Honestly, I don't know the correct terminologies for all this philosophy.Quote from Fluidity:
I'm confused - are you implying that you do not know what you are defending? You said that you are a 'defender of science' and I was just trying to understand exactly what it was that you were defending.
It seems as though you are defending Cartesian division - 'I think, therefore I exist' and trying to pass it off as absolute scientific fact -- am I right in this assumption?
When I said Defender of Science, I was just kidding. My beliefs are certainly not religious. I also don't think my beliefs conflict with our current knowledge of biology. I say this because we know that our brain is responsible for memory and thinking. Well what is a person, but a animal with a brain capable of complex thinking and memory storage. Your personality is the sum of your genetics coupled with everything you've experienced in life. That is all we are. We are what our brain does.
The body just keeps the brain (who we are) functioning. When the body dies, the brain does not function, therefore, we lose our memories and ability to think. Who we are, our personalities, just do not exist anymore.
I have no idea what type of philosophy this is. This is just my opinion based on what I know. I do not think it conflicts with science in any way.
EDIT:
I just looked up "mechanistic worldview" on the Internet and found this:
"The biologist Richard Dawkins and the philosopher Daniel Denning are two such writers who work hard to convince the public that a mechanistic worldview and a scientific approach are one and the same thing."
If my philosophy is similar to a mechanistic worldview, the above person is saying that it is the same thing as scientific approach (which is why I used the term Defender of Science earlier).
