Your examples of something usually immoral, but in a specific case not immoral, are striking.
Seems like in assessing morality, we need to address the 99% of circumstances. But, as your examples illustrate, in accessing whether something is immoral, the specific circumstances must be...
The 51% need to include the rights and freedoms and needs of the 49% in their governing. This takes caring about the other members of society, including the disadvantaged and downtrodden. I judge a culture by how well it does this.
Example of scientists and philosophers considering soft-sciencey stuff as worthy of study: The hard problem of consciousness; the bubbly foamy multiverse that generated our universe.
Certainly, some kinds of questions are easier to answer than others, And some interesting questions will likely...
Certainly, arguments of philosophy can't be validated with the same degree of probabilistic certainty as those of empirical science.
I would consider any of the insights of the great thinkers to be a form of philosophical inquiry. So really there is only philosophy, with science being a...
Yes, consciousness is generated in the brain. But the potential of the experience of consciousness must be inherent in the universe, just like the potential for the electric force to arise in certain situations.
Not everyone finds his work so trustworthy. And how do we know that the experiences were actually experienced when the brain was not functioning? Could it not be that they were generated once the brain became conscious again?
But is the randomness of quantum mechanics really random? How do we know something (someone) is not guiding the outcomes? (but is a manner that looks random to us).
I wonder why scientists sometimes feel the need to use the language of the supernatural to express their feelings? Seems like doing so can have no good benefit.
Yes, good point. The problem for theists is, what is the mechanism by which God (or souls or angels or spirits) interacts with the universe in such a way that we can't detect it? For theists to merely claim something like, "he just does", is, I think, a poor argument.
Yes, I found his quote suspect as well.
Thanks for the good summary with a clear perspective. The only thing additional I think we need to consider is that the universe allows for consciousness to arise in certain situations. Somehow it's built-in to the universe.
I think physicalism has to include all aspects of reality, including things that could be called "spiritual". To be truly scientific, physicalism has to include consciousness and its contents.