/lit/ - Literature

Naturalism is a philosophy too :^)

>>11731573
The end of philosophy

>>11731585
>my philosophy is true and yours isn’t
That’s not how it works

>>11731566
Why are you begging for this image?

>>11731645
>trusting the chemicals in your brain
What reasons don't I have to trust them?
>all knowledge is based on that which we cannot prove
what do you mean? science proves stuff all the time.

>>11731566
>getting btfo in the other thread that you have to make this one
kek
>>>/sci/ with the bigdick swing

in part i blame the big pharma "chemical imbalance" meme for this
are you on any neuroleptic meds OP? do you believe we're possibly or even probably "living in a simulation"?

>>11731566
>because everything is chemicals in the brain, we don't need to argue on what is/isnt moral or ethical, or how specifically our higher consciousness derives what we think is 'good' or 'truth'
Nah, I actually enjoy engaging in abstract and higher thinking, and not falling into the nihilistic depression trap that's just Solipsism 2: Scientific Boogaloo
Fuck off ya fag

>>11731680
No ones proved me wrong faggot

>>11731566
HYPOCRITE THAT YOU ARE

>>11731566
Understanding our thoughts and selves from a bottom up approach may be the way of the future, but currently there are still problems that are more amenable to the top down approach that philosophy provides.

If you can't realize the benefits of tackling problems from multiple angles then you are a huge fucking brainlet

>>11731566
This is a sign of the patriarchal view of rigid knowledge. It assumes that science is objective and therefor more worthwhile than the subjective. It's worthwhile to point out the gendered dichotomy between objective and subjective, where objective is identified with the male, and subjective with the female. Thus the valuing of objective over the subjective is a misogynistic idea. Science has tradditionaly been used as an oppresive force, such as with eugenics and "evidence" that women are inferior than males. Assuming that science gives us objective knowledge ignores the social discourse around science where political and moral intrests. Scientists aren't precise infalliable machines, but social subjects who only have subjective knowledge.
Another thing to point is that this fetischism of science is perpetuated by mostly young white males. The problem is that they are alienated by patriarchy by being forced to value conquest and submission of the femminine. Becuase they are physically/socially inept to dominate anyone, let alone a woman, they then try to fill out their genderole by attacking the feminine element in the philosophical sphere where science is the masculine and philosophy is the feminine.
This is becuase they are pressured to devalue the social and humane due to patriarchy, which honestly is sad.

>>11731717
>eugenics is oppressive
it's more like you'd have never been born than it being used to oppress you now

>>11731728
>the mutilation of femme and poc bodies isn't oppresive
t. Able bodied white male

>>11731780
how would it mulilate them? damn letting feminists infiltrate philosophy and pretend they were doing it too was a mistake. and the popsci cultists are mostly feminized sois.

>>11731798
>unironically supporting eugenics
>supporting the banishment of women from academia
Are you an alt righter or what?

>>11731675
All things we know and consider to be true are only a product of what we are capable of perceiving them as. The world would be very different if we didnt have the ability to smell.

>>11731813
you're a false flag because no one's this dumb that should be posting here.
you haven't said why eugenics is bad except it gives you the cweeps and you were told to think it's bad.

>>11731566
everything is physical systems, its not so simple. But yes its all just mechanics and philosophy is gay
>>11731645
extremely sophistic

>>11731823
Is this a materialist attempting to engage in an argument that presupposes that bad is a concept that exists?

>>11731830
why are p zombie's programmed to be like this?
bleep bloop nigga you're a glorified codemonkey at best

>>11731851
even if i were a materialist "bad" could be strongly emergent with no contradiction

>>11731566

> You are fundamentally a physical entity constrained by natural laws and nothing you do can change this.

Oh no!

> You are fundamentally a spiritual entity constrained by supernatural laws and nothing you do can change this.

Whew that's better!

>>11731858
Well then let's hear it.

>>11731853
I abhor cs and soft eng nigger; there is no such thing as a Self, some people have more intricate and efficient neural architecture which supports a deeper self-model and they have a "soul" and i accept this. But, this doesn't mean you actually have a soul or self by any means. Everything is based in mechanics, if we remove the broca's area from your brain you'll suffer aphasia and serious cognitive deficiencies, if we were to remove the meniscii from your knees you would almost certainly be incapable of walking properly, if i was to mutilate one of your heart valves with a scalpel with a mm length incision you would suffer internal bleeding and likely die quickly. You are your body and the particles, forces and spacetime that constitute that body. There is nothing else, sorry.

>>11731830
The sophists were just realists.

>>11731882
they were massive faggots just like everyone else who eats off of words rather than deeds. They're no better than the rationalists and platonists and epicureans and skeptics and every other form of parasite that gets by with logomancy

>He doesnt know a thing about philosophy of mind
>He doesnt understand that scientific reductionism doesnt nullify or explain the experience of consciousness

Why are STEM fags so fucking stupid?

>>11731871
strong emergence is new qualitative properties arising from certain configurations
like conscious experience
bad and good would arise coextensively with that
it's really simple.

btw women are the number 1 eugenicists with abortion.

the reason that poster's bait doesn't make any sense is because they're an idiot, not because of a screen of subjectivity between me and their pomo neotribe.

come on are you really all this brainlet or what

>>11731889
t. hasn't read shit but likes to pretend otherwise

You ain't gonna get any street cred from me acting like that, kid.

I dont consider myself a to be "hurr hurr I'm science and smarter than all," faggot, but, from a very basic standpoint, all things have a fundamental physical presence that can be examined via scientific means. Things that cannot, simply do not exist. I understand that all things are a matter of our ability to perceive them, but that which we cannot percieve doesnt really matter does it?

Consequently, I have yet to see someone in this thread give a decent answer as to why philosophy isnt now irrelevant, in an age where we know all things have an explanation (but before the big bang?!). Okay or that, at least, all things CAN have an explanation. As much as I want to believe in the relevance of philosophy outside a historical sense, it seems that many an anon here can only use pedantry to defend it.

>>11731906
As long as there is chaos in the world, there is still a need for philosophy.

>>11731898
so, you yield then.
>>11731912
v brainlet

>>11731879
>lesions disprove the hard problem
nope. im fully aware of all recent neuro cog sci. illusionism is false. all you've got is strawmen and false analogies "muh new age magic soul" blah blah. it's tiresome and boring.

even if youre a legit scientist that has mastered some complicated material you're still standing on the shoulders of giants and advanced pedagogy, computers and calculators when the original had their minds and paper, so you're not really as impressive as you may find yourself. the way science is taught neglects its history to push the most current findings in the most compressed way which is another problem leading to your malignant way of thinking.

>>11731893
Are you implying that a certain configuration is superior to another? Also, in using conscious experience to define good and bad you are basically saying that releasing certain chemicals is the definition of good?

>>11731926
>nope
already dead in the water
>illusionism is false. all you've got is strawmen and false analogies "muh new age magic soul" blah blah. it's tiresome and boring.
I don't care about philosophical arguments, the hard problem is just barking. All that matters is that i can incapacitate you by tearing apart your neo-cortex
>even if youre a legit scientist that has mastered some complicated material you're still standing on the shoulders of giants and advanced pedagogy, computers and calculators when the original had their minds and paper, so you're not really as impressive as you may find yourself
babbling
> the way science is taught neglects its history to push the most current findings in the most compressed way which is another problem leading to your malignant way of thinking.
this isn't relevant to whether or not we can effectively take away your consciousness permanently with a few tiny scrapes and incisions in your brain, anon.

You're doing my work for me.

>>11731906
>well some things don't have an explanation yet and i can't prove that scientifically otherwise I'd already have the explanation but it might because it's subjectively impressive to me thus far
you're just lazy and irresponsible anon
the scientific cosmology is comfy i admit but
physics doesn't solve ethics are you out of your fucking mind
physics is part metaphysical
logic and math are metaphysical
etc

>>11731937
lmao, "ooga booga but I can bash your head in with a rock"
that's not an argument but an idle threat you stupid violent ape.

>>11731942
If you think a hypothetical which i'm using you as an object within (because its demeaning and funny to think about lobotomizing you) is an actual threat you're a nigger

>>11731948
it seems you were upset by me insulting your faggoty bugman cargo cult
i'm not degraded by the possibility of neurosurgery why would i be lol

>>11731930
>so releasing certain chemicals is "good"?
you're just defaulting back to reductionist speak. look up strong emergentism or think harder about it.

>846. People ask "what has philosophy accomplished" as if their whole society isn't predicated on innoculating unwitting idiots with primitive philosophical axioms. We were feral before philosophy. All science is merely applied epistemology.

http://orgyofthewill.net/

>>11731955
you just got upset that i "threatened you"
>bugman
that word isn't for you anon, and being incapable of letting go of mammy cultism and pedo priest faggotry is pretty the old definition of bughuman

>>11731948
and im not taking you seriously because no one denies the neural substrate / correlates of consciousness so it's just a nonargument expressing your preference to remain ignorant. which is all you've got because you prefer to think like a mechanical insectazoid as too much time on the computer has poisoned you as a person, resulting in your distorted beliefs. these are all simple facts.

>>11731969
oh so you're a moralist now crying about the pedo's? give me a break
you don't actually believe in good or bad, likely you just worship evolution.
but here's the funny thing and why you're so triggered. even if you make it before the ecology collapse or sun explodes "to the stars" like there's anything out there in the giant desert of space, heat death is still coming. tick tock.

>>11731980
You're a vaguely adept sophist, i will give you that anon. I just don't get why anything other than the physical description of brain activity and some kind of phenomenology grounded in physicalism would ever be necessary and what it could possibly explain. Again, the mind is the brain, and the brain is the thing you can access. Conveniently you cannot mutilate someone's mind, you can use sensory inputs to fuck with their neural activity, you can harm their brain with percussion or deficiency of nutrients, but you can't psychically harm someone ever. It all requires sensory inputs, in fact there is nothing you've ever experienced divorced from sensory inputs. Before you dreamed anything you had to have at least seen objects and experienced space. But you won't accept this and you'll retreat into something else absurd and frankly gay.

>>11731969
time for you to get lobotomized faggot

>>11731963
From Wikipedia
>Strong emergentism asserts that when matter is organized in the appropriate way (i.e. in the way that living human bodies are organized), mental properties emerge in a way not fully accountable for by physical laws.


I will absolutely continue to reduce this argument because something not being accounted for by physical laws is incompatible with materialism. I ask you again: how can one define an appropriate arrangement?

>>11731989
I don't care anon, i've accepted death already. The fact that you acknowledge the severity of climate change and the inveitability of heat death is telling; and I am only pointing out that religious hierarchies are filled with pedophiles and avaricious people, and that they never agree on anything, they can't replicate their "findings" and they provide the most paltry kind of explanations imaginable for the phenomena they swear happens to them. This is worrisome and if one reads many religious texts from many cultures and speaks with mystics and philosophers it becomes apparent its mostly language games, psychiatric disorders and lying. You have nothing but this gay little wedge with the ineluctable nature of self consciousness which actually can be largely explained in mechanistic terms. You're continuously trying to call me a subhuman for just not granting you that wedge. Probable you're insecure about not understanding those mechanics and the way your life has shaken out, i was like this too.

>>11731566
Philosophy is a science, at least when practiced rigorously and with deference observable cause and effect.

>>11731686
Abstractions are all ultimately derived from the physical world we observe; if we refine our understanding of that world (hello science) and use that knowledge to inform our abstractions, our abstractions become more accurate (and thus useful. Secular ethics have been proposed for at least a couple thousand years by philosophers who were masters of 'abstract and higher thinking'.

>>11731867
Indeed, but it allows them to hold on to the hope that they won't truly die. It's also a less stressful and challenging way to make sense of things for most people.

>>11731941
Please explain this metaphysical realm. How is math and 'part of physics' metaphysical? You do understand that information exists in physical form, right?

>>11732003
>Philosophy is a science
Other way around. >>11731965

>>11732007
Ok, this is epic.

>>11731992
>you can't psychically fuck with anyone
>you're the sophist
anon...
you haven't even read kant come on the shit's 250 years old by now
stop being lazy. i understand neurophysiology. you give no explanation for your idea of a phenomenology derived from it, which is the point and the problem.
if science does resolve that I concede the bulk of philosophy will be superseded and that's fine. until then we're full steam towards neural meshes either way which is my concern.

In fact the potential consequences of full materialism being true are far more interesting than this tired circular debate.
>>11731999
I'm glad you've found acceptance anon. I find all this troubling in the extreme yet I can't unsee it. That's the difference between us. I'd a thousand times prefer to have your optimism about a complete neuroscientific reduction. I'm not really a religious person at all but mystical experiences are at the very least a clue worth examining.

>>11732003
>>11731999
>>11731999
>>11732003

God you people are insufferable. I can't wait for this revival of logical positivism to die along with the rest of you faggoty science worshipers.

You've done more to debase man than anyone else in history.

>>11732017
>you give no explanation for your idea of a phenomenology derived from it, which is the point and the problem.
so the apes don't lose their minds and so we can still talk, it was selected for and so we should retain something of the lie to make everyone comfy
> science does resolve that I concede the bulk of philosophy will be superseded and that's fine. until then we're full steam towards neural meshes either way which is my concern.
It does, see above.
>n fact the potential consequences of full materialism being true are far more interesting than this tired circular debate
this is a concession, it is true.
> I'd a thousand times prefer to have your optimism about a complete neuroscientific reduction
I said mostly anon
> I'm not really a religious person at all but mystical experiences are at the very least a clue worth examining.
of course they're just not real. No one is saying not to read mystical tracts or poetry or literature, no one is saying we have to literally ban religion, just its fake and gay and should never be used to decide social policy or taught as some kind of useful tool for understanding the world. It happens to contain within it heuristics that can be quite interesting and sometimes useful to exceptional individuals, art and mysticism can't be taught, so by all means. Just, all that's reals is force, mass, charge, space and time and whatever ineffable precedes those.

>>11731906
> the USA doesn't exist
Amazing, school me further

>>11732011
The truth often is.

>>11731566
Neuroscience can't prove this. Your thread is over.

>>11731675
>Science proves stuff
Yea in its own set of rules and limitations.

>>11732027
It hasn't though, that's just your suspicion which you aren't basing on anything except faith in progress. You can be impressed by the results of science without turning them into an inverted religion prior to the real evidence coming out. We just don't know - again no one is claiming the mind is independent of neurophysiology. Just take some DMT to see how strong muh chemicals are.

But what we might observe is that the scientific enterprise is becoming its own reductio ad absurdum playing out IRL. If ethics is just a phantasm there was no good reason to choose to do science to begin with. Ironically the church really should have persecuted and banned it, in a way. Life extension means jack shit if the climate is destroyed and we can thank Einstein for the bomb.

You can blame (scientific) technology, general stupidity (arising from Enlightenment, scientifically informed values), politicians (again, Enlightenment political systems and managerial technocracy), economics (a scientific discipline), and so on. But science in a huge way caused this clusterfuck.

That and some of what else you are saying is a philosophical position, not a scientific hypothesis. Why do you feel the need to defame philosophy when you're participating in it? The ancient atomists and skeptics were still philosophers. That may sound like pedantry to you but I honestly don't get it? I will also concede modern academic philosophy has largely disappeared into its own asshole. Is that it?

>>11731675
>science proves stuff all the time

>>11732007
No, when philosophy is practiced as rigorous logic, it is a science. All abstraction is initially derived from observation. No one would even value logical consistency if its usefulness was not first demonstrated by observation of cause and effect.

>>11732020
Science is the source of your standard of living and the computer you're posting on. Granted there's plenty of wrong with modernity, but putting the majority of blame on 'science worshippers' is dimwitted.

>>11732083
>Science is the source of your standard of living and the computer you're posting on. Granted there's plenty of wrong with modernity, but putting the majority of blame on 'science worshippers' is dimwitted.
this doesn't take away the fact that logical positivism needs to die.

>>11732083
>when philosophy is practiced as rigorous logic, it is a science.
Correct. But philosophy was not always practiced that way; it precedes science, and therefore science has its roots in philosophy and not the other way around.

>>11732054
>Just take some DMT to see how strong muh chemicals are.
this isn't pertinent to what you're discussing and no one has any faith here, it absolutely already has explained sufficiently what the self-model is, both an accident and a providential tool for making sense of our cognition. That's it, so we should create a phenomenology rooted in the necessity of it while also keeping in mind its fundamentally just an epiphenomenal mirage.
>If ethics is just a phantasm there was no good reason to choose to do science to begin with
You're getting into specious reasoning again, I don't care about ethics I don't need to argue for anything at all, its just that when I say I will lobotomize you and that's it, there's nothing else you can counter with other than the most unattractive form of Non-dualism or dualism. You have been reticent to offer anything at all like the neurocognitive explanation of behavior or the behavioral genetics explanation or anything like those.
>Ironically the church really should have persecuted and banned it, in a way
The church would have spawned technological society in another way, blaming this on science qua science is extremely spiteful.
>But science in a huge way caused this clusterfuck.
Science is a methodology, its not an entity, human behavior spawned the ecological calamity impending.
>That and some of what else you are saying is a philosophical position, not a scientific hypothesis
We're not doing science or philosophy right now, no deductions or first principles have appeared beyond hand waving and barking at one another. I'm just telling you, not positing, that physics and mathematics are the closest we will ever get to grasping our minds and the universe. We won't ever have a complete model, not even remotely close, not even for the sake of transhumanism or space travel, but it will always be superior to the inadequacy of alchemy and idealism.
>the ancient philosophical school was philosophical
yes, they aren't the people who inform science now, actual experiments proved atomic theory.
>is that it
No, its all bad from beginning to end. I like Heidegger and N because they admit ontotheology and idealism are insane.
>>11732083
computer science is gay tho, they have every right to be disgusted by the techfags

>>11732083
>observing cause and effect
No it's a metaphysical principle. As is the applicability of logic to nature, the conception of nature, the material, what constitutes time (which physics struggles with), space itself, how real geometry and mathematical structure in general is, generality itself, abstraction itself, and so on.
To the poster that said "information is real" that's a metaphysical position and peak popsci buzzword cultism. Rigorously define information and explain what you mean by this please.
Of course physics is metaphysical, physicists practice it all the time even though they staunchly deny it, maybe they just hate competition for some reason. Even though they're oddly shit at it though, which is why you have the mathematical multiverse and mainstream physicists instructing us we're in the Matrix.

Reading Husserl's "The Crisis of European Sciences" right now. - relevant.

>>11732109
>epiphenomenal mirage
this account makes no sense. if it doesn't causally interact with anything then what are we talking about?
hand waving away with all the synonyms of illusion you know doesn't make it so and consciousness as self-consciousness is already a very old idea, it's not novel.
>You're getting into specious reasoning again, I don't care about ethics
I'm trying to lead the discussion away from the hard problem ping pong and to talk about the dissolution of ethics by scientific rationality which leads us into deep conundrums about decision making. I am unable to put into words at this stage what exactly I mean by this though. But I'll be around posting when I've read enough to figure out how to say it.
>I don't need to argue for anything at all, its just that when I say I will lobotomize you and that's it, there's nothing else you can counter with other than the most unattractive form of Non-dualism or dualism.
What's "unattractiveness" but your subjective aesthetic judgement? We're talking metaphysics. I offered strong emergentism which is a materialist position. I'm agnostic on it, I don't know and neither do you. I could similarly probably induce temporal lobe epilepsy and you'll be talking religious soon enough.
>You have been reticent to offer anything at all like the neurocognitive explanation of behavior or the behavioral genetics explanation or anything like those.
I largely accept all of this though.
>The church would have spawned technological society in another way, blaming this on science qua science is extremely spiteful.
It's not spite. Science has done a lot of good as well.

>>11732105
If philosophers formalized the scientific method it was because they observed the effectiveness of a chain of events. They observed cause and effect and codified it, thus they were practicing science.

Additionally, it is a strange assumption that philosophy can precede the act of science. Babies can learn from experimentation, before learning language and without any notion of philosophy.

>>11732110
And what is the metaphysical? Everything you have listed can be explained in the context of the physical. Can you even begin to define what the metaphysical distinction is other than just a place to lump things we don't fully understand?

I am said 'information is real' poster. There's nothing metaphysical about it, and I enjoy the irony of you accusing me of 'buzzword-ism' while relying so heavily on a distinction you can't even define without referring to the physical world. All information exists in a physical form, whether physical electrons and chemicals in your physical brain, or physical electrons and magnetic material in your computer, or vibrations in the physical air, or physical ink on paper. At no point does information exist metaphysically.

>>11732109
>Science is a methodology, its not an entity, human behavior spawned the ecological calamity impending.
This is pedantic hair splitting as an attempt to absolve one category of human behavior from responsibility by cordoning it off arbitrarily and abstracting it into a individualized codified "methodology", which is a covert metaphysic of knowledge acquisition and practical activity. And not accurate, as the necessities of peer review and replication makes it an irreducibly social activity to begin with. Science is an entity as much as it is an emergent feature of human activity, and its material products and instruments and buildings and conferences and publications and so on are all very real - not some abstract simplistic "method".
>We're not doing science or philosophy right now, no deductions or first principles have appeared beyond hand waving and barking at one another.
Philosophy was conversational and dialectical from the start, not just systematics.
>I'm just telling you, not positing, that physics and mathematics are the closest we will ever get to grasping our minds and the universe. We won't ever have a complete model, not even remotely close, not even for the sake of transhumanism or space travel, but it will always be superior to the inadequacy of alchemy and idealism.
That may be so but let's talk about the consequences of that then, people are going to believe in scientism or idealism or some ungodly chimera of the two either way and collective and individual human behavior continues as it always did. What's alchemy got to do with anything? Why does your kind's rhetoric always invoke these weak strawmen?
>yes, they aren't the people who inform science now, actual experiments proved atomic theory.
I'm just not understanding you polemical tone attitude and saying by intellectualizing it you're encouraging a bunch of braindead plebs to parrot a similar line.
>No, its all bad from beginning to end. I like Heidegger and N because they admit ontotheology and idealism are insane.
Neitzsche was insane himself, and Heidegger was a mystic. Philosophy spawned science and logic, so it can't be all worthless. Have you got anything other than just your personal distaste to suggest otherwise?

>be a logical positivist
>have the most obviously sound system of philosophy
>the only way people know to counter argument you is by slowly poisoning the well so everyone associates you with science dudebros
Life truly is suffering when you're correct on 4chan.

>>11732041
Science proves nothing by it's own logic. Everything is until proven otherwise.

>>11732188
Oh yeah that evil system that leaves itself open to more accurate information! Awful! Much better to just assert things because we like them and never change.

How do you function in life if you don't accept anything less than 100% certain as actionably 'proven'?

The chemicals in my brain are just what my consciousness looks like from your perspective. They're just an image in your mind; just as yours are an image in my mind. This is why the hard problem of consciousness and the measurement problem in quantum mechanics is insoluble. Materialism is false.

>>11732173
>Additionally, it is a strange assumption that philosophy can precede the act of science.
Why is that strange at all? We were studying life before we had the scientific method formalized, before we had refined study to a science — and philosophy is partly the study of life. We refined study to a science through the study of life, i.e. through philosophy; you have science because of philosophers. But scientists have not replaced philosophers at all, because philosophy is more than just study, and scientists only study. They don't know anything about what to do with what they study; the moment they start to devise a purpose for the results of their studies, they exit the realm of science and enter the realm of philosophy. But the philosophers do know what to do with what they study, and much better than scientists ever will, because the other part of philosophy is the creation of value, and the philosophers are dedicated to it.

>philosophical distinction between philosophy and science

you failed before you even began

>>11732199
>Oh yeah that evil system
>there is literally no value to being over becoming
grow up. The inability of science to actually prove anything is a legitimate existential flaw.

>>11731566
>>11731867
ITT: pseudo-intellectuals are called out

>>11732221
Again:
How do you function in life if you don't accept anything less than 100% certain as actionably 'proven'?

Your unreasonable expectation of perfect knowledge is the flaw. You rely on the observation of cause and effect whether you like it or not, and you can't propose an alternate method with predictive power.

>>11732243
>if you don't accept anything less than 100% certain as actionably 'proven'?

It's not that everything must be known, it's that NOTHING fundamentally can be known. You are arguing science is the only reliable form of knowledge when science itself doesn't consider itself reliable.

>>11732208
Yeah ok. And how to philosophers determine value without appealing to the observable world? I agree that it is the job of philosophers to derive value from science, but they don't do that via sorcery, they do it by practicing their own scientific discipline of philosophy.

>>11732206
And yet you propose no alternate explanation. It's just an 'image' and you don't bother to define what 'image' or 'mind' are. Must be nice.

>>11732268
Observing the world isn't science. Science is a specific and rigid way of viewing the world and what conclusions to draw from what you observe.

Remember; the advent of analytic philosophy largely influenced what has become computer science today :)

>>11731566
Explain the concept of chemical, how it was arrived at, and show that it is the substratum of everything else.

Reminder that atomism is a fucking lie and science has fooled the masses into thinking atoms are an observable reality and not a philosophical crutch to make science make sense.

>>11732260
You're setting a ridiculous expectation for what is reliable knowledge and hiding behind it. I have no expectation of perfect knowledge, and I don't need one in order to argue that science is the only reliable process for obtaining knowledge.

Also, your claim that "NOTHING fundamentally can be known" is an objective truth claim. So there's at least one thing that can be fundamentally known, right?

>>11732277
No -- at it's most basic -- science is the observation, replication and then prediction of cause and effect. Science is a process, not a perspective.

>>11732286
>You're setting a ridiculous expectation for what is reliable knowledge and hiding behind it
No, just because you think science defacto finds proof doesn't mean it actually does by it's own standards, It just means you don't actually have total faith in the scientific method because you believe at least some things to be concretely proven that won't ever be disproven because they are actually true.

>Also, your claim that "NOTHING fundamentally can be known
Learn to reading comprehension. I didn't fucking say nothing can be known or even say science denies the truth exists, I explained science does not attempt to discover the truth, it's purely for practicality for people to stumble though life with.

>>11732293
I'm convinced you are actually dumb. Obviously the scientific method is a process, the perspective is how you are making judgements, your standards of proof and what conclusions you make from what you observe, replicate etc etc.

>>11732298
>science defacto finds proof
Truth* incase you don't want to give me the benefit of the doubt for what i'm saying.

>>11732298
>faith in the scientific method
jesus h christ

It didn't take 100% understanding of the universe (which most likely isn't possible thanks to entropy) to invent transistors and build the computer you're using. So at what point is knowledge is useful? If even partial scientific knowledge can make actionable predictions, isn't that a much better track record than the Platonic world of forms?

>It's not that everything must be known, it's that NOTHING fundamentally can be known.
You literally said nothing can fundamentally be known. Which is a fundamental, universal, objective claim to 100% certain knowledge.

>>11732301
And your perspective is informed by... What exactly? Not observation perchance? Could it be that the only reason consistency is valued is because we observe it's effectiveness?

Alright, I'm done with ya. If you're just going to ad hom and not admit your errors then there's little point.

>>11732309
>You literally said nothing can fundamentally be known.

Though the scientific method by it's own admission and criteria retard not in general. Science is an unreasonable amount of extreme skepticism which is why it is purely practical and does not offer a coherent holistic worldview. When you try to adopt science to explain everything you end up with scientism, which people complain about because it stops being science when it tries to tackle subjects that can't be reliably measured, observed or repeated with current tools or at all.

>>11732321
>And your perspective is informed by
You are a brainlet. I'm not offering you any counter-method, i'm just explaining the existential flaw of science -- that it can't actually prove anything is true. This is why everyone with a three digit IQ uses science as a practical tool and not as a comprehensive worldview.

>>11732284
I'm interested, go on...

Maybe our resident scientist can explain something to me. I understand that Einstein proved that the universal speed limit was the speed of light, right? He also explained that everything exists in a state of relativity to everything else. So, I have given this some thought and perhaps you can critique my premises about speed.
1. If the universe had only one object there would be no speed because relatively speaking there would be no object with which to compare its movement.
2. If the universe contained two objects then you could adduce how fast each object moves together or apart in terms of distance over time: true, but you couldn't ascertain what object was in fact the one in motion.
3. You need an object which does not move - relative to some starting position of another object - in order to determine that objects speed i.e. in a three object universe you could ascertain that one object remains still while another moves if and only if a third object remains stationary relative to the starting point of the moving object.

Ok, with that said, when I say 'the universal speed limit is C', given relativity, does that mean then that an object may not travel faster than half its speed or double? The logic is simply that for any one object going in one direction there may be an object going to opposite direction at the same speed and the speed at which they separate or come together relative to one another would be twice that of its speed relative to a static 3rd person observer.

Does this 'speed limit' rely on a static observer? Where is this static object to be found in the universe? Everything is in motion.

A final consideration: What about space itself? Is it an object that is static? What we learn from Einstein is that - no - space can warp and bend as when large masses create gravity. Therefore space itself can also move at a speed relative to other space as it condenses or expands due to the masses of other objects. This movement would also, of course, be relative to the movement of other space moving its opposite direction and the conclusive realization remains the same: to say that 'the universal speed limit is c' means either that the universal speed limit is double what it is or half - a blatant logical contradiction.

Um. Explain.

>>11731906
Take psilocybin and experience more.

>>11731645
should've been fp desu

Kill all stem fags desu

>>11732383
Space is a mathematical construct

>>11732033
>mfw the retard gets so BTFO he doesn't respond to you

>>11732519
What is a 'mathematical construct'? I mean, anything physical can be construed mathematically. Rather, what significance does your observation have on my insight?

“Because of chemicals” doesn’t exactly answer any question. But it does propose quite a lot if you take it as a premise. Good job, OP, you’re a regular philosopher.

i got the chemicals out of my brain so it's not squishy and wet when i think

>>11732535
t. chemicals

>>11731601
That's exactly how it works.

>>11731566
Prove it.

>>11731566
>Daily reminder that everything is chemicals in your brain.
Why do my chemicals sing such beautiful songs? How do I extract and multiply these aspects and not the cynical chemicals?

>>11732173
What information? Shannon? You're just saying observable quantities are observable quantities. I just don't see what the big deal is about this "information" trend. What's it saying that's new? We already knew there were parallels between signal processing and other areas.

Metaphysics is used as a bogeyman for anything physicists don't like, yet naturalness/elegance and even "beauty", unphysicality when we're talking the most abstract mathematical models, the anthropic principle, what probability and randomness means itself, causality itself which is relevant especially to acceptable solutions to Einstein field equations, considerations of nonlocality vs locality, the multiverse and parametric fine tuning, mathematical realism, all of that is metaphysical. I don't know what the point in this whole movement against it is. Did Spinoza really make everyone this asshurt?

>>11731566

>>11731566
>Chemist tries to make his discipline relevant by ignoring electrons
You're shit even for a chem major

>>11731906
> philosophy is irrelevant
what about the most fundamental of all questions: how to live one's life?

>>11732003
> How is math ... metaphysical?
What is a set? It seeming has no properties, and therefore no essence, but it can have relations to other things. It is not encountered in space and time

>>11732109
> computer science is gay tho
I was trained in computer science (and mathematics). Undoubtedly there is amateurish scientism among twenty-somethings who are drawn to the discipline (who are indignant of the Chinese Room argument, for example) but that doesn't speak to the discipline's essence.

I think CS has profoundly shaped my beliefs on what is possible. CS is fundamentally about its own limitations: what can even be computed (hardly anything: there is only a countable set of such languages)? what can be computed efficiently (again, not much, as P is most likely not NP)? and so forth

In short, it is a good discipline to study. Pic related is my favorite book on the topic and the one I most recommend.

>>11731566
Wrong. Everything is just elementary particles.

>>11732970
>All this stuff is metaphysical just 'cause. I don't actually know what 'metaphysical' actually refers to but it sounds cool.

All of those concepts and abstractions actually exist, as information; they nor your thoughts are metaphysical in nature. The concept of a perfect circle exists as information, but we do not see perfect circles in nature. Still, the concept is obviously informed by the concrete. Causality and randomness (assuming true randomness exists) are actual patterns of physical interaction.

The point is that your magical metaphysical realm and its concomitant distinctions have never been demonstrated to exist, not even in part.

>>11733052
That would take me at least six months to complete.

>>11731566
Philosophy and literature makes you better shitposter. Checkmate scientists.

>>11733069
you're just repeating yourself without explanation and promoting metaphysical considerations to the physical for no real reason than it sounds better. it's not "another realm", it's this one.

the fuck is a pattern for starters. define it. your shit's circular.

>>11731566
Hey, dumbass, your brain is encapsulated within the chemicals of your skull. Your skull within your muscle, and then skin. Your body is swimming within environmental and geological chemicals, which is suspended in space orbiting a fuck tonne of dense hot chemicals, dancing in tandem with 9 other chemical solutions which are suspended in our galactic petri dish of chemicals.

I think, therefore, I am. Faggot.

>>11732027
>Just, all that's reals is force, mass, charge, space and time and whatever ineffable precedes those.

>>11731566
>everything is chemicals in your brain

No, all that’s verifiably real is perception of those. Chemicals don’t verifiably exist, our perceptions of chemicals exist. The map is not the territory, the model is not the thing itself. This is the big mistake idiotic empiricists and logical positivists make. Genuinely advanced and intelligent physicists are increasingly positing that our theories of physics may not be showing the “objective” truth about the universe but, increasingly, simply revealing to us the limitations of our own mind in perceiving the universe.

>>11733031
A set is an abstraction, but abstractions exist as information. You look at a group of distinct objects and say 'I will define that as a set', then codify that abstraction for others to use. At all points the abstraction is physical information whether in your brain or ink on a page. Yes, the concept 'set' will not exist as anything other than information, but you have defined its properties by codifying that particular informational pattern.

>>11733091
> At all points the abstraction is physical information whether in your brain or ink on a page
But wouldn't you say that the set existed before someone pointed it out?

>>11733091
>still hasn't defined information
And you're treating it as a metaphysical concept. You can't escape metaphysics, all that's happened is you've associated negative feelings to that word for whatever reason and seek to disassociate your metaphysical thinking from it.
You haven't elucidated abstraction either. It's not that monism is unworkable, it's that it's metaphysical.

>>11732286

both of you shut the fuck up and read Quine. jesus christ. and get off this site. this is the first time i've been back here in 4 years and it's disgusting how retarded every newcomer remains

>>11733115
Its my first time on /lit/ and the conversation I've seen in this thread is infinitely more interesting than anything I've been exposed to after grad school.

>>11733125
Hi anon, check out this thread on technology
>>11719692

>>11733091
> the concept 'set' will not exist as anything other than information
how do you understand the concept "exist"? Do you mean "exists in space and time"? But then don't you see that this requires a wider meaning of the term "exists"?

>"Bring me a number"
*Gives me 2 apples*
>"I said give me a number, not two apples."
*writes a number on a peice of paper*
>"are you going to give me a number?
>"B-but I can't, numbers are concepts we only have representations-"
>"are you saying maths is purely a concept so therefore, under the scientific method, maths isn't....real!?"
Checkmate, we had fun today

>>11732003
>Abstractions are all ultimately derived from the physical world we observe
huh? Abstraction as a concept is completely void without the conscience. It doesn't come from the external world, it comes from the internal experience

>>11733137
Maths is language used to describe relationships between variables. It's entirely unimportant that those variables are physical or imaginary.

Replace the numbers for letters, and maths for english. Are our words not real?

>>11733143
What is an abstraction?

Our species extinction could be effectively abstracted from a meteor colliding with earths surface. That doesn't require any mental effort, it's cause and effect.

>>11733130
This is way over my head - I'm trained in neuroscience and marketing. I've only really ever addressed technology from a market analysis perspective.

Definitely open to some reading suggestions.

>>11733167
how is that an abstraction?

>>11733137
look at
>>11733134
> maths isn't....real!?
well, if you narrowly define the concept as only existing in space and time, then "math doesn't exist." But on what grounds can you do this?

Also, another interesting question to think about is "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" in explaining the world (if in fact, it is not part of the world".

>>11733115
If it takes someone as basic as Quine to point out your errors you're not looking great. ;)
>not linking "two dogmas"
http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html

>>11733074
Fine, so what is the distinction between physical and metaphysical? Explain it.

'Patterns' is an abstraction we use to describe various configurations and behaviours of matter/energy. It's not circular because the abstraction actually exists as physical stuff, and furthermore no abstractions would exist without abstracting agents (us, more physical stuff) to observe other physical stuff and conceptualize it. It's all integrated, but you insist on inherited and unproven distinctions that you've never really questioned.

>>11733089
>le extreme epistemological skeptic

Yeah sure, because we can't have perfect knowledge and don't perceive the entirety of existence, it's not actually there and we aren't actually observing any real aspect of it. What a tremendous cop-out.

>>11733177
Lol

Abstraction is cause and effect across multiple variables.

Meteor + earth = rapid temperature rise + geologic vaporisation = reduced oxygene + space requirements necessary for 7 billion humans.

That abstraction is meteor + earth = dead us

>>11733176
As for reading suggestions, there were a couple of interesting books that some anons in that thread recommended. I would start by going through the essay slowly and carefully, or at least reading a summary of it

I tried my best to bring it down to earth in this post
>>11733164

Feel free to just comment on what you think the effects of technology, especially in our day and age information technology (social media, search engines), are on our society (and on your life)? I think most people in that thread are pretty accommodating and respectful.

>>11733191
Le vibrations will manifest our fortunes

>>11733176
That's unfortunate. I'd say welcome aboard but Neuromarketers are getting the rope.

>>11731675

>>11733192
>Abstraction is cause and effect across multiple variables
who thinks this? where did you get this definition from?

>>11733191
Do you think that the Pythagorean theorem was true before anyone proved it?

>>11733193
Thanks! I can comment on the economic impact fairly confidently, but we are too complex to infer any sociocultural effects from my limited understanding. I mean, the whole diminishing attention span thing due to smart phones is kind of thrown out the window now... it was a myth perpetuated by confirmation bias.

I'll definitely lurk more before commenting too much! Thanks for the introduction.

>>11733209
The definition of Abstraction is literally in the word. Preface Ab is synonymous with Ex.

To abstract is to remove.

>>11733214
It was discovered, not invented.

>>11733191
It is circular. You've enclosed your logic in a real tautology, where the singular substance abstracts and describes itself through abstract but not-abstract real patterns and information which you believe resolves the hard problem. Where the fuck does this perfect circle exist? You're manifestly unclear on that. Isomorphisms are only between mathematical objects but the logical and mathematically modelable structure of the universe must pre-exist humans somehow, yet it's at the same time completely abstract and a product of thought. You haven't resolved this by just throwing around "real" and "physical" which become empty designators at this level, and done little more than expose your prejudice against thinking outside of the box you want people in.

Physical is what can be traced back to physical experiments, measurements. See the Copenhagen interpretation aka the correct interpretation of QM. But much of physics as practiced goes well beyond this, I already gave several examples. What do you make of the simulation theory doing the rounds? Sure physicists are ingenious at devising phenomenology to test what was once solely metaphysical but it's still irreducibly so. They aren't separate.

What do you make of the surveys showing a good half (50%) of working mathematicians to self report as unironic "Platonists" in the meme sense of a literal other world?

>>11733156
>>11733182
Fair point

>>11733191
>Yeah sure, because we can't have perfect knowledge and don't perceive the entirety of existence, it's not actually there and we aren't actually observing any real aspect of it. What a tremendous cop-out.

I’m not saying it’s not actually there, although from the point of view of no observer, it actually wouldn’t be there.

>>11733202
Neuromarketing is psuedoscience at worst and a superfluous luxury at best. Its far more efficient to conduct traditional surveys and focus groups.

They will get the rope, but for being scam artists. I'm yet to meet a neuromarketer who actually has a functional understanding of human psychology and neurology.

The only area neuromarketing is worth while is extracting insight from the literature pouring out of university labs. And its application is most effective in memes (because we dont have that pesky price thing shifting our perception of value)

>>11733244
I'm an observer.

>>11733100
No, the objects in the set did (if they were concrete objects) but since 'set' is a concept it cannot precede the existence of an abstracting agent (observer). None of that implies the non-physical.

>>11733110
Information is just another pattern, another configuration of matter/energy.

>>11733134
I understand 'exists' as that which is, whether observed or not.

>>11733137
Concepts exist, information is real.

>>11733143
What is the hard boundary between the external world and your brain which is conceptualizing in response to stimuli?

>>11733264
You haven't satisfactorily defined: information, pattern and configuration, and are using them interchangeably.

Hallucinations and illusions are observed but not "real". In fact most of our perceptions don't show much of what's real in a physical sense and we only understand them in a physically realistic way through an overlay of theory which proxies and summarizes a long chain of observations you had no part in. It's obviously not as simple as you make it out.

Consciousness is observed, all that's observed really, but you want to call it an illusion. Just to recap. Earlier you say philosophical and religious thought derives from "mental illness", a kind of breakdown of realism, but what does this even mean in a scientistic framework outside of some vague notion of maladaption - which you won't define either, and how do you know you're the truly mentally adaptive one - given you're here on 4chan arguing with autists and other scum of society? Put a completely different way, what is the scientifically determinate set of "uses of a hammer"?

>>11733264
> I understand 'exists' as that which is, whether observed or not.
But what is "that which is"? I'm not trying to be facetious or anything, but I am trying to instill some of the mystery of being in you (and me).

Also,
> No, the objects in the set did (if they were concrete objects) but since 'set' is a concept it cannot precede the existence of an abstracting agent (observer).
There is certainly no inconsistency in your thought, though I don't know whether you are right or not.

Here, consider my adaptation of the antiquated problem of universals. Consider: what is an electron? You might say that it is a fundamental particle of matter, and you'd be right in saying this. You could tell me its mass and that it has a fundamental charge (except maybe for quarks). Now, two given electrons do not differ in any properties except in space-time. But how is this possible? (this is the problem of universals) How can there be two of the "same things"? (not in the strict sense of space-time but of having exactly the same properties).

The question is: what makes an electron an electron? Perhaps you'll say this is nonsensical, or that we cant know such a thing. Plato would say that there is a Form of Electron which these particular electrons partake in. Now, for my part, I've always been a little ambiguous about what "partake in" means, but I've tried my best to convey the point. I by no means have a solution to the problem of universals but I would like to hear your view.

>>11733214
The property it describes existed before us, of course. The theorem itself didn't, so no -- strictly speaking. I suppose you could say it was inevitable given the rise of sophisticated beings that the property would be observed and formalized as a concept.

>>11733240
So, you don't believe information actually exists? That when you think of a concept that is the direct result of a configuration of matter and energy in your brain?

None of your examples imply a distinction away from the physical, nor does simulation theory. If you created a form of life that only ever experienced a simulation on your computer that you programmed, it would still all be physical.

We are far from finished with QM.

Brilliant people can be wrong. So what?

>>11733264
And this:
>No, the objects in the set did (if they were concrete objects) but since 'set' is a concept it cannot precede the existence of an abstracting agent (observer). None of that implies the non-physical.
There's also the empty set which contains no elements ("objects") at all. And you're saying no sets (as a concept) existed prior to the SET of abstracting agents to abstract the concept?

>>11733348
I guess that anon would say the empty set is merely a useful convention, but that it doesn't really exist.

>>11733346
I'm asking you to rigorously define information etc. before I'll comment on its ontological status.

My examples are legitimately metaphysical because there are aspects to them that cannot be captured by any experiment even in principle. So not physical, strictly, but beyond, containing, or prior to it.

>everything is just chemicals
>I know this because chemicals said so

Let me take this chance to restate what I take to be fundamental problems/challenges for advocates of scientism.

What is an electron? How can there be two electrons--two entities with exactly the same properties? Does the existence of two electrons entail the existence of the Form of Electron, as Plato would say?

Literally the only thing you fags need to do is read the chapter "On Man's Need for Metaphysics" in Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation. It completely btfo's stemfags, not that that's hard.

>By metaphysics I understand all so-called knowledge that goes beyond the possibility of experience, and so beyond nature or the given phenomenal appearance of things, in order to give information about that by which, in some sense or other, this experience or nature is conditioned, or in popular language, about that which is hidden behind nature, and renders nature possible.

>>11733263
Who’s an observer? Can you show me scientific proof that it exists?

>>11733391
If physics requires metaphysics, does metaphysics require a meta-metaphysics, which in turn requires another meta-meta-science and so forth ad infinitum? Personally I am suspicious of any "last science"; there must always be the possibility of another branch of knowledge to explain the terms in the previous one.

>>11733420
I don't need too. You're an NPC

>>11732268
>And how to philosophers determine value without appealing to the observable world?
Some might say via reason, but the short answer is they don't. They all rely on data from the observable world. But I'm not sure what your point is here.

>>11733006
abstract thought cannot be perceived thus it does not matter, just buy an ipad and watch bill nye the science goy, thus is life

>>11733434
> abstract thought cannot be perceived
I cant perceive your thoughts but I certainly see my own thoughts. I think it is legitimate to ask how to live your life.

>>11733430
>They all rely on data from the observable world
why do brainlets persistently do this when they KNOW they have no actually understanding on the subject at hand.

>>11733426
The impossibility of infinite regress is a metaphysical notion.

>>11733460
What are you talking about?

>>11733452
>I certainly see my own thoughts
you cant see them because you don't have eyes inside your brain and nothing in the world can perceive your thoughts, therefore they cannot be perceived and do not exist

Sorry bud but 2 + 2 = 4 is an opinion and you cannot prove causality

>>11733470
I know what I'm thinking. I used the word "see" metaphorically. Why should what I see with my eyes have priority and preference over what I see with the "mind's eye"?

>>11733430
Empirical ethics isn't valid.
1: Ethics deals only with what ought to be.
2: Observation deals only with what is.
3: What is and what ought to be are two different things
4(3,2,1): It then follows that observation can't discover what ought to be.

>>11733297
If you don't believe configuration is real, are you implying that there are no distinctions between anything we observe in the universe?

Yes hallucinations are real, something physical is going on in your brain which you are experiencing, even if you perceive it incorrectly.


When you enter deep sleep and entirely lose consciousness/experience, does everything stop existing? No consciousness is not an illusion, it's a physical process. I never equated philosophical/religious thought with mental illness, don't know what you're talking about. I have no doubt many people are mentally healthier with less exposure to realism.

>>11733319
Yeah I get what you're saying, and there is mystery, we don't know nor will we ever know everything. That said, there's definitely something happening here, so we know something 'is'.

Re: universals, I think the best explanation is trope theory. There aren't actually 'same things', but distinctions between individual things can be narrow enough that we can categorize them under a trope. Your electron example is an interesting spin on things though... Is it valid to simply disregard distinction in space-time position to claim they are the same? Could there be minute variations in mass we don't account for? I'm not sure. What are your thoughts?

You can't Prove (capital P) anything. All rational discussion axiomatically adheres to the Laws of Thought. Axiomatically. At the bottom there's an unprovable axiom and that's a serious issue for everyone, I think. Luckily, we have conscience experience which seems almost like a way of attaining certain knowledge.

>>11733480
>I know what I'm thinking
thats better but how do you 'know' what you are thinking, you cannot hear,see,smell,taste or feel thoughts therefore you cannot perceive and thus your thoughts do not exist.
btw I am being ironic to show the flaws materialism

>>11732115
Thanks anon

>>11733428
Where is this observing self of yours in time and space? Is it in your body? Where in your body? Can it be weighed, held in one’s hand?

>>11733485
>tries to refute metaphysics
>invokes trope theory
I'm asking you to state what you mean clearly by your terms but mainly just scrambling what you thought was a nice clean self enclosed model. But it doesn't matter that much. Hard Problem is really the core philosophical problem, everything else that matters is either a derivative of it or regular science.

>>11733497
I don't think you were trying to be ironic. The phenomenologist in me would say that there is no "how" to you knowing what you think. You simply know. This is the "starting point." But I don't think this is flawed. Why should what I see be real? I don't think there is any answer to this question either.

>>11733485
Now we're getting somewhere in dialogue! Thank you anon. As for what I think, I suppose it is possible that there could be small variations in mass among electrons, but the human-all-too-human in me says that this is just too suspicious. I don't have any arguments, one way or the other, of course, just a suspicion that electrons must have the same mass. I suppose this is just Ockham's razor imprinted on the human mind, though the field of machine learning has tried to show and give the empirical basis for Ockham's principle--not that ML deals with definite truth, only probabilistic accounts.
As for why electron's have the same mass? Well this has always haunted me in my study of physics. Even in high school, when we learn to calculate the trajectory of certain objects, and the forces they exert on each other, I already knew I had a deeper interest in the subject. I ended up pursuing mathematics (and not philosophy) because of this deeper interest into the nature of things.
Consider this? What keeps an electron together? This is a amazing question! I mean, of course, why doesn't "one-half" of the electron blow the other half away? My professor in college said that this was simply not what physics was about (then) and that physically there may never be an adequate account of this fact. This, coincidentally, is what I think philosophy has going for it: it will seek out such explanations (how? I don't know) to question like these, questions that seem to be disregarded by the other sciences.
You know, I think philosophy suffers a similar fate that Artificial Intelligence--another field I am familiar with and one I used to obsess over--suffers. You see, the progress that AI makes is gradually appropriated by the larger field of Computer Science. Progress in program design (e.g. Lisp), search domains (e.g. A* search), etc., these results are eventually incorporated into standard CS curriculum (and students then learn these things with no knowledge that they came from early AI investigations). (By the way, AI I think is a disappearing field, which is why I left it for pure math. It is being taken over by ML, which, as originally conceived, was only part of it. But this is a different story for a different time).
So how is AI similar to philosophy? Well, besides both progressing very slowly, any progress that occurs is gradually appropriated by another discipline. Physics, for example, and as you probably know, was at first simply natural philosophy.

>>11733485
>>11733583
One more comment, anon. I have heard of certain "interpretations" about quantum mechanics. I am interested in what you think of their status. For example, in one such interpretation, all that "exists" are interactions. If p is not interacting with anything, then p does not exist. I might be bobbling the main point here, but see if you understand what I'm getting at. What are we to make of a statement like that?

>>11731675
Science never proves anything definitely you idiot le science rules redditor

>>11733348
I'm saying 'set' is a concept and doesn't exist without an observer to think of it. There were no other observers to abstract the yet-to-be observers into a set.

>>11733361
No, the concept 'set' exists as information (an arrangement of matter/energy in the brain) once a being capable of abstracting defines it.

>>11733365
Information is an encoding of matter/energy which can be stored, transmitted, translated and manipulated. It can be decoded via pattern recognition (as we do with language), allowing us to communicate the information in our brain (thought) to another observer.

>>11733430
My point is that if you cant even begin to attribute value without appealling to consequences, then there is no 'ought' (values) which can precede what 'is'. In fact there is only 'is'.

>>11733482
Define the term 'ought' without appealing to what is.

>>11733463
You assume that concepts do not actually exist.

>>11733583
>I don't think you were trying to be ironic
If you honestly thought I was trying to debase the existence of thought than you do not belong here, this whole discussion was a reflection of the basics on the mind-body problem which epitomises metaphysics

>Define the term 'ought' without appealing to what is.

not the same guy, but any definition of anything would resort to what is, since we are in the what is right now and we have to communicate. even if we mindlinked, still the effort is happening in the what is.

>>11733616
>if you cant even begin to attribute value without appealling to consequences, then there is no 'ought' (values) which can precede what 'is'.
Yes, I gathered that part. However, as already explained, study is a part of philosophy, regardless if it is scientific study or not — science is simply a form of philosophical study. Philosophy is the superset here, science one set of said superset.

>In fact there is only 'is'.
You realize that this statement is philosophy, right? You have only been doing philosophy in this thread (assuming you are OP). The thread is purely philosophy.

>>11733632
>>11733616
still you could make an argument to not appeal to certain sections of the what is, which could be interesting.

>>11733622
I read your comment wrong. I thought you said that you were not trying to be ironic and was trying to be polite.

As for the mind-body problem. Why don't you lay out your conception of it and I can then give my answer, or, if you don't want to, I can give my formulation.

>>11733616
If a proposition dealing with the regulation of an existing objecting has a positive truth value, then that proposition is what ought to be.

Let me lay out my own conception of reality. I believe in a triad: mind, abstract, concrete. The mind is you and it participates in both itself and the abstract (e.g. mathematics) and the concrete (space-time). I suppose the abstract and concrete are often lumped together, but I think they are too far apart and see no advantages to combining these concepts.

>>11733470
>perception only includes physical senses

>>11733738
More than that, whether something exists or not is not determined by a majority vote, so just because other people can't know your thoughts doesn't mean they do not exist. Same with scientific theories, which are accepted as fact often, but not proven no matter how many scientists believe it.

>>11733659
Just to make my description of ethics more detailed:

Ethics deals with trying to develop a moral epistomology to determine the truth value of propositions dealing with the regulation of behavior. An ought fact statement is simple a true moral statement. The task of anyone evolved in ethics is 1: to establish a moral ontology, what does it mean for an ethical proposition to be true and 2: to establish a moral epistomology which is a method of determining a moral propositions truth value.

>>11732020
based and redpilled

>>11733496
'You can't Prove anything' is a self-detonating statement. You can't Prove that you can't Prove anything, and if the statement is true then we know something for 100% certain.

>>11733497
No, materalism does not require observation or consciousness/experience for something to exist. Neither am I conscious of the workings of my immune system, but since I have regularly observed the predictive power of medical knowledge, I am quite certain it exists.

>>11733562
Distinctions are real, or else you think the universe is unform blob, which is ridiculous. If variation didn't exist, you wouldn't experience anything -- you wouldn't be. Appealing to authority (the academic categorization of trope theory as 'metaphysics') doesn't make the distinction 'metaphysical' real or prove it in any way.

>>11733583
That is a crazy question. I'm not a physicist, so I can only speculate that their stability has something to do with how light they are. I think of philosophy as scientific discipline. When philosophers provide new potential insights or testable predictions, they do so by way of observing cause and effect (it can't be any other way). For instance, why would anyone care about logical consistency if its effectiveness had not been demonstrated to them first? Contrary to what some of these memebros appear to think, I'm not dismissive of philosophy at all. I highly regard its importance (as a science) to both 'get ahead of the curve' as you point out and to attribute value to discoveries once they've been made. Yeah, I can see how ML would eventually take over AI... Can ML ever take AI to the point of awareness though? I don't think so. So there's still artificial consciousness (not sure non-biological consciousness is possible though).

I find the De Broglie-Bohm theory very interesting. I don't have the expertise to properly advocate for it, but there's a certain elegance to the idea of a real, physical guiding wave as opposed a truly probabilistic distribution, duality and all that jazz. It interfaces with nonlocality and the theories of quantized space pretty well too. Of course there are problems with it, hidden variables and all that... Maybe copenhagen weirdness is how things are, but i think pilot wave merits investigation. If all that exists are interactions, where does the potential for interaction come from? Even if it's a probability field, that's something and not nothing. I'm tempted to say that 'existence' is just the default state and that there isn't really any such thing as 'non-existence', just different configurations of what is. When you die, you don't really cease to exist, it's just that the particular arrangement of matter/energy which constitues you (including your consciousness) disintegrates into something else. Not much consolation, I know!

>>11731717
standpoint theory is empirically false, butler is a pseud, dworkin is incel, kys

>>11733913
>does not require observation
>but since I have regularly observed
cant have your cake and eat it

>>11733637
I am not OP. I think it's pretty obvious OP was a bait fag, I'm quite serious about materalism.

Science is the superset, I don't see how more abstract philosophy (which still depends on observation of cause and effect) can precede simple experimentation (observation, prediction, replication). Babies and animals learn this way with no understanding of language or notion of philosophy.

>>11733758
Ok but what does 'moral' mean. In the strictest sense, there is no 'ought' because that implies a universal which precedes that which is. What we actually do is observe and then manipulate what is to achieve another is, If there is an 'ought', it is only in the sense that one 'ought' to favour the action most effective in meeting the needs of you and your collective. No, needs are not arbitrary -- they result directly from your biological state.

>>11731566
this is clearly a trashy bait
open your eyes /lit/

>>11733952
You're right. I should have instead pointed out that physics paints a model of the universe that doesn't require our participation to exist. If you have a similarly robust theory that suggests all existence is contigent upon the experience of observers, let's hear it.

>>11734038
Science isn't the superset. For you to even be able to study something and reap "results" at all you must first have a concept of knowledge, truth, and utility, aka you need to already possess a philosophy. You literally can't think without philosophy. The philosopher champions thought.

>>11734137
So you are confident that you live in "the" universe rather than a quasi-physical state that resembles what ought be considered a universe?

>>11734137
>the universe / doesn't require our participation to exist
This you do not know. How could you know this without observing the universe and thus participating. Which is interestingly a fundamental premise in quantum mechanics, being the influence of the observer on the observed (such as superposition and wave-particle duality). Either way, my point is that materialism ultimately rejects consciousness all together since it is by its own nature immaterial and incompatible with the notion of materialism. Which would be perfectly acceptable on the condition that mind=body is proven, which has never be done.

>>11731566
If you had any real understanding of neuroscience you'd know how little we really know about the brain and it works. Much of the facts we deal with are just theories, grounded with some evidence but theories none the less. That's why with anxiety, for instance, the 'fix' has changed a lot (dopamine > gaba > serotonin > methylation ) and much of drug administration is more of an art than a science. If you're willing to base your entire worldview on the basis of something we don't really understand, how is this any better than metaphysics?

>>11734228
neuro""""""science""""" is not science, its based on conjecture just like psychology except far worse in implicit dogma, people just don't question it as often because even they don't really know anything about the brain, it still remains a mystery. Following the same reasoning as neuro"""""science"""" but with something other than the brain you quickly realize how absurd this reasoning methodology is.
eg.
>when you see someone you love your pupils dilate
>this can be tried and repeated one millions of people with the exact same results
>therefore your pupiles are responsible for giving the sensation of love
>why? because it is your pupils that show a visible and measurable reaction when we show you a picture of someone you love therefore......correlation....causation....bada bing bada boom...science

>>11731566
That's why you can find an anticedent property in matter for consciousness at every molecular step down from the finished brain.

Oh wait, no you can't. Well that's okay, because at least we have a working model for the synesthetic experiences of the conscious being that aligns with our mapping of the human brain.

Oh... No wait we don't. Well at least the human brain's responses haven't been totally mapped so there might be some "consciousness in the gaps" of what we know.

Oh no wait, we've completely mapped the brain's electric and chemical response systems and there's... No place for such an experience to be assembled. Well I'm sure there's no belief system ever in the history of the world which reasoned the existence of a consciousness separate from the human body. We'd look really, REALLY fucking stupid if it turned out that 4,000 year old philosophic analysis of the nature of consciousness were more accurate than scientific predictions made just a century ago.

Oh no wait

>>11734164
Really... Again, how does the baby or animal learn from experimentation? They don't have language and so obviously don't possess a philosophy. So if they learn via experimentation not to touch electrical sockets, that isn't a simple kind of knowledge? Concepts can not possibly precede knowledge, what would inform them? You are not born with a bunch of complex abstractions pre-loaded.

>>11734205
So do you actually believe existence ceases when you enter deep sleep? Materialism does not reject consciousness, it proposes that it's a physical process. What is 'mind'? There is plenty of evidence that our conscious experience is directly related to the state of our bodies. However flimsy you think that evidence is, it is something, which is more the purely theoretical notion of a 'meta-self' has. Neuroscience does have some predictive power, and unless you're an extreme epistemological skeptic you have to acknowledge that. 'You can't be certain' is not an alternative hypothesis or a negation of what evidence there is.

>>11734291
I don't think this is the main reasoning in neuroscience, is it? I know certain psychologists have proposed and believe it.

>>11734336
>They don't have language and so obviously don't possess a philosophy

>>11734336
>They don't have language and so obviously don't possess a philosophy.
But they do have a language, it just doesn't consist of words. Philosophy is thought, not literature; literature just happens to be the best way to communicate thought.

>Concepts can not possibly precede knowledge
Knowledge IS A CONCEPT. Concepts come into existence when thought does.

>>11734361
Right, so what philosophy were you born with?

You're being semantic. There is a concept of knowledge, but you begin gaining actual knowledge (predictive power via experience) long before the abstract concept of knowledge (epistemology) enters your mind. I suspect a great many adults have never thought about the concept of knowledge, they just take the process for granted.

>>11734336
>it proposes that it's a physical process
except it clearly and irrefutably isn't physical because, as I repeat, it is immaterial and physically non-perceivable, as to say nothing and one but the consciousness itself can perceive it. A good point you made is that there is a of course an interdependence of the mind on the body, from our point of view their is no mind without the body and physically lobotomizing the brain has a clear mental impact, but this does not imply that they are one and the same, it just shows interdependence.
The situation is no different from the process of driving for a car or that of flying for a plane. Yes, a plane doesn't fly without an engine/propeller but that doesn't mean the process of flying is attributed to the engine, changes in the engine and propeller alter the way in which it flys but it still doesn't show that the cause of flying is attributed to a propeller or engine. Ultimately you can only accept that the process of flying is not attributed to the individual components of a plane but to the plane itself (viewing the plane as greater than just the sum of its parts).
Likewise for consciousness.

>>11734380
>You're being semantic.
I'm being honest. The world comes into existence once you have the capacity to interpret it, not before — the interpretation is in fact the world itself. They aren't separate. You can't remember a time when the world existed yet you couldn't interpret it, because such an event is impossible; without an interpreter present, it cannot be defined, which means it cannot be said to exist (since existence is a property of a thing). Prior to what we regard as "consciousness," the world was a dream; it didn't "exist," because we were not interpreting such a property into things yet. And if there was no world yet, how can you study it? And if you can't study it, or anything for that matter, how can there be a rigorous form of study, i.e. science? Therefore science does not precede philosophy, because philosophy (thought) is needed in order for there to be a world in the first place with which you can study.

You're deeply confusing the role of the scientist with the role of the philosopher here. The scientist's job is to experiment, test, and compile test results — using a philosophy of knowledge. The philosopher's job is to interpret, reflect, and refine the method of interpretation — using everything at his disposal: the senses, experiences, abstractions, you name it. Science is one such method of interpretation that was devised after a long time of philosophical refinement. The humans that eventually developed what we regard as "consciousness" didn't do so on their own, and it certainly didn't happen all at once; they had the help of their relatives who for a very long time spent tinkering away with their own thoughts and methods of interpretation (i.e., performed philosophical inquiry) until they were able to TEACH the children how to better interpret things at a younger age, until finally the method of interpretation ("consciousness") became so advanced that we created the world in a real sense — we finally assigned the property of "existence" to things in the world, and from there we took off strong and hard and developed abstractions of everything (i.e. language, beginning with verbal / physical gestures).

>thus

>>11734437
>I'm being honest. The world comes into existence once you have the capacity to interpret it, not before — the interpretation is in fact the world itself. They aren't separate. You can't remember a time when the world existed yet you couldn't interpret it, because such an event is impossible; without an interpreter present, it cannot be defined, which means it cannot be said to exist (since existence is a property of a thing). Prior to what we regard as "consciousness," the world was a dream; it didn't "exist," because we were not interpreting such a property into things yet. And if there was no world yet, how can you study it? And if you can't study it, or anything for that matter, how can there be a rigorous form of study, i.e. science? Therefore science does not precede philosophy, because philosophy (thought) is needed in order for there to be a world in the first place with which you can study.
my dude, even keeping the sharp subject-object distinction--which is a deep confusion in the western tradition of philosophy that needs to be overcome--the two terms are co-determinate. as pure perception i.e. the formal condition of perception, the subject is empty. there must be stuff to be perceived for it to perceive. that is 'the given', to be further determined. but it's still there. closing your eyes against it doesn't make it go away. neither does dying. otherwise you simply have an empty nothing preceding all of everything, and creating that everything out of its nothingness.

>>11734549
>there must be stuff to be perceived for it to perceive.
A perceiver is also needed for there to be stuff. It's not a one-way, they are interdependent.

>>11734568
>pic related