[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 47 KB, 500x450, Human_blastocyst_day_1-5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16345921 No.16345921 [Reply] [Original]

Hey guys can you ask Kant real quick to point with his finger to where in this image is consciousness or "a priori" knowledge please?
For the less scientifically literate of you this image is a human being by the way.
Thanks a bunch!

>> No.16345932

>>16345921
>For the less scientifically literate of you this image is a human being by the way.
Sorry, but we all know the humanness doesn't arise until the third trimester.

>> No.16345940

>>16345921
It’s the same as pointing to a seed and knowing it has the data imbedded in it to become a tree.

>> No.16345958

>>16345932
This, that's when God ensouls us via the pineal gland. OP should read some Descartes.

>> No.16345971

>>16345940
All cells on the seed/tree have the same DNA. It's in all of them.
>>16345958
>>16345932
So it's just cells dividing by themselves until on the third month god imbues a soul via the pineal gland. Is this the official statement of philosophy?

>> No.16346001

>>16345971
>Is this the official statement of philosophy?
Yes, ask the chair of any philosophy department, they can print out a copy of the signed version for you.

>> No.16346006

>>16345971
>official statement of philosophy
Hearty kek

>> No.16346008

>>16345921
Speed up the tape a bit until the neural tube differentiates from the ectoderm.

>> No.16346016

>>16346008
What happens then? Please walk me through the magic.

>> No.16346036

>>16345971
>Is this the official statement of philosophy?
no, it's early 17th century hypothetical speculation by famous mathematician and scientist René Descartes, who influenced Newton and invented the coordinate system. Also, learn how to detect shitposts please.

>> No.16346062

>>16345921
STFU, materialistic cunt.

>> No.16346069

>>16346062
Are we angry now? What happened?

>> No.16346071

>>16346016
A brain forms. Then the mommy squeezes out the baby. The baby has some sense organs, that get bombarded with sensory stimuli, which cause its little baby neurons to fire. Through millions of years of trial and error that same baby has a source code called a genome, which sets up a bunch of rules for what these baby neurons are to expect from the outside world (that's your apriori knowlege for you) and how they're supposed to wire up. As the baby grows up, it comes to find that its innate tendency to categorize its perceptions into different groups such as auditory, visual, tactile, and olfactory, makes intuitive sense. It matches incoming sensory data to its innate genetic schemas. It even knows how to learn language without knowing how it does it!

>> No.16346120

>>16345971
Yes
t. Head of Philosophy at Harvard

>> No.16346129

>>16346071
>Through millions of years of trial and error that same baby has a source code called a genome, which sets up a bunch of rules for what these baby neurons are to expect from the outside world (that's your apriori knowlege for you)

>trial and error
Are you telling me that millions upon millions of experiences lived by previous life forms and natural selection eventually embedded information into a form that can be used by the next generations? That's so cool, it's almost like "a priori knowledge" is just the result of experiences led before, just not by you.
We should inform Kant immediately so he doesn't get the wrong idea that this "a priori" knowledge comes from anything other than experiences of previous organisms.

>> No.16346138

>>16346069
>not being born angry

>> No.16346158

>>16346129
>Are you telling me that millions upon millions of experiences lived by previous life forms and natural selection eventually embedded information into a form that can be used by the next generations?
Not quite. That would be Lamarckism. The experiences themselves do not carry on, everything that previous generations experience gets destroyed at death and does not transmit through their germ line. Instead, get this, the fact that they were able to survive and reproduce in those conditions carries over whatever genetic information they had!
From the perspective of the individual, they don't "experience" their genetic information now do they. To them, the world just seems to be structured into certain representations which they interpret to be the way things are.

>> No.16346161

>>16346129
>trying to own philosophy so hard you embrace lamarckism

>> No.16346191
File: 29 KB, 620x400, immanuel-kant-9360144-1-402.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16346191

>>16345921
>Jee, all those inert chemicals and cells really seem to know what they're doing in constructing that life form don't they.

>Hmmm, DNA through it's chemical makeup seems to have been given a specific assignated goal of manifesting specific composites through matter ad infinitum and everywhere there is DNA

You can follow materialistic and deterministic redpills and blackpills as far as you want and this is all still the Imagination of God one way or another.

>> No.16346202

>>16346161
>>16346158
Oh I didn't mean "experiences pass on" as in epigenetics (which are a thing in some cases but really not what I meant to say). I meant genome only passes on for organisms that survive long enough to reproduce, and this survival is determined in part by that genome and whatever in it increases this survival. If this is the origin of "a priori" knowledge isn't that kind of crazy? That we don't need anything but natural selection to explain it?
I really think we gotta call Kant before he writes something else you guys.

>> No.16346222

>>16346202
I really think you should actually read the little nigga before you make yet another thread on him

>> No.16346229

>>16346191
if God had a face, it would look like El Goblino de Kœnigsberg

>> No.16346257
File: 1.16 MB, 1024x1024, 1599938369458.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16346257

>>16346191
>>16345921
>You mean it's like we've been saying this whole time?
>That it's a gigantic plethora of divine archetypes being expressed through matter and the degree to which a person or a collective can manifest those archetypes is the degree to which the grandeur of life can persist?
>exactly my friend...

Hmm who would have guessed Pagans those people who invented culture and civilization itself might have had a clue as to how these things work and christcucks can fuck off.

>> No.16346277

>>16346257
Hey guys not to be a buzz kill or anything but why do we have to add all of those complicated things to an explanation that is already working?
I hear this guy call Occam doesn't like that.

>> No.16346319

>>16346277
Yeah you're right it is just a miracle

>> No.16346389

>>16346202
What is knowledge? Kant was obviously working in a specific framework which predated the theory of evolution. But on strictly evolutionary terms, knowledge is a structurally determined coupling of an organism, its nervous system, its organs and sensorimotor systems, and its environment. Experience is not some special thing. It is merely in this instance, stimuli input, sound-waves and light particles smacking into sensory receptors. Experience itself has an innately determined organization which in itself is not present in any single experience.

>> No.16346440

>>16346389
"Knowledge", "consciousness", "dreams" are all just names we give to particular things these specialized clumps of cells do when they receive the right amount of electric jolts, and sodium and potassium ions. Doesn't seem like this thread managed to change that by much.

>> No.16346456

Why when someone serious from /sci/ tries moderately, everyone from /lit/ immediately shits in their pants?

>> No.16346567

>>16346456
Because they are two largely different fields of understanding things and this is 4chan

>> No.16346607

>>16345921
>Hey guys can you ask Kant real quick
No I can't, he's dead, retard. He died 216 years ago. You should know that if you try to act smart and cocky.

>> No.16346774

>>16345921
The interactions between /sci/ and /lit/ are very interesting. Whenever /sci/ goes on /lit/, they are met with a barrage of anti-materialist rage and anti-scientism. Just look at the guy who brought up quantum mechanics in a free will discussion (it was a stupid point, I agree, but the sentiment is there). I attribute this to the fact that /sci/fags posting on here are very smug and retarded. They don't really know what they're talking about.
When /lit/ goes on /sci/, there's healthy discussion between them. I discussed Heidegger and Foucault with an anon on /sci/ when analytic vs continental was brought up, and they seemed to be knowledgeable. I also discussed coherentist scientific epistemology with another anon and they seemed to be very aware of the limits of scientific knowledge and the indispensability of metaphysics. Just interesting things I've noticed.
Why do you think this is? Are /lit/fags insecure of their lack of mathematical and scientific knowledge? Do they see science as hostile to philosophy?

>> No.16346835
File: 20 KB, 480x360, t.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16346835

>>16346774
>Why do you think this is? Are /lit/fags insecure of their lack of mathematical and scientific knowledge? Do they see science as hostile to philosophy?
I think many /lit/fags see the results of science and technology as evil. And they don't like it if people praise it.

>> No.16347219

>>16345921
Kant is on the same level as Newton and literally NOTHING a single contrarian can say will change that

>> No.16347382

>>16347219
The refuted and outdated level? Sure, I'll agree.

>> No.16347384

Kant and Aristotle believed conciousness originated in the sperm itself. The life begins at conception meme is false and is rejected by nearly all of philosophy and medicine hitherto the 1800s. The sperm is the first mover, ergo it is the essence of a life. People don't like this because then it implies they are wasting potential persons on gratifying themselves.

>> No.16347397

>>16345971
>Is this the official statement of philosophy?
Yes, that would be correct t. CEO of philosophy

>> No.16347404

>>16346774
It's just funny to troll /lit/ with scientism because they rage so hard, though there are plenty of unironic eliminative materialist bugmen on /sci/.

>> No.16347417

just give it to me straight, were Kant's assertions about the categories plausible or nonsense? all the stuff about plurality and totality and whatever seem almost arbitrary, or chosen to fit the common sense view of the world but how do you justify them? I can accept the general kantian view of things as plausible but I feel like whatever specific categories are actually there may also be impossible to know in themselves, but maybe I'm being retarded
obviously I haven't read Kant himself, I'll get around to it some day

>> No.16347426

>>16347382
Neither Kant nor Newton are refuted or outdated.
General Relativity doesn't "refute" Newtonian mechanics.

>> No.16348100

>>16345971
Hey anon,

Kant here. I just want to say that I as the official father of contemporary western philosophy (redundant no teehee) would like to say: Yes. That is the official statement of the philosophy by me. its head.

Cheers,
Manuel Cant

>> No.16348273

>>16348100
Dear Kant,

I have received your message. I believe you will find an enlightening and hearty discussion on the posts above. Your students have failed spectacularly at upholding your views against the latest understanding of embryology and desperately need you right now.

Best regards,

Musc

Estefano de la Hawking,
Tech Lead and C.F.O. at Science Inc.

>> No.16348481
File: 38 KB, 499x338, 1595671827298.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16348481

>implying its not already coded into the DNA
my cum knows what space is, retard. It swims through it.

>> No.16348511

>>16345921
>Hey guys can you ask Kant real quick to point with his finger to where in this image is consciousness or "a priori" knowledge please?
It would be the observation of the image, not the image itself.

>> No.16348726

>>16345971
>All cells on the seed/tree have the same DNA
high school tier biology knowledge

>> No.16348757

It’s ensouled from pic 1 here to a very limited extent. Matter is born of spirit materialising itself, although it does not become “soul” as we would call it until a certain level of consciousness is reached. FYI, you can lose this consciousness as an adult and literally deprive yourself of a soul.

>> No.16348758

>>16348100
Hey Kant, why do you look like a goblin?

>> No.16348768
File: 1.91 MB, 1033x1033, 1599914865234.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16348768

Between the particles. Between the elements. Between the molecules. Between the bodies. Between the planets and stars. Within all galaxies. Even in the clusters.

>> No.16348874

>a priori wrong
But science has BTFO you blank slaters and it wasn't really ever a tenable position to begin with.

>> No.16349093

>>16345921
all life is conscious and should be treated with respect

>> No.16349100

>>16349093
what links that is with that ought tho?

>> No.16349110

>>16349100
none. i am not kantian.

>> No.16349117

>>16349110
>i am not kantian.
makes sense given your shit take.

>> No.16349135

>>16349117
t. will be reborn as an amoeba

>> No.16349168

>>16346440
Imagine being this much of a reductionist materialist.

>> No.16350122

>>16349093
No life is conscious and deserves respect. I would link multiple sources but I don’t want to cause any Baker acts

>> No.16350431

>>16345971
We convened w science and decided this worked. Dk where tf u were

>> No.16350617

>>16346191
But there is no evidence of an "assigned goal"... From what we can tell, all of this spawned due to accidental chemistry.

>> No.16350644

>>16348481
is it possible to combine panpsychism with Kant or is that just what Schopenhauer did (haven't read him)?

>> No.16350966

>>16345921
The absolute state of sci retardation. "Look guys where are the experiences in this IMAGE haha btfo Kant lol where my Nobel"

>> No.16351000

>>16350644
Not really. Kant's very particular about his conceptualization of mind as an experiential thing. Panpsychism is unintelligible to transcendental philosophy, even though it would appear as though idealism and panpsychism have a similar shape, it just doesn't really mean much to say that a rock or something has an experience. Panpsychism is more like a band-aid to materialist ontology's inability to deal with mind. Kant would probably respond to panpsychism by saying something like "material is a concept, which is mind, however this does not mean material is mind. The actual thing-in-itself of material is noumenal, totally inaccessible to mind."

Schopenhauer would say something similar, probably. The world as will is not to say that matter is mind, but rather, matter is inaccessible.

>> No.16351056

>>16346774
I think this is a problem of perspective and culture. When some brainlet comes with his (watered down) version of Leibniz windmill thinking he just debunked Kant, you know you are dealing with a dangerous combination of willful ignorance, stupidity, entitlement and intolerance. Most /lit/ are also knowledgeable in /sci/ subjects (not hard since it's an imageboard about science, not the fucking Manhattan project), but it doesn't happen the other way around. I probably know more about brain embryology than this retard, but wouldn't dare to confuse it with philosophy and show my confusion as if it was a discovery.

>> No.16351336

>>16351056
an accurate take anon
OPs ignorance is revealed in his choice of target, part of Kant's project was to defend science from the threat of Hume.
Any serious scifag should be trying to refute Hume's critique of causality.
A serious scifag who owned a pair of balls would be trying to refute Quine's 'Two Dogmas of Empiricism'.
That might be worth reading

>> No.16351503

>Kant points out that sentient humans who develop normally have certain a priori ways they need to see the world (ex. Electromagnetic radiation / light to see).
>you start pointing to things that couldn't even approach being concious and ask where it begins
Are you retarded? So fetuses move around in the womb, which indicates they intuitively understand space. If you spank a baby or feed it, it either cries or coos - so it understands cause and effect. There's never going to be a perfect exact second where conciousness and thus the a priori assumptions occur because there's always going to be variations in the exact timing of a developmental process.

>> No.16351557

>>16351503

Jesus Christ can you not read what you’re saying or am I high and reading you wrong?
The whole point is that understanding itself is a phenomena. What can you say about understanding? It’s self referential because you can only express what you understand. Even if you’re pretending to be an idiot, “deep” down your action are fueled by superseding understanding.
How do you escape the circularity of understanding understanding? How do you understand that when you’re being an idiot and saying dumb shit, you’re expressing a “false sense” of understanding? Or when you theorize, speculate, create art. What is the foundation for all these jumping off point? Also where are you jumping off to?

>> No.16351846

>>16351557
>Reeeeee I need metaphysics to be less scared

>> No.16351853

>>16351846
Strawman.
I was less scared before I saw the metaphysical.

>> No.16351862

>>16351846
>reeeeeee I’m a faggot because I can just trivialize issues as I see fit

Alright, that’s kind of a fair point but it’s still a nonanswer