So you don't think your belief that the scientific mindset is a preferable mindset is a philosophic belief rather than a scientific belief? Because it is, since that is a belief that can't be proven empirically, rather it is reasoned to philosophically.
Now to address your misguided belief on the mind being reduced to the brain.
Under atheistic materialism what is happening is matter in motion. This means even the matter in your brain. What does that mean? Your brain is determined by the laws of physics, chemistry, etc and even your comment was determined. You destroy the possibility of justified knowledge claims under that worldview when taking it to its logical conclusion. Also as Sean Caroll noted, quantum physics and stochastic probabilities don't mean anything, taking the worldview to the logical conclusion means determinism of the movement of matter.
You also can't account for universals and particulars on that view and solve the problem of the and the many.
In that article, from an 80 old day comment of mine, you did not understand my comment. You told me to read the article. You don't understand what I mean by justification. There is a difference between prescription and description. That article was descriptive, not prescriptive. You cannot justify universals if you believe only particulars exist. You can only justify universals if you are willing to accept a metaphysical reality and provide a grounding for the metaphysical. Not everything is proven in the same way. The scientific method is good for studying particulars, but it cannot prove a universal. For example, science assumes the laws of logic in its process, which it cannot prove or provide a justification for. Also the scientific method cannot justify the scientific method. You on the other hand will probably say "because it works." Something working is a value-judgement, and that is not independent of ethics. It also assumes induction and regularity in nature, but you obviously haven't heard about the problem of induction. Science cannot provide a justification for induction. Science will also claim things like we know things from observation or what is in the sense data. Did we observe that or sense that in our sense data? I would say not everything is proven the same way. You can use science for some stuff, but not everything.
How do they justify such claims of an abstract universal concept given most scientists hold the naive empiricist worldview in which only particulars exist?
Not true at all. Look up the story of Apple University. Jobs can't run Apple from his grave. He tried his best to leave Apple with the right culture and leadership in his view. And for the most part, Apple has done really well since he passed. No one is going to get 100% of things right 100% of the time, and Jobs is no different; things would have inevitably gone wrong under his leadership, too.
Exactly this—a particular anecdote from the biography describes his motivation. Apparently when the HP Touchpad failed, Steve Jobs viewed it as a tragedy more than a triumph:
> "Hewlett and Packard built a great company, and they thought they had left it in good hands, but now it's being dismembered and destroyed. It's tragic. I hope I've left a stronger legacy so that will never happen at Apple."
In creating Apple University he was really trying to instill a legacy that would outlast him. That said, when pulling out the "Steve Jobs never would have let this happen" card, it's also important to remember that MobileMe happened on Steve's watch, as did the iPod HiFi.
I still have a working HiFi in my home gym. It’s a solid piece of engineering, especially for its time. I don’t know why people love to hate it so much.
I feel like sentiment toward the iPod HiFi is less "hate" and more "why does this exist". It was a perfectly solid piece of hardware, but Apple tried to enter a market that was already saturated (iPod docks) with a far more expensive product that didn't offer any significant advantages.
Jobs screwed up plenty of times. Look at the whole history of NeXT Computer for example. Software so far ahead of everything else at the time, but totally screwed up getting it into the market.
How was NeXT a failure when it was acquired by Apple and is the basis of macOS, iOS, watchOS, and tvOS? It's currently running on over one billion devices.
Don't take his use of the word "retarded" so literally. People might take offense to the word but understand that he doesn't mean it as an actual slight toward people with real mental disabilities.
yeah, if we had known about all those ideas, we wouldn't have bothered with pplrep. There was another similar idea called "honestly" or something. Our YC application, it wasn't even serious and they asked us to make a video last minute yesterday cause we never bothered with a video. I made one in my dark apartment on the spot. Honestly, if pplrep was actually working out and we had impressive user growth, we'd never apply to YC because $11,000 or what have you for 7% is not something I'd be interested in.
@crazytony, if your startup is already working out, influential people will come to you.
Also, where did I explicitly state that YC was only about money? I don't even think you can say I implicitly meant that or assume it was the gist of what I said.
check out my social network, pplrep.com, and unlike other networks, it's not egocentric. Email verification not required and we never email users, unless they request their password if they've forgotten it. Also not in bed with the NSA.
It's horrible. I think they should actually watch the normal user use their site. Once they see a loading screen, they're likely going to x out of the site.
Now to address your misguided belief on the mind being reduced to the brain.
Under atheistic materialism what is happening is matter in motion. This means even the matter in your brain. What does that mean? Your brain is determined by the laws of physics, chemistry, etc and even your comment was determined. You destroy the possibility of justified knowledge claims under that worldview when taking it to its logical conclusion. Also as Sean Caroll noted, quantum physics and stochastic probabilities don't mean anything, taking the worldview to the logical conclusion means determinism of the movement of matter.
You also can't account for universals and particulars on that view and solve the problem of the and the many.