"First of all, the mind-body problem comes down to the logical impossibility, in our subject-object relation, for objective knowledge (science) to reach that which makes it possible: the subject, the mind, consciousness. In other words, the spacetimeless experience that we call consciousness cannot be known in the same scientific way we know every spacetime element that causes it (which is simply saying that the objective knowledge of the hardware will never be objective knowledge of the Internet). Objective knowledge of consciousness will always come in the form of the actual experience of consciousness. And science, again, doesn't have access to this experience, even just to confirm objectively that it is happening. To illustrate this matter, we have a neuroscientist in our days claiming that consciousness arises within any sufficiently complex, information-processing system. This panpsychic scientist, by the name of Christof Koch, holds that all animals, from humans on down to earthworms, are conscious, and that even the Internet could be conscious. And the only thing that keeps his claim from being an objective truth is, again, the mind-body problem.

But the idea I'm trying to get across here is about the logical impossibility for religion, philosophy and science to surpass the mere assumption of God, the Being and consciousness, respectively. This shows that the claim of a spacetimeless experience, whether it's God, the Being or consciousness, will be arbitrary (an oxymoronic act of faith, if you will) as long as it is done from spacetime, dualism, plurality or the subject-object perspective. In any case, a scientist would be on better grounds for his arbitrary claim based on both the experience of consciousness and the example of the Internet as results of the interaction of a plurality of neurons and computers; whereas the religious spacetimeless God and the philosophical spacetimeless Being will always be nowhere to be observed or experienced in order to be explained as consequences of the spacetime plurality we're living.

Therefore, the question if science will ever explain the universe as a spacetimeless experience can only have a negative answer, because science can only confirm if the criteria is met for that experience to happen (Koch's theory of consciousness). But the moment science tells us that every element in the universe is interacting with one another, the moment we will have a scientific explanation of the universe as to suppose the spacetimeless experience of consciousness, God, the Being, whatever."

As a Catholic who accepts the judgments of the Magisterium of the Church, I think it is prudent to accept what Catholic philosophers call "perennial philosophy," that strain of philosophy which began with Plato and Aristotle and passes through St. Thomas and neo-Scholasticism. There are other solid and related philosophies but I think they are all based on trying to reach "the real."

Wouldn't prudence dictate testing a philosophy against its consequences? Are the consequences of the philosophy ethical and do they tend to make people happier?

Prudence is an interesting virtue. Sometimes it requires taking a long time to make a judgment because so much information needs to be accounted for. Other times, as you say, there is little time or information, but a decision must be made.

You didn't answer either question. I take your response to mean that you think the first of the two questions, taken in its strictest sense, is irrelevant. Fine; I agree. But words are squishy and rarely point in precisely the intended direction. So let's try again to aim toward the same thing:

Is it prudent or imprudent to rely, to some significant degree, on philosophy as a method to find truth? I say it's imprudent because philosophy has a track record of leading astray generally worse than other methods, and that it leads people astray so often for reasons psychologists label as cognitive biases. (Of course, imprudence can be justified sometimes, such as in trivial matters, emergencies, or situations without better options.) Do you agree, or do you hold the opposite opinion, that relying significantly on philosophy is a prudent choice?

What safeguards would you pick for the use of philosophy? I'd pick a wariness and social disapproval of acting on any philosophical conclusion unless it's trivial, an emergency, or there's no better method available.

I think each person uses *everything* he has available. No one is a pure philosopher.

So IIUC, you would say that deliberate rejection of extra-philosophical approaches is problematic, but that mere neglect of them is not? That's interesting to me because the consequences are the same, so the important difference would have to be non-consequentialist. The likeliest candidate to my mind is the "open" or "closed" mindset of the searcher -- though I'll let you say what criteria you were thinking mattered.

[I'd appreciate it if the moderators ceased editing my posts when they do not fall afoul of the commenting guidelines. If you have decided that Estranged Notions is a Place That Must Not Be Named, then just do the honest and ethical thing and say so in the commenting guidelines.]

Oh, I agree that philosophy is acceptable to use. But what of the questions: Is pure philosophy a prudent approach or an imprudent approach to finding truth? What safeguards are useful?

I might agree with that, but we are back to my original point. I don't see that this would entail anything about supernature.

I'm a fan of beginning somewhere. I don't think the view of not taking a position is attractive or practical. Fence-sitting is ok in some instances, but more often than not a person needs to choose his parth and walk it.

I see philosophy as (at least) the starting point. It's the human being seeking truth because he has a certain love for truth. Hence this business of thinking through things gets the person going down a road that seems, as far as the person can see, to be the road of truth.

Then along come other ways of knowing, and these can supplement the person's philosophical enquiry. Perhaps what he once thought was correct is proven conclusively either by other philosophers or particularly by scientific demonstrations to be incorrect. So the seeker adjusts his position accordingly.

If a person refuses to acknowledge or take on board revelations of reality made through anything other than philosophy, then I agree with you that it would be indeed a narrow field of vision this person has. But if, in taking everything into account, and through philosophical enquiry one deduces God's existence, then I should think that's not at all imprudent or narrow. If anything, it's flexible and broad because the person is willing to consider all methods available (rather than stopping at scientific demonstrations).