schele

For the term "science", there is actually no exact definition. In fact, we can even consider it as any knowledge and experience that is studied and not proven false. So in this article, we will make it more rigorous for discussion.

The following discussion on the concept of "science" does not include biology, as well as some physics theories and other knowledge and experience that cannot be strictly proven. In fact, science includes these.

Should philosophy be a science?

Science, as an adjective, is not a slogan or a subject for exams in middle and high school. It is the nature of propositions, roughly as follows:

• Clearly defined, the definition of the topic being discussed is legally valid.
  • The definition in the topic cannot have a dependency loop. It must be interpretable. For example:
    • "What is objective?" - "Objective is the opposite of subjective." - "What is subjective?" - "Subjective is the opposite of objective."
    • "Objective refers to the existence outside of human consciousness, independent of human mind, and not subject to human will."
  • The definition in the topic cannot be vague or ambiguous/contradictory. It must be self-consistent. For example:
    • "What is objective?" - "Objective is the existence that does not depend on human mind, does not depend on human will, such as natural laws, physical laws."
      • There are undefined concepts here.
        • Is 'existence' in this case existence or establishment?
        • Does 'transfer' refer to a change in state or something else?
        • Are 'existence independent of human mind' and 'existence not dependent on human will' mutually exclusive or mutually inclusive?
        • What exactly is human mind/will?
          • If I am a brain in a vat, and everything is a vivid dream simulated by myself, are you me, am I him, are you her, am I everything? Is this considered human mind?
      • This definition has flaws, and we have the following proofs:
        • Proof 1:
          • If something depends on the existence of an objective thing, then obviously it conforms to the definition of objective.
          • According to scientific common sense, human mind obviously does not depend on the existence of human mind.
          • Here, let us temporarily assume that 'transfer' refers to a change in state of the object. Obviously, it is also 'not dependent on human will'. The reasons are as follows:
            • If 'transfer' includes indirect influence, then the use of tools by humans to affect the physical environment will make the material world no longer objective, which violates the common sense that 'the material world is objective'.
            • If 'transfer' does not include indirect influence, then obviously human mind will only be influenced by itself and external input information, so strictly speaking, 'not dependent on human will' is true.
          • Therefore, human mind is objective, so everything is objective, and subjective things are objective.
        • Proof 2:
          • If I make it so that any objective laws and facts are not observed by me (suicide), then for me, everything objective changes due to my will, and their existence changes from being established to being unproven. This method is universally applicable to all minds, so everything objective is subjective.
• Reproducibility, the conclusion of the topic being discussed can be reproduced. For example:
  • "As long as I step into the same place in the river at the same time in the same way, I can have a body that is immune to poison and invulnerable to weapons."
• Verifiability, the conclusion of the topic being discussed can be verified. For example:
  • "There is a living paper girl that only I can see here."
• Follow logic and common sense, the logic contained in the topic being discussed must be legal and follow relevant common sense. For example:
  • "Drinking too much water will cause water poisoning, which is reproducible and verifiable, so we should not drink water."

If a proposition being discussed does not have the nature of science, then discussing it will become a noisy argument about who is louder. We assume that a proposition should be scientific, and philosophical propositions are no exception. Otherwise, there is no need to discuss it.

Dialogue 1:

• "I think when we use the adjective 'objective', it means 'according to facts', so I think 'objective' means 'fact'."
• "If we simply look at its literal meaning, it should mean something like 'observing like a guest'. I think it should mean to look at things with a calm and rational attitude... By the way, the problem is whether the new definition can solve the problems caused by the original definition. Is human mind and will considered facts?"
• "I think so, but here comes a new problem. What is the definition of fact? I think we should first examine the true definition of fact. According to the explanation of fact on the Internet, it refers to actual events. But is the difference between fact and event really in this actual occurrence? I think this should be described with a more rigorous definition."
• "Then how about 'anything proven to be true in the real world'? The naming of human mind and will as phenomena in the real world is obviously observed by everyone, it is a fact. Even if we find out later that it is not what it seems, as long as it can be proven, then there is no problem."
• "I think this should be the correct answer, but if I commit suicide and no longer observe everything, and everything cannot be proven by me, then everything is no longer a fact, nor is it objective... Then there is another question, what is subjective? Things that cannot be proven?"
• "I think you are right, but not completely. We have found through logical reasoning that the original definition of objective is wrong, it has been proven to be invalid... Oh wait, it should be 'not proven to be valid', then there is no problem."
• "Then I have another question, are mathematical theorems objective? Does mathematical theorems exist in the real world?"
• "Then I also have a problem. Haven't we heard mathematicians talk about Gödel's ontological proof of the existence of God before? If the Stand-in Messenger actually exists but we cannot prove it due to lack of certain knowledge, is the existence of the Stand-in Messenger objective or subjective?"

What are objective and subjective?

In fact, the painter's final question in the dialogue clarifies the last key point of the definitions of objective and subjective, that is, how should we define objective and subjective.

Generally speaking, we consider the real world as a scope, and all propositions that can be proven true within this scope are facts, that is, objective. Propositions that cannot be proven true are biases. On top of this, propositions that cannot be proven true or false are subjective.

• In fact, we rarely use the term objective, because it is simply synonymous with fact.
  • Mathematical theorems are objective, the client who owes the painter money and blocked the painter is objective, and the screenwriter winning the Nobel Prize in Literature is obviously a bias. The content of most religious beliefs is subjective, just like you cannot prove that Schele can solve the proof given by mathematicians in the remaining 20 minutes, although Schele often fails.

For non-general cases, how many facts there are and what facts are determined by the 'real world' we are studying. Here we can more clearly point out that this 'real world' is actually the current context. Facts within the context are objective, and things outside the context cannot be proven within the context, so they are subjective.

• However, when discussing what is a fact and what is not, it is important to constantly check which context we are in. For those who believe in religion, their context is not the real world, but the 'real world where religious content is true'.

Dialogue 2:

• "Hmm... Art is a subjective construct. We can map it based on facts... Subjectivity becomes a new fact after switching contexts..."
• "Now I feel that those so-called materialism and idealism that I heard before are things that should be thrown into the garbage dump."
• "Aren't those just excuses or jokes made by people after seeing something that scares them and trying to comfort or deceive themselves?"

Everything is...

What is everything? How do we classify everything? In fact, we can classify it however we want, it doesn't matter how we classify it.

• We can classify everything according to the common sense of biology, telling ourselves that everything is information received by the brain from the outside world or generated by itself. Everything we perceive is just neural signals in the brain. So everything is information. We can also simply divide everything into subjective and objective, and things that can be proven are facts, and things that cannot be proven are subjective. Or even simpler, we can divide everything into this and that. But we can go further and simply declare that we have found the answer in the question. Everything is everything.
• But for those philosophers who are looking for the origin of everything, this is not the answer they want. They not only want to classify everything, but also want to find out where everything comes from.

So we have a classic and outdated question: "Does matter determine consciousness or does consciousness determine matter?" and its extended question "Is everything determined by matter?"

According to the usual style, we will use a scientific approach to analyze this question.

• Since consciousness/mind/spirit is a morpheme and there are few corresponding scientific achievements at present, we have no way to scientifically analyze it from this aspect. Therefore, we will analyze it from the physical definition and philosophical definition of matter.
  • It should be noted that we only know that the neural signals of the brain are closely related to the mind/thought, but the specific relationship is unknown. In other words, it could be positive or negative, and it is even possible that there is no direct relationship at all. We also don't know if replicating brain electrical signals will generate the same thoughts.
• According to the classical physics and chemistry definition of matter, matter refers to things composed of atoms and molecules in a certain order with mass and volume. However, if we consider non-classical physics such as relativity, matter roughly refers to things with non-zero rest mass and non-zero volume. However, combining common sense, we can find some absurd contradictions.
  • "In fact, physicists don't care about what matter is. They know that it exists, and they only care about its properties."
  • Photons don't have rest mass and volume at all, and obviously they are neither 'matter' nor 'consciousness'. They are part of the mechanism of how the world works, and physical laws are neither familiar matter nor consciousness.
    • Even if we use 'fact' as the definition of matter and treat physical laws as 'matter', we can find that the core of the debate on whether matter determines physical laws or consciousness determines physical laws is actually "whether the world perceived by people ceases to exist when it is not perceived". However, we already know the answer, it is neither existence nor non-existence, but indeterminable.
  • After analysis, we find that this problem of who determines who is logically unprovable, because there is simply no way to find any evidence to prove whether the world will disappear like a machine when the power is turned off when you commit suicide. All discussions beyond this are subjective or even biased.

After analysis, we find that if we analyze this question according to the definition of physics, it is meaningless. If we analyze it according to the definition of philosophy itself, the definition itself is problematic. Even if we ignore the problem of definition, we can only know that we currently have no way of knowing, at least objectively speaking, we don't know, if you use logical reasoning.

Dialogue 3:

• "Who determines who is generally a premise for judging another proposition. It is strange to bring up this question separately. It is not as interesting as 'everything is something, everything is everything'."
• "Those debaters usually use it to deny certain things. In history, materialists used it to deny the doctrines of a priori morality and religion. They believed that these things do not exist, and only illusions exist. People should abandon these things."
• "Okay, classic question, what is the definition of existence? My evaluation is that philosophy is not as good as physics. Discussing these things makes me feel like swimming in asphalt. How about going to Burger King for some fries today?"

Note:

• In fact, when the general public says they are materialists, they are simply conservatively rejecting any form of supernatural existence. They don't think so much.