Timeline for answer to Does science prove that the self does not exist, and if so what would that mean for human society? by keshlam
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 hours ago | comment | added | BoltStorm | @keshlam That did seem like it, he made it sound like science had all the hard answers for this stuff when I recall most of this is rather hazy and depends on how we define the terms. | |
| 14 hours ago | comment | added | keshlam | @BoltStorm: Dunning - Kruger effect. Everything looks easy to the guy who doesn't know how much he doesn't know. Especially the guy who doesn't want to learn how much he doesn't know. | |
| 14 hours ago | comment | added | BoltStorm | That sounds about right, though IMO it was a red flag when I heard him say that science could solve philosophical problems and even told me it could solve the trolly problem. | |
| 18 hours ago | history | edited | keshlam | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 71 characters in body
|
| 18 hours ago | history | edited | keshlam | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 71 characters in body
|
| 19 hours ago | comment | added | J D | +1 'and relies on "exists" being poorly specified' - Sometimes feels like all of philosophy is just a confusion about this term! | |
| 19 hours ago | comment | added | keshlam | @mudskipper: If so, that gets us back into "define your terms," of course. Pulling another Fourth Tower Of Inverness quote out of context, language can be described as being "a bit like riding on the back of a giant snake. At any moment, it is likely to turn and bite you." | |
| 19 hours ago | comment | added | mudskipper | +1 Unless... they mean something special by "illusion" :) | |
| 19 hours ago | history | answered | keshlam | CC BY-SA 4.0 |