I think that the concepts in here are being extrapolated.
@John_Mann insists that consciousness is metaphysical because...
Basically I'm talking about metaphysics as ontology. And intuition as metaphysical perception. And things perceived by intuition as metaphysical entities. Being intuition a sense then which physical organ is responsible for the perception of intuition? And what exactly intuition perceives? Things like the undefined terms of geometry (point, line and plane), infinity, perfection, evil, justice, etc.. Things that doesn't exist anywhere in the physical world. And things perceived through intuition seems to be immutable and universally accessible among conscious beings.
The very nature of consciousness can't be physical. Because our most fundamental approach to the physical world starts in consciousness itself through intuition (axioms). You can't even have an object without a subject.
Now, this logic may be right, but he's not using the terms properly. Metaphysics can be defined by
Merriam Webster as
a (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology
metaphysics … analyzes the generic traits manifested by existences of any kind — J. H. Randall
(2) : ontology 2
b : abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience
steered philosophy away from metaphysics and toward the disciplines of natural science and linguistics — Time
Now, this definition can be a little ambiguous, so I checked out what
Wikipedia says.
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy exploring the fundamental nature of reality.[1]
While various views and methods have been called 'metaphysics' across history, this article approaches metaphysics first from the perspective of contemporary analytical philosophy, and then explores metaphysics in other traditions. In this vein, metaphysics seeks to answer two basic questions:[2]
Ultimately, what is there?
What is it like?
I'd like to show this extract too.
Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to one another. Another branch is metaphysical cosmology: which seeks to understand the origin and meaning of the universe by thought alone.
A number of individuals have suggested that much or all of metaphysics should be rejected. In the eighteenth century, David Hume took an extreme position, arguing that all genuine knowledge involves either mathematics or matters of fact and that metaphysics, which goes beyond these, is worthless. He concludes his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding with the statement:
If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
This is true. If we use metaphysics to explain how the universe works, or how consciousness works
by thought alone, there's a series of potential mistakes involved, specially, if someone believes something strongly, his judgement will be partial.
Philosophy may be used to ask questions that science can't explain due to their abstract nature, such as There is a God? Does the soul go anywhere after Death? There is something like a Soul? Those are questions that are beyond of our current level of scientifical understanding. In a future, these questions may be answered by science, maybe not.
But when philosophy is used to explain the nature of something alone, it becomes a
pseudoscience.
Now, I think that John is calling scientism is something like this (originally posted by Kuu)
Scientism, as in, the trusting in science (or science-sounding) as a source of knowledge, is certainly a strong aspect of contemporary societies. It seems to be used often in a negative connotation, that some people trust blindly in "science" or a presumed scientific dogmatism, which is ironically un-scientific. Other people just are extremely disconnected from what science actually is and just like to turn science into a new god to worship or to justify their point of view (regardless of what the scientific consensus or lack thereof is on the matter).
And why that posture?
The First Cause. IMHO God. I'm Catholic.
Voilà! That's were the whole theory falls into pieces. Being catholic (or believing there is a God in general) can't just be a wall for people to think. Or even worse, a justification for denying scientific facts, such as the Earth's age.
I personally think that there is a God, but my God is like a watchmaker, some kind of deity that defined a series of complex rules for the universe to work, setting the basis for the appearence of life (but not exactly creating it), and now he's watching how his universe is evolving, and how a species from a palid blue dot in the middle of nowhere is beggining to understand how that rules work, calling them physics. We should be proud of that.
My own vision of God may even be compatible with us being part of a simulated universe.
But beyond that, how I perceive God mustn't stop my need for knowledge, my need to know why, my crusade for the truth. And if someone proofs, by the scientific method, how consciousness work, I'll accept it, because if it's either physical or not, at least it will be proven. And when a theory it's proven, that knowledge can be used to answer several more questions, for example, why animals don't have consciousness?
Or they do have it and we don't realize it?
And being not-physical doesn't mean that it's beyond physics.
