he demloished 99% of philosophy and all schizoposting related cultural elements, didn't he?

File: 88 KB, 1024x512, alberteinstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 16:07:13 2022 No.20954942 [Reply] [Original]

he demloished 99% of philosophy and all schizoposting related cultural elements, didn't he?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 16:12:49 2022 No.20954962 general relativity also refuted Kant

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 16:16:15 2022 No.20954974 >>20954942 Why? You mean that phrase?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 16:27:18 2022 No.20955006 >>20954942 >Einstein was influenced by Schopenhauer I need to read Schopenhauer sometime, don’t I?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 16:28:30 2022 No.20955014 >>20954942 classic popper bullshit

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 16:30:16 2022 No.20955022 >>20955014 let me guess, next you're gonna call someone a midwit? lmao

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 16:39:33 2022 No.20955056 >>20955022 setting the recipient of a thougt as benchmark of the thought which aims to question the recipients belief is worse than a midwit

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 16:41:39 2022 No.20955069 >>20955056 Nothing to do with the recipient, the fact that you cannot define your terms until they're reduced to simple concepts is what makes you a retard

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 16:43:38 2022 No.20955073

Science and Atheism are utterly retarded religions and super easy to debunk like a trumpian-russian fake news: you have atheists who claim that immaterial math formulas they themselves invented run the material universe every millisecond across billions of light years, since 13 billions years ago LOL. how is this not retarded.
Oh and by the way, when they are asked to say where do those immaterial formulas live and where they come from and how they act on matter, they can't fucking answer, can they?
Ask an atheist how a photon, stemming from the annihilation of an electrons (e–) and a positron (e+) , knows that it has to follow Maxwell's rules, as soon as the photon comes into existence. Just ask him. And I can tell you what you will observe, because it's cause and effect: the atheist will be in his most vulnerable state, drymouthed, sweating profusely, hands trembling, in a state of intense anguish, because he knows he has no comeback. Zero. Jack shit. At this point in time, the atheist is consumed by a fear that is darker than the terror of death and which will never leave him until he dies.
You know how atheists say a bunch of deformed illiterate inbreds rolling in shit, beating their children and women personalized Nature when they said gods were an amalgamation of the base fears of early humans. Well since the day a few atheist bugmen created computers, they are saying the universe is a computer too lol. That's their big brain idea and that's how dumb atheists are lol.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 16:45:22 2022 No.20955082 >>20955069 >the fact that you cannot define your terms until they're reduced to simple concepts see? youre setting yourself (recipient) as benchmark. ones ability to understand a thought says nothing about its validity. thats a logical fallacy

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 16:46:11 2022 No.20955086 >>20955073 >immaterial math formulas they themselves invented run the material universe You're a retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 16:48:25 2022 No.20955094 >>20954942 Nicolas Boileau already said that 300 years prior “Ce qui se conçoit aisément s’énonce clairement” -> “What is easily understood gets enunciated clearly”

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 16:48:32 2022 No.20955095

>>20955073
youre the only one who even wants to establish metaphysical truths instead of mere predictive, usable models and then gets mad when the other guy doesn't subscribe to the same inane standards and misinterpretations of the basic meaning of scientific statements, that you do solely because of your stupidity. please never express your thoughts publicly again if all you're going to do is make primitive category mistakes. fucking chimp lmao

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 16:52:19 2022 No.20955113 >philosophy Fundamentally corrupted. >schizoposting Accelerated and institutionalized. >related cultural elements Albert Einstein has nothing to do with the welfare state.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 16:53:11 2022 No.20955114 >>20955095 >mere predictive, usable models All based on metaphysical presuppositions. You just ignore them, cut the foundations from underneath your worldview and pretend that's somehow better.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 16:58:01 2022 No.20955145

>>20955114
You're just stretching the meaning of "metaphysics" so far that even an act such as fishing should have a metaphysical presupposition for you to accept it has "foundations". Yet it works without you thinking about the metaphysical aspect at all, because the metaphysical aspect is an arbitrary aspect of human activity and you can't view it from any sort of bird's eye perspective in an objective way. More than this need not be said on the issue

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 17:00:49 2022 No.20955157 >>20955145 here is actually a good example: I just summarized ALL of Being & Time in this single message. Literally everything in that book is contained in this simple post. Fuck philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 17:03:55 2022 No.20955169 >>20955157 Fuck your mother. You're still a retarded pseud.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 17:18:54 2022 No.20955240

>>20955145
>" so far that even an act such as fishing
If you want to describe the entirety of the thing and not just mindlessly accept conditioned premises. If you're interested in thinking and exploring. If you refuse to think about any of this you can easily find yourself in a self-reinforcing situation where you say your delusions are true because they're true according to the delusions and that's exactly what has happened to you.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 17:25:23 2022 No.20955258

>>20955240
So, where did I try to impose on the activity of fishing the condition of whether it is true or not? Nowhere. It is only the philosophotards that cling on to the idea of an impartial, objective truth that can free itself from models. As for which models I should use, I derive from their capacity to cause me physical comfort and pleasure. You can claim that I could also want to be in immense pain, and I can only say "fine, you can do that if you like, but don't try to force me in with your shit". If I want to stop using technology because it's consequences are alienating, fine, that's reasonable, back to fishing if that offers a more stimulating lifestyle. But you're still the one trying to project and force an objective truth where it's not apprehensible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 17:27:34 2022 No.20955267 >>20955082 I do not mean "simple" as "easy to understand" but "simple" as in "not composite", it just so happens that these two senses often meet, and so Einstein's take makes sense

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 17:28:47 2022 No.20955274

>>20955258
>where did I try to impose on the activity of fishing the condition of whether it is true or not?
When we talk about it like describe it using physics. When we build boats and stuff. You're sperging because you're too dumb to get a subject. Stop, just go fishing.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 17:34:10 2022 No.20955294

>>20955274
Those statements have only local significance in the context of human activity. There's no attempt to conclude a metaphysical truth from them, even though philosophotards would like to project their own desert religion-derived mental sickness everywhere. Metaphysics is just kissing ass to the monotheist institution, in the final analysis.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 17:36:59 2022 No.20955309 >>20955267 simple as in easy to understand cannot be used to justify any argument. should he, as you, have meant "not composite" then yes, but also no big wisdom in that "discovery"

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 17:38:12 2022 No.20955317 >>20955073 Oh look Brainlet is out today >Hi mr. Brainlet

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 17:39:35 2022 No.20955324

>>20955294
>Those statements have only local significance
You're making metaphysical claims that are inconsistent with measurements. When people knew how to build boats they apparently knew how to build them universally, that's why you can learn to build boats from reading books.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 17:39:39 2022 No.20955325 >>20955073 >jimmy you forget! Where's your manners? greet the good man Hi Mr. Brainlet sir

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 17:41:14 2022 No.20955333 >>20955317 He's dumb but it's impossible to be as dumb as you. Name whatever you think is the dumbest religion and they will have more interesting thoughts than you. Scientologists talking about volcano demons are less retarded than you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 17:42:15 2022 No.20955339 >>20954962 I'd like to hear more about this. How?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 17:42:47 2022 No.20955342 >>20955309 plainly there is wisdom in it, given how often men are unable to express themselves in but the most prolix and abstruse and imitative manner

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 17:50:14 2022 No.20955377

>>20955324
In reality, though, they probably arrived at their respective techniques in widely differing ways, just like different peoples had wildly differing architectures. The rest of it, formalization etc. doesn't prove anything metaphysically, unless you want to infer metaphysics from workability, which would make you a fucking pragmatist which I think you really don't want to be identified as.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 17:51:29 2022 No.20955387 >>20955333 >interesting thoughts lmao, of course bold pronouncements of certainty and impossible revelations are going to be "interesting", it doesn't mean they have any validity

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 17:52:46 2022 No.20955395

>>20955333
He's smarter than you because he's been through this enough times to know that arguing with people like that is pointless because either they're trolling or they're so completely lost that they misrepresent the arguments they're refuting right out of the gate and then engage in fallacious reasoning. I know the point of your post is that simply insulting him doesn't appear intelligent, but he hasn't offered up anything legitimate to respond to, and you're the one beating your head senselessly against a solid blank wall.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 17:58:21 2022 No.20955424

>>20955377
>In reality
In reality the history of all these things is clear. The history you completely undermine with every word.
>doesn't prove anything metaphysically
>which would make you a fucking pragmatist
Ans now every philosopher in history was a "pragmatist" because they talked about how their ideas related to the real world.
>>20955387
You have no validity. All you do is demand everyone stops thinking. History will remember retards like you, the phenomena will be studied for millennia like all those weird stories we hear from the past like animal trials. "I can't believe people actually were this retarded, they actually became dumber over time" will be the consensus about retards like you until the heat death of the universe.
>>20955395
I recognize him. He spams that reply in some braindead attempt to stop wronghtink.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 17:58:35 2022 No.20955426 >>20955073 Staggeringly based.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:02:01 2022 No.20955444

>>20955424
pragmatism
/ˈpraɡmətJz(ə)m/
an approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.

You:
>there is a metaphysical truth of boats because we came up with boat architecture that wroks wew wow

stop sniveling and face up to the fact that your ideological identity was no more well founded than the phases of a teengirl, and then stop posting and pretending you have something interesting to say on account of this vacuous identity

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:02:55 2022 No.20955449 >>20955333 Oh no. He's Brainlet de Retàrd. Dumb was his father. What an honest man, god rest his soul

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:04:40 2022 No.20955466
File: 219 KB, 660x817, 1659697782422805.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20954942
>Wittgenstein claims that there are no realms of phenomena whose study is the special business of a philosopher, and about which he or she should devise profound a priori theories and sophisticated supporting arguments. There are no startling discoveries to be made of facts, not open to the methods of science, yet accessible "from the armchair" through some blend of intuition, pure reason and conceptual analysis. Indeed the whole idea of a subject that could yield such results is based on confusion and wishful thinking.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:04:50 2022 No.20955468

>>20955444
>look mom I can ignore all meaning and dishonestly apply a label created to distinguish ideas to everything, making the label completely meaningless
I don't care about your labels, if you want to demand that Plato and Pythagoras were "pragmatists" go ahead but you're not helping yourself or anyone. You're not going to figure anything out by being an autistic retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:05:12 2022 No.20955469 File: 20 KB, 583x360, images (71).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I say absolutely retarded shit but I'm also right about everything because normal people don't sincerely interact with my retardation

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:06:42 2022 No.20955473 >>20955469 Know them by their fruit.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:09:43 2022 No.20955486

>>20955377
>, just like different peoples had wildly differing architectures
That doesn't mean that each design didn't follow the same basic principle of buoyancy. Idk, it kinda feels like your arguments are all just rhetorical ploys that fall apart with even just a basic understanding of how things work.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:12:01 2022 No.20955497

>>20955468
Incredible how you do damage even for the philosophers you claim to defend and make them roll around in their graves. Pythagoras did believe that everything is made up of numbers, but by this he was talking more about abstract metaphysical reality to which the numbers 1,2 etc. literally referred to, not at all about engineering (which, btw, flourished in Rome in a total absence of Greek style metaphysics of mathematics)

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:14:12 2022 No.20955516

>>20955342
sure. if applied to physics for example in your understanding.

but saying this "destroys" philosophy is just plain stupid. that was the part that reminded me of popper that thought everything he didnt understand was stupid and wrong simply because *he* didnt understand it or didnt want to understand

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:15:13 2022 No.20955523

>>20955486
>buoyancy
that principle didn't exist in-itself before other objects came together in the right arrangement to produce that concept. It has no metaphysical meaning beyond how well it works. If it weren't ever formalized, the phenomenone would stay the same. Hence the formalization is based on human activity.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:15:37 2022 No.20955528

>>20954962
You know I'd really like opinion on this because I have started to take Kant seriously and this seems far more interesting than trashing some high school drop out hillbilly science denier.

What part of Kantian system is incompatible with GR. I'm assuming its something to do with the space/time categories

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:16:51 2022 No.20955534

>>20955528
>What part of Kantian system is incompatible with GR. I'm assuming its something to do with the space/time categories
you dont say lmao. youre like the dumb kid in school trying to act smart by asking questions and turns out the question was something really obvious and everyone cringes.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:17:46 2022 No.20955544

>>20955497
>not at all about engineering
Because engineering is for poorfags not because he didn't understand math relates to reality. The point was to explore reality, not make random shit up. What are you even trying to say? You think he made random shit up and it happened to be useful? You can test it right now and see that the ideas do in fact relate to reality, you can in fact triangulate and shit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:18:17 2022 No.20955548 >>20955528 >I have started to take Kant seriously and Shut the fuck up

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:19:18 2022 No.20955553 >>20955523 >Hence the formalization is based on human activity. Is this the ultimate point you think you're making? That people made up words and symbols? Nobody on the planet is confused about this except the most brainwashed burger retards.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:20:04 2022 No.20955560

>>20955523
You're misrepresenting the purpose of describing the natural phenomenon though. You did so in your very first post. Science doesn't claim invent the phenomena themselves, only to describe them in our language, which is limited, hence the necessity for experimentation and continual observation. The fact that it works is only evidence that the natural phenomena exists.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:23:08 2022 No.20955579 >>20955534 >>20955548 Lol the science denier is angry.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:27:23 2022 No.20955601

>>20955544
>You think he made random shit up and it happened to be useful?
That's basically all of geometry, although some of it might be approximations of the forms of nature. Although, in Pythagoras' time already, he might have been building on previous tradition of geometry. He studied the previously practical field of geometry AS an abstract field, and attributed abstract concepts as the referents of numbers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:29:24 2022 No.20955616 >>20955560 tell that to the guy who requires science have a metaphysical foundation

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:32:08 2022 No.20955631

>>20955601
>That's basically all of geometry
Can you elaborate on this absolutely mindless horseshit? You really think they didn't care how it related to reality? How do you imagine this working? You understand they used physical shapes to represent it all? That's geometry originally, more abstract math that couldn't be immediately related to sizes was a very recent invention, even negative numbers were not considered "real" enough because you can't physically make a circle with a negative radius etc.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:32:44 2022 No.20955632

>>20955022
positivism is a helluva drug. if all prepositions of facts come from purely empirical observation, the thing-in-itself is banished to the abyss and knowledge is therefore unattainable by one's own personal intellect. the entire reason why positivism isn't a thriving force today except for the goodest of goys is rational people like to trust their instincts instead of the mere appearance of reality. either that or they're vaxx cattle and never question why certain beliefs are as they are and not re-evaluted in light of new evidence.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:34:53 2022 No.20955642

>>20955616
Every serious scientist will say it does. A surface level understanding of the history of science will reveal this. Arguing against it is based on illiteracy, inability to grasp any meaning, the kind of thinking that leads to someone thinking that words being made up by humans is a revelation instead of the absolute basics of literacy.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:37:28 2022 No.20955653

>>20955631
No, geometry originally was land measuring, as is apparent from the name, so it actuality is based on a pre-conditioned idea for a certain type of work and so is inextricable from human activity. Fine, but Pythagoras and Platonists went farther and related it to mysticism, which for Pythagoras was more apparent in his numerological mysticism. However, does Plato argue for the existence of Platonic forms by a call to contemplate the existence of...boats? No: it is something that should be achieved by pure reason. You're imposing your modern sciencebrained worldview on Plato.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:38:33 2022 No.20955654

>>20955616
This statement is so absurd. Science is based on continuously tested observations. The fact that those observations can be reproduced reliably is evidence of a metaphysical basis. The principle of buoyancy exists whether intelligent beings exist to give it a name or not. Science only describes it.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:40:17 2022 No.20955666

>>20955632
It's really ironic for you to cling to accusations of "cattle" and other moronic insults when your own argument rests on the assumption that we must fix a metaphysical foundation to an activity inextricable from local human conditions, instead of changing it malleable based on its results for our instincts. You are literally everything you claim to hate.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:40:43 2022 No.20955667
File: 34 KB, 457x671, images (72).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I will deny basic scientific facts based on rigorous study by 100s of people across generations doing a lot of hard work in the lab to find answers.

But here let me tell you about how a leaf is the fundamental archetypical form of the entire plant body and that everything in the plant is leaf. A system which I arrived at by sitting in my armchair after doing some occassional gardening.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:42:14 2022 No.20955671

>>20955653
>and related it to mysticism
It all inherently is. You can't imagine "mysticism" except as some strawman bullshit instead of a part of the development of humans including the development of math and science. You operate in conditioned labels, in literal words independent of any meaning or real thought.
>does Plato argue for the existence of Platonic forms by a call to contemplate the existence of...boats?
Cups is the pop example. "pure reason" can't be separated from reality or it's just incoherent and irrelevant like your posts.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:42:15 2022 No.20955672 >>20955667 So intelligent. Surely you have everything figured out and the rest of us are only babbling apes.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:42:32 2022 No.20955675

>>20955654
>The principle of buoyancy exists whether intelligent beings exist to give it a name or not.
How do you know that, though, if you're going to start doing philosophy? In philosophy, you would need to prove from nothing but reason this strange phenomenon of buyoancy: then you would have something truly philosophical and metaphysical. Except you can't, because your concepts are already hopelessly enmeshed in human activity. This was the whole point of Heidegger's critique of Descartes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:43:36 2022 No.20955680 >>20954962 Kant is simple, once you realize his terms aren’t abstract things but things you can experience at once through husserlian bracketing, kant’s secrets are open to you

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:44:40 2022 No.20955684 >>20955680 Also Einstein was literally a fan of Schopenhauer is the archetypal Kantian, I’m pretty sure he read Kant himself as well at a young age.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:45:03 2022 No.20955685

>>20955667
Your dumb leaf model may not be inconsistent with science and it may reveal things other models do not. At least this leaf scholar is thinking. You can imagine hypothetical people that think but you can't think yourself. Imagine how suppressed and neutered a creature like that is.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:46:46 2022 No.20955696

>>20955671
Except I just showed this mysticism has previous bases in human activity, it only came to be perceived as a separated thing from wider human activity due influence of Egyptian monotheism of Akhenaten which later formed also the bases of Judaic monotheism. Pythagoras' results were discovered earlier anyway, but it wasn't in the context of the mysticism of the Absolute, which, as a meme, all derives from pharaoh Akhenaten. You're really doing nothing else but propagating his arbitrary worldview further.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:48:52 2022 No.20955704 >>20955073 Absolute schizo post

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:53:54 2022 No.20955725

>>20955696
You haven't shown anything. You have an idea. An idea that makes no sense since you're talking about universals while denying metaphysics can possibly be pointing at anything real. Math and science assume the Absolute. Our maps of all this are definitely flawed but you don't have better maps, you have the suggestion that we should burn all of them except a recent idea you consider all encompassing holy dogma despite anyone capable of logic seeing it rests on the metaphysics you're arguing against.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:54:55 2022 No.20955731 >>20955704 Yet you're the worse poster by far.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:58:41 2022 No.20955747

why is everyone so mad at this? yes, you should be able to explain your ideas in a sentence or two. most philosophers can. this does not mean they must be proved and sufficiently argued within that sentence. einstein's theory of relativity can be explain relatively simply, but to actually prove it requires a detailed paper.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 18:59:05 2022 No.20955749

>>20955675
>In philosophy, you would need to prove from nothing but reason this strange phenomenon of buyoancy
I think this is an entirely bullshit and arbitrary limitation you're laying on me to weasel out of the corner I've backed you into. We can observe buoyancy, we know that it works independent of us. Objects will float in the water without our interference. Without the concept of buoyancy, we and the world as we know them would not even be able to exist today for a variety of reasons. Philosophy isn't just sitting in a dark room arguing with yourself. It also relies on outside observation, which is why science is also considered a philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:02:31 2022 No.20955759 >>20954942 based philosophers are midwits who think they are smart

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:02:37 2022 No.20955761

>>20955672
>rest of us are only babbling apes.

I don't know mah man. >>20955073 mmmm.

>>20955685
>Your dumb leaf model
Oh no my deluded coping brother. It was not me who came up with this. It was a german idealist, what was his name again? Yeah, Goethe. You can thank him instead

And of course its not inconsistent with science just as much as the idea that you are tonguing nigger anus right now. And it does tell me more than I need to know.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:03:54 2022 No.20955765 File: 185 KB, 960x956, reddit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20955759

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:04:56 2022 No.20955771 >>20955761 >It was not me who came up with this. Notice I could tell the qualitative difference between the way he thinks and you think. He is capable of thinking while you are not.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:12:22 2022 No.20955792
File: 38 KB, 320x480, images (74).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

He doesn't believe in my schizo nonsense and doesn't wish to engage with it therefore he can't think.

I know every part of a plant, from root to stem is leaf and that is more quality insight than what actual biologists have to say about this.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:16:23 2022 No.20955818

>>20955792
>more quality insight than what actual biologists
Did I say that? I said the idea shows some thought while the rest of your posts do not. I even gave you credit for it before you revealed it was someone else so your cope that I'm being unfair to you is on shake grounds.
You are the science denier here but you're too dumb to understand that. You undermine actual biology, a subject you know nothing about.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:16:39 2022 No.20955820 >>20954942 >schizoposting Still not taking your venom concoction you call medications or the """"(((((vaccine)))))""""" fiendish kike

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:18:52 2022 No.20955829 >>20954942 Didn't he praise Engels' retarded ramblings on nature?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:20:32 2022 No.20955837 >>20954962 General relativity is just an attempt to apply a freshman level reading of Kant to physics

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:20:38 2022 No.20955839 >>20955765 bohr is the only one who gets it

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:21:16 2022 No.20955840 >NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYou are the science denier! My schizo nonsense is perfectly compatible with le science.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:22:22 2022 No.20955846 File: 16 KB, 326x326, images (75).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:23:22 2022 No.20955847

>>20955749
>We can observe buoyancy, we know that it works independent of us.
lmao, it's like you have read platonist memes but not even read a wikipedia article on epistemology or whatever, the very field the original opponent was trying, with little success, to use against me. We cannot, by methods of philosophy, prove that buyoancy exists in any independent sense. Hence, we do not need to concern ourselves with the metaphysical import of such a concept that is clearly enmeshed in human reality, human activity.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:24:03 2022 No.20955852

>>20955840
Consider that perhaps you're projecting. Have you perhaps been diagnosed with something?
All prominent scientists that actually contributed disagree with you and you're incapable of arguing for your point even a little. Any attempt immediately devolves to attacking geometry or even logic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:24:54 2022 No.20955855 >>20955725 its literally the opposite way around my guy, i'm the only non-dogmatic thinker in this whole thread and the rest are like controlled opposition of the unholy fusion of monotheism and rationalism

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:29:45 2022 No.20955867 >>20955073 Not only that but they cannot explain the origins of mathematics

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:31:46 2022 No.20955871

>>20955839
You have no clue. Bohr is the only one who succinctly said a thing you agree with. What he said there is not something most reasonable people are confused about, you can't be a successful scientist and confuse the model with claims about absolute reality. It's just you and a small group of brainwashed monolingual retards that never grasped anything they ever read.
>>20955855
You're attacking the fundamentals of math and science. To do that you need good arguments but you can't argue for anything, just repeat your burger conditioning or present some variation of your own burger conditioning as a strawman. Either way you can't escape the brainwashing even hypothetically, like exemplified by your leaf example you consider peak idiocy. You're the incompetent idiot. You're the one who can't get anything to happen.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:34:39 2022 No.20955877 >>20955871 >seething contentless insults when you realize you got exposed thanks for giving up and admitting youre a poor defender of your most dearly held ideas

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:36:11 2022 No.20955880
File: 31 KB, 408x612, images (76).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Scientists who consistently perform same experiments over and over for hundreds of years can't even know if the physical laws go all the way back lel lmao. What a bunch of losers.

By the way, let me tell you about this dead dude who died and came back to life 2000 years ago. And here's a 1700 year old text proves it. What? The miracle never happened again? Why do you care about that your sins are already forgiven.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:36:11 2022 No.20955879 >>20955666 >calling people cattle Didn't do that, Satan. You clearly cannot read

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:37:11 2022 No.20955886 Any deracinators?

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:44:29 2022 No.20955923

>>20955877
>your most dearly held ideas
What are those? Have you inferred them somehow? Will your descriptions of my beliefs be as deranged and pointless as last time?
You always forget immediately about the last braindead thing you were called out on that's impossible to defend as anything but braindead. Why does it keep happening?
>that is more quality insight than what actual biologists have to say about this
What is this? Why do you willfully lie about what I say or mean like that constantly? What do you hope to gain from it?
One of the things I hold most dear is creativity or the ability to create in general and that is served by the ability to think coherently and apply logic. Things you undermine with every word, not because of the things you attack but because you pretend to think but can't. You can't offer any insights on any subject, it's completely impossible. When you repeat an idea from some philosopher the contrast is blatant. I immediately recognized that he could think but every post you make demonstrates the opposite despite me being completely willing to give you credit when you say something like I did when I thought you made up the idealist. Why do you suppose that is?

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:45:41 2022 No.20955929

>>20955847
Shared observations which continuously prove to be reliable must show some metaphysical basis. No philosophy argues itself into existence based on pure rationalization or reason, they're all based on observations made about the world, even the ones that concern themselves primarily with the inner world. You're arguing everything into oblivion and you don't have anything to replace it with.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:50:39 2022 No.20955951 >>20955923 >that is more quality insight than what actual biologists have to say about this because thats a different anon than me you fucking idiot. you humiliated yourself lmao

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:56:11 2022 No.20955984

>>20955951
>because thats a different anon than me
I really doubt it since you "both" constantly lie for some reason and that same poster doing the soijack posting follows you in every thread. I would expect you to lie about this too but I don't understand why you do it. Just mindless le epic win trolling?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 19:56:44 2022 No.20955989 What the fuck is going on. Brainlet dude. I'm the one making memes and I haven't directly engaged in a single argument with you.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:00:00 2022 No.20956003

>>20955923
I tried to tell you this dude doesn't care about the truth. He's here to drag you into his quagmire of non sequiturs, generalizations, misrepresentations, and insults so he can get the mild dopamine rush from feeling smuggly superior in his own mind. It doesn't matter to him if he's right. Only that he asserts that he can't be bought with facts or evidence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:00:08 2022 No.20956004 >>20955989 You just go around lying and misrepresenting people you don't even try to understand on any level? For science!?

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:02:51 2022 No.20956018

>>20956003
It doesn't stop if you don't engage. These retards really exist. They hide behind dishonesty but they actually mean it all, they're this braindead and if you pretend they're not it just spreads. The dumbest retards grab on to any excuse given not to think and this guy is handing out the excuses.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:03:23 2022 No.20956025 [DELETED]

>>20955073
>gods were an amalgamation of the base fears of early humans.

Not much has changed
>fear of mortality
>fear of the universe not actively loving you
>fear of nothingness post death
>fear of hell
>fear of being punished in this life itself (with disease, financial trouble, squalor, death)

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:06:42 2022 No.20956049

>>20956018
There may be a few people who will latch on to this as an excuse to cling to anti-science or anti-intellectual beliefs, but I think there are far more who would look at this dude and scoff. He's sitting here arguing away all existence and isn't offering anything to replace it with. I mean, we can probably guess what his real beliefs might be, but he wont engage us with those because he knows he'll lose. All he wants to do is sew doubt.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:08:11 2022 No.20956053

>>20955929
>Shared observations which continuously prove to be reliable must show some metaphysical basis.
it's interesting you'd say that, because now you're simply assuming what I was taken to task for in not being able to base the PRESUPPOSITIONS of science. But can you not see that you are describing a scientific conduct before the discovery of any possible metaphysical assumption, and presenting the resulting scientific law as a metaphysical entity, even though it by no means need be such? The original question was whether scientific activity is necessarily metaphysical and the answer is no since it is connected to human activity. You can only make some predictive inferences about buyoancy, but scientific attitude is actually always open to being proven wrong.

>No philosophy argues itself into existence based on pure rationalization or reason, they're all based on observations made about the world, even the ones that concern themselves primarily with the inner world.
But buyoancy is still pretty far up the chain of what you'd need to prove for a pure metaphysical entity. Rationally, you can't even prove thw world exist, neither can you reach buyoancy as independent from the process of scientific measuring. So, just because you have a model, doesn't mean you have a solid metaphysical entity. You didn't arrive there through reason, you were already a human doing something.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:12:08 2022 No.20956066

>>20956053
>since it is connected to human activity
This seems to be the core of your supposed point and why Bohr "gets it" but it's not some revelation you're bringing to the table. The map is not the territory, the Greeks did not seem confused about that, just you and a few retards in your circles.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:15:36 2022 No.20956078

>>20956053
>But can you not see that you are describing a scientific conduct before the discovery of any possible metaphysical assumption, and presenting the resulting scientific law as a metaphysical entity, even though it by no means need be such?
I've told you several times that this is a misrepresentation of what is occurring. You're just arguing in circles at this point and it isn't getting you anywhere new. No, when scientific observations become widely accepted it is because they are reliable and that IS evidence of some metaphysical basis (even if you plug your ears and say nononono), because it's the only thing we can rely on.

>Rationally, you can't even prove thw world exist, neither can you reach buyoancy as independent from the process of scientific measuring. So, just because you have a model, doesn't mean you have a solid metaphysical entity.
The reason this line of argumentation is functionally useless is because you have no alternative explanation. Science is always subject to change because as a system of discovery it is not presupposing anything. A person makes an observation, creates a hypothesis, tests it, and then we draw the conclusion. These tests are repeated infinitely. We are constantly observing them. They become reliable, but they are never presuppositions. This is why everyone is certain you're a liar and/or a brainlet.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:20:09 2022 No.20956100

>>20956018
Look. Ive known this guy for like weeks now. He's a christian who is basically buttblasted that atheist use scientific knowledge to discredit his beliefs. Why he mentions them like a schizo when the thread was not even about atheism.

The only reason he has to bury his nose in philosophy books is because just taking it on faith doesn't cut it anymore in 21st century. He doesn't seem to understand that it is not some atheist boogeyman that is shaking faith in his religion but the progress of history itself which will make shared beliefs in deities outdated. Technology is especially to blame. There's nothing he, I or anyone can do. Its simply the end of that era of thought.

As for what to do let me tell you one thing. Engaging with this schlock will certainly won't help. You will only be rubbing his nerd dog belly in an infinite back and forth of argument counterargument. And since they both will be Unfalsifiable it will lead nowhere. You will only be wasting your own energy.

At the end of the day he is no different from your average hillbilly christian. No matter what you do, argue your head out or not he will come out of it thinking that he won. And now his little peabrain has found the perfect circular loop to convince himself that science is a religion on the same level as his. That scientific insights are only as valid as theological ones. I only engage to have my fun at this point

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:23:39 2022 No.20956112 >>20954942 No, he didn't. /thread

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:24:47 2022 No.20956119

>>20956078
>No, when scientific observations become widely accepted it is because they are reliable and that IS evidence of some metaphysical basis (even if you plug your ears and say nononono), because it's the only thing we can rely on.
You're talking of "my circles", supposedly thinking I'm part of some sort of dawkinsians, yet you yourself make "bridges the ought-is" gap tier category errors in your thought? That's pretty hilarious desu, obviously you can't infer from statement of physics, which denotes all the scientific activity related to the field, a statement of METAphysics where its verity would be certain in some completely another context. No, it only exists as your perception, first of all, and as part of your sciencemaking. These are taken for granted behind your assumption, so saying you have somehow punctured them just by making a scientific statement is actually hilarious and something Sam Harris would say.

>They become reliable, but they are never presuppositions.
This is what I was trying to explain to the original guy I responded to, he was after all the one who demanded that science need to be metaphysical. However, I have over and over again proved that they can't be truly metaphysical since they are not accessible through pure reason or without reference to physics, or your perception, or your existence as a human being. All this is just taken for granted, but how could we say then it's anything metaphysical rather than a mode of activity?

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:29:02 2022 No.20956140

>>20956119
>You're talking of "my circles", supposedly thinking I'm part of some sort of dawkinsians, yet you yourself make "bridges the ought-is" gap tier category errors in your thought?
>All this is just taken for granted, but how could we say then it's anything metaphysical rather than a mode of activity?
Why don't we cut through your bullshit and you can tell to us exactly what your explanation for these natural phenomena might be?

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:31:29 2022 No.20956153

>>20956078
>No, when scientific observations become widely accepted it is because they are reliable and that IS evidence of some metaphysical basis

Imagine not understanding this simple point.

>But bro my beliefs shouldn't be put to the sane tests and standards bro its a different metaphysics than your bro.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:34:37 2022 No.20956173 >>20956140 It obviously depends on the natural phenomena in question: I' not going to list all of them here so you could try actually addressing my objections instead of using this dishonest "cut the bullshit" rhetoric

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:36:10 2022 No.20956181 Any sugarcubes?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:40:06 2022 No.20956198 >>20956173 >It obviously depends on the natural phenomena in question That's fine you can just explain buoyancy for me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:40:57 2022 No.20956204 >>20955073 >material universe every millisecond across billions of light years, since 13 billions years ago LOL. Temporal symmetry is the very reason why we have Heisenberg's principle in energy time ∆E*∆T = nh/2π Of course confirmed in experiments

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:41:17 2022 No.20956208 >>20956198 Buoyancy doesn't really require explanation, mate

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:43:57 2022 No.20956230

>>20956198
It's a physical phenomenon that has been repeatedly observed. It assumes on its background the verity of observation, verity of the world and other people and a host of others, so we can't access it independent of these factors, so we cannot just derive from it a metaphysical entity. I mean, I'm sure you will get a more detailed run-down of it on wikipedia, but then again your "explanation" that you so aggressively demand of me has been: metaphysics, it's metaphysic bro. thats the "explanation". I shouldn't have even answered this question considering how little you've brought to the table and how you refused to answer my previous post.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:44:57 2022 No.20956235 >>20955073 >Ask an atheist how a photon, stemming from the annihilation of an electrons (e–) and a positron (e+) , knows that it has to follow Maxwell's rules Anthropomorphing physical objects doesn't help anyone

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:55:35 2022 No.20956287 >>20955880 >Why do you care about that your sins are already forgiven. Thank the Lord, for I am a sinner and need forgiveness.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 20:58:43 2022 No.20956299 >>20955528 also interested in this

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:01:39 2022 No.20956313 >>20956100 Is this a joke or are you actually this illiterate?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:04:22 2022 No.20956331 >>20956208 You're a coward in every aspect.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:04:31 2022 No.20956333

>>20956230
Is it not useful to assume it works universally? If I don't assume that I won't go to places where my boat hasn't been tested before even if all the conditions seem right. The assumption is metaphysical, I used a map that contains metaphysical claims. The absolute truth is not what we're talking about.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:07:49 2022 No.20956339 >>20956230 You can't even claim reason as a high ground because you're blatantly begging the question.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:11:18 2022 No.20956355 >>20956313 Still buttblasted I see

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:13:17 2022 No.20956361 >>20956287 The brain of a religiotard is something to behold. Imagine chastising yourself like this over fiction

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:18:56 2022 No.20956390

>>20956333
>Is it not useful to assume it works universally?
If your estimation of the truth value of something is based on how useful it is, you're not actually doing metaphysics. You're not asking yourself anything related to the nature of reality, your "usefulness" is simply human activity. An inference that seems useful is not metaphysics, since it's a characteristic of physics simple as a science, as an activity: by definition, metaphysics would need to be something separate from such simply useful, in some sense of human activity, model making.

The difference is, science will never actually consider anything finally universal but leaves a possibility for other theories to replace it in the context of this human activity.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:19:58 2022 No.20956397

>>20956355
Can you relate anything you say to anything? Get specific like I do? Maybe one day actually say something? You live in your head with no relationship to reality. When confronted with anything that doesn't fit your preconceptions you lie to yourself. Any scientist would tell you retards to stop undermining science but you constantly appeal to it as if you know anything about it. >>20955765

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:22:39 2022 No.20956407

>>20955073
You're actually on to something.
Where do the laws come from?
They are random?
Randomness implies possibility, ascribed likelihoods, and a fair dice roll.

How do you envision other possibilities universes?
There must be countless chaotic systems in the realm of potential, but very few elegant and simple ones that produce increasing complexity.

The response that it is all just a huge coincidence seems implausible, and at least a multiverse would make more sense statistically speaking.

But a multiverse runs into the "First Cause" problem. There can be no infinite regress of universes, nor can there be an eternal process of universe generation.
The only multiverse theory that passes this test is something like M-Theory, where a prior Higher Dimension at one point collapsed and produced a multiverse.

But then you would have to believe in something like String Theory... it's a big mess for materialist if you really think about it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:22:47 2022 No.20956408 >>20956397 >You live in your head with no relationship to reality. If I didn't know that you have zero self awareness I would've assumed you to be a troll lmao

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:23:45 2022 No.20956411

>>20956390
>If your estimation of the truth value of something is based on how useful it is, you're not actually doing metaphysics.
That wasn't the entirety of his argument.
The difference is, science will never actually consider anything finally universal but leaves a possibility for other theories to replace it in the context of this human activity.
It doesn't try to, and again you're misrepresenting the thing you're arguing against. I still haven't heard what it is you're actually arguing for in this thread.
>>20956397
>Get specific like I do?
That's laughable. You roll around in the mud of generalizations like it were your balm against the cold reality that your religious beliefs are dying as so many have before.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:26:03 2022 No.20956421

>>20956390
>If your estimation of the truth value of something is based on how useful it is
You keep revealing new levels of derangement. You're actually doubling down again on the previous attacks on geometry and pretending "it's not really metaphysics if it relates to reality in any way".
If you assume the nature of reality beyond physics like by assuming the universality of physics you're not using physics to do that. It's a philosophical assumption that physics applies universally. It's a metaphysical map that we use because we find it maps well on to our experiences and allows us to do things like say, "the boat will work even on the other side of the planet", in fact the salinity levels there may make it sink but the principles still apparently apply universally..

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:27:36 2022 No.20956428

>>20956408
>>20956411
Why do you set yourselves up as these authorities on these subjects you don't know anything about? Where does the arrogance come from when you know in real life you're incompetent retards? Every competent scientist in real life would consider you braindead.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:29:06 2022 No.20956435 >>20956428 Can't you make any real assertions or arguments to replace science? You seem afraid to do so.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:31:01 2022 No.20956456

>BROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Pass the bong brooooooooo
>*INHALES*
>BROOOOOOOO DUDE Just look at this leaf broooooooo tHe LeAf
>Yeah brooooooooooo its so green n sheeeeit
>Duuuuuuude prepare for this
>suuuuure nigga ... bring them
>eVeRyThInGh Is LeAf brooooooooooooooo
>HOOOOOOLYYYYYY COOOOOOWWWW. That's fuckinn' DEEEEEEEPPPP Man. Tis all like metaphysical n sheeeeeeeeit. Eveything is leaf. Pass the bong man
>*INHALES*
>PUWAAAHHH *cough**cough* brooooo how will those materialist biologists ever recover brooo
>Brooooooo dey ded lmao

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:31:25 2022 No.20956458

>>20956435
The question is why are you pretending I'm against science? How are you this braindead and illiterate? It's you and your atheist friends that are pretending the history of science didn't happen and that every competent scientist in history was completely wrong about all their ideas about science.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:33:00 2022 No.20956469

>>20956411
>cold reality that your religious beliefs are dying
I haven't mentioned any religious beliefs and you're replying to an atheist retard.
>you don't need to mention religion I just know
So you're incapable of arguing even hypothetically. You're incapable of giving the benefit of the doubt to any premise that counters your preconceived ideas.
>The difference is, science will never actually consider anything finally universal
The difference between science and what? The difference between science and how you think? Yes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:34:16 2022 No.20956481 >>20956456 Do you represent the discipline of biology in any way? Even as a layman? You don't seem to have any grasp on any science but you pretend you're some authority on it.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:34:20 2022 No.20956483

>>20956421
>If you assume the nature of reality beyond physics like by assuming the universality of physics you're not using physics to do that.
It's not beyond physics to make a model of physics. That's actually what physics does. But the important thing is that this assumption can change with further observations and assumes no definitive importance. Moreover, this assumption is usually meaningless if we don't consider other points of the system of physics-activity: so they're not isolated facts either. Physics needs not make statements about the nature of reality.
>It's a metaphysical map that we use because we find it maps well on to our experiences and allows us to do things like say, "the boat will work even on the other side of the planet", in fact the salinity levels there may make it sink but the principles still apparently apply universally..
That's called an inference, not a principle. In time, inferences get verified by more and more observations and we accumulate scientific data. What's your point? It isn't the point of science to go "hehe I built this boat, it floats here, this means that IN PRINCIPLE it floats everywhere". In science, you actually look into it deeper to understand the sorts of conditions that allow for buyoancy, then, say, studying the waters of the world to find out if those conditions are fulfilled, and then making a judgement on this basis. If we thought metaphysically, we would be stuck with this stupid "principle of buyoancy" without any additional data about related conditions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:35:58 2022 No.20956494 >>20956458 >>20956469 Are you ever going to actually argue in favor of something because you're just shitting on science without really offering a replacement. I think that's just dishonest.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:39:06 2022 No.20956514

>>20956483
>hat's actually what physics does.
Why do you just say these things? Why not just read a book about the history of science or something?
>assumes no definitive importance
That's a difference you imposed to reduce everything you argue against to nonsense.
>Physics needs not make statements about the nature of reality.
It's all it does. It's a description of our observations of parts of reality based on a few philosophical assumptions like having the ability to map those rules.
>That's called an inference
Another metaphysical idea.
>What's your point?
That you're discussing philosophy while talking about how useless philosophy is because we already have it all figured out thanks to philosophy. The point is retards like you are completely useless. You know nothing about science or how to think about any subject. Learn how to and then post.
>>20956494
Point to one place where I shit on science. You'll point to a post by your atheist friend.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:47:10 2022 No.20956550
File: 16 KB, 400x239, images (77).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

My my these little atheist materialist scientists doing their little satanic experiments in labs have found themselves in a knot heh heh heh. They are now stuck with multiple universes and string theory and what not heh heh. Poor fools don't know what they are doing. What illogical nonsense heh

By the way here's a bearded guy in the sky and here's his book. He's the first cause of everything because we need it because I said so. If you don't follow his book you will die and burn forever in hell. And this is all 100% logical proven without doubt American Standard Institute approved fact.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:48:46 2022 No.20956564

>>20956514
>Why do you just say these things? Why not just read a book about the history of science or something?
Making a scientific model of physical phenomena is what PHYSICS does. Insane to deny that.
>It's a description of our observations of parts of reality based on a few philosophical assumptions like having the ability to map those rules.
No, it's not, you're simply ignorant of science. Physics is the study of the behavior matter, light etc. in certain conditions that are testable. From there you accumulate data about those conditions, not about anything else, but those specific conditions under investigation. The result is not a clear picture of "nature of reality", in fact those terms do not figure into doing physics at all.

>Another metaphysical idea.
Well, I will correct myself: uncertain inference, as we're obviously not talking about dead-sure logical inference. Inference in the meaning of: we do not know, might be, let's find out. That's not metaphysics.

The only reason this needs to be discussed is because of the confusion of philosophotards. You can say "criticizing philosophy is philosophy" but that's facile. Criticizing dangerous monotheistic-derived delusions and their imposition on any issue does not belong to a tradition of Western philosophy, but fair: if i do philosophy, it is only to dismantle the importance of western philosophy and its monotheism-induced traditions. Only philosophy has convinced everyone of its presuppositions so well that I can't just oppose it on the same principle I oppose the monotheistic religions.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:52:33 2022 No.20956587

>>20956469
>>The difference is, science will never actually consider anything finally universal
>The difference between science and what? The difference between science and how you think? Yes.
That was not something I said, that was something I was replying to. I didn't format it correctly.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:54:23 2022 No.20956599 >anti-science has reduced itself to insults, misrepresentations, and generalizations again Many such cases

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 21:56:09 2022 No.20956608

>>20956564
>No, it's not,
>not a clear picture
You add these qualifiers for no reason except to make your position reasonable and any other seem unreasonable. There's no need for it even if I didn't explicitly tell you many times that I agree that the map is not the territory. You keep pretending I don't understand that. Why? Physics is like a map of physical things, philosophical ideas are like a map of rules that are not contained within physics, like the rules needed to put together the physical models in the first place.
>you're simply ignorant of science
Again I ask where you get these ideas from? Why do you think you know anything about science? I gave you a meme picture with multiple accomplished scientists disagreeing with you. Where did you get this higher level knowledge of science not even the greatest scientists or any historian of science has access to?
>Criticizing dangerous monotheistic-derived
This is all you got. You have vague conditioned associations with burger Christianity and sperg out as predictably as Pavlov's dog whenever you feel any hint of association. You can't begin to think due to derangement from this conditioning. You're a sect of burger Christians, an anti-burger-Christian that sees everything in those terms.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 22:06:48 2022 No.20956644

>>20956608
>Physics is like a map of physical things
No it's not, since, what the hell would that even look like? The map-analogy is flawed because there is no single clear entity to be represented: nobody can see the whole universe from a bird's eye view point as a representational entity. That is precisely why I talk of science as behaviour, whose quirks do not refer to anything metaphysical since they've developed alongside, given that even geometry wouldn't exist in absence of physical reference. You try to treat physics as some weird hole where philosophical things are needed as essential elements, but the the geometric models are too based on other types of human activity. So there's nothing of the metaphysical about them, since there's no access to any of those ideas without non-metaphysical activity. Geometry was never application of metaphysical ideas given representationally, but an invention of them as the process of human activity went on: but as such I wouldn't call them metaphysical in the sense that Platonists would use the term when they say shit like "mathematical equations rule the universe"

>Again I ask where you get these ideas from?
The sad fact is that a lot of scientists even are brainwashed by philosophy: doesn't mean science is inherently metaphysical lmao.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 22:07:58 2022 No.20956650

Does the religious apologist even realise that he is not the first one to make "World's leading scientists(tm) agree with me bro" arguments. Infact this is a well known troupe in religious apologetics. Just say that most nobel prize winners adhered to some religious institution and voila. Its the same tier of low level thinking repackaged for the context

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 22:16:02 2022 No.20956685

>>20956650
The original pic was cherry picked to hell. Even the pop science people are smarter than the stooge who made it.
>read about the history of science bro
We learn about the history of science to show ourselves how much we've grown in knowledge and the mistakes we made. Just because some scientists said something years ago, doesn't mean it holds true now or that it is anything more than a matter of perspective. It's weak and half-assed and really reveals a lot about the people who cling to them.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 22:16:23 2022 No.20956686

>>20956361
I chastise myself for the grievous acts I have committed in life that no person can forgive me for, even ones that no person has knowledge of. The only forgiveness I can find is in God, for God is the only one who knows me fully.
It isn't foolishness to be aware of my own guilt, and admit to my own shortcomings. Ignorance is bliss, and if you'd rather the bliss of not acknowledging your own faults and errors, I do not blame you, but I do pity you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 22:21:54 2022 No.20956718 >>20956686 It's always hilarious to me when someone on 4chan talks like this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 22:24:57 2022 No.20956726 >>20956686 I'd rather that if I've sinned then God may strike me down with lightning where I stand(or rather lay)

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 22:33:58 2022 No.20956768

>>20956718
and it's always pitiable to me when fools believe themselves to be blameless
>>20956726
surely you have sinned before, yet you lay unstruck
rejoice in the fugitive life you still have, and do what you can while you hold it
the grave is nearing us all, it doesn't matter if you're wise or foolish, righteous or sinner
dust we are, and to dust we will return, why hope (even in jest) to hurry that?
make good with the portion you've been given of this world, and do your best to care for yourself and those around you

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 22:34:20 2022 No.20956770

>>20956644
>there is no single clear entity to be represented
That's why it works. You don't include everything in a map or it wouldn't be a map, it would be the thing. You don't care about engaging with any meaning, just pretending philosophers in general don't understand something you just figured out last week.
>given that even geometry wouldn't exist in absence of physical reference
But still the geometric forms don't actually exist in physical reality. Geometry maps on reality but it is not reality. Words and symbols reference things, they are not the things themselves.
>You try to treat physics as some weird hole where philosophical things are needed as essential elements
I just try to get you to actually think instead of mindlessly appealing to conditioning and words as if the words are the thing. There are things beyond physics, philosophy tries to describe some of them. Part of the result of those inquiries was the scientific method.
You have no interest in understanding what different "platonists" might have been actually thinking for example, like Heisenberg in the meme image. You just want to associate people like him and what he says with the boogey man burger christianity for some reason.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 22:37:32 2022 No.20956785

>>20956650
>World's leading scientists(tm) agree with me bro" arguments
You are the retards who keep appealing to science and pretending any hint of disagreement with your "atheistic" religious dogma is anti-science but you don't demonstrate any understanding of it or its history. I asked you a million times where you get these ideas. I never heard any serious scientist say anything even slightly close. No scholars who seriously discuss the history of science dismiss it all like you do. So what are you talking about? Why do you think you know anything about science? Where are you getting this mindless shit from?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 22:38:57 2022 No.20956789 >>20956685 >The original pic was cherry picked to hell. You actually think this braindead anti philosophy shit was dominant among serious scientists in history? What are you retards talking about?

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 22:40:19 2022 No.20956793

>>20956770
You're trying to take a single philosophical opinion shared by a few scientists and assert that it must be accepted by all scientists, but even in your meme image (which is trying to say the ones who disagree are stupid) there are scientists who don't hold those same ideals. You're so blatantly anti-science but you're too much if a coward to come out and say what you actually believe.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 22:42:01 2022 No.20956799 >>20956789 That's not what I said. You are actually illiterate and dishonest.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 22:47:41 2022 No.20956813

>>20956793
>You're trying to take a single philosophical opinion shared by a few scientists and assert that it must be accepted by all scientists
Am I? Why do you keep making shit like this up? Why can't you just engage with something actually said?
>because u r bad christian guy
ok
>You're so blatantly anti-science but you're too much if a coward to come out and say what you actually believe.
Yet you feel the need to lie about what I say and make up positions for some reason. For some reason you can't just engage with the actual points presented. I appreciate science and respect the philosophy of science enough to at least not lie. Why do you constantly lie? Can you point at one instance of me doing anything close to as dishonest as you're doing here?
>>20956799
And then you pretend I'm lying about your position when I'm asking you to clarify. What the fuck is that post supposed to mean? I posted the meme to point out this braindead anti-philosophical stance is not representative of anything to do with science.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 22:51:20 2022 No.20956826 >>20956813 >And then you pretend I'm lying about your position when I'm asking you to clarify. Because you are blatantly lying. Neither of your requests for clarification were legitimate. You just want to act incredulous and call people retarded.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 22:57:30 2022 No.20956850

>>20956826
>lying
In the previous post where I point out your lies they are demonstrable. You are misrepresenting me and I can know that for sure.
>Neither of your requests for clarification were legitimate.
This is you again pretending you can read my mind, ignoring everything said to argue with the evil bad guy you made up in your head. I call you a retard because you're retarded but I'm really not unfair. As soon as you say something remotely coherent that shows you actually think I do give you credit for that.

In every post for like 20 posts I asked you to clarify where you get these anti-philosophical ideas you present as representative of how science works. How you know all this about science that was not presented to me in anything I ever read. Can you point me to anyone that can communicate what you think you're saying better? I can point you to any book about the history of science or the philosophy of science, even a shitty one would give you some idea and you won't be talking about things you don't know anything about.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 22:58:15 2022 No.20956854 >>20954942 Relativity remaining applicable being what explains virtual particles being possible is literally a proof of transcendental idealism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 22:59:08 2022 No.20956857 >>20956850 I haven't lied once. You've been quite dishonest about your intentions this entire time.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:01:14 2022 No.20956869

>>20956770
>You don't include everything in a map or it wouldn't be a map, it would be the thing. You don't care about engaging with any meaning, just pretending philosophers in general don't understand something you just figured out last week.
lmao no, a map always REPRESENTS a MAPPED area. Reality is not a mapped area that could be laid out even in theory, in science you can create test conditions and accumulate information but you can't make even a single pronouncement about "reality" based on mere science.
>But still the geometric forms don't actually exist in physical reality. Geometry maps on reality but it is not reality. Words and symbols reference things, they are not the things themselves.
How could geometry map something that is unknown beforehand? Unknown territory can't be mapped, and we have no necessarily neutral way to approach something like "reality" so as to map it. Our activity is already there messing with it. Does that mean science can't work? No, but it does mean we shouldn't draw from it anywhere near religious or philosophical conclusions. And this should not be taken to encourage philosophy, since philosophy certainly doesn't have any better metaphysical alternative beyond this kind of workability: it will never solve the problem of perception or solipsism. They don't progress because it's more of an amusement of the idle and the attempt to fossilize their eliterianism than something that could ever arise in practical life
>There are things beyond physics, philosophy tries to describe some of them. Part of the result of those inquiries was the scientific method
Ah, yes, the same scientific method that philosophers and theologians, the supporters of metaphysics, so violently tried to suppress in Galileo's time. I guess that's all part of the philosophical search you're talking about.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:01:45 2022 No.20956871

>>20956857
>You're trying to take a single philosophical opinion shared by a few scientists and assert that it must be accepted by all scientists
Here's a provable example of a misrepresentation, when I correct it and you refuse to acknowledge that it turns from what could be an honest mistake into a blatant lie.
>that's not me
Why are you doing this? How can you be this deranged?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:03:20 2022 No.20956877 >>20956854 The second post said GR refuted Kant, but you say it proves transcendental materialism. Can we please talk about this instead of feeding the butthurt Christfag?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:06:21 2022 No.20956887 >>20956871 You didn't correct anything. You acted incredulous and called everyone a retard. You are still trying to lie to gain some moral high ground. It won't work.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:06:29 2022 No.20956888

>>20956869
>lmao no
You don't want to engage with any meaning. lmao yes, the parts that are mapped are mapped. A rough outline of the island is a useful tool to navigate it but it doesn't come close to representing the entirety of it, it's still correct.
>but you can't make even a single pronouncement about "reality" based on mere science.
Who are you arguing against? Who ever made such a braindead claim except some braindead atheist zoomer?
>something something false dichotomy between philosophy and science
The method comes from philosophy.
>so violently tried to suppress in Galileo's time
And you will keep lying to yourself that you don't base your entire worldview on shitty pop media memes and nothing else.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:07:22 2022 No.20956892 >>20956854 Can we talk more about that instead of feeding the butthurt Christfag?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:12:18 2022 No.20956904 >>20956854 How? I'm genuinely interested. Because it seems relativity is somehow both btfoing and proving TI in this thread

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:12:44 2022 No.20956906

>>20956888
>A rough outline of the island is a useful tool to navigate it but it doesn't come close to representing the entirety of it, it's still correct.
Yes, but reality isn't an "island". It's a concept of a completely different order and something that's quite useless in science.
>Who are you arguing against? Who ever made such a braindead claim except some braindead atheist zoomer?
You yourself have been making these "mapping reality", "physics is about the NATURE of REALITY" comments throughout this thread, so now you're just lying. That's what's so funny, you don't even realize you have such a desultory grasp on everything you talk about that you end up sounding like the people who are supposed to be your worst opponents.
>The method comes from philosophy.
No it doesn't.
>And you will keep lying to yourself that you don't base your entire worldview on shitty pop media memes and nothing else.
Says the guy who's bought into the atenic monotheistic worship meme and think he's speaking against the degeneration when you are covertly actually just controlled opposition on the side of monotheism-rationalism synthesis (Hegel, European Union etc.)

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:13:54 2022 No.20956909

>>20956887
>You didn't correct anything.
Again I will work from your own premises despite not really being convinced, that's thinking, being able to consider hypotheticals. Let's say I didn't correct your misconceptions, I'm correcting you now but why did I need to correct you in the first place? Why is there no attempt from your end to engage with the posts themselves? Only replies to the evil Christian you imagine despite me not hinting at a defense at any Christian ideas in this thread? I am sincerely asking why you can't even consider the idea hypothetically that I'm not shilling some preconceived conclusion? I want actual thought. Retards like you pollute everything so the obvious solution is to try to help you and the best way to do that if you have some hint of sincerity and curiosity is call out your retardation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:14:09 2022 No.20956910 File: 273 KB, 1002x1600, A4C47113-3706-4B5F-89D3-E111889D577B.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:15:52 2022 No.20956914

>>20956850
>This is you again pretending you can read my mind, ignoring everything said to argue with the evil bad guy you made up in your head.
>>20956871
>>that's not me
>Why are you doing this? How can you be this deranged?
>>20956813
>>because u r bad christian guy
>ok
Suck my dick you lying hypocrite faggot.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:19:52 2022 No.20956922

>>20956906
>but reality isn't an "island"
The problems you're pointing out are analogous, the entirety can't be contained in a map. It also accounts for the human-centric thing, it obviously should contain things that help you navigate the world over those that have no significance.
>but you can't make even a single pronouncement about "reality" based on mere science.
Which is what the map analogy says.
You also can't make a definite claim about the entirety of the island based on a map of it but you can test how far the map works. When you say there's a mountain at that location that represents something real despite us having no real idea what a mountain ultimately and absolutely is.
>who's bought into the atenic monotheistic worship meme
Can you tell me what you're referencing? The idea that philosophy is useful?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:21:46 2022 No.20956925 Ok I'll make a bet. 100$ says that the apologists has never seen the inside of a lab.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:22:07 2022 No.20956926

>>20956909
I can tell you're being dishonest because all of your loaded questions are irrelevant and only serve to sweep us further away from the main point, and the further we are from you actually having to make a point, the easier it is for you. I wish you were smart enough to figure out by now that I'm not going to play your game.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:26:12 2022 No.20956939

>>20956922
No but it's not just the fact that the representation is inadequate: it's also that representation even as an inadequate blob of reality, in theory, would be impossible due to the factor of your own perspective and being-in-the-world, to use Heideggerian terminology. So "mapping" is just a horrible analogy for science, it's more like gathering data about certain specific conditions.

>how far the map works. When you say there's a mountain at that location that represents something real despite us having no real idea what a mountain ultimately and absolutely is.
Yes but then the map isn't any kind of metaphysical entity, any more than a name, replaceable easily with another one, is. In monotheistic religions, though, naming has achieved a godly status, and so in Judaism the names are actually revealed, they are hold divine power in themselves. This is actually the logical end result of trying to think metaphysically.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:28:19 2022 No.20956948

>>20956914
If you want me to engage with something hypothetically you have to present something, a coherent idea that's possible to explore. Demands that I admit I hate science when I don't aren't close to that.
>>20956925
I'm not a scientist but at least I read a bit of history of science. One book brought up a lot of different perspectives but no variant of this anti-philosophy stance. Every coherent perspective says philosophy and science are intertwined. I asked many times for some elaboration that's not just calling all philosophy "atenism" or whatever.
>>20956926
What is the point? Doesn't the discussion start with some shit about philosophy being useless? Some kind of false dichotomy between philosophy and science you made up because you associate philosophy with your boogey man?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:34:57 2022 No.20956967 >>20956948 You're another faggot who only half-reads posts before responding. Can you please learn how to read a full post before launching into your autistic tirades?

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:35:42 2022 No.20956970

>>20956939
>the factor of your own perspective
Is just as relevant to mapping as already mentioned.
>the map isn't any kind of metaphysical entity
That wasn't the argument. The point was that philosophical claims are attempts to map elements of reality that aren't mappable by physics. You previously presented some idea of philosophy as "pure reason" disconnected from all testability or functionality. That's the source of the false dichotomy.
>any more than a name, replaceable easily with another one
It's not a name, it contains information about the underlying reality, not it's ultimate nature but how it relates to the people that made the map.
>This is actually the logical end result of trying to think metaphysically.
It seems to me your god is just some vague idea about how science works despite never bothering to check how science works. People will place something as the most important thing, so far I've seen better arguments for having an ideal as that thing instead of some specific physical thing or a specific method.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:37:02 2022 No.20956974 >>20956948 >I'm not a scientist Enough said. Just like how only women should get have a say about women’s issues, only scientists get to have a say about scientific issues.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:37:38 2022 No.20956978 >>20956967 Why can't you reference what you're talking about? You avoid elaborating like the plague because the goal seems to be just to spread confusion.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:40:10 2022 No.20956987

>>20956970
>The point was that philosophical claims are attempts to map elements of reality that aren't mappable by physics.
Again, I'm opposing this whole mapping analogy of yours. Reality isn't a present-at-hand thing that's mappable. Heidegger proved it. So what now? He probably would've demolished even the rest of the illusions of western philosophy had he finished his work.

>It's not a name, it contains information about the underlying reality, not it's ultimate nature but how it relates to the people that made the map.
Yet there can be many types of maps with different emphases, with respect to utility in human action. Once it is disconnected from the human action and perception, it does become completely meaningless.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:40:28 2022 No.20956989

>>20956877
Law of Conservation is unnecessary at the lowest level of physical explanation if you keep Relativity. It's just that contrary to intuition, it shows rather that processes with mass can appear within T ~0 with E ~0, rather than showing that it cannot be.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:41:50 2022 No.20956994 >>20956974 You are not a scientist. You don't know anything about science. Mindlessly applying methods you didn't even bother to look up the basic history of doesn't make you an authority on anything but you haven't even applied the methods mindlessly.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:46:46 2022 No.20957009 >>20956994 I am a Scientist. My degree is from Reddit.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:46:49 2022 No.20957011
File: 25 KB, 584x532, perspectivetruth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20956987
>Again, I'm opposing this whole mapping analogy of yours
If you can't even accept the basics I'm pointing at with the map analogy, the separation of the symbols from the thing then there's no discussion possible.
>a present-at-hand thing
A thing that changes over time is still mappable. We usually use the word models which is an analogy to a 3d map. They can be any number of dimensions.
>there can be many types of maps with different emphases
Exactly. Perspectives to an underlying reality.
>it does become completely meaningless.
But the mountain is still there. It's form as a mountain is not relevant to anyone but the underlying phenomena is there.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:46:55 2022 No.20957012 >>20956989 Uncertainity does not refute law of conservation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:47:45 2022 No.20957017 >>20956994 >p-please don't argue against me like I'm the Christian boogeyman, you don't know me, you made it up in your head >You are not a scientist. God damn take your meds.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:50:14 2022 No.20957031 >>20956978 Maybe if you weren't so illiterate you wouldn't need someone to spell it all out to you. The other guy is wiping the floor with you btw.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:51:02 2022 No.20957035 Platonism and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:52:16 2022 No.20957044 >>20957035 Plato was indeed retarded. Sad that so many smart men succumbed to it. I guess nobody is perfect and we shouldn't put any of them on a pedestal and simply judge the ideas for their own merits.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:54:28 2022 No.20957055 >>20957017 Just correct me if I'm wrong retard. You were wrong in your braindead predictions. Am I? Do you really have a job where you pretend you're a scientist? Are you simply going to lie?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:56:52 2022 No.20957066 >>20957055 I'm sorry about your autism anon. I know we're supposed to take extra care to make sure you understand simple things.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:57:07 2022 No.20957068 >>20957031 Can you spell it out for me? The most coherent atheist stereotype in the thread so far is the one actively arguing against science.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:58:13 2022 No.20957071 >>20957068 He isn't, but I guess it's rhetorically beneficial for you to frame it that way, dishonest though it is.

Anonymous Wed Sep 7 23:59:50 2022 No.20957075

>>20957066
What is the goal with misrepresenting science and everything said to you? The only possible reasons all have to do with emotional issues and you keep going to your resentment about your Christian dad or whatever which reinforces that idea in my mind.
>>20957071
He is kind of saying something and clearly read a bit. You retards are not and have not. You're completely incapable.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 00:04:58 2022 No.20957108

>>20957011
>But the mountain is still there. It's form as a mountain is not relevant to anyone but the underlying phenomena is there.
Not relevant to the map-discussion really... So what if the mountain would be still there?
>Exactly. Perspectives to an underlying reality.
Still nothing to do with nature of reality, and at any rate, that reality only exists as perceived, as traversed, as used. We do not have access to reality that wouldn't already be a part of our practicality. But accumulating data in order to increase one's wellbeing is hardly metaphysical. The practical activity is not automatically accompanied by making a metamap of it and mistakenly using the mapping analogy and falling to metaphysics. It's mostly from the monotheistic mind virus and the idea of the Absolute, which submits everything else to its rigidity.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 00:09:00 2022 No.20957128

>>20957075
You've been accused of misrepresenting science several times because you are. You've also pretended to be multiple posters so you can shift gears when your original arguments were panning out, and but the metaargument is still there. Why can't you just engage honestly? Why is it so important to you to deligitimize science?

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 00:13:02 2022 No.20957152

>>20957108
>So what if the mountain would be still there?
Some properties of reality philosophy tries to model are still there if the human is gone. Some "metaphysical" things are something and not nothing. Our perspectives on those things are inherently flawed but those things are still there.
>We do not have access to reality that wouldn't already be a part of our practicality
Who claims we do? We only know what we have access to but what we have access to is still part of reality.
>not automatically accompanied by making a metamap of it
They started doing it formally and shortly after math and rough science was developed as a result. If you don't analyze things outside physics you won't actually advance our ideas of the world, the maps will never improve.
>>20957128
>You've been accused of misrepresenting science several times because you are
How am I misrepresenting it? By tying it to philosophy? I told you that's just what I read and what makes sense and what most scientists say. I then ask what you base your counter claims on. Where is it from? It seems to me to be based on just purely operating based on pop media brainwashing but please correct me.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 00:19:39 2022 No.20957192

>>20957128
>You've also pretended to be multiple posters
Can you point to one example of this? You mean when I make multiple replies like this? I do not mean to pretend. I thought it was obvious.
>Why can't you just engage honestly?
It's very important to me that I do. Can you help me understand you honestly? Why do you do this?
>Why is it so important to you to deligitimize science?
Is this an example of honesty? You know I don't. Seems like you're doing an epic funny troll or hiding your attempts to disrupt honest communication under a veneer of le epic trolling.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 00:23:20 2022 No.20957214

>>20957192
>>20957152
This is exactly the kind of shit I called you out for a long time ago. You read half a post and fucking respond to it. It's kind of hard to fucking communicate when you won't even read a whole post before responding and then you come back later responding to the rest. At this point I don't care if it's been a fucking accident or misunderstanding. I tried to call you out for it a long time ago but you were stuck in your bullheaded rhetorical questioning bullshit because you got your head too far up your ass.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 00:26:10 2022 No.20957234

>>20957214
>You read half a post and fucking respond to it
I read the entire post but replied to the first part in one and the second part in another.
The misrepresenting science claim and the multiple poster claim are completely separate. You can engage with the point about misrepresent science while I reply to your point about multiple posters.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 00:28:01 2022 No.20957247 >>20957234 >I read the entire post but replied to the first part in one and the second part in another. That's fucking incongruent to anonymous posting. Quit making excuses for yourself, otherwise you don't give a shit about "being corrected."

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 00:32:07 2022 No.20957273

>>20957214
>I tried to call you out for it a long time ago
I did ask for clarification. You can call it all a "misunderstanding" but you really are the one refusing to read honestly.
>>20957247
>That's fucking incongruent to anonymous posting
I disagree and already gave you my reasons. You can also ask for clarification like I did many times. When I do it they go unanswered but notice what happened here, you actually tried a tiny bit and suddenly some tiny bit of communication happened.
>excuses
For your retardation? For you refusing to ask for clarification?

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 00:41:00 2022 No.20957325

>>20957152
>Some properties of reality philosophy tries to model are still there if the human is gone
No, you can't know that, if you're going to make a proper philosophy. That's a completely baseless assumption philosophically speaking.
>We only know what we have access to but what we have access to is still part of reality
The term "reality" would then very problematic and unclear in its reference, as would the mapping analogue, since your action is a part of reality and mapping it meanwhile you perform it is highly problematic.
>If you don't analyze things outside physics you won't actually advance our ideas of the world, the maps will never improve.
Outside of physics is different than metaphysics, for example biology is not metaphysics, neither is media analysis. Is mathematics, on a similar note? We can see that even history of mathematics is incomprehensible without practicality, and that it is more probable that the concepts of 1 and 2 had some roots in spatial perception of distance and consequent perception of, say, pebbles, rather than whatever meanings Plato and pythagoras and various other numerologists ascribed to them later. So is mathematics distinct from perception, existing independently on a platonic plane? We can hardly say that, since we lack the necessary perspective for it, being already in the world.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 00:46:44 2022 No.20957352 >>20954942 Einstein was an idiot and wrong about every claim he ever made.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 00:53:59 2022 No.20957397

>>20957325
>that's a completely baseless assumption
It's included as an assumption in all the best map I have. Computers run even if there isn't a person in the room, I can test that. The information doesn't have any relevance without a user but the physical things and the logic they represent still remain as something.
>problematic
Everyone reasonable already knows this. We don't know anything, everything is a problem and the more you "know" the more "problematic" everything is. Thinking everyone but your specific brand of philosophy is being dogmatic unlike you the only one with all the answers is always hiding in the background, hidden assumptions, likely from burger Christianity.
>biology
Is still under physics despite being a different discipline, it's about physical bodies which could in theory be described entirely using physics.
>mathematics is incomprehensible without practicality
Like maps, the alternative where we try to understand "everything" equally at all times doesn't make any sense.
>so is mathematics distinct from perception, existing independently on a platonic plane
There are some kind of rules that dictate our math that exist independently or the math wouldn't run consistently like in computers. There's also the way "cupness" can precede time, the cup is arbitrarily defined by human needs but those needs rest in the same rule definitions as everything else. Given a deterministic world the entire framework that defined the cup like everything else existed before time.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 01:06:38 2022 No.20957442 >>20957273 The only retard here is you.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 01:14:01 2022 No.20957460

>>20957397
>in all the best map I have.
That's not really philosophy, you're just describing some kind of common sense. In philosophy, you can't just assume that things really continue to be there after your perception, you have to work out these problems with arguments. Even Kant at least tried to prove that there is something like that.
>Thinking everyone but your specific brand of philosophy is being dogmatic
You keep claiming philosophy yourself, but then you just run up on dogma. Not even the ultimate dogma behind philosophy, but actual dogmatic stuff like insistence on naive realism just because it "works" as if that would be philosophy. This is because you desperately want to connect metaphysics, philosophy and scientific thinking.
>it's about physical bodies which could in theory be described entirely using physics.
well, you didnt continue this line of argument otherwise, but this seems obviously false since then sociology would be physics too since humans could in theory be described entirely using physics.
>Like maps, the alternative where we try to understand "everything" equally at all times doesn't make any sense.
If it is rooted in practicality and perception, how could it have a self-existence as a metaphysical entity?
>There are some kind of rules that dictate our math that exist independently or the math wouldn't run consistently like in computers.
We created the computers, though. We also have applications of other systems which we can make things work with, like
>Mathematical framework and rules of paraconsistent logic have been proposed as the activation function of an artificial neuron in order to build a neural network for function approximation, model identification, and control with success.[18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic#Applications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_mathematics

If the ability "to make something work" was reflective of metaphysical truth, classical logic and math based on it would be metaphysically "true" at the same time as paraconsistent logic, leading I guess to a victory for the paraconsistent logic...but then what would explain the earlier success in workability?

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 01:15:27 2022 No.20957466

>>20957442
I constantly offer you ways to sincerely engage. I would think if you cared about anything you would. I can only make sense of this is as a tantrum based on emotional issues. Can you correct me on that or anything? The confrontations are mainly meant as rhetorical devices, it shouldn't matter if you believe me or not on that. You could see these confrontations as opportunities to hone your analytical skills or writing skills or something instead of crying about your Christian dad beating you in threads that have nothing to do with that.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 01:33:42 2022 No.20957529

>>20957460
>In philosophy, you can't just assume
That's exactly what you can do. Kant wants to "prove" that based on other unprovable assumptions because he likes certain assumptions over others.
>just because it "works" as if that would be philosophy
You said yourself mathematics is incomprehensible without practicality. There is a variation of that kind of appeal to practicality behind every assumption in philosophy and that includes math. Assume points and lines exist and you get math. It's based on drawings.
>desperately want to connect metaphysics, philosophy and scientific thinking.
I don't understand how I can disconnect them. I have to conceive of an alternative history where things aren't necessarily caused by preceding causes or something, methods just appear fully formed without anyone needing to really think or make any assumptions.
>how could it have a self-existence as a metaphysical entity?
Given a deterministic world that has some origin, perception and subjective practicality would be included in the total of the pre-temporal entity, the realm where "cupness" exists in some "form". This supposed realm includes definitions for the thing and the observer and their relationship and how relationships in general work etc.
>We created the computers
Yes but that they run means the ideas behind them map in some way onto some underlying reality. There are some rules or something we are interfacing with otherwise we could make up computers that work any way we want, they only work if we align with the rules that allow for computers.
>Paraconsistent
Even if this was a completely different form of logic which it isn't both ideas would still be representing some parts or facets of some rules or whatever that really are somehow in some capacity.
The map analogy always helps, like Einstein gives a more complete map of gravity than Newton but both maps are still correct. It depends on what you need, what is relevant to your goals which map is more useful.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 01:35:02 2022 No.20957535 >>20954942 https://youtu.be/MO0r930Sn_8 Nah.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 01:39:11 2022 No.20957549

>>20957460
>In philosophy, you can't just assume that things really continue to be there after your perception, you have to work out these problems with arguments.
You're arguing dogmatically from a specific philosophical viewpoint. There are arguments that things exist even when we don't perceive them. They measurably change in our absence, their effects can still be felt as events set in motion outside of our periphery reach us and affect us.

>This is because you desperately want to connect metaphysics, philosophy and scientific thinking.
He's not the one being dogmatic. Science is a philosophy, it does describe observed phenomena and can accurately describe them, and that does tell us something of a metaphysical basis. They are inextricably linked.

>humans could in theory be described entirely using physics.
I don't think physics would have any problem describing all human interactions. Can you explain why you think it couldn't?

>If it is rooted in practicality and perception, how could it have a self-existence as a metaphysical entity?
Its existence is independent of its practicality or our perception. It simply is. We are the ones who perceive it and create use for it.

>We created the computers, though.
That's completely inconsequential to whether the math works and if it would work independently of us. If math didn't work, then systems built on it wouldn't function.

>>20957466
Anybody who doesn't engage with you seriously is way smarter than me.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 01:49:07 2022 No.20957572

>>20957549
>Anybody who doesn't engage with you seriously is way smarter than me.
I'm the guy you're agreeing with in the rest of your post. Sociology could probably theoretically be described by physics. "Atheism" is still a retarded pop phenomena rooted in burger style Christianity.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 01:58:25 2022 No.20957595

>>20957572
I know you two are taking this conversation seriously, but that other guy has been saying the same thing over and over again since almost the beginning of the thread and you've been circling around the same points, just reiterating them in different ways. The problem is that science is never gonna scratch that itch that there's something fundamental that we can't explain beyond observation (which is likely true). You aren't meeting him on that level because he's literally making it impossible for empirical observations because they are all filtered through our subjective perspective. Personally I agree that's not enough to discount an objective reality which can be described by science, but that's not enough for him.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 02:24:28 2022 No.20957675
File: 2.04 MB, 640x480, 1646248542031.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20957595
>you've been circling around the same points
I notice the pattern. These sort of meta points tend to be more interesting and relevant than discussing tired old ideas with endless baggage. We also went around in circles about the map analogy but I think he eventually understood what I meant. The circling around a point can work and eventually clarify things enough so we can move on. I think the map analogy is very useful to clarify what people trying to understand existence in any way are trying to do.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 03:28:26 2022 No.20957901

>>20955073
It paints a pathetic picture when you have to hide your god in places where science can't see, but saying you don't know this or that is not debunking anything. You can ask these 'why' question about god too, why create atoms even, why even bother with quantum mechanics? Thing is you don't have anything to contribute either, only speculation.
I prefer to look at the picture we already have, at things we already know. We can't say why descriptive laws are the way that they are, but we can say that it appears that humans are a by-product of matter following these laws, rather than their end goal, or that it was made to look that way to conceal intent. Otherwise god would have had to create an enormous universe, most of which no one will ever see, and toyed with millions of different species of beetles and insects for billions of years before arriving at humans, that doesn't suggest intent.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 03:48:11 2022 No.20957963

>>20957549
>They measurably change in our absence,
You can’t know this. For all you know, things were simply reconstructed to you in consciousness the next time you perceived them.
>their effects can still be felt as events set in motion outside of our periphery reach us and affect us.
If they were outside of of your periphery, you wouldn’t know that they were reaching and affecting you.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 03:58:57 2022 No.20957989

>>20957963
>For all you know, things were simply reconstructed to you in consciousness the next time you perceived them.
You can't know this either. I'd like to know your alternative explanation. So far nobody arguing down this path has actually offered up their own beliefs or explanations for reality as we experience it, just questioning the systems we already have.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 04:02:56 2022 No.20957995 >>20957989 I’m not the guy you were arguing with. I just wanted to soften your dogmatic convictions a little bit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 04:07:25 2022 No.20958000 >>20957995 I didn't say you were, and I didn't even imply it, but sure if you say so.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 06:55:05 2022 No.20958304

Personally speaking
>nothing is real bro, we live in a matrix bro. Just drop the dogma

Is a shit tier useless argument that doesn't help anyone with anything. Sure it can help philosophers make up more imaginary scenarios for what things truly are but it has nothing to do with physics

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 07:37:26 2022 No.20958366 and they brushed off schopie for being a simpleton for having such lucid writing must be the hegelian cunts

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 07:42:26 2022 No.20958376 >>20957963 >>20957989 ITT anons grappling with Descartes's infernal God.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 07:45:53 2022 No.20958388 >>20954942 Finnegan’s Wake refutes this

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 07:57:24 2022 No.20958415 >>20955073 this

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 08:37:22 2022 No.20958495 >>20955880 >consistently perform same experiments over and over lol >1700 year old lol

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 12:41:44 2022 No.20959099

>>20957529
>That's exactly what you can do
You can't assume the particular things you want to assume if you want to be a serious philosopher.
>You said yourself mathematics is incomprehensible without practicality.
Yeah, it's human activity based on certain rules, but philosophy, if it is to work, can't be just reiteration of naive dogma and common sense-talking points. If I say "It sure looks to me world exist, well, hence, the world exists" thats not philosophy.
>Given a deterministic world that has some origin
You can't give that, world having an origin actually violates classical logic, Parmenides already showed this.
>perception and subjective practicality would be included in the total of the pre-temporal entity, the realm where "cupness" exists in some "form".
But then the cupness breaksdown, because we can't say anything about any cup without observer, nor of any observer without something observed, and we can't divide them apart. So this metaphysical reality has to be a chaos of noise if it is to be posited at all, and I don't see what particular benefit the practical human activity has from that.
>There are some rules or something we are interfacing with otherwise we could make up computers that work any way we want, they only work if we align with the rules that allow for computers.
Just because we developed a tradition with certain rules, doesn't mean we couldn't have done it from a different direction. See: next part.
>Even if this was a completely different form of logic which it isn'
it actually is, that's why paraconsistent math is even a field of research, since you can't use paraconsisten logic in standard analysis. The presuppositions of paraconsistent logic are in literal contradiction with classical logic, so if we take classical logic and subsequent math that uses it as a background as metaphysical, paraconsistent logic hsouldn't be metaphysically "real", but we can make things work even with it. There's even more examples if you want to look it up. Math has no special status metaphysically just because it is a particular tradition where we have made things work.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 12:50:06 2022 No.20959130

>>20957549
>There are arguments that things exist even when we don't perceive them
Yes, I referred even to Kant's argument for noumena. But the problem is, the guy I'm talking to doesn't have any arguments. He just says his common sense thoughts, goes "simple as" and thinks it's philosophy.
>Science is a philosophy, it does describe observed phenomena and can accurately describe them, and that does tell us something of a metaphysical basis. They are inextricably linked.
We can't say how accurately science can describe the observed phenomena metaphysically, so science therefore falls again back to a practical activity rather than any kind of statements of a metaphysical sort.
>I don't think physics would have any problem describing all human interactions. Can you explain why you think it couldn't?
I don't know if it would be useful in every context. Surely it could describe what physics can describe, not that it could grasp any metaphysical reality of human actions, again. We can have fields such as literature criticism and books can be described with physics: is that the most useful description? Maybe it sometimes really is, maybe not other times: human activity and practice decides.
>It simply is.
lmao, no it isn't
>If math didn't work, then systems built on it wouldn't function.
We can build electronics with a lot of different logics than classical logic and math, and some of those are contradictory with the statements of math. Therefore, all of those methods of making things cannot be metaphysically real at the same time, using classical logic, which at least would get thrown out, taking most of math, analysis etc. with it.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 13:27:28 2022 No.20959259

>>20959099
>you can't
>You can't give that
Yes I can. This is how thinking works. This is the root of all your misunderstanding.
>we can't say anything about any cup without observer
Already addressed, it's defined by the relationship.
>we could have done it differently
Go for it.
It's not a different form of logic, it's still the same kind of process that you represent the same way using computers.
>special status
Is this imagined problem you've made up, thinking that "serious philosophers didn't assume anything" etc. These philosophers made good maps which you have no replacement for. There is no "special status".

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 13:33:28 2022 No.20959282

>>20959259
Well, you didn't respond to anything but just called any problem you might encounter in your preferred form of thinking "handwaving" and "this is just how it works", much like your anti-idols Sam Harris and Neil deGrasse Tyson would, concluding this thread in a beautifully circular manner.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 13:47:53 2022 No.20959339 >brroooooooo how do you know anything is real brooooooo COUGH COUGH >yeeeahhhh brooooooo its like we live in the matrix. INHALES the absolute state lmao

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 13:50:07 2022 No.20959348 >>20959339 >philosophers argue themselves out of existence >scientists inherit the Earth

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 13:55:02 2022 No.20959364 'simply' in this case could mean an explanation that's not open for interpretation, like Kant's transcendental aesthetic which Einstein read and understood.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 13:57:54 2022 No.20959378

>Broooooooo I just had a big brain thing now
>What is it duuuuuuuuude. Shoot *cough*
>Broooooo what if the world be like, you know, a tv show and the ayyyy lmaooos are watching us rn
>HOOOOLLYYY SHEEEIIIIIIIIT nigga mInDbLoWn . Write this sheeit down nigga . Get those science nerds on it
>yeeeaaahhh dude we must tell em. The lmaoos have to be exposed

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 14:01:40 2022 No.20959396 >>20959348 This is how seriously I take any argument which attempts to criticize science on the grounds "hOw Do YoU kNoW aNyThInG iS rEaL"

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 14:09:39 2022 No.20959419

>>20959282
The point you're trying to get at is about "special status" but I don't operate that way and it doesn't seem like many serious philosophers of the past did either.
The models all exist given certain assumptions, they live in their given contexts. You can explore the consequences of the temporal world having an origin or you can explore how it would look like without one. We can also talk about why one of those assumptions might be more reasonable than the other but what we say about that is also a model rooted in assumptions, a specific context. If x is true then y would seem to follow. Criticism really relevant to that model talks about if y really does follow not if x really is true.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 14:19:20 2022 No.20959451 It will always be funny how people can't cope with the fact that we actually did manage to find the correct metaphysical assumptions under which this world operates. And as it turns out, it was not Christian theological doctrine.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 14:22:09 2022 No.20959464 >>20959451 Here's a guy that really operates this way, he thinks his divinely inspired ideas have "special status". The two main groups that anyone talking like this is likely to belong to are American meme protestanism and American meme atheism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 14:24:27 2022 No.20959472 >>20959464 >divinely inspired ideas have "special status" Sweet beautiful irony. When you know your opponent simply has an objectively higher standing you bring them down to your level.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 14:26:03 2022 No.20959476 >>20959451 What are these correct metaphysical assumptions?

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 14:31:54 2022 No.20959495

>>20959472
I agree that science is more useful than most ideas but this is what the dumbest retards said about Christianity before science, at that time the dumbest Christians used the exact same thought-stopping argument you're using now to suppress thought while smart Christians used ideas from Christianity to frame thinking as holy. The issue isn't any specific idea, it's that retards like you will always hate thinking.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 14:49:39 2022 No.20959571

>>20959419
>If x is true then y would seem to follow.
But it does not seem to follow that because someone perceives a world, object, and people perceiving an object, that the object in question would have self-existence. It just doesn't logically "seem" to follow. So you're not doing metaphysics but practical human activity which is already embedded even in philosophy and science from within, rather than as a map. If you really want to persist with metamap analogy, I suggest you to continue your study to following areas:
https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Handbook-of-Metametaphysics
https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/404051/ " Metametametaphysics and Dialetheism "
it sounds stupid, but this is what philosophy is. and metaphysics, and map perception. if physics always consists of metaphysics, metaphysics consist in metametaphysical content etc. ad infinitum.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 14:51:03 2022 No.20959575

>>20959495
Christianity never had any intellectual superiority over the ideas it suppressed. And this analogy doesn't work when we know now that the doctrine was wrong in many aspects. Prayers have never been shown to work. People have never miraculously come back from the dead under controlled conditions. The world is not 6000 years old. No chemical process can turn water into wine without agents. And for those who study history of doctrine, the very existence of figures like Jesus and Moses is questionable(though this is not as solidly established). And the worst part is not what is IN the doctrine, it is what is NOT.

So the issue is there is nothing left to "think" about anymore. Anyway this is kind of offtopic to this thread

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 14:55:45 2022 No.20959595

Kind of funny how metaphysics can make all kind of claims about things as they are in this world. But it is also supposed to be completely divorced from "practical human activity" in the same world.

Almost as if its a bunch of baloney that neither applies to the world or our experience of it.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 15:14:36 2022 No.20959658

>>20959575
>this analogy doesn't work
It's not even an analogy. You're doing the exact same thing.
>I have the final answers so no need to think
>I am helping you by telling you to stop thinking
>there is nothing left to "think" about anymore
Exactly the same statements as the Christians you project your own stupidity on.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 15:22:10 2022 No.20959699 >>20959575 >So the issue is there is nothing left to "think" about anymore. I don't even really disagree with your other points, but this seems rather arrogant.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 15:25:10 2022 No.20959715

>>20959571
>self-existence
If relationships define the thing the thing still exists. An apple is green because of the way you perceive color but green apples objectively exist. You can use more "objective" formal measurements to define what you're talking about like talking about wavelengths of light instead of the perception of green but any definition is still ultimately rooted in a relationship to the observer.
>ad infinitum
There's nobody who has any real solution to this, calling some assumptions a priori or whatever doesn't magically make them not assumptions.
All we can do is attempt to navigate the world we perceive using tools like abstracting the complex patterns into more manageable rules. That's what physics does and what sincere philosophical inquiry does.
Binary thinking is a good example of a method of modelling that's useful but it's still just produces flawed models/maps, a way to split the world into discrete units we can more easily work with, barely anything is really binary. In computers voltage ranges are used to represent binary because there are no real things that operate like that. Hot and cold measure the same thing, they're not "opposites". "Opposite" electric charges repulse each other but they're part of the same phenomena, not opposites.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 15:31:28 2022 No.20959746 >>20959715 I guess stuff like hot and cold is better described as something like bipolar mapping since we're talking about gradients between two poles but it's an imposed yardstick we use to measure a picked out aspect of a much more complex phenomena.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 15:34:48 2022 No.20959762

>>20959658
Yup. This is why I don't engage. Just ignore whatever I have said and try to beat the same old "you are just as invalid as us" drum
>When you know your opponent simply has an objectively higher standing you bring them down to your level.

>>20959699
I do not come from a mental state of arrogance when I said this. Heck, the current understanding and even methodology of science maybe supplanted in the future if better understanding of the world is grasped. But when I say there is nothing left to think about on this particular topic I'm simply pointing out the apparent truth.

We do not live in a world where you try ward off demons to cure your dying mom of tuberculosis anymore. The reason why it didn't work was not because of lack of understanding of "practical human activity" or whatever. It didn't work because that particular line of thought about how the world works was simply WRONG on a fundamental level. Yet people still cling to it. And since their worldview is so harshly incompatible with reality we get threads like this

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 15:36:44 2022 No.20959771

>>20959715
We have no way of knowing whether our human perception is the correct one in any metaphysical sense: apple is a classification of biology that assumes a lot of what would be extremely problematic in philosophy, hence you are really describing scientific thinking rather than philosophy, and then are trying to pretend that philosophy somehow follows the same practical style of inquiry, which it doesn't. Science doesn't care about whether apples exist in a philosophically objective sense, it doesn't need the philosophical level of argumentation. At different levels of scientific description, anyway, the concept "apple" actually disappears: physics actually doesn't recognize apples, which are purely biological classification: for physics it's just an object with a certain mass etc. We need to actually synthesize biological and physical information even to form a sentence: Apple has the weight of _.
>There's nobody who has any real solution to this, calling some assumptions a priori or whatever doesn't magically make them not assumptions.
Yet it pertains directly to your point about how physics necessarily has metaphysics. You're the one that's opening this can of worms, and now you're just refusing to deal with it, out of practicality I suppose. Which more and more proves that your practicality as perceptive human precedes any metaphysical claims you try to make about apples as objects of scientific description.
>All we can do is attempt to navigate the world we perceive using tools like abstracting the complex patterns into more manageable rules. That's what physics does and what sincere philosophical inquiry does.
Which is based on practicality, not on metaphysical truth. Sometimes math works. Sometimes paraconsistent logic apparently works. Sometimes 4 valued logic works in electronics. Given the heterogeneity of things that "work" in different and varied contexts, you can't claim platonism on the basis of workability.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 15:42:50 2022 No.20959797

>>20959715
>You can use more "objective" formal measurements to define what you're talking about like talking about wavelengths of light instead of the perception of green but any definition is still ultimately rooted in a relationship to the observer
To take this further, the apple may reflect other wavelengths of EMR that we cannot perceive directly, but the effects of them can still be measured. There is plenty of evidence that a material world exists whether we perceive it or not, but the guy in this thread is claiming that the less likely claim (that the entire world could just be a hallucination I guess since he wont offer up his own beliefs ever), has just as much validity even if it requires no evidence and a lot of leaps of logic to establish.

>>20959762
Considering other mystical beliefs such as simulation "theory" have emerged to replace these old viewpoints, I don't think we're any closer to ridding ourselves of it. Maybe if someday evolution rids us of that paranoid part of the brain the fears the unknown things lurking behind the bushes we can see things with more clarity.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 15:43:40 2022 No.20959803 [DELETED]

>>20959762
Cont.

Any assumption about how things ARE in this world SHOULD be open to scrutiny by the best methodology we have to discern facts about this world. Pointing out that such methods are an assumption in themselves , and dismissing their success in knaowing things about thw world as nothing more than "practical activity" (as if that's an argument) is NOT a valid excuse.

This is weak and pathetic and sign of a mind too dogmatic to let go of its presumptions. And when pointed out goes onto project the same onto others because they don't take that ridiculous claims about reality on face value.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 15:45:45 2022 No.20959811

>>20959762

Cont.

Any assumption about how things ARE in this world SHOULD be open to scrutiny by the best methodology we have to discern facts about this world. Pointing out that such methods are an assumption in themselves , and dismissing their success in knowing things about the world as nothing more than "practical activity" (as if that's an argument) is NOT a valid excuse.

This is weak and pathetic and sign of a mind too dogmatic to let go of its presumptions. And when pointed out goes onto project the same onto others because other people don't take those ridiculous claims about reality on face value

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 15:47:50 2022 No.20959818

>>20959771
>We have no way of knowing
We covered this over and over, again and again. Our maps are best approximations, things that help us navigate the perceived world.
>you are really describing scientific thinking
I told you from the first posts that this is your problem, everyone in history was apparently incapable of figuring anything out but somehow randomly did. This new method is the only one capable of transcending any dogma despite pre-scientific history being all about people doing exactly that.
>it pertains directly to your point about how physics necessarily has metaphysics
Physics has the same problem, what are these fundamental forces or what is this field the math describes. They just create models that work and go with it, there's no final absolute answer there like you seem to think.
>practicality
Again you act as if people were just playing around with geometry for no reason, not even some intuition, it was just a random walk.
>Sometimes paraconsistent logic apparently works
It's not some special phenomena separate from logic, when you run it in a computer it's within conditional logic.
>different and varied contexts
Is what the post you're replying to was talking about, the things are defined by context. I don't want to defend platonism specifically but nothing you're saying needs to be inconsistent with his ideas or very similar ones.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 15:51:02 2022 No.20959831

>>20959797
>Maybe if someday evolution rids us of that paranoid part of the brain the fears the unknown things

You mean the same paranoid part of the brain that fears the unknown and deceives us into thinking there's danger lurking behind the bushes, when nothing's actually there?

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 15:52:09 2022 No.20959838

>>20959797
>is claiming that the less likely claim (that the entire world could just be a hallucination I guess since he wont offer up his own beliefs ever), has just as much validity
In the context where certain ideas are considered holy unassailable dogma that is constantly conditioned into the brain of everyone by religious zealots like you any challenge of those ideas, any model that goes beyond the dogma is liberating and there's a noticeable difference between the kinds of things people who can do that say and the kinds of things dogmatic zealots say.
>There is plenty of evidence that a material world exists whether we perceive it or not
There's also plenty of evidence that some kind of "plane" where everything is defined exists, doesn't mean this idea is holy absolute truth.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 15:55:03 2022 No.20959850

>>20959762
>ward off demons
Can we get into specifics or is this about your dad again?
What's a demon? Do you know the history of the word? Do you know why there is no contemporary equivalent to the concept as it was thought of by the Greeks? It seems like a useful idea in the era of megacorporations.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 15:57:06 2022 No.20959861

>>20959838
>religious zealots
Why are you so desperate to project this onto other people?

In any case, your rambling doesn't even respond to what I'm saying. You're plugging your ears, calling it religious dogma, not expanding on that idea any further, even though science is by design not dogmatic. Saying that science indicates or evidences the existence of an external, material world is not the same as dogmatically asserting there is one. Scientists are careful about this language too.

>doesn't mean this idea is holy absolute truth.
The person you think you're arguing with doesn't exist ITT. You are the only person misrepresenting science in this way.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 15:59:59 2022 No.20959868

>>20959831
Yes, exactly. The same ideas that birthed gods also created the idea of simulation theory, after all if the world is a simulation then that must indicate there is some "higher power" which created it and that our life serves some higher purpose for them.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 16:01:48 2022 No.20959874

>>20959861
>science is by design not dogmatic
Saying there is nothing left to "think" about anymore is dogmatic. Your dogmatic thinking doesn't represent science.
>You are the only person misrepresenting science in this way.
What's the point of lying to yourself like this?
>there is nothing left to "think" about anymore

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 16:03:24 2022 No.20959879

>>20959818
>We covered this over and over, again and again. Our maps are best approximations, things that help us navigate the perceived world.
That means they're tools, not metaphysical platonic realities.
>I told you from the first posts that this is your problem, everyone in history was apparently incapable of figuring anything out but somehow randomly did.
They figured out some good scientific theories: nothing about it implies metaphysical existence or Platonism, since even the concepts were formed in the roughness of practical usage. Unless your theory has really been derived from interpreting Kubricks 2001 as a historical document.
>They just create models that work and go with it, there's no final absolute answer there like you seem to think.
Creating models that work isn't philosophy or metaphysics, but from Plato to Pythagoras, they thought reason to be the highest. I wonder if you're trying to agree with Plato just because you misinterpret it so anachronistically that you can't even imagine that, yes, he really did literally believe in the Realm of Forms accessible to reason. None of his method was about "aw shit, science go brr thats why its eternal". Like what the fuck, seriously. In your definition of philosophy, I would be making a profound philosophical statement everytime I go to the store and assume all the common sense things that go along with it, but I would wager that most philosophers wouldn't agree with that.
>It's not some special phenomena separate from logic, when you run it in a computer it's within conditional logic.
Its applications are not limited to software though, but in digital circuits and such, where investigation into many-valued logics at its height.
>Is what the post you're replying to was talking about, the things are defined by context. I don't want to defend platonism specifically but nothing you're saying needs to be inconsistent with his ideas or very similar ones.
My ideas are extremely and deeply incosistent with the idea of Platonism. Things defined by context means they don't exist without the context. For example, we could criticize classical logic for assuming A and B, when in fact we can't isolate A, unless we already assume A/B, and so on. This is the problem of "being" that ultimately led to the revolution of existentialism in 20th century philosophy that made all the previous metaphysics irrelevant. And yes, that is philosophy, but it is corrective philosophy that goes to the direction of countering the philosophical assumptions of the rationalism-monotheism complex that still has wide political import and influence.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 16:04:11 2022 No.20959882 >>20959868 Simulation theory is not science is any meaningful sense

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 16:04:27 2022 No.20959884

>>20959874
You are currently arguing with at least three different people and the person you're responding to is not the person you're quoting. I also imagine most of the people you were arguing with yesterday are gone now, save maybe the one.

You seem to only care about asking questions, never answering them. I can't help but notice this pattern.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 16:06:48 2022 No.20959894 >>20959882 I agree.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 16:09:15 2022 No.20959898

>>20954942
I know this is bait but if something is complex it requires at least that much complexity to explain. If the speaker is unable to simplify the explanation he doesn't understand it well enough but that doesn't mean the ideal explanation is the simple one which by necessity glosses over important information.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 16:13:54 2022 No.20959922

>>20959861
cunt..
>Why are you so desperate to project this onto other people?
I'm talking about specific statements. I'm not arguing against people but posts made in this thread.
>not expanding on that idea any further,
I constantly do. What do you call this if not dogmatic thinking?
>there is nothing left to "think" about anymore
>>20959884
>not the person you're quoting
The person I replied to said
>The person you think you're arguing with doesn't exist ITT
The reply chain originates here.
>the guy in this thread is claiming that the less likely claim (that the entire world could just be a hallucination I guess since he wont offer up his own beliefs ever), has just as much validity
Which I explained why is dogmatic thinking. You can't get past the binary true/false thinking. A new apparently crazy perspective couldn't possibly offer some insight you hadn't thought of. You see no value in it because you don't value thinking.
>>20959879
>that means they're tools, not metaphysical platonic realities.
The maps are mapping something, we don't know the absolute truth. Same as in physics. You're criticizing philosophy for not being dogmatic like you.
>nothing about it implies metaphysical existence
All of it is part of the project of mapping reality, ideas that work are used to develop ideas further and more is built on top of that.
>software
It rests in basic, traditional, conditional logic. The underlying phenomena does not change when we slightly change how we approach it.
>don't exist without the context
They can still have a "form" in another plane that defined everything.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 16:21:50 2022 No.20959959

>>20959922
>The maps are mapping something, we don't know the absolute truth. Same as in physics. You're criticizing philosophy for not being dogmatic like you.
No, I'm criticizing it for being useless in scientific and practical activity. It says enough that people here say you're "cattle" if you don't do any metaphysics: well, I could ask them, are they cattle if they don't do metametametaphysics? Is a civilization which does not do metametametaphysics really more ignorant than the one who does?
>All of it is part of the project of mapping reality, ideas that work are used to develop ideas further and more is built on top of that.
This doesn't relate to your argument, just describes science, albeit smuggling in the terms mapping reality, which is philosophically incoherent, IF YOU WANTED TO DO PHILOSOPHY, that is.
>The underlying phenomena does not change when we slightly change how we approach it.
Well, in quantum mechanics, for example, it does actually. But all the same, no, these logics aren't derivable from classical logic, neither are they compatible with traditional math, yet they are usable, they "work". Hence, id you want to claim truth for things that "work", you end up in incoherence in terms of the system you want to defend as metaphysically real.
>another plane
ah yes, the metametametametametaplane

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 16:22:16 2022 No.20959961

>>20959922
>I constantly do.
No you don't. You just say it's dogmatic, but you ignore how science always leaves itself open to being wrong and invites criticism. You've completely ignored most of the things I've said in the very posts you're arguing with to zero in on definitions about dogmatism rather than engage in an actual point.
>Which I explained why is dogmatic thinking. You can't get past the binary true/false thinking.
What I posted wasn't binary true/false thinking. I literally said one has more validity than the other, I didn't say one was wrong. I said one is less likely because it has no backing. I don't even know what you actually believe because you wont tell us.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 16:27:36 2022 No.20959984

>>20959959
>if they don't do metametametaphysics
If you don't think about your assumptions on whatever level they are you have decided to limit yourself.
>just describes science
No it described the entire process since long before science, the process that led to science. You're pretending philosophers were not interested in reality to create a false dichotomy between philosophy and science. If they had not been interested in reality nothing would have gotten done, no math or science.
>in quantum mechanics, for example, it does actually
No it does not.
>these logics aren't derivable from classical logic
Yes they are. They run in computers.
>you want to claim truth for things that "work", you end up in incoherence in terms of the system you want to defend as metaphysically real.
Apparently mutually exclusive models can map different aspects of the same underlying phenomena. See pic. >>20957011

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 16:29:03 2022 No.20959987

>>20959922
>I'm not arguing against people but posts made in this thread.
You are just utterly dishonest. You have attacked people personally many times ITT. Called them retarded, called them liars, called them cunts, told them their Christian dad beat them and that's why they like science. It's really exhausting when you lie about the things you're doing and then try to beat others to the punch by being the first to accuse people. You know we can all see you doing it right?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 16:32:35 2022 No.20960000 >>20959850 >Can we discuss my retarded medeival superstitions? Why can't you discuss superstitions with me? Are you dogmatic? Can't you "think"

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 16:32:47 2022 No.20960001

>>20959961
>You just say it's dogmatic
I don't understand how it's not and have asked repeatedly how you can tell yourself it's not.
>there is nothing left to "think" about anymore
What is the difference between this and when people said this exact same thing before when they also thought they had all the answers?
>science
You are not science. Your opinions are not "scientific".
This kind of thinking has nothing to do with science, you're using dogmatic thinking to defend science but you clearly don't understand science since you defend this kind of thinking.
>>20959987
>You have attacked people personally many times ITT.
Because you're clearly braindead. You can't separate that from the reasons I say you are retarded? Explain how you can possibly make your retarded posts if you're not retarded and I will be corrected.
>told them their Christian dad beat them
To people that brought up Christianity, revealing the entire motivation for their posts was resentment about their experiences with Christians instead of discussing the actual posts.
Part of my motivation is frustration with braindead atheists but you could have corrected my impressions. All you do is reinforce them.
>there is nothing left to "think" about anymore

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 16:34:21 2022 No.20960009

>>20960000
I talked about the Greek version, where the word originates. Why are you so against sincerely understanding different perspectives through history? Do you think that will get better results than trying? Is "science" all about putting your fingers in your ears like this?

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 16:45:58 2022 No.20960037

>>20960001
>I don't understand how it's not and have asked repeatedly how you can tell yourself it's not.
I'm not the person you're talking about. You're asking me to defend something that I don't even believe.
>>20960001
>This kind of thinking has nothing to do with science, you're using dogmatic thinking to defend science but you clearly don't understand science since you defend this kind of thinking.
Which part are you responding to? Everything I've said is exactly how science operates. Listen to any prominent scientists of the last 100 years and they'll echo basically exactly what I've said.
>Because you're clearly braindead.
>I'm not arguing with people, only posts.
I'm not the one who's braindead.
>To people that brought up Christianity,
Just bringing up Christianity isn't enough to make assumptions about their entire motivations. You're the one attacking science without offering any alternative, of course people are gonna speculate about your intentions. Especially with how dishonest you've been.
>Part of my motivation is frustration with braindead atheist
Clearly you're frustrated. You're certainly not proving anything anything else here.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 16:57:03 2022 No.20960091

>>20960037
>I'm not the person you're talking about. You're asking me to defend something that I don't even believe.
You jumped into the reply chain to say nobody ITT said that. It's a clear example of dogmatic thinking yet you keep pretending I'm just making stuff up. There are other examples but less blatant, the example of dismissing hypotheticals completely beforehand based on our limited ideas of science is another one.
>Which part are you responding to?
Why did you jump in with your irrelevant horseshit and nonsense about how no atheist retard ITT has been dogmatic? Just to subvert any chance of any point getting absorbed by anyone?
>Just bringing up Christianity isn't enough to make assumptions about their entire motivations
No but you're talking about a discussion you say you weren't even a part of.
Here >>20956100 is the first mention of christianity in the thread. An absolute retard replying to me while talking about me in the third person and repeating strawmen he uses to dismiss everything I say.
Second mention >>20956608.
> if i do philosophy, it is only to dismantle the importance of western philosophy and its monotheism-induced traditions
He says it's purely based on his personal resentment toward specific ideas.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 17:06:21 2022 No.20960127

>>20960091
>There are other examples but less blatant, the example of dismissing hypotheticals completely beforehand based on our limited ideas of science is another one.
Can you point out where I did this specifically?
>You jumped into the reply chain to say nobody ITT said that.
Dude this point is just completely irrelevant. I've told you several times I don't believe that and the person you're talking about wasn't even replying to you, and we had an aside where he more or less walked it back.
>Why did you jump in with your irrelevant
I asked a question. Are you not going to clarify your meaning when I ask a question? Just ask irrelevant questions that I've already addressed.
>No but you're talking about a discussion you say you weren't even a part of.
I can read the thread. I don't think those two people are even still posting today, and it's still just two posts in a thread that has almost hit the bump limit.
>He says it's purely based on his personal resentment toward specific ideas.
You're placing the motivations of one person onto everyone.
Again:
>I'm responding to posts, not people.
Why are you lying to yourself?

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 17:08:38 2022 No.20960134

>>20959984
>Yes they are. They run in computers.
Not exclusively by any means, unless you say something stupid like electronic circuits run "in computers", as if you can't make the very parts which go on to consist a computer in electronics. Yet in electronics many-valued logic is very common. With paraconsistent logic, one has to do only a quick google search to find out that your attempt to reduce paraconsistent logic as a substructure(!) of classical logic is false:
>The engineering problems solved by paraconsistent approaches were mainly in the fields of signal and image processing
>Electronics design routinely uses a four-valued logic, with "hi-impedance (z)" and "don't care (x)" playing similar roles to "don't know" and "both true and false" respectively, in addition to true and false. This logic was developed independently of philosophical logics.
In Addition, the wikipedia article list spintronics, quantum entanglement etc. as areas where it's applied. Yet paraconsistent logic is inconsistent with classical logic if we have to believe one is really "real". Therefore your claim collapses.
>No it does not.
Yes, it does.
>No it described the entire process since long before science, the process that led to science
Lmao, so you think countries with no real philosophical traditions in the sense of Greece didn't develop science? Chinese invented paper yet they never did have any ideas about Platonism, soul, forms etc.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 17:10:17 2022 No.20960139

>>20959984
>If you don't think about your assumptions on whatever level they are you have decided to limit yourself.
Oh, and I forgot to answer this one: yeah, I mean, you claim that we must think about our assumptions, but whenever you're questioned about your assumption, you actually turn into a scientism defender and shut down any philosophical inquiry which you so claim to defend. Really ironic all in all.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 17:17:57 2022 No.20960171

>>20960127
>Can you point out where I did this specifically?
I already did. It may not be you but it's the post you replied to was replying to.
>is claiming that the less likely claim (that the entire world could just be a hallucination I guess since he wont offer up his own beliefs ever), has just as much validity even if it requires no evidence
I am not claiming that but the attempt to dismiss alternative ideas like the "leaf idea" this post is referencing is the same kind of thinking as the "there's no need to think anymore" statement.
> I've told you several times I don't believe that
YOU decided to jump in and say "nobody ITT" was demonstrating the dogmatic thinking I referenced. Why would you do that? You now acknowledge the statements I quoted over on over in this context were in fact dogmatic so what is your problem?
>I asked a question
About what I mean by dogmatic thinking. I gave you multiple examples. That you didn't make them has nothing to do with anything. What do you want clarified? The pattern is you'll basically ask me to repeat something I already said, likely even in this post.
>You're placing the motivations of one person onto everyone.
I always maintain multiple models. What do you think your motivations are? Why would you possibly jump in here and defend dogmatic thinking?
>I'm responding to posts, not people.
Everything I say relates to things said in the thread. You're trying to confuse everything I say for some reason. Like you just don't want to hear any of it, like the zealots in the thread.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 17:22:31 2022 No.20960189

>>20960134
>Not exclusively by any means
The ideas can be represented with basic logic. It's a high level distinction about not accepting the same premises as other disciplines of formal logic. It's about the methods we approach the thing not the underlying thing.
>the wikipedia article list spintronics, quantum entanglement etc. as areas where it's applied
Because we can't know with certainty the results of each measurement so we need to model using different premises. It's still all rooted in basic logic, using premises and deriving conclusions.
>never did have any ideas about Platonism, soul, forms etc.
The Chinese had similar ideas even earlier, the mandate of heaven etc. It's more likely the ideas Plato talks about are variants with the same roots as the Chinese ideas.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 17:27:42 2022 No.20960206

>>20960171
>I am not claiming that but the attempt to dismiss alternative ideas like the "leaf idea" this post is referencing is the same kind of thinking as the "there's no need to think anymore" statement.
It's not a dismissal. It's a statement that it has less validity because it is not founded on evidence. You are misrepresenting the point.
>That you didn't make them has nothing to do with anything.
You said I was using dogmatic thinking to defend science, and I've demonstrated several times that the people you're confusing as me, aren't me. I think that's a big problem with how you communicate.
>Why would you possibly jump in here and defend dogmatic thinking?
I haven't defended dogmatic thinking and you haven't demonstrated that I have. Why are you demanding my motivations while hiding your own?
>Everything I say relates to things said in the thread.
No, you're making a lot of leaps about the people you're talking to and then lying about doing it later. You're pushing me hard on statement I didn't even make and still trying to hold me responsible for them when you won't even take responsibility for the things you've said.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 17:30:19 2022 No.20960215

>>20960189
>same root as Chinese thought
Maybe, in that Neo-Platonism has a relation to Indian thought. But I think Chinese philosophers wouldn't agree with you. When I read neo-confucianists on the topic it's usually a cope about Athens being an unique situation where the mercantile nature of the city would have pulled in the most intelligent and simultaneously exposed them to abstract thought which other cultures(China) would never have dealt with.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 17:30:47 2022 No.20960219 >this whole argument started because a sperg brought up atheism in a thread that had nothing to do with it >said sperg singles out people who rightfully bring up religion in this discussion Really makes you think.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 17:37:33 2022 No.20960247

>>20960206
>it has less validity
Depends on what you mean. I explained how it can be more relevant and demonstrate a more active mind than regurgitating accepted facts. The new perspective can possibly have value, the parroting is guaranteed to have none. The statements from a thinking person have more "validity".
Science is very useful but hypotheticals are a crucial part of it and here you are finding a way to dismiss my points about valuing hypotheticals, for some unknown reason twisting what I say into some braindead shit where I think believing everything being made of leafs is more reasonable than physics.
>You said I was using dogmatic thinking to defend science
You defended using dogmatic thinking to defend science and still are by confusing the issue. You made the reply to a reply to posts that were not you, you jumped in to defend their dogmatic ideas of science. I care about the ideas not your ego.
>You're pushing me hard on statement I didn't even make
I'm asking you to clarify. Why did you reply to posts that weren't replying to you with demonstrably false claims? "nobody ITT said that".
Your "gotcha" point is that I at first assumed the reply was made to the person I replied to? Until you clarified that it wasn't?

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 17:39:56 2022 No.20960263

>>20960189
>It's a high level distinction about not accepting the same premises as other disciplines of formal logic.
Yet the non-acceptance of these premises actually does make it into a different type of logic and hence, when you find applications for it, it's on you to explain how different types of logics can be simultaneously metaphysically "true" just because they "work", since that is what you said. so far you haven't gotten yourself out of this.
>It's still all rooted in basic logic, using premises and deriving conclusions.
If it's rooted in basic logic, it couldn't utilize paraconsistent logic since that would signify the collapse of the whole system. But apparently they ARE trying to do SOMETHING, and classical logic was deemed unsatisfactory, for some reason. So now you have two different types of logic utilized on the basis of "use": still a problem for your argument of metaphysical truth being reflected in what works.
>The Chinese had similar ideas even earlier, the mandate of heaven etc.
Not really, I mean that was something simply applied to state affairs, much like Confucianism, it really does not have that much to offer a Platonist. And the examples are anyway just numerous, where some peoples invented things for practical use yet did not do greek style pondering about their metaphysical reality. What you're referring to is a very small part of the whole of human activity, one which has its roots in monotheistic sun worship of Egypt, which is embarrassing for the concept of "the One" and "the Absolute" as that is really a repetition of emphasizing Sun over any other nature god, and thus rooted in practical considerations.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 17:43:25 2022 No.20960275

>>20960215
>I think Chinese philosophers wouldn't agree with you
I don't know anything for sure but I like certain elements of plato, so if I'm defending "platonism" from my perspective it's something like the underlying thing that both plato and the chinese ideas I heard about at some point seemed to reference. If you think about it like I do as maps, the earliest ones will of course be very rough. Everything has a history, nothing popped out of nowhere, assuming a connection is more reasonable than assuming things just appear with no historical reason.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 17:46:28 2022 No.20960288

Oh you are making a point about certain beliefs being discarded as more knowledge about the world is gained. And how rejecting those beliefs now cannot be construed as dogma?

Well here's a complete tangent about demons. But this time in the "greek" sense. Because somehow associating my retarded beliefs with guys who've been dead for 2500 years somehow gives them legitimacy. And looking at everything from a pseudo-metaphorical lense somehow makes it more palpable

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 17:48:20 2022 No.20960297

>>20960247
>Science is very useful but hypotheticals are a crucial part of it and here you are finding a way to dismiss my points about valuing hypotheticals, for some unknown reason twisting what I say into some braindead shit where I think believing everything being made of leafs is more reasonable than physics.
I'm not trying to dismiss your points about valuing hypotheticals, but the value of hypotheticals depends on a lot of factors. One being more valid than the other isn't a dismissal, it just means the hypothesis that everything is leaves has a lot of work to do.
>I care about the ideas not your ego.
You care about your ego. You're still stuck on this point. I never tried to defend dogmatic thinking and in still not and you haven't demonstrated that I have. Simply saying you have isn't cutting it.
>Why did you reply to posts that weren't replying to you with demonstrably false claims? "nobody ITT said that".
By the time I said that I had already had an aside with that person where he walked it back somewhat, so I don't even think he was fully committed to that statement when he said it. You should be questioning him about why he said it, not me.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 17:50:35 2022 No.20960306

>>20960263
>so far you haven't gotten yourself out of this.
You ignored the answer both times. Apparently mutually exclusive models can represent different facets of the same thing like in the meme perspective image.
I don't see any fundamental distinction between the types of logic, you demand it's fundamentally different because it uses different premises, ignoring that you're still just building on premises, doing if x then y.
>classical logic was deemed unsatisfactory
Certain premises were, you can call that "classical logic" but nothing changed about the underlying fundamental principles being used. The distinction is high level, not representative of any real distinction, completely about ways to apply the fundamental building blocks, not using different types of fundamental building blocks.
>where some peoples invented things for practical use yet did not do greek style pondering about their metaphysical reality
You really can't point to this. After long periods professions can be based on previous thinking but nobody just suddenly comes up with math and boat building randomly. The greatest development in human pre-history was art representing abstract thinking, after art everything else started happening.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 17:51:35 2022 No.20960310

My entire worldview revolves around a categorical rejection of any sense of objectivity and I reject all viewpoints that do not consider the myriad of human experiences and opinions(no matter how delusional they may be), because people with such viewpoints can't "think"

By the way are you going to be objective any time soon or is it just about your dad

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 17:54:19 2022 No.20960320

>>20960297
>the value of hypotheticals depends on a lot of factors
Again you're not engaging with what I said, instead you start educating me about bullet points you assume I don't know for some reason, despite me giving you no reason to assume that.
>I never tried to defend dogmatic thinking
>nobody ITT said that
>By the time I said that..
So you did defend dogmatic thinking but when the situation was clarified you understood your mistake. The question of motivation still remains. Do you wonder what caused you to do that?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 17:54:47 2022 No.20960322 >>20960310 Pointing out this guy's hypocrisy does nothing. He totally lacks any self-awareness.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 17:56:45 2022 No.20960333

>>20960288
The demon thing is a good example. You seem to have no interest at all in understanding different perspectives sincerely, even if they were influential in the history that led to you. You can only grasp true/and false, "legitimacy" as dictated by what you already decided is true.
>>20960310
>My entire worldview revolves around a categorical rejection of any sense of objectivity
What are you referencing? Why do you think or pretend to think I reject science etc?

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 18:00:35 2022 No.20960358

>>20960306
>Apparently mutually exclusive models can represent different facets of the same thing like in the meme perspective image.
Which means neither of them has any metaphysical validity and you can't argue for metaphysical truth based on usability like you did earlier, at the starting point of this whole chain.
>The distinction is high level, not representative of any real distinction, completely about ways to apply the fundamental building blocks
No, it's about utilizing two completely different types of thinking to practical activity. You would have to define what would even count for you as "a real distinction" at this point, because again, if something would be compeltely "based on classical logic" it couldn't utilize paraconsistent logic in any circumstance. So the practical activity of humans can actually determine which logic is appropriate to use in whatever situation.
>The greatest development in human pre-history was art representing abstract thinking, after art everything else started happening.
To be able to make art, there had to be technical innovations, and if as you it is only after art that metaphysic flourished, then the essence of developing technology and tools is not metaphysical and is but an extension of the practical activity of man.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 18:01:35 2022 No.20960363

>>20960320
>Again you're not engaging with what I said,
You haven't demonstrated dogmatic thinking so far. I assumed you don't understand what you're talking about because you thought that was an explanation for me being dogmatic.
>>20960320
>So you did defend dogmatic thinking but when the situation was clarified you understood your mistake. The question of motivation still remains. Do you wonder what caused you to do that?
That's not defending dogmatic thinking at all. I actually argued against the person you're talking about and got him to walk it back. So what causes you to ignore half a sentence and make things up in your head to respond to?

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 18:05:08 2022 No.20960381

>>20960358
>Which means neither of them has any metaphysical validity
The map doesn't encompass the entirety of the thing. The same thing you keep circling around. The map represents some aspect of something that exists in some way. Newtonian gravity maps something that exists in some way, we still have close to no idea what it really fundamentally is.
>two completely different types of thinking
Two perspectives to an underlying truth.
>a real distinction
It's still under conditional logic. If x then y. A completely different phenomena wouldn't need to rely on the same underlying mechanism.
>To be able to make art, there had to be technical innovations
Anything the monkey does is a product of the mind, of thinking.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 18:13:49 2022 No.20960431 >>20955073 I’m convinced and will kneel in front of a jew now thanks anon

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 18:14:10 2022 No.20960433

>>20960363
>You haven't demonstrated dogmatic thinking so far.
What the fuck? According to this everything you said since then can be dismissed, you really are defending what I call dogmatic thinking but pretended not to be for some inexplicable reason, but definitely not to spread confusion.
>there is nothing left to "think" about anymore
Do you want to defend thinking like this or not? What is the difference between when a science retard does it and when people that thought they had the ultimate answers before did it?
>I actually argued against the person you're talking about and got him to walk it back
So now there was an example of dogmatic "sciencebrain" thinking but only the most blatant one? The leaf example is more arguable but you did misrepresent what I said to find a way to dismiss it, it's not unreasonable to assume it's a result of similar thinking that's the theme throughout the thread. Is the guy that can't even imagine considering the idea of daemons for half a second is not an example of dogma stopping the ability to think?

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 18:15:56 2022 No.20960440

>>20960381
>It's still under conditional logic.
Yeah but why is that "the real" distinction instead of, say, that paraconsisten logic is incompatible with math (so far as we know) and yet it still works? You still have two entities with wildly different characters and outcomes, aside from this very superficial element of syntax. We can ponder of course about the nature of conditionals, things being otherwise(like Sartre does), but this is still very far from accepting representational metaphysics and the existentialist conclusion of Heidegger and Sartre always related this to a mode of existence rather than outwardly discovered essence. Human practice is still the key.
>Anything the monkey does is a product of the mind, of thinking.
Philosophy is not synonymous with all thinking that takes place. Of course your position would be very easy if that was the case.
>Two perspectives to an underlying truth.
So, perspectives with no metaphysical existence, of whose ultimate reality you can't say anything just tools.
>The map represents some aspect of something that exists in some way.
Yes, all that is related to use, concern, practical activity, not metaphysics.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 18:21:57 2022 No.20960466 >>20955082 Uhh actually, I'm the main character of this story and everyone else only exists when I am interacting with them

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 18:23:10 2022 No.20960470 fckn plebs

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 18:23:15 2022 No.20960472 >>20954942 Einstein was BTFO by Tesla who Einstein recognized as SUPREME

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 18:24:11 2022 No.20960478

>>20960433
>you really are defending what I call dogmatic thinking
Can you explain it then?
>definitely not to spread confusion.
No, that's your business currently.
>Do you want to defend thinking like this or not?
Why would you ask this in the same post where I told you I'm not trying to defend this thinking.
>The leaf example is more arguable but you did misrepresent what I said to find a way to dismiss it,
I didn't even touch the leaf example. I even stated in that same post that I don't even know what your actual beliefs are. It was a hypothetical as an example to my point and I didn't even dismiss it entirely. You can't just argue truth into existence. It has to follow some form of reason. The hypothetical I did use at one time was simulation theory. It invents a hypothetical situation which might be useful for exploring abstract ideas, but in order to say the world is a simulation in truth, requires quite a bit more than just an inventive mind. Are you only acting like this because it makes it easier for you to argue with only one person. Do I need to drop this reply thread and jump in on the other guy's points to make you get back on topic?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 18:24:18 2022 No.20960479 >>20955006 schopenhauer, spinoza, and leibniz were probably his 3 biggest philosophical influences

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 18:25:22 2022 No.20960486

>>20960440
>Yeah but why is that "the real" distinction
Because it's the most fundamental building block. Assuming conditional logic allows you to build on top of that and develop either "classical logic" or this new form or any number of logical systems. Having a new form of the rules of thumb derived from basic logic isn't really some revolution but it hasn't been useful until people run into some weird quantum shit and even then that may all be a distraction, based on a confusion.
>Human practice is still the key
I do agree with this theme in your posts and that philosophers in history may have not been always as interested in thinking in terms of relationships and context, instead there's a trend of thinking in these absolute "objective" sort of self-contained entities.
Things can still be "objective", if we base that definition on experience then the apple is "objective" despite being defined by context, like you can say the circle objectively exists within the context it is defined in, within the context of math. It is representing some aspect of reality even if we are picking the aspect we like over an infinite other possibilities.
I don't agree with conflating all philosophy and metaphysics with these kind of mistakes about absolute truth. Science brained people make the same mistake, I'm finding it more common in them these days. People with perspectives I used to assume could only be from American Christians now tend to come from American atheists.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 18:27:16 2022 No.20960494

The best philosophy can offer in terms of real knowledge are neat sounding metaphors that may or may not apply to certain instances of true understanding.

It has its relevance in the field of social sciences given its methodology to analyse human thought and perception which is relevant to study of culture, law, nations, ethics etc. since our beliefs and how we see our place in this world form their basis.

But even then metaphysics remains special in that its study is completely supplanted. All the unconfirmed conjectures are now known to have no bearing on reality or natural world. This is why the metaphysical project is abandoned by modern philosophers.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 18:27:53 2022 No.20960496
File: 140 KB, 258x362, MeggsiganWardenglyffe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20954942
Nikola Tesla was the ultimate philosopher and schizoposter of all time.
He writes extensibly about his Buddhism takes in "The Problem with Increasing Human Energy"

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 18:31:37 2022 No.20960512
File: 929 KB, 480x250, dafoeEternitysGate.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20960494
Metaphysics is foundational in how we build language as of a means to how we extrapolate and have any faculty to abstract any instant abstractions. Signs, being almost pure attribute by pure name, can be auspicious enough to destroy enterprises from their own implications. Like feedback in a microphone can ruin a concert, a material interest denuded of the mental effect on extrapolating thinkers can ruin concord of a deal despite being economically viable. There is something metaphysical about incels who expect to get laid later after having fulfilled their account of nominal deeds and bad marks when they are chasing a volatile end of a woman's rear end.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 18:36:17 2022 No.20960533

>>20960478
>Can you explain it then?
Notice the qualifiers. According to that statement I gave no example.
>there is nothing left to "think" about anymore
Your first line if taken at face value means this is not an example, you then accept it as an example in the same post. This is confusing.
>there is nothing left to "think" about anymore
Do you agree this is a blatant example of dogmatic thinking or not? Why confuse the issue? I asked in the last post if you consider this an example but not any of the other examples. How is the guy who can't think about daemons for example not being blinded by dogma?
>Why would you ask this in the same post where I told you I'm not trying to defend this thinking.
Because you started the post by saying I gave no example. This is confusing.
>to say the world is a simulation in truth
There's no special point at which your ideas suddenly become truth. They point at an underlying truth, they are all flawed references. Newton mapped gravity enough to be useful which is the real measure how "true" these models are, he did not tell us what gravity is. That it later turned out there was a more precise model does not make Newton wrong.
In a situation where you're conditioned by the same tired dogmatic ideas a normally ridiculous one could point you at truth more effectively than any of your dogma.
If you never thought of the idea that your perceptions could be "simulated" or a product of a process we have no access to you you are poorer in thought than someone who has. You have fewer tools to think about explanations for phenomena etc. You may even be forced to pretend some phenomena aren't there, just because the assumptions must be true no matter what.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 18:45:07 2022 No.20960586

>>20960533
>Notice the qualifiers. According to that statement I gave no example.
Are you refusing to explain anything because you can't?
>Because you started the post by saying I gave no example. This is confusing.
It's not an example of me being dogmatic. Can you please explain why you're taking me to task over something I didn't say and actively argued against?
>If you never thought of the idea that your perceptions could be "simulated" or a product of a process we have no access to you you are poorer in thought than someone who has.
And someone who has only pondered the idea is poorer in thought than somebody who has tested it either through reason or observation of evidence. I think you're engaging in a kind of dogma of your own, though you lack the self-awareness to see it. The assumptions you carry with you throughout your conversations ITT, depict a very disturbing picture.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 18:51:33 2022 No.20960618

>>20960586
>Are you refusing to explain anything because you can't?
I thought I did. To clarify I need to establish a starting point, a common point to work from.
>It's not an example of me being dogmatic
We established that in the first post. Saying there's nobody ITT being dogmatic is defending that post. Saying I gave no examples is confusing the point.
>Can you please explain
Can you explain why you jumped in to a discussion to claim nobody was being dogmatic ITT?
>has only pondered the idea
But what has that got to do with anything I said? You pile these little additions on to everything you read. Why?
>I think you're engaging in a kind of dogma of your own
I can point at what I'm talking about, you can not. You can only project things you imagined. The disturbing pictures you imagine are a part of your disturbed mind, none of it has anything to do with me.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 18:53:25 2022 No.20960628

>>20960486
>Assuming conditional logic allows you to build on top of that and develop
Yes but that doesn't still explain YOUR point, this syntactic reduction isn't pertinent to your claims about the metaphysical reality of mathematical statements. For if we can have many contradicting logics, not all of which can support math to any degree, and yet we can still use them, which are we to discard, since if we admit the reality of classical logic it would be in contradiction with these other logics, and so would math(unless "paraconsistent math" really ends up adding up to something in the future). If you just say "oh its a map/tool and using maps is inherently metaphysics", then, well, you can't say science needs philosophy since you didn't delineate philosophy as something different to begin with: because physics, does use tools, maps, that's part of just normal physics, not metaphysics. Using a hammer isn't metaphysics.

The "science brained" thing pertains mostly to pop science and sure there's a lot of shitty science around, which should be criticized and not taken at face value. Despite this, I think that if you compare the worth of scientific method and way of thinking to a philosophical kind, I would have to say science is much more modest and honest about what it sets out to do yet delivers surprisingly much when you get down to it, while it's the opposite with philosophy. Sure, there's dumb scientific trends probably in like theoretical physics, but is there anything as dumb as metametametaphysics? I'm aware it's a bit ironic since I'm arguably making metametaphysical arguments in this thread, but the problem of continuing representation still stands. I suppose with philosophy you can self-reflect about the conditional syntax and its meaning to human activity, but it just seems to offer impasses or this metametametaphysic or similar bullshit. True, some scientist can get inspired by some philosophical comment, they might get inspired by any intelligent comment whatsoever, but if the worth of some discipline is that heavily based on such indirect connections to the main discipline, it's not too good(brownian motion was discovered by chance, for example, yet waiting for luck to strike isn't integral to scientific method, for example)

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 18:57:32 2022 No.20960645 >>20955073 everybody is laughing at you every time you pop up to spout this deranged drivel

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 19:01:20 2022 No.20960670

>>20960628
>not all of which can support math
You can represent math using the absolute basic conditional logic, that's how computers work.
>you didn't delineate philosophy as something different to begin with
I explicitly talked about entire project of exploring reality as a unified thing. It's the only perspective that makes sense, where one thing follows from the other. The scientific method is especially powerful but it's still just part of the same project, one of the tools we found in our attempts to map reality, the most materially powerful one.
>The "science brained" thing
Is one of the most frustrating thing in modern culture and it does run through your posts, talking about how everyone but us enlightened science types were incapable of thinking about anything, nobody ever cared about reality until 1920 or something.
Philosophy delivered the scientific method. It's not a dichotomy in any sense. It only is if you demand your assumptions are true about basically nobody in history caring about reality, despite talking about it as their greatest passion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 19:02:48 2022 No.20960677 >>20960645 Seems more reasonable than atheists.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 19:15:10 2022 No.20960729

>>20960670
>You can represent math using the absolute basic conditional logic, that's how computers work.
And we can also build different kinds of mathematical systems. Maybe a new type of math not based in the rules of thumb of classical logic is useful to describe quantum whatever but that math will still rest in the basic rules of logic.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 19:27:24 2022 No.20960781 Its astounding how a religious mind can convince itself, regardless of all evidence, into thinking that its side is the reasonable one. What kind of blindness of intellectual faculty does it take to reach such a point of sheer self-deception.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 19:40:33 2022 No.20960846 >>20960781 Dunning-Kruger effect at work. Many such cases. Sad.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 20:04:35 2022 No.20960977

>>20955095
>usable models
This anon didn't describe it best. Physics relis on usable models. But math doesn't, but you still don't expect 2+2 to become 5 tomorrow? Besides, metaphysics and mysticism also include a lot of usable models, just their usefulness can only be accessed directly.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 20:06:43 2022 No.20960988 >>20955145 >You're just stretching the meaning of "metaphysics" so far No, he doesn't, you just don't know what "metaphysics" means.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 20:10:22 2022 No.20961008

>>20955145
>Yet it works without you thinking about the metaphysical aspect at all
Metaphysics also works without you thinking about it. Besides science is not devoid of metaphysics at all, the fact that there's a lot of important work in science which can be done without caring for metaphysics doesn't mean that science would still keep running for long if all the scientists began neglecting it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 20:11:09 2022 No.20961013 >>20960977 2+2 is based on perception of space and distance and subsequent distinction between pebbles. It is completely inextricable from that present-at-hand basis unless you're an idiot who only knew how to learn math tables by heart.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 20:15:33 2022 No.20961028

>>20960670
You can't represent math through paraconsistent logic yet it finds applications. The simple syntax of or IF doesn't even begin to uncover the semantic information and whether it will produce a meaningful sentence in a given system.
>I explicitly talked about entire project of exploring reality as a unified thing.
We have no philosophical basis to say we are mapping an independent reality though, all of your "philosophical" statements are just post hoc justifications for scientific activity which is something completely separate.
>Philosophy delivered the scientific method.
No it din't, it emerged from scientific activity. It didn't deliver scientific method anymore than metametametaphysics delivered metaphysics. Those types of sentences seem meaningful on the surface, but aren't.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 20:26:23 2022 No.20961068

>>20960729
The problem is, this guy said that the fact that something works means it has metaphysical truth value. Paraconsisten logic works, many-valued logic works. And yet you can't build math from them, and with paraconsistent logic it can be seen that math doesn't even work. Hence there even being a field of paraconsistent math that tries to actually address these perplexities, unlike you people who obviously would say to them "duh its logic" and move on. OPs stance of workability as a criterion of metaphysical universality collapses with its simultaneous attempt at embracing every type of logic as "true".

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 20:29:59 2022 No.20961087

>everyone who doesn't think like me is an idiot
>i never make any mistakes. my mistakes are actually your mistakes
>my beliefs, which are a closely guarded secret to you, contain the truths of the universe
>bask in my glory, break yourselves upon me
Shut up retard.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 20:34:16 2022 No.20961099

>>20961013
Your misunderstanding is due to the fact that you confuse general with particular and something being the the case with how to be convinced that it is the case.
>2+2 is based on perception of space and distance and subsequent distinction between pebbles.
So if 2+2 is based on those, then space, distance and pebbles are more fundamental than numbers? We study numbers presupposing space and time and pebbles, not the other way around?
And what's common between two pebbles, two sheep and two galaxies?
> It is completely inextricable from that present-at-hand basis
What does it have to do with my point? My point was that 2+2=4 is immaterial, not that it's a hard conclusion to arrive to. And besides the point, if it botthers you, there's plenty of math not only outside of present-at-hand basis, but outside of any applications like some Leray spectral sequences or sheafification of algebraic K-theory. And still those are objective and accessible to different mathematicians independently.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 20:39:38 2022 No.20961109

>>20961099
>So if 2+2 is based on those, then space, distance and pebbles are more fundamental than numbers? We study numbers presupposing space and time and pebbles, not the other way around?
Yes
>My point was that 2+2=4 is immaterial, not that it's a hard conclusion to arrive to.
It's not totally "immaterial" in the common sense use, since it is based on perception. You see how those basic things works in perception, you assume they work the same way with larger number of things. If there are obstacles if you're trying to do physical theory, you modify the math based on new information. All those things you mentioned assume these fundamental features of mathematics, which are not reducible to non-materiality, hence they are not purely metaphysical.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 20:41:17 2022 No.20961114

>>20961068
>that something works means it has metaphysical truth value.
There's something about reality that makes it work.
>embracing every type of logic as "true"
The main point is about this misconception you have about "true". You keep bringing it up as if it's valuable in any case to act as if you have some kind of direct access to holy truth.
We can only make up ideas, models in our heads. We only do that to serve certain goals we have.
I told you circles exist in a given context, within the assumptions and definitions math provides. That I can define different kinds of math doesn't change that. There's no real issue unless you're motivated by this idea of having access to all the final answers, a map that is a complete 1:1 representation of reality, which of course would just be reality and just as hard to navigate.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 20:46:57 2022 No.20961132

>>20961114
>The main point is about this misconception you have about "true". You keep bringing it up as if it's valuable in any case to act as if you have some kind of direct access to holy truth.
That's what platonists think, so I think it's pretty damn relevant to the discussion, I had an extensive side discussion before about plato in the beginning of this thread anyway.
>We can only make up ideas, models in our heads. We only do that to serve certain goals we have.
This means those models have no metaphysical value, nor do they need to have, since all of that "making-up" doesn't happen in a pure realm of ideas but is based on human activity.
>There's no real issue unless you're motivated by this idea of having access to all the final answers, a map that is a complete 1:1 representation of reality
Of course there isn't any issue with science - philosophy on the other asks questions about the nature of reality and such. It promises more than it can ever give, and in that it is the complete opposite to any solidly practical or scientific activity.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 20:53:43 2022 No.20961158

>>20961028
>The simple syntax of or IF doesn't even begin to uncover
The entire thing is relying on IF. We can build an infinite number of logically derived systems on top of conditional logic like you're doing with this new type but these systems don't need to have any relationship to anything or serve any purpose. Those systems don't say anything about the usefulness of other systems.
>We have no philosophical basis to say we are mapping an independent reality though
Every attempt to think about anything starts with the assumption that there is something to think about, a territory to explore. What do you think philosophers were trying to do if not explore how reality works?
>it emerged from scientific activity
Because you define all sincere inquiry as scientific despite the word referencing specific methods developed at a specific time. So every time some philosopher wasn't just rambling he was actually doing science the whole time.
>That's what platonists think
Who are you talking about specifically? Plato didn't seem to think like that, it's something you project. Plato references the point from Socrates about not really knowing anything, he at least thought about this. He presents arguments based on premises, not pretenses to be the arbiter of absolute truth.
>This means those models have no metaphysical value
That they work means they represent something about the nature of reality, something that's not contained in physical instances. I care about meaning, not your autistic labeling, you seem to mostly want to use it to know what to dismiss without thinking.
>It promises more
Who is promising anything? You just fucking map reality to navigate it. That includes reality outside physics or any assumptions you may think are the most useful ever conceived.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 20:55:06 2022 No.20961162

>>20961109
>Yes
Please show me math where knowing something about pebbles, space and distance is a prerequisite.
>It's not totally "immaterial" in the common sense use, since it is based on perception
How do you draw that implication? My qualia and I-ness are also based on perception, but they're totally "immaterial". Or do you mean sense perception and data from the material world? Then again you confuse demonstration of a fact with a fact. Math majors may learn though analysis, differential equations, differential geometry without knowing anything about physics.
>you assume they work the same way with larger number of things
Who work? So far you equated number two with two pebbles. What do you mean same way, what way? Peano or other arithmetic axioms don't use the notion of quantity in defining operations, they just define it. You're either a humanitiesfag or a middle schooler.
>you modify the math based on new information
Lol what. When was math ever modified based on new information?
>All those things you mentioned assume these fundamental features of mathematics
I didn't see you mentioning fundamental features of mathematics.
>which are not reducible to non-materiality
What does it mean to reduce something to non-materiality? I'm explaining to you that math is immaterial and learning math doesn't require any knowledge of the external world, but math manifests in the external world.
>hence they are not purely metaphysical
So math is experimental?

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 21:08:31 2022 No.20961209

>>20961158
>The entire thing is relying on IF.
I guess this is was Sartre was getting at when he identified consciousness as "a lack". You can have some deep thoughts about IF those deep thoughts have nothing to do with a scientific practical application of it, since even IF is simply an expression of a possibility to see things otherwise. This can also be derived from spatiality, like Heidegger would, while Sartre would reverse the relationship.
>reality works
But science is much more local. We don't need such wide-ranging statements. Science is more like studying "how do things work given these and these conditions" and accumulating as much data about it as possible. It might seem like a small difference, but it actually is very important in trying to keep a non-dogmatic idea about scientific thinking, and, really, life instead of regressing into philosophy.
>Because you define all sincere inquiry as scientific despite the word referencing specific methods developed at a specific time.
On the other hand, you define every thought ever had by anyone as philosophy. I'm satisfied with this "stalemate", others can judge.
>Plato didn't seem to think like that, it's something you project.
He did think there were metaphysically true ideas, the realm of Forms, which were true. For his view all of what I said would be highly problematic. There's a bizarre strain of trying to make Plato into some scientism guy in this thread, which makes me wonder how deep did this site's conversion into platonism ever go.
>That they work means they represent something about the nature of reality
No,they only represent something about how to make some things work. There's no need to make such wild statements.
>Who is promising anything? You just fucking map reality to navigate it.
Philosophy is promising it can provide answers to questions such as nature of consciousness or nature of reality, yet it never does. When they realize this, everyone turns into philosophers of science and tries to take credit for scientific activity, without considering that they would have to investigate metametametaphysics to not be hypocrites.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 21:19:59 2022 No.20961260

>>20961162
>Please show me math where knowing something about pebbles, space and distance is a prerequisite.
Of course you can learn the basic math idiotically, without understanding what the concepts of addition and multiplication refer to. Hint: they refer to arrangements of pebbles, of course supplanted by black squares of ink on the page, but the basis of perceiving difference between pebbles or whatever you wish is spatiality.
>My qualia and I-ness are also based on perception, but they're totally "immaterial".
You have never perceived any qualia distinctly from a perceived object, or in isolation. Your I-ness is again based on saptiality, where you can separate two different objects, this allows you to separate you from the rest of the world. It's nothing but applied spatial perception.
>Peano or other arithmetic axioms don't use the notion of quantity in defining operations, they just define it. You're either a humanitiesfag or a middle schooler.
Yeah, uhh
>These axioms have been used nearly unchanged in a number of METAMATHEMATICAL investigations, including research into fundamental questions of whether number theory is consistent and complete.
Who knew, right? Truth is, this guy made a post hoc justification for for something based on spatial perception and distances. You might note the axioms were made in 19th century, far after the 2+2 was already perceived as a scientific fact, which ultimately goes back to manipulating spatial distinction.
>Lol what. When was math ever modified based on new information?
Not MATH as a monolithic entity but the math he used to do his theory. I guess typical error to make for your type of brainworm.
>I'm explaining to you that math is immaterial and learning math doesn't require any knowledge of the external world
It does require perception and spatiality, otherwise you won't understand what addition and multiplication refer to and the whole basis of trying to learn math collapses.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 21:20:42 2022 No.20961263

>>20961209
>This can also be derived from spatiality
It is basically temporal causality but more abstract. If the ball strikes the other ball thing happens. That you we use this logic thing so abstractly is weird and it does say something about reality.
>But science is much more local
It's one, powerful way of mapping parts of reality. If you limit yourself to assumptions, no matter how well they're working you are still limiting yourself. It depends on how immediate your needs are which is more useful, exploring or directly harvesting what you know how to harvest.
>It might seem like a small difference
It's not a difference. It's how most philosophers did things, that is relatively logically. The revolution was more about taking more into account the biases of the observer. Formalizing methods that can be repeated without bias interfering with observations.
>He did think there were metaphysically true ideas
He argued for them, that they map on to reality. I argued that the points can remain despite the form being defined by relationships instead of being a kind of thing in itself. The form is still in-itself there as part of the system but as part of the system, nothing we can conceive of exists without any context. There wouldn't even be any thread of thought possible to bring us to the idea.
>No,they only represent something about how to make some things work.
What works is defined by reality, you don't decide what works.
>yet it never does
When it does you call it science.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 8 21:22:26 2022 No.20961273 >>20961263 >That we can use this logic thing so abstractly is weird and it does say something about reality. >If you limit yourself to any specific set of assumptions

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 21:30:05 2022 No.20961315

>What works is defined by reality, you don't decide what works.
It doesn't mean there's a full picture of nature of reality, which by definition would include literally everything in existence: this is the claim you must avoid. The information given by science is necessarily limited. The fact that we can observe neurons in the brain doesn't tell us anything about the philosophical problems of consciousness, for example. It's just a scientific model useful for some predictions, and you are crypto scientism supporter.
>It is basically temporal causality but more abstract. If the ball strikes the other ball thing happens.
Yet in philosophy, even cause isn't proven to exist despite the fact that it works. Are you really going to claim to support philosophy while throwing 99% of philosophy to shitter, while retaining only your random common sense ideas?
>It's not a difference. It's how most philosophers did things, that is relatively logically.
Hume's critique of causation was logical, despite the fact that causation "works" in scientific models. Should Hume's critique never have happened on that ground? And what does it say about the notion of metaphysical verity that logic and workability can clash this hard?
>The form is still in-itself there as part of the system
nonsensical sentence
>When it does you call it science.
Again, science wouldn't ever asked a question like that of Hume's, since it isn't useful in some practical sense to dispel with cause. Science would say: yeah cause seems to work(i prefer this to map) lets just continue using it, philosopher like Hume wants a completely different sort of grounding to issues. It is really dishonest of you to pretend to not see the difference.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 21:40:57 2022 No.20961368

>>20961315
>It doesn't mean there's a full picture of nature of reality
We went over this literally 500 times now.
>even cause isn't proven to exist despite the fact that it works
Is exactly my point. We use it because it works, it is "proven" in that it works. It has a relationship to reality in that it works.
>Hume's critique of causation was logical
Is also covered in the previous post. The two things are separate, we can create logical systems with all kinds of weird causalities, reverse etc. Logic is an example where it's not temporal, the conditions need no physical representation and are independent of time. Logical statements don't need actual balls or whatever creating a temporal causal chain.
>nonsensical sentence
A thing can exist despite not having some magical unconnected existence without any context. The circle exists within the context of math. If there's some kind of platonic realm it defines math and circles in advance. The circle does exist there in some form.
>Again, science wouldn't ever asked a question like that of Hume
Is the idea that Hume is not motivated by sincere interest in how reality works? Hume wants to explore different sorts of grounding for things, to think instead of pretending we have all the answers. How is it not an example of exploring reality?

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 21:54:39 2022 No.20961434

>>20961368
>We use it because it works
Not the heuristic which any philosopher use, like Hume, uses and doesn't as such account for most of the history of philosophy.
>The circle exists within the context of math.
So it doesn't exist in itself, which is what you said.
>Is the idea that Hume is not motivated by sincere interest in how reality works?
No, the idea is that Hume's idea is incosistent with your idea of mapping idea insofar as it is useful, since Hume certainly knew his result was unintuitive and un-useful way of mapping reality. Therefore if you wish to defend philosophy, you're not allowed to evoke the usefulness of a mathematical fact in its defense.

Anonymous Thu Sep 8 23:16:47 2022 No.20961728

>>20961434
>Not the heuristic which any philosopher use
What is the alternative? Hume was not motivated by exploring reality and how it works? What are you trying to actually say?
>in itself
Nothing conceivable can do that in this sense you want.
>knew his result was unintuitive and un-useful way of mapping reality
Like the infinite logical systems I gave as examples before, we can make up as many as we want. Exploring that idea and some of those systems does expand our grasp on reality.
You make absolutely no sense at all. What do philosophers do? Randomly say things for no reason? Not motivated by anything?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature