Philosophy

[Anonymous No.16685909]

State your most interesting philosophical discoveries.
State your most interesting philosophical questions.

[Anonymous No.16685918]

>>16685909
Working into a philosophical historicism. Found a connection between it and a mathematical one

[Anonymous No.16685951]

>>16685909
Discoveries: God is real, morality is real, technology bad, tradition good, democracy bad, monarchy good, science bad

[Anonymous No.16685995]

>>16685909
Niggers aren't humans

[Anonymous No.16686066]

>>16685909
I am convinced that the most appropriate analogy for our relationship with God is that of a dreamer and a dream character. We are not separate from God, rather our Godly perspective is deliberately obfuscated so that we/God may partake in a mortal, free and morally significant life.
This discovery, however, has not changed my life in any meaningful way. I haven't yet discovered the practical implications of my philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16686090]

>>16685909
It's a major source of antioxidants that most Americans can't replace with healthy foods.

[Anonymous No.16686132]

>>16685909

The world is Evil.

[Anonymous No.16686140]

>>16686066
>implications
Would love to read

[Anonymous No.16686152]

Should a state require you to be good, or merely tolerate you not being bad?

[43915 No.16686171]

1. Science is susceptible to the rule of truth: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
b) The Scientific method is effective until it disrupts monopolies.

2. Science is not decentralized and can be manipulated by special interests and their funding. > see death of Mr. Meyers.

3. The medical field is effective but there are many cases where the solution needed is via subtraction(process of elimination) and not the addition of strictly symptom suppressing medication, there is an effort to identify allergies but to my knowledge there is a lack of importance given to the racial aspect - success variability in treatments.

4. Immigration doesn't fix the root of the problem, it is an avoidance of the problem leaving the burden on those law abiding citizens, unable to relocate.

5. The best thing the masses can do is submit to good leadership.

6. For every man chopping off the branches of corruption there is one attacking the roots
b) Insults are a useless form of motivation or expression, you do not address the source of the problem; you add an unnecessary noise between what you wish to communicate

7. everything you hear is an opinion not a fact, everything you see is a perspective not the truth

8. A rare type of genius is the one capable of reaching the peak of the mountain and returning to the masses with comprehensive(dumbed down) communication; the ability to switch from one frequency to another

9. Poor communication and the ego is an underrated cause of war

10.
There is a suppression on the development and prosperity of third world countries(UN: join us or suffer) via proxy wars and that is encouraging immigration into artificially prosperous(the non money aspect(depression rates and the contrast in 3rd worlds)) first world countries. These first world countries collect diverse nationalities, in these circumstances there are disagreements at the fundamental level(religion, morals, see France); manifesting the maxim, divide and conquer, where the division is worldwide via relocation/refugees. It is easier to divide people among a group who are away from their own blood and in a racially diverse environment, they become ripe for domination. It is easier to unite together when there is a sense of family, the level above: race. This calculated effort to globalize is an effective way to abolish identity, and the path of the German's/Japanese in WW2 which was aware of this global attempt to divide and conquer. Immigration doesn't fix the root of the problem, it is an avoidance of the problem leaving the burden on those law abidding citizens, unable to relocate.

11. Some coincidences are improbable or mathematically impossible

12. Jesus is the son of God because he was literally skin in the game.

[Anonymous No.16686203]

>>16686171
>11. Some coincidences are improbable or mathematically impossible

The number of different orders of cards after you shuffle a deck is 52! shuffle two decks together and its 104!=10^166 which is vastly more than the number of atoms in the universe. Does that mean it's impossible to shuffle two decks of cards together or that if you do so you must be God?

[Anonymous No.16686221]

>>16686140
This website has pretty much everything I’ve ever written on the topic

[Anonymous No.16686226]

>>16686221
>forgets link
http://www.psychedral.com/

[Anonymous No.16686233]

>>16686171

12 very good reasons to take away your car keys, credit cards, and your right to vote.

[Anonymous No.16686259]

>>16686226
>>16686221
Have a particular logic language you enjoy?

[Anonymous No.16686270]

>>16686233
>but none to give them back
Icri

[Anonymous No.16686312]

>>16686259
I know basically nothing about logic I’m afraid. I never studied philosophy formally - I just spout online.

[43915 No.16686333]

>>16686203
>Does that mean it's impossible to shuffle two decks of cards together or that if you do so you must be God?

You overlook all the factors in between and decide to argue via binary, many answers are more than just a yes or no/t or f, and I hope you recognize when an author jumps from one assertion to his own idea of its opposite/counter, that he is deceiving you by not giving you a well rounded informative argument because he is deciding what factors to take into consideration assuming you read without thinking critically of course.

>The number of different orders of cards after you shuffle a deck is 52! shuffle two decks together and its 104!=10^166

What I refer to is the variability in life that is incalculable, why do I keep encountering this person, this number, etc. Look at coincidences and luck mathematically while including all variables like time, location(x,y,z axis), subject, NOT mathematical calculations that don't include uncertainty.

You're assuming every deck is going to have 52 cards, what if one is missing because you lost it, or because someone stole it, or because of a production mistake, or because you miscounted and indeed there was 52 or you miscounted 51 but indeed there was 52. But this is not my point because these calculations are insignificant and don't include coincidences which is what I refer to.

[Anonymous No.16686348]

>>16685909
no matter what way things are, theres no ultimate neccesity for things to be that way, and so fundementally things are and are the way they are, just cause.

this either makes everything infinitely more interesting as mystery is built into reality, or it renders everything completely uninteresting because things just are the way they are and anything beyond that is meaningless

[Anonymous No.16686350]

>>16686333
The point is improbability doesn't mean something can't happen. Looked at in a certain way everyday occurrences are insanely improbable.

[43915 No.16686393]

>>16686350
>improbability doesn't mean something can't happen. Looked at in a certain way everyday occurrences are insanely improbable.

vs my point: Some coincidences are improbable or mathematically impossible

Our disagreement is that you're being strict with the words definition, of course we can try to calculate something but at a certain point the number leans towards impossible more than to a number calculated(probable).

[Anonymous No.16686398]

>>16686348
naive opinion

[Anonymous No.16686409]

>>16686393
And I gave you an easy example of why the numbers never say that.

[Anonymous No.16686423]

>>16686203
I would say that if you shuffle two decks of cards and their order is the exact same then there is something more at play than mere coincidence.

[Anonymous No.16686458]

>>16686423
What does that have to do with what I said? Shuffle two decks of cards together into the same deck and the number of possible orders far exceeds the number of atoms in the universe. People who claim that massively improbable events can't happen have to claim it's impossible to do that.

[Anonymous No.16686460]

>>16685909
Is it intellectually honest and correct to say that God exists? In other words, is saying that God exists lazy and intellectually dishonest?

[Anonymous No.16686475]

>>16686350
>>16686458
You brought up a fatal equivocation into this conversation. You are equivocating between the probability of a specific event happening and any event happening at all. Pic related explains it: the probability that a dart lands on a specific point on the dartboard is 0, but the probability that it lands on a point on the dartboard at all is 1 (if you have good aim).
This has nothing to do with the anon's claim that "Some coincidences are improbable or mathematically impossible." I do not know why you brought it up.

[Anonymous No.16686484]

>>16686458
>People who claim that massively improbable events can't happen have to claim it's impossible to do that.
Equivocation. No one made any such claim nor any statement that implicitly supports it.

[Anonymous No.16686486]

>>16686398
explain

[Anonymous No.16686497]

>>16685909
I shid I fart and I cum

[Anonymous No.16686505]

>>16686486
please specify necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of such "brute facts". oh you can't? because it's a cop out to avoid any metaphysically substantial inquiry. I cannot even converse with you because if you let any "brute facts" into the conversation, all you have to do is assert them. there is no sufficient reason other than "well we can't know for sure". it destroys any inquiry.

[Anonymous No.16686515]

>>16686475
It has everything to do with anon's claim. You see this all the time in Intelligent Design fundies that calculate some tiny probability of life developing on it's own. When you apply the same type of reasoning to everyday occurrences you can get even lower probabilities. The passage you linked is just talking about the difference between discrete and continuous probabilities. When dealing with continuous distributions you talk about the probability density function to get around the fact that any specific value has a probability of zero

[Anonymous No.16686522]

>>16686409
Can you explain how

>The number of different orders of cards after you shuffle a deck is 52! shuffle two decks together and its 104!=10^166 which is vastly more than the number of atoms in the universe. Does that mean it's impossible to shuffle two decks of cards together

relates to coincidences or

(the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection)?

[Anonymous No.16686532]

>>16686484
>11. Some coincidences are improbable or mathematically impossible

So if the cutoff for impossibility isn't 1/10^166 what is it?

[Anonymous No.16686551]

>>16686522
Easy connection I say coincidences are just meaningless flukes of attention. Then you claim they are so improbable as to be impossible. Then I point out like I originally did that there are plenty of things that are even less probable than your claimed coincidence that happen all the time

[Anonymous No.16686554]

>discoveries
YHWH is an anthropomorphized idea. The idea is Cogito ergo sum.
It’s a fascinating revelation about mankind abstracting the individual out from the group

>questions
Can modern economic policies be separated from soteriological hopes

[Anonymous No.16686558]

>>16686515
>You see this all the time in Intelligent Design fundies that calculate some tiny probability of life developing on it's own. When you apply the same type of reasoning to everyday occurrences you can get even lower probabilities.
This does not apply to your deck example. In that example, there is a probability 1 that any shuffle gives a permutation of cards. There is a probability 0 that it will be any specific permutation. For the origin of life, there is a probability, let's say, 1/10^237 that life arises through material processes. Does there exist a probability greater than that that points to there needing to be life at all?
>>16686532
If you are asking this question you did not understand my message. The cutoff for impossibility (for a specific event) is when it is sufficiently close to 0. This does not mean the event itself is impossible, though.

[Anonymous No.16686589]

>>16686558
And you don't even understand basic probability. The deck example is not a continuous probability distribution but instead a discrete one so the probability of a specific permutation is not 0 but instead 1/10^166. To get past your 1/10^237 for the origin of life you just have to shuffle three decks together for 156!=10^275. Do you believe it's impossible to shuffle three decks of cards together?

[Anonymous No.16686593]

>>16686551
Coincidences are usually a connection of two events. Your pointing out of a single event that always has a 100% probability of happening does not even come close to a coincidence.

[Anonymous No.16686625]

>>16686505
well you can ask "why" to anything and ultimately youll get something like "why do things even have reasons?" and then why would things having reasons even have a reason, so theres this underlying reality thats responsible for "reason" for no reason at all. and once you accept that theres this reality thats responsiğble for things without a reason, the possibilities are endless, and the branch of that endlessness that we are aware of is completely arbitrary. it just is the way it is. its not me destroying inquiry, its reality itself.

[Anonymous No.16686626]

>>16686589
The three specific permutations of the three decks are impossible. That there will be three permutations has a probability of 1. The arrival of life out of material processes is impossible (if the example probability is correct). That there will be life does not have a probability of 1.

[Anonymous No.16686657]

>>16686626
This is gibberish. I gave you an example of shuffling three decks of cards into one deck(which you can't seem to understand) that has a lower calculated probability for a specific permutation than what you claimed for the existence of life. If you claim a probability of 1 for some permutation why don't you also claim a probability of 1 for the existence of life since we're obviously alive?

[Anonymous No.16686702]

>>16686625
What is the position of a wave? What is the Taylor expansion of the law of noncontradiction? Do you see that these questions are nonsensical? There are philosophically nonsensical questions as well. This isn't a point in your favor if you deny the principle of sufficient reason. You can ask "why the law of noncontradiction?" And the answer will be "because its negation leads to a contradiction". Circular? Maybe, but the outline for the PSR is:
Contingencies have sufficient efficient causes
Necessities have sufficient formal causes if their negations leads to a contradiction (defintion of necessity).
Thus there can be no brute facts in the sense of brute contingencies. Asking something like "but why does the negation of the law of noncontradiction lead to a contradiction?" as in "why the law of noncontradiction and not something else?" and your answer will only be because "something else" leads to a contradiction. You can also ask "why does this efficient cause give this effect and not a different efficient cause?" and you cannot answer that question. That's not a brute fact, it's just an incoherent question if you accept the PSR. Inquiry stops at some place, but not where you think it does.

[Anonymous No.16686918]

>>16685909
Watch out, this is a controversial one. But it can help some anons out there:
Christian and platonic concept of a "higher dimension" is the highest form of loser cope.
Weak people that can't take their defeat at something create (or pick up) some definition of universal rules (morality, justice, etc). But (surprise, surprise) their rules don't really work in real world. Instead of discarding these made-up rules or claiming them as subjective, these people just make up (or pick up) the idea of ideal higher dimension, where these rules actually work and are taken into account. The real world is negated as an inferior one. This enables them to claim that their ways are not inferior, but are actually superior in a trans-dimensional way, the only way that matters.
Now let's analyze. The higher dimension can't be proved empirically, but still has a chance to exist. But the possibility that some exact set of rules matters in that reality equates probably to 1%, or even to 0,1%. So there's little possibility that someone would "guess" the rules that would judge the reality of said higher dimension. It is way more useful to take the rules of this reality into account. And loser's cope is just a loser's cope.
But it can turn other people into losers too. This kind of metaphysics is downright dangerous for the individual. Truth is not in the skies, truth is there.
This may be your one shot on life, so make it more joyous and fulfilling, anon. Don't be a loser, don't follow some false ideals.

[Anonymous No.16686940]

>>16686702
it feels to me like we only take psr for granted cuz our reality (or what we know of it) abides by it. if psr is circular, why not a square? it seems stupid but compared to a reality without the quality logic, a reality with logic is just another reality, is it not? is this the only possible reality? surely even if an illogical reality was impossible, it wouldnt have been impossible for the illogical reality
>Inquiry stops at some place
my point
>but not where you think it does
explain

[Anonymous No.16687052]

>>16686657
The probability is sufficiently low enough that the existence of order & information would lead one to believe that there is an organising Mind. This is inferred because we very, very frequently see order & information being created from disorder by minds.

[Anonymous No.16687116]

>>16685909
Discovery: morality is just the mean value of what people in a group of any size regard as acceptable behaviour

[Anonymous No.16687119]

Neither dirty valley boys bewildered by glorious actualisation of Trump, nor the obedient reactinary cunts can't see the truth that in this age there is only but one enemy of the so–called people and that is Augmentation; carelessly it carries the jobs of the poor away, giving way for more and more all–encompassing perpetuating logic of Kapital. I can say with assured sincerity that if it comes down to the practice of Augmentation to unfold before our very eyes as the penultimate goddess of people, it will readily rule alongside Kapital hand–in–hand. Think of a perfectly objective cost function—perhaps all too deadly to exist; such that the model of learning itself as of that moment will come only second to computation, the tables turn—in perpetual motion, causing ripples across the pond of perceived reality, or rather the state of the affairs as such. The perfectly computational logic of Augmentation, timely clashing with the hopelessly discursive logic of Kapital. (I can hear the sound of a virtual machine, and I must admit at times it seems like we live in a reality of cashed–in chips.) Later, the very same boys from Palo alto will sing praise to Big Chungus and fantasize of its magnificent scale; the process which for a modern programmer involves an array of fetishes. Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google... Continuity seems so far away now, it seems as though it's a long–forgotten feature of text to be continuous; hyper text is what's deeply seated in control. How we read history is more akin to elaborate dancing in the space of self–referenial critique, attempting to deconstruct itself in pursuit of some apocryphal and unsound notions. The systems of knowledge, discipline, and much of the engineering capability–are heavily concerted to accomodate this condition of text. Have we made Satan when we let this language–form ultimately go collective? Augmentation is its name, and when in tears we called for AI, it answered the call.

[Anonymous No.16687128]

>>16686066

This man has achieved CHIM

[Anonymous No.16687139]

ITT nothing interesting

[Anonymous No.16687164]

>>16686475
it is an event approaching zero, which is different than an event of zero probability. I guess the difference isn't much depends on your definition of 'zero', but one is a limit and the other is certain holy number or something idk

[Anonymous No.16687179]

>>16685909
We are a bundle of ideas ripped from our natural state. But how can I trust this conclusion?

How do we get back?

I’m not claiming to be the first person to arrive at any of this

[Anonymous No.16687182]

>>16686171
5. How will the masses know which leadership is good leadership?

[Anonymous No.16687183]

>>16686348

ADULT ORIENTED ROCK
ALL COPS ARE BASTARDS
AUTISTIC NUMERICS
BAPHOMASTURBATION
COCONUT CRAB BE MY GOD
DEPRESSIVE EPISODE
DRAGON BOOK OF ESSEX
FEELING DUMB AND SLOW
NEW YORK NEW YORK
ODDUBBIAN MIDDLE REALM
PHONY SIGN LANGUAGE
PREPARE YOUR ANUS
RAMPANT DISTRUST
ROSICRUCIAN CROSS
SCHOLASTIC BOOK FAIR
SHITPOST SHAWTY
TFW NO HOT RACIST GF
THE SEASONED SCHEMER
TINY METAL HAND CREW
TRIPLE COMBINATION
XAVIER RENEGADE ANGEL

[Anonymous No.16687190]

>>16686066
I think that's the premise of Kabbala. We are part of god and the world is some kind of obfuscation/lie

[Anonymous No.16687246]

>>16687183
ye sums up reality pretty well. i only wish prometheus was more creative and didnt overuse cgi

[Anonymous No.16687302]

>>16687052
Oh man, said the puddle, this hole sure seems perfect to me

[Anonymous No.16687399]

>>16687182
What kind of fruit they give, sour or sweet? Is there prosperity overtime? Does there need to be a dip into sorrow for us to break through the cap on our prosperity? Transparent or evasive when answering questions?

The goal is to convert this idea of politics - appeal to a majority, into attracting reclusive geniuses(capable of #8) with calculated and unconventional decision making.

[Anonymous No.16687426]

>>16685909
Every government has the legal ability to pass any kind of law. Consequently, when determining which form of government is best the question of how much power the government has is irrelevant since all forms of government have the power to pass any kind of law. Therefore, the criteria should be how is this form of government probably going to use their absolute power vs which powers does this form of government give to the government. When determining which form of government is best.

[Anonymous No.16687541]

You’re all midwits and nitwits

[Anonymous No.16687585]

>>16687190
Yes, it’s the doctrine of divine contraction (tzimtzum in Jewish esotericism) or divine play through self limitation, as in Sri Ramakrishna’s Vedantic philosophy. It also resonates with the reincarnation in Christianity.

[Anonymous No.16687835]

>>16685951
this

[Anonymous No.16687850]

>>16685951
Gay bullshit desu

[Anonymous No.16687853]

>>16686233
seethe

[Anonymous No.16687978]

Do we form axioms in order to conform to our views or are our views determined by pre-established axioms?