/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13402711]

I just watched a PhD-holding physicist state that because we can "turn off" morality with magnets, there is no objective morality. He also declared that every aspect of our existence is explicable by some evolutionary mechanism.

My question is: what is the proper response to this?

Is he wrong? If so, how?

[Anonymous No.13402715]

>>13402711
>because we can "turn off" morality with magnets, there is no objective morality
What was his argument?

[Anonymous No.13402719]

>>13402711
nope, science and metaphysics never the twain shall meet

[Anonymous No.13402739]

>>13402715
that was his argument

>>13402719
he explained metaphysics through evolutionary psych + biology

that part actually seemed pretty convincing

[Anonymous No.13402740]

The brain is the mere conduit for the soul. If your eyesight is damaged, would you assert that there is no objective vision of reality? Of course not. In likemanner, the existence of objective morality is self-evident, even in the temporary discord of these faculties, if one endeavors to establish bu way of reason for their being; ius naturale.

[Anonymous No.13402743]

>>13402739
>that was his argument
So, because subjective morality can be altered by magnets, objective morality doesn't exist?

[Anonymous No.13402754]

>>13402739
Just because you can "turn off" something doesn't mean it isn't objective, it doesn't follow
You can induce a coma but does that mean consciousness isn't real?
For his second point it is completely banal
>Humans evolved to explain stuff and metaphysics is just explaining stuff lol

[Anonymous No.13402763]

>>13402711
>My question is: what is the proper response to this?
kys

>Is he wrong? If so, how?
Magnets are satanic, of course.

[Anonymous No.13402775]

>>13402711
>yea i can turn off this light bulb so that means light does not exist

[Anonymous No.13402777]

tick tock

[Anonymous No.13402783]

>>13402711
>because we can "turn off" morality with magnets, there is no objective morality
We can disable compasses with magnetic north, therefore magnets and poles objectively aren't real
>every aspect of our existence is explicable by some evolutionary mechanism.
Electrons aren't.

If he's a physicist he's worse at physics than a registered nurse or highschooler would be.

[Anonymous No.13402805]

>>13402763
>Magnets are satanic
This, but unironically

[Anonymous No.13402807]

>>13402743
objective moralty existing? what the heck man

[Anonymous No.13402822]

>>13402807
>objective moralty existing?
I'm not making that claim, I'm asking how playing with magnets proves it doesn't. You can alter the brain by drinking a glass of wine, does that prove anything?

[Anonymous No.13402836]

>>13402763
>magnets are satanic
funny
>>13402783
>>13402822
I guess it doesn't prove that objective morality doesn't exist, but the way I see it, it proves that there isn't an independent non-material agent (say soul) which can dictate a person's morality into the brain nonphysically, which imo further shows why it's reasonable to believe in materialism.

[Anonymous No.13402874]

What if the freemasons put big magnets in the sky? What if they already did! How can I repel magnetism?? AAaaa

[Anonymous No.13402893]

Yeah and playing switch makes you a tranny
What's his point? Thing makes you what thing is supposed to make you
Try eating estrogen: does that mean that gender is not objective since some pills can change you? Hmm...

[Anonymous No.13402896]

>>13402836
>proves that there isn't an independent non-material agent (say soul) which can dictate a person's morality
Are you trusting the guy who doesn't know how magnets work to have well defined parameters for "morality"?

[Anonymous No.13402897]

>>13402711
ask him to prove that ideas of humans can explain the experiments scientists do.

[Anonymous No.13402898]

>>13402836
Also, if you're arguing for an independent non-material agent as your basis for materialism, you done fucked up.

[Anonymous No.13403133]

>>13402711
>what is the proper response to this?
transcend.

[Anonymous No.13403138]

>>13402711
We can turn lights off too, so there is no objective light.

[Anonymous No.13403139]

>>13402740
Blessed post

[Anonymous No.13403166]

>>13402777
Blessed.

[Anonymous No.13403173]

>giving yourself brain damage turns you into an atheist SJW
Yea that sounds about right.

[Anonymous No.13403181]

>>13402711
Can they also turn off my faith in spherical Earth? If they can, then there's no objective fact of the matter about whether the Earth is flat or spherical. That would be huge.

[Anonymous No.13403192]

>>13402711
>>13402739
>If I can pluck out your eyes then light doesn't exist
Amazing levels of Jew logic going on here. This proves the spiritual and racist (based) are more neurologically developed

[Anonymous No.13403202]

>>13402740
Of course objective eyesight isn't real, whatever that even means. You have no eyes, you won't see; you have no brain, you won't be conscious.

[Anonymous No.13403209]

>>13403202
>Of course objective eyesight isn't real, whatever that even means.
Duuuurrr what are photons

[Anonymous No.13403211]

>>13402711
>PhD-holding physicist state
>"turn off" morality
>every aspect of our existence is explicable by some evolutionary mechanism

That's where you should have stopped watching it. The worse the physicist, the more he is a materialist.

[Anonymous No.13403214]

>>13402740
Excellent post

[Anonymous No.13403279]

>>13402711
There are other parts of the brain you could turn off with magnets that would make you stop giving a shit about immigrants. Does that mean it's wrong to care about immigrants? This is a false moral relativism that seeks to exert its own arbitrary morality over others by lobotomizing them. This project is done entirely in service of a set of moral preferences; should something like this be implemented through coercion it would be tantamount to killing or converting your enemy in war. It's a game of tug-o-war where one side wants to trick the other into dropping the rope.

[Anonymous No.13403310]

“Behold! I have rammed an ice pick into this patient’s head, now he shits his pants and chews on table legs! Objective morality is a crock!”

[Anonymous No.13403320]

>>13403209
Not eyesight as much as atoms aren't equivalent to the ability to feel things retardo. Read Kant btw.

[CalvinoShill !!z2EsLOZ52eY No.13403455]

>>13403138
Well, there’s no turning off the fact that your comment is objectively the stupidest shit I’ve ever read.

[Anonymous No.13403467]

>>13402711
We're known for a very long time that you can "turn off" basic human decency with an icepick too. Doesn't mean it's not "real" in those of us who have working brains.
(Yes, I know lobotomies tend to make people more docile, but there are plenty of recorded cases of prefrontal damage turning the patient into a real piece of shit)

[Anonymous No.13403470]

>>13402711
>I just watched a PhD-holding physicist state
who?
where?

[Anonymous No.13403471]

>>13402711
I'm also a PhD holding physicist and this sounds like something that faggot Lawrence Kraus would say.
Anyway, no, he's wrong. Physicists love to take 'unifying' approaches into other fields and make sweeping generalisations with very poor understanding of the details of other fields which is why other scientists like biologists tend to hate us.
This sort of thing doesn't even merit a response because the existence of a mechanism doesn't say anything about the reason for it. Science can only ever explain how, and never why.
This is basic stuff and anyone should have learned this way back as an undergraduate.

[Anonymous No.13403480]

>>13402740
>objective vision of reality? Of course not.
Of course yes, what kind of retarded post is this.
We can only see a very minor part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Imagine what some other being with infrared sensitive eyes would see when they look at the night sky or something like that.
Imagine what we would look like if we could see UV radiation or some other shit. What our notions of aesthetics might be and whatnot.
It's like that saying "In a land of blind people, someone who has one eye is a king".
What your eyes are capable to see deeply affect your vision of reality.
There is no such thing as an "objective vision".

[Anonymous No.13403487]

>>13402874

The earth is a literal gigantic magnet anon. You're too many steps back. They already got you.

[Anonymous No.13403539]

>>13402874
OH GOD OH FUCK

[Anonymous No.13403548]

>>13403487
That's why the smart people have always lived in the hollow space inside rather than on the surface

[Anonymous No.13403549]

>>13403480
We can though... We do have UV cameras and so on to convert UV into visible light. Guess what they found? It still reflects on same stuff as we know with nothing new. Yes, the reality is munade. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.13403560]

>>13402711
>because we can "turn off" consciousness with bullets, consciousness doesn't objectively exist.

[Anonymous No.13403597]

>>13402711
>if you drop water in fire, it stops burning
>fire doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.13403616]

>>13402711
Well if there is a part of brain labeled "morality" and you can turn it off, it seems like there is indeed an "object" we can refer to. This is even more objective and concrete than what morality seemed previously.
It's obvious too, people naturally have the ability to empathize, love, hate etc, these feelings are all concerned with morals in one way or another

[Anonymous No.13403620]

>>13402711
>and change attitudes to immigrants
>made them less prejudiced
they just can't stop spewing their leftists propaganda BS
They. Can't.

[Anonymous No.13403626]

>>13402711
>I just watched a PhD-holding physicist state that because we can "turn off" morality with magnets, there is no objective morality.
Non sequitur.
If you have a computer program which always correctly adds two numbers and then damage the computer, resulting in a false result, does that mean that arithmetic is broken? No, obviously it doesn't.

> He also declared that every aspect of our existence is explicable by some evolutionary mechanism.
Completely false, the claim can't even be meaningfully true, evolution is a mechanism by which a species adapts to an environment, if there is any environment in which none of your ancestors have ever been, evolution couldn't have determined it.

[Anonymous No.13403630]

>>13402711
the proper response is "Brain damage makes you liberal."

[Anonymous No.13403646]

>>13403630
Excellent work, my friend.

[Anonymous No.13403663]

>>13402711
>inb4 jews install giant sky magnets to combat global warming

[Anonymous No.13403713]

>>13403616
Exactly this.

Objective =/= universal, I really wish 'intellectuals' would learn the difference.

[Anonymous No.13403782]

There is no objective life because you can kill someone lmaoooo

[Anonymous No.13403792]

>>13403480
>going off on a tangent and missing the point

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13403794]

>>13403630
Nop, Being liberal or theistic gives you brain damage

[Anonymous No.13403818]

>>13403794
>literally shown that brain damage makes you more atheist
>n-no
cope

[Anonymous No.13403820]

>>13402711
So only a disabled/damaged brain happily accepts genetic competitors/enemies (=migrants). Sounds about right. Damaged brain leads to racial suicide.

[Anonymous No.13403828]

PSA
there is no soul

[Anonymous No.13403841]

>>13403320
You read Kant you fucking retard. Objective substance is the condition for the possibility of subjectivity

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13403842]

>>13403818
I did.
I was born atheist. Then i was lied to by the people I loved and trusted. I found my way back and now hold no grudges, so coping quite well, as I continue to point out.

[Anonymous No.13403862]

>>13403310
fucking kek

[Anonymous No.13403864]

>>13403842
You do realise atheism is as much of a lie as religion? I had atheist parents, who constantly affirmed to me what they couldn’t possibly know for sure. It’s all bullshit and you’ve just switched sides.

[Anonymous No.13403867]

>>13403842
do you have a job flutterby, or are you on some sort of disability?

[Anonymous No.13403870]

>>13403842
>I was born atheist
No you weren’t. Atheism must be taught to you, it is incredibly evident that every society on earth has belief in a higher power naturally.

[Anonymous No.13403894]

>>13402711
>implying anything is objective
STUPID. Is he wrong? His argument makes no sense. Something can be deactivated, therefore isn't objective. What? He don't know what he's talking about. Perhaps he means that because it can be changed, there is no objective morality. There isn't an objective morality, but these as reasoning is retarded.

[Anonymous No.13403898]

>>13402836
>disconnects modem
>internet ceases to exist

[Anonymous No.13403900]

>>13403870
>naturally

[Anonymous No.13403909]

>>13403900
>I’ll just be pendantic about a word because I can’t refute it

[Anonymous No.13403910]

>>13403842
no one gives a shit and do not post in my thread again

[Anonymous No.13403924]

>>13403480
Objective vision would by definition be the entirety of the electromagnetic spectrum, you retard. Your own argument supports the opposite of your conclusion.

[Anonymous No.13403946]

>>13403820

>Genetic competitors/enemies
I mean, if anything, greater racial diversity leads to a wider gene pool, which in turns allows for greater chances of gene combinations that increase survivability to occur. The reason why mammals are mostly fucked due to global warming is because mammalian genes change only over a very long period of time, and therefore the genetic diversity among mammalian species is very low and they have few chances of surviving a radically different environment. One of the reasons why bacteria and microorganisms are so good at adapting to extreme environments is because of their simplicity, it's easy for mutations to occur and they exchange genes among themselves.

You're assuming a bunch of wrong things based on a flimsy understanding of evolution, such as:

1 - tribalism had a primarily racial motivation - this could very well be wrong and most of human evolution to have taken place under a gene pool with not too much diversity in appearance.

2 - Disabling parts of the brain means those parts are inferior.

The morphology and the associated physiology of an organism change over time depending on evolutionary pressures. What you're saying is like claiming that a whale, which no longer walks on land like its ancestors did, is an inferior creature. The world we live in is completely different from society hundreds of thousands of years ago when most of the major human evolution took place. If you disable the part of a brain of a fat person who eats a lot and that person stops eating so much, would you tell me we who don't eat so much are the inferior ones? Probably not. You say so in this case because it's convenient to your ideology. Disabling these parts of the brain may very well lead to a greater chance of survival of the human species as a whole (or worsen it, too many variable to predict it reliably); this leads to my third point, which is actually directed at this retarded article:

3 - The physiological basis of human cognition can be used to prove or disprove metaphysical concepts
This is so incredibly stupid and I think (almost) everyone succeeded at pointing out how idiotic it is.

But just because this is stupid isn't a justification for you faggots to start using science as a proof of your moral beliefs. When you do so you're as stupid as this scientist. Be a man and argue for your positions.

[Anonymous No.13403951]

>>13403646
I just used your picture for my soundcloud upload

https://soundcloud.com/grivon/theres-got-to-be-something-steven-grandell

[Anonymous No.13403953]

>>13402740
There is no objective vision of reality

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13403976]

>>13403864
There’s no god. This is with 99% certainty. The only way we have a creator of the universe, immortal soul and an afterlife is if you’re dreaming right now. So go wake up.

>>13403867
I work. Do I need to announce when i go?

>>13403870
Hahahha. The old reversal. HA. I suppose you too are one of those that believes atheism is a faith. Fools

>>13403910
>my thread
Stop shitting up my board with your off topic bullshit!!

[Anonymous No.13403995]

>>13403946
tl;dr
Damage the brain, animal less able to compete, gets replaced. If your genes are not passed on then you lose. Nothing to do with ideology, just common sense.

[Anonymous No.13404014]

>>13403976
>There’s no god. This is with 99% certainty.
Depends on how you define God

[Anonymous No.13404019]

>>13403976
>99% certainty
>not a faith
it’s at least 1% a faith, even with your made up terms
please tell me how elevated chimps who still barely understand the intricacies of material reality, nevertheless anything before or apart from it, can be 99% certain about anything? You remind me of those scientists that laughed at darwin, 99% certain we could have evolved from apes

[Anonymous No.13404021]

>>13404019
*not have

[Anonymous No.13404024]

>>13403976
Go to r/atheism and tell me with a straight face you’ve not just joined another cult

[Anonymous No.13404032]

>>13403995
>Damage the brain, animal less able to compete, gets replaced.
You're implying that this specific damage has a direct, fatal impact in the reasoning of human beings. It certainly stops certain behaviors, but that doesn't mean this will reduce longevity, or the number of offspring a human has. It could be that hundreds of thousands of years ago, it was better for humans to not love others from different tribes since the other tribe would just take advantage of a tribe like that. That doesn't necessarily follow these days since we no longer live in tribes.
As I said in my post, if these traits (believing in God & hating immigrants) are evolutionary, then assuming they have utility nowadays does not necessarily follow. The appendix is no longer really useful though it may help with bacterial infection. The human addiction to sugar comes from a time when sugar gave us a lot of energy and was available in small amounts of time. If anything this trait is bad for humans nowadays since we have so much sugar available. Once again, evolution, specifically natural selection, doesn't exist without context.
Your "common sense" is again, just a bunch of assumptions based on a flimsy understanding of evolution.

[Anonymous No.13404048]

>>13402711
morality is a choice, the less people that choose to live morally the worse the world becomes for everyone in it, so unless you're a fucking crab in a bucket or a brainlet you should choose to live morally

[Anonymous No.13404058]

>>13404048
also it's interesting how in the study it's
>makes them more pro immigration
whereas the article phrases it as
>made them less prejudiced

[Anonymous No.13404064]

>>13403487

The earth is a gigantic magnet whose poles are switching.

Soon, soon. Soon.

[Anonymous No.13404075]

>>13404064
Based Kali Yuga poster

[Anonymous No.13404097]

>>13404058
It frames it that way for the same reason a study about video game addiction won't talk about parts of the brain that "make you wanna play video game less". Fear of immigration is too much of a specific trait. Our brains didn't evolve to have traits like "conservatism" or "liberalism", so we have to suppose some sort of overarching characteristic that makes sense in all kinds of contexts.

[Anonymous No.13404115]

>>13404075
Explain Kali Yuga it doesn't sound very based to me. And why am I so depressed?

[Anonymous No.13404121]

>>13402739
>that was his argument
That's clearly not an argument. Next time ask for a syllogism at least

[Anonymous No.13404127]

>>13403181
big if true

[Anonymous No.13404129]

>>13404115
Just look it up, it’s not based

[Anonymous No.13404131]

>>13403480
you know what he means

[Anonymous No.13404164]

>If I kill a human being an external reality exists
LUL

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13404208]

>>13404014
It does. You wanna go with Spinoza’s, I guess that’s fine. You can call yourself a Jedi even. Still nowhere near even 50% certainty to it though.

>>13404019
My made up terms? These are the regular terms of basic theology. Now tell me, are chimps Catholic or Episcopalian?

>>13404024
I’ll go to your face and tell you

[Anonymous No.13404219]

>>13404208
>zero arguments
lmao

[Anonymous No.13404229]

>>13404208
>theism=organised religion
Atheists will always default to this because they can knock it down, but not the former.

[Anonymous No.13404443]

>>13402711
>retards don't believe in God
Is that what he was trying to say?

[Anonymous No.13404468]

>>13402711
>give someone brain damage
>call it turning off parts of the brain
>morality doesn't real *tips fedora*
Pretty big retard for a PhD

[Anonymous No.13404565]

>>13402740
>no objective vision of reality?
You don't even see all light that exists. You don't see the same as other animals, and sometimes not even the same as other humans. It is very clear tha objective vision doesn't even remotely exist. What are you trying to argue?

[Anonymous No.13404624]

>>13402711
This never happened, you just wanted an excuse to post that pic to troll. Enjoy your ban

[Anonymous No.13404639]

>>13402711
What a Pinkerist way to use magnets!

[Anonymous No.13404645]

>>13404624
You should apply for a career in memes.

[Anonymous No.13404675]

>>13402711
>we can "turn off" morality with magnet
We can also "turn off" vision by injecting poisons in your eye cavities. Or the ability to do physics by smashing a huge magnet on your cranium.

Using a purposefully disabled organ as reference is retarded.

> He also declared that every aspect of our existence is explicable by some evolutionary mechanism.
Explication means nothing. Our ancestors used to explain pregnancies by the influence of water and thunder gods (that was before they figured that sex leads to pregnancy). Explaining is merely a matter of ingeniosity, predicting, correctly classifying, accurately modeling are what is scientifically relevant. This will also involve a fair bit of story telling, but at the very least it should be checked against observations.

When your friend say everything we do can be explain by some evolutionary mecanism, you can ask:
1. is it an assumption or a result?
2. if it is an assumption, how is it better than religious assumptions?
3. if it is a result, can he actually exhibit it? can he explicitly derive any human behavior from evolution, and more importantly do it in a way that leads itself to empirical testing?

[Anonymous No.13404678]

>>13403818
Daily reminder it has been empirically proven religiosity stifles scientific innovation.

https://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Religion%20December%201g_snd.pdf
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21052.pdf

Daily reminder the overwhelming majority of leading scientists are atheist

https://www.nature.com/articles/28478

Daily reminder religious people are less intelligent according to dozens of studies.

http://diyhpl.us/~nmz787/pdf/The_Relation_Between_Intelligence_and_Religiosity__A_Meta-Analysis_and_Some_Proposed_Explanations.pdf

Daily reminder religious people are less educated

https://www.economist.com/news/international/21623712-how-education-makes-people-less-religiousand-less-superstitious-too-falling-away

Religious people are literally a lesser breed of human

[Anonymous No.13404687]

>>13402740
This.

[Anonymous No.13404701]

>>13402740
Thank you

[Anonymous No.13404703]

>>13402711
>PhD-holding physicist
wow damn he's right I guess

[Anonymous No.13404705]

>>13404678
>per capita
That's gonna be a YIKES from me.

[Anonymous No.13404724]

>>13402740
>The brain is the mere conduit for the soul.
This cope doesn’t hold any water in contemporary philosophy of mind. Substance dualism is completely untenable nowadays.

[Anonymous No.13404726]

>>13404678
Daily reminder that correlation does not equal causation.
It's entirely plausible that the people in those countries are just generally dumb, which would explain both the lack of scientific advancement and the religious gullibility. It does not prove that being religious makes you stupid, just that being stupid makes you an easier convert.

[Anonymous No.13404738]

>>13404724
>>The eyes are the mere conduit for the vision
This cope doesn’t hold any water in contemporary philosophy of mind. Substance dualism is completely untenable nowadays.

[Anonymous No.13404749]

>>13403192
>This proves the spiritual and racist (based) are more neurologically developed

Then why are so many of the racists I know troglodyte tier semi-literates (in the real sense of can barely read outside of street signs)

[Anonymous No.13404767]

>>13404749
See
>>13403946
>>13404032

[Anonymous No.13404804]

>>13402711
Dear Lord I cannot cope with so much stupidity. If you pound my brain into mush I shall die. Therefore, there is no life. QED.

[Anonymous No.13404811]

>>13404738
Based retard

[Anonymous No.13404812]

>>13404724
Based retard

[Anonymous No.13404816]

>has big magnet
>point at subjects brain
>subject quits acting like a dick
Hmmmmmm
pic related

[Anonymous No.13404852]

>>13404738
I know you’re trying really hard to sound clever, but the eyes aren’t a “conduit” of vision, they, along with parts of our brain, perform vision, and if they are destroyed you lose eyesight. Your vision isn’t magically floating around waiting to be recaptured, your vision doesn’t exist without the physical processes that allow it to happen. me with the mind, it exists thanks to brain function, if your brain is destroyed your mind no longer exists.

[Anonymous No.13404907]

>>13403924
No it wouldnt. THe objectivity of vision has to do with the accuracy it represent. The closest we could come to objective vision would be more psychological than physicological. You'd need to eliminate attention, you'd need to be able to record it all perfectly so memory which is subjective doesnt mess with it. You'd have to remove perception, ect ect. Even this wouldnt do anything to solve Kants "problem" though. That problem is 100% unsolveable.

[Anonymous No.13404915]

>>13402711
>give someone deleriants
>they act irrationally


SEE? Logic isnt OBJECTIVE! I can make people act irrationally just by changing their brain statesl Logic is just some evolutionary bullshit humans made up. 1 =/= 1 lmao.

[Anonymous No.13405022]

>>13402763
>>13402805
>>13402836

Yes, the attraction and repulsion of poles is decidedly Satanic. Moreover, the horror of two positives attracting each other and of two negatives repelling each other making the attraction between a positive and a negative seem good is ur-Satanic, the sleight of hand of sleights of hand. The implication that the Good is Mereological AND relatively so, utter abomination.

[Anonymous No.13405077]

>>13404678
>literally saying that correlation implies causation
I'm convinced you're a false flag trying to make atheists look bad, and you're succeeding.

[Anonymous No.13405114]

>>13404678

How has anything been Empirically proven in general?

[Anonymous No.13405118]

>>13402711
>messing with the brain messes with how our beliefs and thoughts
wow who would have guessed, give this dude a nobel prize

[Anonymous No.13405124]

>>13405077
Based brainlet

[Anonymous No.13405137]

>>13403480
>intentionally missing his point so hard you just say something he would to further elaborate his point

[Anonymous No.13405277]

>>13404678
Gay-lord faggot pilled.

[Anonymous No.13405298]

>>13402711
1) The most moral action is that action which benefits you the most.
2) In any situation, there exists an action that will benefit you the most, though you may not perceive/desire that action
3) Since there exists a path that will benefit you the most, morality is objective

[Anonymous No.13405406]

>>13402711
>disable threat detection areas of you brain to be less racist
Lmao this just proves lefties are oversocialized and retarded.

[Anonymous No.13405426]

>>13405298
underage

[Anonymous No.13405455]

>>13402711
>we can "turn off" morality with magnets, there is no objective morality.
This is a silly argument, typical of physicist lacking in any philosophical/argumentative training.

You can "turn off" the electricity with a flip of a switch, does that mean there is no objective basis for electricity? You can "turn off" your vision by closing your eyes, does that mean there is no objective basis for sight? Just because a phenomenon can be toggled, doesn't mean it exposes itself as unreal/subjective.

That morality can be "disabled" like this, simply proves that morality "happens" somewhere in the brain. And the implementation is not the thing itself, so even if morality is instantiated in the brain, what that structure represents is different from the structure itself. Morality is virtual but grounded in objectivity.


>He also declared that every aspect of our existence is explicable by some evolutionary mechanism.
This statement needs to be existentially quantified as "some aspects" and not "every aspect" in order to be empirically valid. In the absence of a complete inductively derived list of evolutionary traits that equals all human traits, there is still the possibility that some traits arose independently of evolution.

What about music, various kinds of arbitrary entertainment, burial rituals, religion? I have yet to see convincing evolutionary arguments for these. They're likely epiphenomena or byproducts unrelated to the fitness function.

[Anonymous No.13405515]

>>13405455
>epiphenomena
But these ideas very much have an influence on the physical world and interaction among human beings. It makes no sense to divorce mental phenomena from physical causation just because these phenomena have no evolutionary basis. That's essentially implying humans have no free will, which as Kant states is beyond the human intellect to be knowable.

Unless you mean that these phenomena are secondary consequences to evolution, which would again assume that they cannot function as a feedback loop to further influence evolution, which ultimately ends up making it evolutionary (specifically artificial selection, which is still a form of evolution). The big question is whether artificial selection is a sub-selection of natural selection or not; in other words, whether you can ultimately reduce human culture to evolution, which is different from saying that human culture is constructed on traits that humans evolved that did not evolve with the intention of causing the wide variety of phenomena made possible by such a complex brain.

[Anonymous No.13405569]

>>13405515
Again, it's difficult to empirically determine these questions. We cannot actually test to see if music or religion biases evolution. I prefer to think that evolution got the human to a certain state that was a sort of inflection point in which we were no longer strictly driven by evolutionary imperatives. Evolution gave us a foundation, but that foundation has been left alone to play out on its own accord.

You could say evolution bestowed a certain functional autonomy that then led to various esoteric human traits such as religion, burial rituals, homosexuality etc. It's hard to see how these traits are strictly adaptive when for instance religion gets people to take vows of celibacy or sacrifice themselves as martyrs.

You could make an argument from group selection that these behaviors benefit the larger gene pool of the person's relatives. Again that might just be a way to explain away the behaviors.

"Free will" (to whatever extent we might have it) may be another example of this foundation of functional autonomy . Evolution laid the groundwork and then things took off from there without regard for it.

[Anonymous No.13405596]

>>13403794
>>13403842
>>13403976
>>13404208
have. sex.

[Anonymous No.13405622]

>>13402740
>there is no objective vision of reality
There literally isn't

[Anonymous No.13405647]

>>13405455
>burial
I read a very interesting thing on the evolution of burial from hunter gatherers to early society. The more nomadic the human group, the less likely they are to bury someone. Once they establish routes and territories they start stone markers and mounds and things because you might come back to where you left the body. Once they establish homesteads and have to deal with someone dying there, then they start burying people with rituals and not just where they drop. I can't remember who started the theory, but basically it's the combination of not being able to abandon and forget the body along with building up reasoning why when stuck with the body they won't contaminate others. If I remember right, during the settling down period when hunting parties depart from the more stationary women and children, cannibalism starts with the women and children using dead bodies as interim sources of meat while men are away. As societies run into each other, that shifts to a more male problem.
Music and rhythm and rhyme etc synchronise groups, much like matching someone's breathing or heartbeat coheres and calms groups. There are lots of neat theories about this kind of shit out there but a lot of it is possibly just accidental to evolution. One last thing: being able to sing demonstrates lung capacity and hearing and other markers for health, not just peacocking for attention.

[Anonymous No.13405656]

>>13402740
Blessed, Based and Redpilled

[Anonymous No.13405673]

>>13405596
No. She. Won't.

:3

[Anonymous No.13405711]

>>13403841
Again you haven't proven "objective eyesight", whatever that is supposed to mean. Read Kant.

[Anonymous No.13405721]

>we can blind a man therefore things arent real
>but what about all the other people who can see things
>shhhhh it's all a construct idiot

Incidentally, Ligotti poses a similar argument in Conspiracy against the human race.

[Anonymous No.13406170]

>>13402711
One can also turn off morality with a bullet, pop-sci