and our left isn’t exactly a squad of geniuses. I mean Im no stranger to clueless buffoons running the show, but the sheer circus act that is this Trump administration is shocking even my well-seasoned disbelief

050