/lit/ - Literature

>>10473658
your bitch loves my poetry.

weierstrass did solve zeno's paradox you illiterate mongrel

>What caused god to exist???
>Haha imagine the greatest ice cream cone lol!!
>Heh what about evolution?
>Haha theists if God created us then why are our eyes backwards bet you didn't think about that one haha!!
>Dude like what if there's a teapot in space or something haha prove me wrong
>The burden of proof is on you now meet my arbritrary standard of empirical evidence or you lose and I win!!
>If God exists then how come I'm still a virgin??

>>10473677
>If you assume that you can do an infinite number of tasks in a finite amount of time then you can do an infinite number of tasks in a finite amount of time
WOAH...so this is the power... of STEMfaggotry..

>>10473658
>>Evolution means morality doesn't exist and life has no meaning
This one is wrong
Morality is an adaptive trait in humans

>>10473705
You literally don't understand the mathematics involved if that's your take on it

>>10473658
Time doesn't exist either, yet we still rely on it, what difference does morality make in the eyes of evolution? It may be a man made construct, but so are many of our greatest tools. You fucking pathetic pseud

>>10473705
you stupid motherfucker the mere existence of convergent series is enough to solved Zeno's paradox

>>10473817
No you don't understand the math or the philosophy involved if you think infinitesimals solve Zenos paradoxes

Weierstrass' definition of a limit makes calculus irrelevant to his paradoxea anyways

>>10473705
lmao it is not tasks that are in infinite number it's segments of time that when added no converge

>>10473845
t. inifinitist brainlet

>>10473697
in your picture you misspelled "Bertrand." Easy mistake to make.

>>10473658

>tfw political philosophy is still relevant

>>10473845
>>10473849
they knew convergent infinite series existed back in ancient greece
they knew sum((1/2)^n) converged back in ancient greece
none of this is what Zeno was talking about
go back to twisting around in a chair, slapping your leg repititively and reading freshman calculus textbooks for fun

>>10473864
>implying science won't solve political philosophy eventually

>>10473658
>implying calculus didnt solve Zeno's paradoxes

>>10473816
This

>>10473872
hello brainlet

>>10473855
>tfw Wildberger retards are branching out to other boards now
pls stop

>>10473865
no, we know this since weierstrass
>>10473855
caring about foundational issues when they don't show up naturally in the maths is untermensch behavior -- i'll let you think about the square root of 2 while i do grown up stuff

t. PhD in algebraic geometry

>>10473816
>>10473878
pls elaborate i need morality

>>10473705
>If you assume that you can't do an infinite number of tasks in a finite amount of time then you can't do an infinite number of tasks in a finite amount of time
WOAH...so this is the power...of ZENfaggotry

>>10473894
we're not talking about math we're talking about metaphysics though

>>10473902
>tfw all known quantities in the universe are descrete
>tfw this can't be the result of an underlying metaphysical principle because muh freshman calculus

>>10473865
There's no evidence Zeno even intended to convince anyone there was a paradox of motion e.g. that concept could have been outlined to show why infinite intervals can exist in finite spans of time. All the historical writings about the interpretation of Zeno's Paradox are from writers other than Zeno.

>>10473905
which one

>>10473911
>All quantities we try to assess with limited man-made devices appear limited and finite.
Huh, what a strange coincidence!

>>10473948
>lolwtf is digital physics

>>10473957
>lolwtf is digital physics
A proposal of how the universe might be, not evidence of how the universe is. You would need to cite evidence for why we should believe in this premise if you want to use it as an argument for something.

>>10473973
its successful which is literally the only argument in favor of the reality of any scientific theory

Evolution is never observed. Artificial selection is. Evolution is not valid. That is accepted by many.

Neuroscience is also falsifiable under certain parameters as well.

Mathematics has indeed developed well, I can safely say we should all be so lucky to witness the development of it. It has assisted the fields of economics and logic tremendously

>>10473980
>its successful
No, if anything is "successful" it's a specific prediction made in accordance with that framework.
So what specific evidence to you have? What specific predictions were successful? And why do you believe these predictions are compatible with digital physics exclusively and not with any other framework?
You're being way too vague right now and haven't even begun making an argument yet.

>>10473658
>morality doesn't exist.
>don't murder me, that's wrong.

>>10473997
falsifiability is a fucking meme stfu
the demarcation problem will never be solved and that's alright because there's a lot of bullshit within science and a lot of good shit outside of it

>>10473997
>the "macro evolution hasn't been observed so it can't exist" mayamy
What's the magical barrier which separates macro from micro evolution pls tell me.

to all stembrainlets:

If calculus solved Zeno's paradox, then what is the length of the last interval Zeno made before making it to the end?

>>10473658
Neuroscience hasn't disproven dualism because neuroscience can't explain intentionality since intentionality defies explanation on the level of efficient causality.

>>10474053
this is precisely the reason why plato wanted people to do maths

you stupid son of a bitch

>>10474074
Zeno's paradox requires that he makes it through every interval.

What is the last interval motherfucker? If he can't make it though every interval, he can't make it to the end.

>>10473658
Calculus solved some of Zeno's paradoxes (Achilles and the Tortoise), but it did not resolve the fundamental paradox about discreteness.

Neuroscience cannot yet explain systematic knowledge.

>>10473816
The meaning of adaptive is unclear. Survivalist adaptation is one mechanism of change, but certainly not the sole mechanism. Rock formations certainly "evolved" but not for survival purposes. Nor would can the existence of adaptation comment on the desirability of any particular adaptation.

Science and philosophy are equivalent.


Dear /lit/, please learn to read. Also, Kant.

>>10474053
>what is the length of the last interval Zeno made before making it to the end?
Zeno was the philosopher, not the guy in the race.
Assuming you meant to write Achilles though, the answer would be 1/ω, or ε.

>>10474087
>Assuming you meant to write Achilles though, the answer would be 1/ω, or ε.

>ε
>1/ω

>>10474100
Not an argument, try again sweetie.

>>10474105
the reason the (ε, δ) definition exists is to get around this kind of fuckery

What is the value of ε?? 0???? 0+(1/infinity)???

Also the whole concept rests on the idea that limits and infinitesimals are metaphysically real concepts, which I would reject.

Mfw all you rely on others to come to ideas

Brainlets all of you.

>>10474109
And the whole reason the "calculus solves Zeno's paradox" is brainlet tier is because it just assumes limits have this kind of application which is exactly what's being questioned.

>>10474109
>the reason the (ε, δ) definition exists is to get around this kind of fuckery
Abraham Robinson proved infinitesimal calculus is rigorous 50 years ago.
Also infinitesimals are a well defined part of the of set of surreal numbers.

>>10473861
Kek

I create paradoxe for fun.

Does this make me smart.

>>10474130
yeah its rigorous but it doesnt mean that infinite summations are something you can "do" in the real world

if you think that being mathematically workable/rigorous is enough to work metaphysically then you should get back to me with a video of you dividing a sphere into two spheres as big as the original

1+1=2
Philosophy btfo

>>10474111
>Being intentionally ignorant and then reinventing the wheel except much worse because you'll probably make bad assumptions and your lack of outside influence means no one will point out you're being retarded.
Stupid. Best way to develop a severely limiting bad habit on a musical instrument for example is to self-teach instead of starting with lessons. Once you learn things the wrong way it's really hard to unlearn them later on. And lots of nontrivial academic topics are counterintuitive, meaning you'll probably intuit the wrong understandings for how things work in the absence of outside feedback.

>>10473861
>>10474135
samefaggot, your joke isn't funny stop posting it over /lit/

*unzips will to power*
Just shut up already.

>>10474163
Take your pills you paranoid hack.

>>10474151
Basing your arguement off of
>probably
Brainlet

I am smart enough to check my work with outside sources, but I do not use other peoples work as base, unless I understand the theories before I come to theirs.

>>10474147
>you should get back to me with a video of you dividing a sphere into two spheres as big as the original
That's not an argument, there exist all sorts of tasks which both aren't impossible and which we ourselves aren't able to accomplish. Our not being able to personally do something isn't anywhere close to a proof for the impossibility of a given task.
Also we do move in the real world and you can model that movement in terms of infinite summations. Not sure why you're arguing that "doesn't count." It's not like any abstract concept of distance actually exists in the real world beyond being an idea we model reality with.

>>10474181
Approximation is way more useful than perfection in the real world. Stop using all of your technology if "probably" isn't good enough for you, because all of it is based on notions of what probably works within a margin of error.
>I am smart enough to check my work with outside sources
That's not the same as having someone give you feedback on what you're doing wrong, unless by "checking with outside sources" you mean talking with other people about it.

>>10474053
dx = lim (x+h) - x = lim h = 0

>>10474182
>That's not an argument, there exist all sorts of tasks which both aren't impossible and which we ourselves aren't able to accomplish. Our not being able to personally do something isn't anywhere close to a proof for the impossibility of a given task.
the banach-tarski paradox is mathematically valid and straight up physically, if not metaphysically, impossible

>Also we do move in the real world and you can model that movement in terms of infinite summations
denying that infinite summations are mathematically sound and useful for modeling reality would definitely be brainletism. Denying that you can "do" an infinite number of tasks is not, in my opinion

>It's not like any abstract concept of distance actually exists in the real world beyond being an idea we model reality with.
I disagree

>>10474206
>straight up physically, if not metaphysically, impossible
Proof it's impossible and not just something we as limited biological organisms can't personally do?

>>10474213
conservation of mass

>>10474182
>It's not like any abstract concept of distance actually exists in the real world beyond being an idea we model reality with.

Gravity

>>10474206
>the banach-tarski paradox is mathematically valid and straight up physically, if not metaphysically, impossible
The "paradox" is simply a theorem about balls in R3. There is nothing "metaphysically" problematic. At most it would prove that either R3 is not a accurate model for some experiments or that we don't know how to extract non-measurable parts of a material ball (which is necessary for the theorem).

>>10473816
They're all wrong, that's the point.

>>10474270
wow what if infinite series aren't an accurate model for certain situations???

>>10473658
>>10473845
>>10474087

Zeno's paradox is a metaphysical question about the constitution of the world. Calculus ONLY solves the paradox if calculus IS equivalent to physical reality, which entails being a platonist about math and infinity

>>10474312
not even a platonist but a fucking mathematical physicalist

Analytic virgin
>encounter Zero's paradox, an antinomy in the language used by greek philosophers, that leads to a "metaphysical" paradox
>scratch head like monkey
>"solve" the problem by hypostatizing language even harder than the greeks did, concealing the wonky metaphysics even deeper beneath a formalized symbolic artificial language
>justify the use of symbolic artificial language circularly, with resort to the symbolic artificial language itself, or by claiming naive "self-evidence" of the same old implicit metaphysics that grounds the symbolic artificial language
>create lifeless spires out of the symbols to tautologically and self-referentially "prove" that the original antinomy isn't real
>ultimately just rehash a plain-spoken solution to the problem (serial infinity) that was already thought up in antiquity,
>think that because it has MORE SYMBOLS this time around it must be PERFECT!!!
>reify the original broken greek metaphysics in a way that even medieval scholastic philosophers didn't
>completely cut philosophy (now reinterpreted as "logic") off from any ontological reflexivity, forced to result to embarrassingly naive moorean "here is a hand"-tier axioms
>sit in a basement alone doing arbitrary number-cruncher puzzles that ultimately refer back to nothing except their own contingent truth conditions and can never finally describe reality
>endlessly rework embarrassingly bad cartoonish 17th century materialism
>fail to do real science because constantly trying to fit the square peg of nature into the round hole of DUHHHHH BUHHHHH ITS JUST MATTER INNIT ITS JUST QUANTIFIABLE EXTENSION IN SPACE DUHHH DUHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Continental Chad
>encounter Zeno's paradox
>critique the conditions of the possibility of knowledge to show that knowledge always terminates in antinomies, when it attempts to grasp certain paradoxical empirical possibilities, because all empirical cognition has certain a priori rational conditions
>immediately extend the critique to the historicity of the conditions of that rationality
>extend that critique to the conditions of the critique itself
>come to the shocking realisation that all meaning is fully immanent in language, and can never transcendentally signify any pure ground of truth or reason
>come to the shocking realisation that language works in spite of itself, in spite of the lack of an anchor of ultimate transcendental rationality
>try to come up with ways of representing this situation
>begin playing with metaphor, a miraculous function of language's total immanence, to represent things while also keeping one eye on the fact that nothing can ever be fully or finally "represented"
>come up with more and more sophisticated ways of talking about the existence of meaning and its existential relationship with human life
>thereby actually employ "symbolic" reasoning in the correct and ontologically rigorous way
>unlock new dimensions of science and math never before dreamed by grubby analytics

>>10474312
'the constituion of the world' is entirely meaningless you complete mongrel, metaphysics, physics, maths are all in our heads read Kant you utter pleb

>>10474331
wrong read Leibniz

>>10473658
Zeno's paradox assumes space behaves the same at all scales, which is physically not true.

At some scale, order of magnitude of the planck length, the behavior of spacetime becomes dominated by quantum effects and classical notions of distance become irrelevant.

>>10474331
It is you who needs to read Kant because he never said that. He just said that the concepts do not leave our head in a physical manner, as in, the formula does not move those things around it like a machine assembly. Meaning that they are part of the theological and divine world, rather than the physical world. Like trees being certain colors or sizes.

>>10474353
the thing is we don't really know how spacetime works with quantum physics since we havent been able to work gravity into it

>>10474362
We know when quantum effects on spacetime become dominant, we just know exactly what those effects are.

Unless you choose a particular model, like string theory. And even the geometry is so complicated it very hard to interpret physically.

>>10474326
whos worse,

pseuds who read the wikipedia article on Wittgenstein or pseuds who read the wikipedia article on Heidegger or pseud who read the wikipedia article on Nietzsche

>>10474381
hotheads

>>10474381
The worst is pseuds who actually read Nietzsche but it's the only thing they've read and then they go on 4chan and make threads about society or some misanthropic view they've developed because of him.

>>10474523
its funny because nietzsche actually considered himself to be very anti-misanthropic

>science can solve ethical problems

>>10474326
>It's another "Continentals keep trying to escape the limits of knowledge with their shitty Heideggerian discourse that is incommensurate with rational discourse and thus instead of stating deeper truths, states nothing at all" episode

>>10475003
that's....good??

>>10474189
Yeah, I do both.
Its an active philosophy that I create, I really try not to taint it with "names" of people, so it's really just from everything, and I do not "seek" names in literature.

>>10473861
Nice

>>10474312
No? The math at the time said that the race could never be finished. But the physical reality is that it can. There lies the paradox. The math today says that the race can be finished, so it's solved.

>>10475102
The math wasn't Zeno's impetus for posing the paradox. It's a natural consequence of assuming the world is pluralistic - infinity divisible - as Heraclitus and Protagoras believed. Zeno was trying to demonstrate, through a reducto ad absurdum, that this is impossible. If calculus solves the problem, that is a strong case for believing that calculus has some physical significance beyond formalism

>>10474379
>And even the geometry is so complicated it very hard to interpret physically.
>>10475102
Both of you are Brainlets.

Physical reality is not bound by Time.
All of things are co-current in the substance of Time.

Time is an "aethor".

So when this "paradox" is asked, it's not accepting that time and physical realities can be dualistic, which is inherrently wrong.

We cannot prove physical matter is bound by time, only that experience is bound by time and physicality.

It is not even a fucking paradox, just a stupid questiom for toddlers to twiddle their thumbs over.

>>10474344
thats interesting where should i look exactly

>>10473658
>Calculus solved Zeno
No way anyone actually believes this, even children ought to know Aristotle did this by asserting that in the same way space is infinitely divisible, so is time.

>>10473816
>Morality is a set of diplomatic rules/values conditioned into humans so they can cohabit a set area or more than ten minutes without killing each other
This is real to you?

>>10473658
>I don't know what supertasks are
>I don't know how newtonian physics work
Last two are silly, though.

>>10475414
this

>>10475102
>The math today says that the race can be finished, so it's solved.
the math says the race can be finished if you ignore the premises of zenos paradoxes

or in other words: "if zenos paradox didnt exist Achilles could finish the race"

WOAH

>>10475424
there are people that are UNIRONICALLY arguing this ITT.

jesus christ /lit/

>>10473658
>>Dualism is wrong because neuroscience
Explain to a brainlet why this is false other than muh evidence of absence

>>10473658
>Dualism isn't wrong

>>10475761
>>10475787
there's no physical explanation for anything that dualists claim is immaterial

i mean i wouldnt really consider myself a dualism (im more of a neutral monist) but dualism needs to be debunked on a priori grounds

>>10473658
Lmao this is the classic STEMfag excuse not to read and nothing more.

>>10475808
evertyhing in past is dum

hurrrrrrrrrrrr

>(implying you cannot read Archimedes for the reasoning, even though he believed in a Geocentric universe)

>>10474326
>continental """philosophy"""

>>10473658
When you can literally calculate a specific numberical answer to Zeno’s “paradox”, it seems pretty solved. If calculus is conceptually coherent, then the paradox is indeed solved. And if it’s not solved by calculus, it’s definitely solved by Wittgenstein.

Dualism was DOA from the problem of interaction.

Literally a Christian stawman that nobody who accepts evolution makes.

An unfortunate position brought on us by the over abundance of instrumental reason.

>>10473816
If by morality you mean the concept of value/right and wrong, then yes.
If by morality you mean empathy and a sense of social duty then also yes, but that isn't identical to what most philosophers would call morality.

>>10474215
>conservation of mass
Banach-Tarski creates volume, not mass.

>>10475795
>there's no physical explanation for anything that dualists claim is immaterial
You don't need physical explanations for things that don't exist.

>>10473658
>>Dualism is wrong because neuroscience
>>Evolution means morality doesn't exist and life has no meaning
>>Science replaced philosophy


first was kind of right but the last 3 are retarded. kys

>>10476265
lurk more for fucks sake

>>10474326
imagine being this fucking stupid

>>10476277
i genuinely didn't even look at the picture before i posted. but my point stands because there are actually people on this board who believe that shit

>>10475003
i just realized you are arguing philosophy with an anime girl avatar. happy new year, indeed.

>>10474326
>Continental Chad
>make some shallow and simplistic observation of sociolinguistic phenomena, obfuscated into near-incomprehensibility, often directly derived from the popular but unchallenged notions in the author's given culture and time
>have """"academia"""" create a canonical """interpretation""" of this corrupted simplicity, which is comprehensible but crafted to intentionally be a convoluted self-referential maze of pretend-meaning and essentially meaningless
>for centuries, pretend that this is a great intellectual work and counts as genuine "philosophy"
>attach manufactured idealistic personality-worship, further removing attention directed at the "substance" of the philosophy, to obscure its underlying nature
>refuse to intellectually change, deride anyone who dare go beyond said shallow and simplistic sociolinguistic observation(s)

>>10476285
other than criticisms of dualism nobody here believes the quoted statements

>>10476322
>>10476322
people genuinely believe that and that zeno's paradoxes are solved by calculus, i guarantee it

>>10476301
I didn't know Kant did all that

>>10473869
Science won’t but technology will.

>>10473997
>artificial selection
Nigga, what does that even mean, there is no meaningful distinction that can be made between artificial and natural selection.

>>10473997
>Evolution is never observed

Lmao

>>10476301
>Analytic Chad
>start work on naive philosophico-logico ponderings
>some continental faggot stops you & says some shit about horizon of meaning or some bullshit like that
>call him an obscurantist fraud
>finish paper, publish it
>some analytic fellow writes the same thing in a response but using language that you can understand
>realize that he's right
>call him an obscurantist fraud anyway

>>10474206
>the banach-tarski paradox is mathematically valid and straight up physically, if not metaphysically, impossible
>>10474215
>conservation of mass
Isn't going from a smaller volume to a much larger volume while conserving mass / energy exactly what happened with our entire observable universe?
Sounds like a Banach-Tarski volume expansion is plenty possible: We're in one.

>>10474025
Planck's constant

>>10473658
>Dualism is wrong because neuroscience
lmao, try again.

>>10476351
Yes there is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

>>10476354
It isn't. Using bacteria is not an argument.

>>10477288
>Planck's constant
????????????????????????
Planck constant wasn't a prediction of Digital Physics.
Konrad Zuse's Calculating Space was published in 1969.
Planck constant was used in Max Planck's On an Improvement of Wien's Equation for the Spectrum published in 1900.

>>10477308
Well it's certainly not the *only* reason to dismiss dualism, but it is one of them. I don't think any neurologists around today are operating in terms of the dualism paradigm.
Interaction between physical and non-physical phenomena not making any sense on closer examination is probably the biggest flaw of dualism. If there were a way for physical and non-physical phenomena to interact, then that amounts to conceding it's all physical (and if there's interaction going on in a way where the alleged "non-physical" component is causing different behavior in the physical components from how physics would predict, then that would be a testable finding we could look for, and of course nobody's ever identified that sort of disparity from conventional physics).
And if there isn't a way for them to interact, then you now have a pointless non-physical entity hanging around that has nothing to do with the physical brain.

daily reminder to go to mass

https://youtu.be/xHrsJ5izW8Y

>>10473816
>is
>not ought

If you think science is the only form of truth or that we can only know truth through the scientific method, you are utterly retarded.

Scientism is a plaguing piece of garbage that has turned science into a whore.

>>10473869
>implying political philosophy wasn't solved by the enlightenment

>>10478829
It's dogmatic as well. Somewhat problematic...

>>10475421
discourse on metaphysics

>>10474053

There is no "last interval" that Zeno is making, you did not understand the resolution to Zeno's Paradoxon. Asking for the "last interval" is exactly equivalent to asking for the largest natural number; there is none. Learn about calculus and the definition of a limit.

>>10477320
Nigga how does an artificial selective pressure differ from a natural one?

>>10477320
Why are bacteria not an argument? Do you refuse to acknowledge everything you can’t directly observe?

>>10473658
You forgot
>Strawmen replaced sound premises

>>10481058
That's the point he's making it was a rhetorical question

>>10473816
Morality absolutely can't be adaptive.

What is *caused*, no matter how good it can be described, is not moral.

Morality is what creates an *act*. Act is what creates the morality.

>>10473658
>philosophy is still useful outside of Ethics
>Metaphysics and aesthetics are useful and not dead.

>>10481058
>There is no "last interval" that Zeno is making, you did not understand the resolution to Zeno's Paradoxon. Asking for the "last interval" is exactly equivalent to asking for the largest natural number; there is none. Learn about calculus and the definition of a limit.
Fuck STEMbrainlets are so dogmatic

Achilles must pass through EVERY interval equally. If theres no last interval, he can't "make it"

this is why limits dont apply here and why its retarded to think its a math problem

>>10481513
thank you for saying what everyone with a brain is thinking

it's unbelievable how retarded these people are

>>10474087
>ε
Old school...

>>10474381
>pseuds who read the wikipedia article on Wittgenstein or pseuds who read the wikipedia article on Heidegger or pseud who read the wikipedia article on Nietzsche

Pseuds that believe their opponents are pseuds who read the wikipedia article on Wittgenstein or pseuds who read the wikipedia article on Heidegger or pseuds who read the wikipedia article on Nietzsche.

((evolution))

>not observable
>what is the 2nd law of thermodynamics

Please reconsider your views.

>>10473658
>Evolution means morality doesn't exist and life has no meaning
news to me

>>10481578
Since atheism posits the universe as fundamentally irrational, there can be no rational arguments for atheism

>>10474280
they arent wrong they just arent completeatly correct. morality shouldnt be governed by some invisible hand, so having an even vegue idea is good even if it only serves a purpose to politics. even if morality isnt objective i think its still relevant to pose questions about it.

>>10481591
>atheism posits the universe as fundamentally irrational
Atheism doesn't "posit" that. I think you're trying to take "the universe not being created for a reason" as "the universe is irrational," which is wrong because whether or not something was deliberately created says nothing about whether or not it will behave in predictable ways that can be discerned through reason.

>>10478829
This

>>10473658
>>Science replaced philosophy
Philosophy will always have a place as it discusses the questions science cannot answer

>>10482547
"hurr how do you KNOW science cant figure out morality amd political systems people have always said that science cant do X and then science does X therefore we don't need to do philosophy ever"

>>10482547
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Alder#Newton's_flaming_laser_sword

>>10473861
Lmao

>>10482595
>Alder writes that the average scientist does not hold philosophy in high regard, "somewhere between sociology and literary criticism".[3] He has strongly criticized what he sees as the disproportionate influence of Greek philosophy—especially Platonism—in modern philosophy. He contrasts the scientist's Popperian approach to the philosopher's Platonic approach, which he describes as pure reason. He illustrates this with the example of the irresistible force paradox, amongst others. According to Alder, the scientist's answer to the paradox "What happens when an irresistible force is exerted on an immovable object" is that the premise of the question is flawed; either the object is moved (and thus the object is movable), or isn't (thus the force is resistible):[3]
Literally what the fuck is wrong with STEMniggers

>>10473658
>Dualism

Who besides dumb theists actually believes in dualism nowadays? Materalism is so obviously right you'd have to be retarded to think otherwise.

>>10482631
>Materialism is so obviously right

>>10482642
>>10482631

>>10482609
The wikipedia article is just fucked, here is what he actually said:

>"When I was a child, of nine or ten years of age, a particularly sadistic
schoolteacher posed the question: ‘What would happen if an irresistible force
acted on an immovable object?’ My first response was that if the force was
irresistible, then the object must move. ‘Ah,’ said the teacher, who had been
here before, ‘but the object is immovable.’
I thought about this for three days with brief periods out for sleeping.
Eventually I concluded that language was bigger than the universe, that it was
possible to talk about things in the same sentence which could not both be
found in the real world. The real world might conceivably contain some object
which had never so far been moved, and it might contain a force that had never
successfully been resisted, but the question of whether the object was really
immovable could only be known if all possible forces had been tried on it and
left it unmoved. So the matter could be resolved by trying out the hitherto
irresistible force on the hitherto immovable object to see what happened.
Either the object would move or it wouldn't, which would tell us only that
either the hitherto immovable object was not in fact immovable, or that the
hitherto irresistible force was in fact resistible"

>>10482642
>>10482654
Literally who?

>>10473658
Actually neuroscience is wrong because of obfuscated dualism, because biosemiotics.

>>10482631
>Materalism is so obviously right you'd have to be retarded to think otherwise
You mispelled panpsychism, dork

>>10481578
reading this gave me cancer

>>10482662
David Chalmers is the guy who coined the phrase "hard problem of consciousness" and came up with the philosophical zombie argument.
He strongly believes qualia are real and that we need an expanded form of science / physics to account for them as literal existing phenomena. He also once wrote a paper about what it's like to be a thermostat:
http://consc.net/notes/lloyd-comments.html
The other guy in that meme picture you linked to is Daniel Dennett, the guy who coined the phrase "Cartesian theater." He's on the opposite end of this qualia debate spectrum in that he strongly believe qualia are not real and that insofar as there's a "hard problem of consciousness" it's getting people to realize these "experiences" / subjective phenomena don't actually exist beyond the behavior we exhibit around "them" e.g. You're not really "experiencing the appearance of the color blue" when looking at the sky, you're instead engaging in blue color sight behavior where you act and speak in response to instincts, memories, and thoughts associated with the information you have stored from your past encounters with this sort of stimuli.
Dennett would argue adding something new to physics to account for "qualia" wouldn't make any sense because it's a convenient fiction we behave around rather than an actual thing itself. He compares the idea of "qualia" with the untrue thing a stage magician tries to get you to believe he made happen, and the actuality of what lets us believe "qualia" are happening and prompts our behaviors around "it" to the mundane stage magic tricks that deceive us, ultimately leading to the conclusion it's not the question of "how does X happen" that we need to answer but rather "how are we led to believe X happens."
Just as it wouldn't make sense to try to solve the "hard problem" of "how did the magician cut a lady in half and then put her back together without her dying," it wouldn't make sense to try to solve the "hard problem" of "how do qualia appear to us," because in both cases you'd be mistakenly assuming the thing you're led to believe happened actually did happen.

>>10483228
>Dennett would argue adding something new to physics to account for "qualia" wouldn't make any sense because it's a convenient fiction we behave around rather than an actual thing itself.
imagine falling for the behaviorism meme this hard

>>10482680
>Neurosciences is wrong.
It's a hard science. There's no theory. It's all experiment and data collection. Unless you can somehow argue why a neuron is right or wrong.

>>10483228
Order and Chaos. The hard problem cannot be solved unless you can clearly define what a pattern is and what randomness is. Pattern is important because whether you like or not, the brain is a pattern recognition machine. The issue at hand then becomes can a pattern recognition machine recognize patterns in itself and break "free" from it? And so any theory on consciousness must be grounded on patterns. All the major breakthrough in A.I., self driving cars, language/speech recognition, is in machine learning, more specifically neural nets. But there is no unified theory on why neural nets work in the first place because there's no theory on patterns. It can very well be that qualia has something to do with some aspect of the recognition of patterns, but that's the furthest extent that anybody has argued.

>>10483262
>It's a hard science. There's no theory. It's all experiment and data collection.

>>10483247
It's pretty hard to come up with a more out there claim than the literal reality of "qualia," so as strange as it is to suggest we're behaving around a convenient fiction I still think that's much more plausible than the alternatives like there's some non-physical real thing that appears to us and will one day be integrated into scientific theory as an extension of modern physics.
There's at least a strong precedent for the former idea that our brains operate in terms of untrue premises when it's convenient to do so.

>>10473816
Delusions of morality aren’t morality. Just admit you’re a nihilist

>>10483262
>The issue at hand then becomes can a pattern recognition machine recognize patterns in itself and break "free" from it?
What does that even mean?
I can't even say whether you're right or wrong because I don't think you've communicated an actual idea yet.

>>10473658
>Dualism is wrong because neuroscience
You’re implying that early dualists didn’t know that the brain behaved in physical and controllable ways

>>10483294
The OP is describing dumb shit people actually believe not advancing those points

>>10483277
>It's pretty hard to come up with a more out there claim than the literal reality of "qualia,"
here is one quale
here is another

pzombies gtfo off /lit/ reeee

>>10474181
>probably
what else are you gonna base ur argument on u platonic neanderthal
the law of big numbers is the one true religion

>>10483277
the existence of subjective experience is an observation not a "convenient fiction"

god materialists are such fucking brainlets

>>10483287
It's exactly what it means. Can a pattern finding machine finds in itself, i.e. predict what it's actions will be. Once it can predict what action it takes, it can then "choose" not to do it and thus "break free" and become unpredictable. This is the whole basis of the argument of randomness needed for free will to exists. It's paradox. If a machine finds patterns within itself, and then choose to stop following those patterns (not do what it predicted it would do), did it ever find patterns in the first place? This line of thinking invokes the idea of memory, consciousness, and the self.

>>10481578
not being agnostic in 2018
what the fuck is wrong with you?

>>10483305
>>10483311
>It's real because I'm really sure that it's real!

>>10483262
If there's no theory, how can it eliminate a philosophical framework like dualism or materialism? You have to have a physical interpretation to your instrumental dithering or you're not getting any story about the world, let alone the mind.

>>10483321
>consciousness doesnt actually exist because it inconveniences my dogmatic worldview

>>10483317
>It's exactly what it means
No, there's nothing "exact" about what you've written. I've been a software developer for the past 8 years and have put together a number of different neural network applications for my employer during that time, and I can tell you what you're talking about doesn't make any sense.
>If a machine finds patterns within itself, and then choose to stop following those patterns (not do what it predicted it would do), did it ever find patterns in the first place?
So you have a program that predicts its own future output, but also arbitrarily "decides" to produce output different from its past prediction?
That's not a paradox, it's just inane nonsense. That doesn't even apply to anything we ourselves do as human beings so I have no idea why you're trying to see about making programs do that.

>>10483326
Because Dualism and Materialism have to account for what is there. It has to account for hard evidence that is neuroscience. If you ever taken a neurosciences course, all they talk about is what is there and what has been observed. There's no major theory yet. It's all chemistry, serotonin, potassium, ion channels, the various voltage potential between inside and outside the neuron cell. Anatomy of the brain. Lesions studies. Basic measurements and experiments that took years to find out.

>>10483329
>Cartesian dualism AKA that thing nobody has taken seriously in centuries and only gets brought up in modern times as a way to insultingly label an opposing argument
Tell me more about how the closest thing to a solution you came up with for the problem of interaction was something something muh pineal gland.

>>10483350
what is the "hard evidence" you're talking about

>>10483363
>implying I'm a Cartesian dualist
yes that and eliminative materialism are the only two positions ever

>>10483371
Then post a meme picture of the guy you actually agree with.

>>10483349
>So you have a program that predicts its own future output, but also arbitrarily "decides" to produce output different from its past prediction?
All it has to do is not do what it thinks it will do.
>That doesn't even apply to anything we ourselves do as human beings so I have no idea why you're trying to see about making programs do that.
What is meditation? What is consciousness? What is free will?
It is evolutionary advantage to be unpredictable in the same manner that the AIDs virus is dangerous in its ability to mutate. The greatest threat to a human being is another human being. If our ability to find patterns is our weapon then the ability to not follow patterns is our defense. Consciousness could very well have evolved to counteract the danger of another intelligent agent observing your actions and making predictions about what you would do. It's the same in all competitive sports. In boxing if you follow a pattern then your opponent will figure you out and kill you. Same goes in UFC. Same goes in chess or any other game. That's why the strongest fuckers at the top are the unpredictable ones.

>>10483363
>Cartesian dualism AKA that thing nobody has taken seriously in centuries
[citation needed]

>>10483375
>Then post a meme picture of the guy you actually agree with.
Because I agree with Descartes that the existence of consciousness is undeniable

Have you even read the guy? He said a lot more than just "hurr what if the mind and body are different substances btw god exists bye"

You would know this if you ever like opened a fucking book or something instead of watching crash course philosophy and the school of life

>>10483364
Crack open a recent neurosciences textbook. Ion channels. Structure of neurons. The various lesion experiments. Split brain patients. People with only half their brain. What ions are involved. What receptors and chemical signals are involved.

>>10483385
>"haha dude the interaction problem is unsolveable lmao that means I'm right and you're wrong goodbye thanks for playing"
daily reminder that physicalists are actually this mentally retarded

>>10483390
okay but how is any of that relevant to metaphysics???????

>>10483383
>the strongest fuckers at the top are the unpredictable ones
??????????
Chess programs today are already reliably superior to the best human players (see comparative Elo ratings).

>>10483390
you're simply describind co-phenonemomalism

congrats you've discovered that you get wet when it rains

petition to permaban p-zombies from /lit/

>>10483432
it's really hard because you can't tell them from conscious entities and they're really good at convincing conscious entities to act like p zombies too

>>10483262
Like I said it's obfuscated. It's all experiment and data collection because it is rooted in Cartesian dogma covered in the litter of centuries of materialist science

>>10483432
If you understood your own side's arguments you'd know p-zombies are exactly identical to non-zombies in every physical / observable way. The p-zombie argument only has a chance at even beginning to imply its conclusion by keeping all physical factors constant. Otherwise you can just say whatever physical / observable factors were different account for what makes a person non-zombified, and that's exactly the possibility that argument is meant to eliminate.
>>10483395
Interaction is a pretty fucking blatant terminal problem for dualism. You could try to ague you believe in a variety of dualism that doesn't involve interaction, but that's almost even worse since now you have some non-physical phenomenon that doesn't interact with the brain in any way yet somehow synchronizes with it just because.
>>10483389
I never said Descartes didn't say other things, that's a pretty weak strawman, you can probably do better than that.
>the existence of consciousness is undeniable
"Consciousness" is an enormous suitcase word for all sorts of different concepts. I try to stick to "qualia" with this topic. I don't see "thinking" as an issue for this topic for example since you can think without even believing any "qualia" have appeared to you. I would equate thinking with information processing for the most part.
RE: "Qualia," suppose they do really exist and appear to you e.g. when you look at the sky you really do have an "experience" of "blueness." Would it then be impossible for someone's brain to compel them to behave merely *as though* they had this same "experience" you just had? And if it isn't impossible, then how would you ever know the difference between the former and the latter?

>>10483635
>I would equate thinking with information processing for the most part.

So you impose a metaphysics on mind without understanding what it is, at the beginning of your inquiry. Cool! Now's the fun part: Draw a bunch of conclusions about what "must" be true, based on your initial assumptions.

>>10473900
Morality just assisted in human development, we succeed more as artificial units and developing a concept of morality for one another sustains the development. Ant colonies are a product of evolution and they don't arbitrarily kill their own colony members cause lmao competition.

>>10483663
I'm open to debate about whether thinking can be equated with information processing. I'm pretty sure I made a point to phrase it as something I personally believe and not some 100% definite incontrovertible fact or whatever you have in mind here.
The writings I've read on this topic that seemed the most compelling to me were the ones that took care to break apart all the different functions of cognition so you don't mix up "qualia" with "thinking" or "awareness" for example. Maybe they all are better thought of as the same "thing," but I haven't yet heard an argument for counting all of that as the same thing that seemed reasonable to me.
And s far as "thought" vs. "information processing" goes, I haven't yet heard of an argument for *not* equating those two things that seemed satisfying to me. I would want to see what specific fundamental (i.e. not just a matter of complexity or scope difference) features the one has that the other doesn't I guess if we're going to debate that point.

>>10483663
you forgot the part where you make sweeping statements about positions you dont understand

>>10483690
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/what-computers-still-cant-do

>>10483716
>Today it is clear that "good old-fashioned AI," based on the idea of using symbolic representations to produce general intelligence, is in decline (although several believers still pursue its pot of gold), and the focus of the Al community has shifted to more complex models of the mind.
You know that's a write-up about what you can't do with explicit rules based programming, right?
There have been massive amounts of work done with programming that doesn't take that approach in the many years following the publication of that paper e.g. nobody wrote a bunch of rules on how Google's language translation service works, it learned how to produce its output by exposure to examples, just like how we for the most part don't learn language through explicit rules so much as through immersion over time.

>>10483635
>If you understood your own side's arguments you'd know p-zombies are exactly identical to non-zombies in every physical / observable way. The p-zombie argument only has a chance at even beginning to imply its conclusion by keeping all physical factors constant. Otherwise you can just say whatever physical / observable factors were different account for what makes a person non-zombified, and that's exactly the possibility that argument is meant to eliminate.
Holy shit dude. I've read the conscious mind, you haven't. Anyways that was what's called a "joke" in philosophy, and you didn't need to go ahead and let me know how little you understand the argument it makes you look silly as fuck.

>Interaction is a pretty fucking blatant terminal problem for dualism. You could try to ague you believe in a variety of dualism that doesn't involve interaction, but that's almost even worse since now you have some non-physical phenomenon that doesn't interact with the brain in any way yet somehow synchronizes with it just because.
There's no contradiction in postulating that physical stuff or properties interact with non-physical stuff or properties. It's untenable at best, but far from fatal. I think the fatal problem for physicalism is that there's no entailment from physical facts to mental ones.

>I never said Descartes didn't say other things, that's a pretty weak strawman, you can probably do better than that.
Right back at you bud. No where in that post did I say anything about Substance Dualism.

>RE: "Qualia," suppose they do really exist and appear to you e.g. when you look at the sky you really do have an "experience" of "blueness." Would it then be impossible for someone's brain to compel them to behave merely *as though* they had this same "experience" you just had? And if it isn't impossible, then how would you ever know the difference between the former and the latter?
Immediately I know that "everything is behavior" is false. No one sticks to that kind of reasoning anymore except Dan "fat brainlet" Dennett. The other issue is that behaviorism has managed to completely flip itself over backwards time and time again trying to explain empirical phenomena in psychology. Also I think it's best not to stick to a position that I can negate by simply existing.

I'm going to get a little more flippant here: It's immediately obvious that you don't know much about philosophy of mind and the positions you're talking about. I understand that you think that this post was some kind of "knock-down refutation" but it's honestly kind of embarrassing how smart/good at arguing you think you are. I'd stick to not taking up extreme positions on things you know little about in the future, desu.

>>10483738
No, it isn't. It's a phenomenological and deconstructive critique of the naive ontologies people like you force onto issues a priori. But I won't try to convince you. Just don't go into it as a career, or you'll spend 50 years doing what all the rest of them are doing, creating something that isn't true AI and has nothing to do with true AI.

>>10483751
>But I won't try to convince you.
leave convincing him to me

leave fucking sxc asian coeds to me as well

>>10483751
>isn't true AI
You can call it not "true" all you like, but the fact is programs get results without explicit rule based instructions. That's why Uber just ordered a fleet of self-driving Volvos. Are self-driving cars just mindless slaves to machine learning algorithms? Maybe about as much as we're just mindless slaves to human learning algorithms. Our own behavior seems to obey the laws of physics, which probably means we're behaving in response to physical cause and effect relationships as much as programs are. Our own route to go from neural activity to behavior is definitely a lot more convoluted than the route from a program to its behavior, but I don't see any evidence for that more convoluted structure amounting to a fundamental difference between us and them.
>>10483744
It's not a very good joke if it requires that you miss the entire point of the argument to try to make it.
>No where in that post did I say anything about Substance Dualism.
You already complained about that, pick something new to complain about.
>Eliminative materialism is wrong because Daniel Dennett is fat
OK.
>I'm going to get a little more flippant here
Being upset that you're wrong isn't an argument.

>>10483807
>programs get results without explicit rule based instructions.

It's genuinely like talking to people who believe in Chinese holistic medicine.

I guess I should be glad that the most evil technology on earth is being pioneered by people who have no idea what they're doing and are going down massive dead ends.

>>10483765
>Searle
>If you take a mental process and replace it with a room that would need to be the literal size of a galaxy staffed by someone who would need billions of years to fulfill a single simple translation task, then you can make it seem intuitively different.
You can do better than that.

>>10483819
Are you arguing all programs follow explicit rule based instructions?
Because yes and no.
Yes, programs still have instructions, but no, you don't have to explicitly instruct the program on how to solve a problem. Nobody told the image recognition system Google uses what specific rules to follow for each instance of identification it produces. It was given an algorithm for learning and example inputs to learn from, but what it ended up learning is something none of the programmers who worked on it knew themselves.

>>10473658
>Dualism is wrong because neuroscience
The hard problem of consciousness hasn't been solved at all. Yes, it's evident that poking around in the brain changes our consciousness, that our consciousness seems to be physically dependent on changes to our brain, but we still don't know why the lump of matter that is our body and brain doesn't just function unconsciously, without any awareness, like a rock or automaton (at least what we think a rock is like), instead of consciously.

>>10483559
>>10483408
>lets just ignore everything that modern science has observed.
>Alzheimer, Schizophrenia, LSD, Serotonin, Brain Cancer? What's that? We can't know nothing.
>>10483399
Whatever theory you come up with must account for the data. I'm not saying you can't have dualism but it still have to explain neurons.

>>10483826
Searle is retarded as fuck but hes right about this and thats not what hes saying at all

>>10483891
okay well it seems mostly irrelevant to the arguments ive seen

plus the a priori a posteriori distinction and such

>>10483968
>thats not what hes saying at all
Not sure where I'm going wrong in my interpretation of the Chinese Room argument then.
From what I understand, he's comparing what Chinese people do when they communicate with each other vs. what a guy in a room could hypothetically do without understanding Chinese himself provided he had a collection of instructions on how to take input Chinese and output response Chinese.
And if that's actually what his argument is, then I would stand by my criticism that he's just preying on how the extremely altered circumstances of that room make it seem intuitively different from what we do when we communicate in the normal way.
My stance on the room is that it is actually equivalent to what we're doing, except that again it would take absurdly more in the way of space and time to accomplish the same things, and when you warp a process that severely of course it's going to seem intuitively different. Our brains are so much faster than what that room could accomplish that I don't think you could even begin to properly appreciate the scope of difference.
It's not easy to pin down exactly how many calculations a human brain does per second, but all you need is the ballpark estimate to get a sense of the difference here. As a specific example of an attempted assessment of this figure, there's this:
http://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~hsg/363/table-images/brain-vs-computer.html
>It is difficult to compare brains with digital silicon-based computers since they work on such different principles (and because we actually don't know yet all the principles of how brains process information). But a rough estimate based on the number of digital electrical pulses (action potentials) that the approximately 10^11 neurons in a human brain send to one another per second via approximately 10^14 contacts (synapses) suggests that an adult human brain carries out about one thousand trillion (10^15) logical operations per second, which is known as a petaflop of computational ability.
Obviously that Chinese room isn't going to get anywhere close to one thousand trillion operations per second. It's probably going to move more at a rate of one operation every minute or so.
If you sped up the Chinese room to operate at one thousand trillion operations per second *and* you shrunk it down from galaxy sized to human brain sized, then it'd basically just be a really weird alternative architecture version of a brain. The guy in the room wouldn't know Chinese either way, but it's the entire room system that's reproducing what the brain does, not just that guy in the room. By analogy we would assume no one sub-component of our own brains has understanding itself of how to communicate with language. It's the overall process involving all the different sub-components that produces what we consider understanding of how to communicate with language.

>>10484068
how much do you know about ordinary language philosophy?

>>10484068
computation is all symbols and no substance (semantics)
the mind can't be purely a computational process and a purely computational process cannot be a mind since the mind involves semantics

>>10484068
The chinese room was an argument against pure symbolism. And Searle was correct in that symbols don't mean anything in themselves, they have meaning relative to what they represent. Mind and body cannot be separated. The symbols that we use everyday invokes action.

>>10484101
I'm a software developer, not a philosophy professor, but I have read some Wittgenstein.
>>10484109
>>10484149
>the mind can't be purely a computational process and a purely computational process cannot be a mind since the mind involves semantics
I think that argument depends on an assumption that semantics / meaning can't be reduced to non-semantic / non-meaning sub-components. And I would disagree with that assumption.
I think what programs can currently do doesn't pass for what we do when we have a conversation, but that this gap isn't due to programs missing some fundamental "meaning" quality to what they're doing. Instead, I think it's just that what they're doing isn't yet as complicated and robust as how we operate, and I also think they're on the right track towards getting there eventually. It's hard to overstate how massively convoluted our brains are. If, after getting as complicated in structure as our brains' are, programs still don't seem capable of holding a conversation, then I would start to take the idea of semantics / meaning being something fundamentally different from what they're doing more seriously. But as it is today I believe there's a much larger gap in complexity of structure between our brains and these programs than there is a gap between our conversations and theirs, which if anything is evidence we ought to be optimistic of their chances for matching us in output the closer they match up in structure.
It's pretty well known neural network programs are nowhere close to identical with literal human neural networks, but I wouldn't go too far in the opposite direction and think that this means the two have nothing in common. I think the neural network approach to machine learning has worked so well exactly because that's the right approach to beginning to recreate how our own brains learn.

>>10484217
You should read the actual paper

Your arguments "miss the mark" by quite a bit

Anyways hes not a dualist - he explicitly endorses physicalism in the paper. He rejects the idea that any process that imitates the mind functionally would be just as conscious as we are. Consciousness and intentionality are in the software, not the hardware

>>10484225
consciousness and intentionality are in the hardware, not the software**

>>10484225
I'm not the only one making this sort of argument. None of what I've written hasn't already been mentioned by someone criticizing Searle in some past publication. It's not a misunderstanding, it's a disagreement.
>>10484236
>hardware, not the software
I don't buy that information processing done by the brain is comparable to digestion.
You can't digest a pizza with a program representing a stomach, but you can process information with a program that processes information. Searle gives no specific evidence for anything the "hardware" of the brain is allegedly doing that isn't reproducible with a mere program. He stops at asserting cognition is fundamentally biological in nature like digestion or lactation without explaining how specifically the brain is doing this fundamentally biological thing he's alleging. So I don't see it as a very compelling argument. If there is a reason to believe there's something fundamentally biological about human cognition it's not a reason he's come up with.

>>10483285
And why are they delusions, anon? That's a pretty rash assumption.

>>10484445
>I'm not the only one making this sort of argument. None of what I've written hasn't already been mentioned by someone criticizing Searle in some past publication. It's not a misunderstanding, it's a disagreement.
Have you read the paper?? You havent, right?

>I don't buy that information processing done by the brain is comparable to digestion.
Well yeah. But whether intentionality or consciousness are just "information processing" is exactly what's in question here. Youre being circular

>>10484548
I've read it. Here's a link in case you want to try reading it. Such a lazy non-argument, and completely unnecessary. Stick to making actual arguments and you won't need to speculate about who read what.
http://cogprints.org/7150/1/10.1.1.83.5248.pdf
>But whether intentionality or consciousness are just "information processing" is exactly what's in question here. Youre being circular
It's not circular because I explicitly mentioned I don't see any explanation of what that alleged extra component brains have is or how it works:
>>10484445
>He stops at asserting cognition is fundamentally biological in nature like digestion or lactation without explaining how specifically the brain is doing this fundamentally biological thing he's alleging. So I don't see it as a very compelling argument. If there is a reason to believe there's something fundamentally biological about human cognition it's not a reason he's come up with.
So no, I'm not saying it's true because it's true, I'm saying I don't see any explanation for what the brain is supposed to be doing beyond information processing or how it's doing this.
The closest I've seen as an answer for this question is "semantics," which I don't buy either for the same reasons I mentioned earlier (mainly why should semantics be seen as irreducible and why do neural network programs do so well at solving complicated tasks without explicit rules if the right direction to head in for reproducing what our brains do with programs).

>>10484582
*if they're not the right direction to head in

>>10484582
intentionality

aka the ability to be "about" something

the man doesnt understand chinese but hes capable of operating with the symbols

ergo being able to operate with the symbols is not equivalent to understanding chinese

>>10484626
in order to dispel the argument you have to identify what part of the system "gets" chinese

>>10484582
https://link.springer.com/journal/12304

>>10482595
>Alder admits however, that "While the Newtonian insistence on ensuring that any statement is testable by observation ... undoubtedly cuts out the crap, it also seems to cut out almost everything else as well", as it prevents taking position on several topics such as politics or religion
Sounds like a good lad

>mfw I read this whole thread

>>10481241
what?

>>10484626
>the man doesnt understand chinese
The man isn't the system, he's just part of it.
We've been over this.
No one sub-component of your brain processes understands language on its own either.
It only seems like a compelling argument to you because you're conflating the man with the entire room system, again because Searle always takes this approach of preying on your intuitions with warped situations. It seems intuitively right to equate the person in the room with the Chinese person who understands Chinese, but in reality it's the entire room that's being made analogous to the Chinese person who understands Chinese, not just the man in the room. The man in the room is just a sub-component, and sub-components of understanding mediated by the brain don't understand things on their own either. If they did then they wouldn't be sub-components of understanding in the first place. It's everything the sub-components do together that results in understanding, just as it's everything that happens in the Chinese room that results in understanding. Any adequate explanation of understanding will be like this where the overall state of understanding is broken apart into the pre-understanding processes that make it up. If your explanation for understanding *did* involve sub-components with understanding already baked into them it wouldn't make any sense, just like how expecting the man in the room to understand anything himself in a "true" example where semantics / meaning are covered wouldn't make any sense. The man's lack of understanding isn't a problem, it's exactly how you'd expect an analogous brain sub-component to behave and says nothing about whether the overall system is reproducing a state of understanding.

>>10484225
Why make a distinction between "software" and "hardware" anyways? At the level we're looking at they're just about the same thing. A bunch of molecular machines doing their stuff.

>>10485984
>The man's lack of understanding isn't a problem

>>10473841
Why doesn’t time exist then?

>>10477052
You best start believin in Banach-Tarski paradoxes /lit/, you're in one

>>10479976
>implying political philosophy was solved by the Enlightenment
>implying political philosophy is something that can be "solved"

>>10473697
>people create questions you're not equipped to respond to
>"uh uh, what a brainlets lmap right guys?"
Wouldn't even be so bad if most Christians on /lit/ were genuine, but of course they're just larping as their hard working granddads for a couple months.

Is everyone itt pretending that scoring meaningless points in /lit McKesson thudding dick bigger?

This is literally “whereas I, an intellectual”: the thread.

>>10485984
>The man isn't the system, he's just part of it.
yeah, but you still have to identify what part does. Don't say "the room as a whole" because do the walls really contribute anything?

unless you're going to identify "understanding" as a behavioral thing, in which case I don't really care because we're obviously not talking about the same thing

>>10486355
>but you still have to identify what part does.
No, that's not how it works.
What specific part of your brain understands meaning?
It's a bad question, no one part does what the whole system does in either case.

>>10486355
>walls
Yes, it's the walls that add something to the man, not the written instructions.
Fuck off.

>>10486410
okay I guess you're a behaviorist (read: retard) then.

in that case, in your view the room doesnt understand because understanding is not a thing that actually happens

>>10486421
Im making a point: "the room as a whole gets it man" is a cop-out answer and you know it

>>10473658
Is this bait? Because you sound like a turbo-brainlet.

>>10473705
>>10474053
I don't understand why you can't accept the calculus explanation.
Either you can't have an infintesimal amount of time (in which case Zeno is wrong to assume Achilles will keep chasing forever)
Or you can have an infintesimal amount of time in which case calculus assumes this.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

>>10486828
Leibniz's calculus is literally just the ancient response represented mathematically. It doesn't solve anything; it's as inadequate as Aristotle's response was, as it is in this response it finds its literary twin.

>>10473900

Winners win and losers lose that's all there is to it tee bee aich.

>>10474032

>don't murder anything that's wrong

Get right with Jesus brainlet.

>>10486530
You're the one copping out with you're completely ridiculous expectation that a component of a system should know what the entire system knows. What would be the point of even having a system then?
Why don't you tell me what individual component of a brain is responsible for understanding? You can't give a reasonable answer to that question because understanding is distributed, not localized to a single piece of tissue or a single circuit.

>>10486526
If the parts you believe make up understanding have understanding themselves, then you failed at breaking down the process of understanding.
The whole point of breaking it down into parts is to explain in terms of something other than understanding how understanding happens. Explaining understanding in terms of itself is retarded.

>>10474053
>non stem master cock reportingin
The answer is space penetration. If you thrust your dick with enough force then space will rupture and you escape the paradox.

>>10473658
>no one realizes that this is a picture of a brainlet