/lit/ - Literature

>>11741973
what's the meaning of life

>>11741973
Is this supposed to be ironic or are you just a moron?

>>11741973
>prove me wrong protip you can't
It's a self defeating statement.

>>11741973
this assertion can't be experimentally verified

>>11741973
I can't experimentally verify this statement

>>11741973
You know logical positivism isn't a popular movement anymore for a reason, right?

>>11741973
rhetorical

>anything that cannot be experimentally verified is not worth discussing

Can that be experimentally verified?

>>11741983
>>11741988
>>11742147
It doesn't need to be experimentally verified because it's not worth discussing as it's self-evidently true

>>11742165
That's not experimentally verifiable. This discussion is not worth having.

>>11742165
noice

>>11741973
>scientific method
>induction
>probably
lmao, how about the physical sciences get as rigorous as mathematics (which includes logic), where things are necessarily true rather than just probably true.

>>11742165
umm, sorry sweetie, but you're gonna have to scientifically verify this claim in addition to the claim you made in the op.

>>11741973
>anything that cannot be experimentally verified is not worth discussing

You're going to have to experimentally prove this.

>>11742195
Pretty sure that anon is being satirical.

It's kind of silly for philosophers who rely on self-evident truths to emphasize the discussion of what should be self-evident. If those truths aren't self-evident, they shouldn't be shitting on empiricism.

>>11742165
>god exists
>this isn't empirically verifiable
>therefore it isn't worth discussing, because it's self-evidently true
am i a philosopher now

>>11742239
Well, I mean you can still talk about what a radical dude God is, but what's the point in debating his existence if it's self-evident?

>>11742249
exactly, now for my next trick
>i am better than all of you combined
>this isn't empirically verifiable
>therefore it isn't worth discussing, because it's self-evidently true

you're welcome

>>11742248

>>11742260
Actually I think all of those are potentially answerable by science except for God (since God is never defined, just a goal post in perpetual motion) and alternate universes. If right/wrong, meaning and beauty are biases of living creatures, then at least the question of their nature is answered.

>>11741973
Can you prove that statement experimentaly?

>>11742299
You have no grasp on what you are talking about and are probably really fucking stupid

>>11742299
i bet you think the question of "what is beauty" can be answered by statistical models.

>>11741973


>Anything that can be experimentally verified is not worth discussing

Prove me wrong protip you can't

>>11742299
>If right/wrong, meaning and beauty are biases of living creatures
That's a breddy big if you got there senpai

>/sci/ is malfunctioning again
Just get back to filling in the dang spreadsheets.

>>11742179
"Philosophy is pointless" is a philosophy

>>11741977

By meaning, you mean, purpose?

I mean, I could give you a lot of experimentally verifiable answers. We can't really separate the teleology of something from its condition or construction, an the potentials thereof.

>>11741983
Sure it can. For anything that could not be experimentally verified, would a priori lack determinacy, and thus existence, or in the case of some undiscovered or even fringe spiritual thing, there would be a lack of an affect which could be used to verify it concrete existence. Though, weather it is worth discussing or not, is in a grey area, somewhat indeterminate. For how else would one go about experimentally verifying anything, without without it first not being verified. But, whatever is the case, and what could potentially be the case, dependent on the first principle of the initial case, warrants inquiry. To put it simply, we have the categories of speculation, experiment, and theory.
I can speculate about, say, the existence of a God, but some qualitative worth of this endevour, would be contingent on very arbitrary things. But, lets take atomic theory. Ancient Greeks and Hindu's could not experimentally verify the atom, and some argued against the idea. So you see, there is always a contingency at play and so on.

>>11742584
We can falsify that for sure. Take anhedonic individuals with depression. They can not experience qualitative beauty. And this is due to their neurology. So we know that the experience of beauty is not possible without specific brain chemistry and organic constitution.

>>11741973
*proves you wrong*

>>11742780
>They can not experience qualitative beauty.
That doesn't mean the thing isn't beautiful. I'm not sure you've grasped the concept of beauty anon. The beautiful doesn't stop being the beautiful because someone doesn't think it's the beautiful. Left turns exist even if Zoolander can't turn left

>>11742889

I'm not sure about that.

Beauty as a quality of the object, while still needing to have a specific arrangement as to be considered and experienced as such, still relies on the condition of the subject to have such an affect, i.e. that of qualitative beauty.

>Left turns exist even if Zoolander can't turn left
This is not a good illustration. Aside from the fact that directions as such are relative to what is orientating itself. But beauty, as it seems, can be ascribed to pure subjective contingency, unlike some other ''three in the woods'' ontological inquiries.

In short, if a subject can not experience beauty; beauty for him, does not exist. And this experience of beauty is dependent on known conditions of the subject's body. The subject's ability to experience beauty is independent of the object, insofar as it is his projection which manifests the quality in synthesis with the arrangement of the object. You will not be able to make a man consider an object beautiful, if he does not, for he lacks that condition.

>>11742904
To add, I am not saying that beauty does not exist. Just that it is contingent on the subject's condition.

>>11742909
>Just that it is contingent on the subject's condition.
I say it's not contingent, if it was it wouldn't be beauty. There's a story about the nazi officer demanding to be shown round the louvre in 1940. After a while he turns to the guide and asks 'what's so great about this shit anyway' and the guide responds 'monsieur we are not here to judge the paintings'

>>11742780
>Sure it can
You cannot possibly be serious, that's literally arguing for X's truth value assuming X is true.

>>11742920
>I say it's not contingent, if it was it wouldn't be beauty
Could you elaborate?

Ask yourself, could beauty even exist as a phenomena without the things I described in my post? For beauty to exist, it *must* be contingent. Otherwise, it would literally be an indeterminate nothing. Much the same with any questions of subject/object division.

As for the story, I fail to see the relevance, might be a language issue.

>>11742933
Read the whole post man, I lob on some conditions etc. I think I ended up disagreeing, should have changed the beginning lol.

>>11742933
Also:

> that's literally arguing for X's truth value assuming X is true.

Assuming being itself. And every speculation and theory, in the end, true or not, is and must be predicated on some initial concrete being.

>>11742935
>could beauty even exist as a phenomena without the things I described in my post? For beauty to exist, it *must* be contingent.
No. If everyone in the world suddenly went blind, Pieta would still be beautiful. The art of fugue would still be beautiful if everyone was deaf.
The story isn't complicated. The paintings aren't being judged. The visitor is. Beauty is independent of the observer

>>11741973
>>anything that cannot be experimentally verified is not worth discussing
>prove me wrong protip you can't
This is horrible. You demand that we fulfill your goal of verification-oriented thought in our dismissal of it. It doesn't go that way, lad. You're wrong about the world, and the sooner you realize this the better off you will be.

>>11742962
>The paintings aren't being judged. The visitor is. Beauty is independent of the observer


So, the object of beauty, judges the subject, and if the subject does not experience the affect, then he just lacks the condition to experience the beauty that is there, independently?

Why is beauty then dependent on the observer's condition?
To say that the subject is being judged instead, is a mere poetic inversion, no? And still, we speak of the affect of the subject, for if we remove this from the inquiry, we could not even speak about beauty. If the affect of the subject is the only way we can even attempt to arbitrate beauty, then it is the sole arbitrator. There is no beauty-in-itself.


>The art of fugue would still be beautiful if everyone was deaf

In memory of the affect, i.e. in its subjective reproduction. But this is too literal. The point is, if it can not be experienced, how does it retain the quality of beauty? That affect is only possible in the subject. Now, does fecal matter retain its objective beauty, if every coprophilie lost this paraphilia magically?

Beauty can not be independent of the observer, for it is the observer which, in synthesis with the object, generates this affect.

>>11743049
>Why is beauty then dependent on the observer's condition?
It's not, it's independent of the observer's condition.
>There is no beauty-in-itself.
Yes there is
>Beauty can not be independent of the observer, for it is the observer which, in synthesis with the object, generates this affect.
Beauty can only be independent of the observer. If the observer doesn't perceive the beauty, the problem is with the observer not the beauty. The story wasn't that hard to understand.

>>11741973
Anything that CAN be experimentally verified is instantly either objectively right or wrong and therefore not worth discussing.

>>11743079

>>11743079

Please address the entire post, don't practice selective refutation. I would like your opinion on the example with coprophilia.


I understand the story.

>There is no beauty-in-itself.
>Yes there is
[Any] being-in-itself is an indeterminate nothing.

>It's not, it's independent of the observer's condition.
How? I will give you another concrete example. Picture a Homo Erectus. Among themselves they found each other to be beautiful, in this case and for my example--- sexual attraction. We descend from these creatures, and when we look back at our ancestors, most of us, would not find them beautiful. The *only* thing which has changed here, is the condition of the subject.

Only within certain frameworks.

In some cases, ignoring that which cannot be experimentally verified is valid because all it will do is cloud your judgement.

In other cases however it's a flawed paradigm because there's much to human life where experimental verification isn't a good criterion for decisions, or even possible.

>>11743118
>don't practice selective refutation
>practices selective refutation himself
Onwards
>coprophilia
>sexual attraction
>implying sexual attraction/fetishes are beauty
You don't find the digestive system rather beautiful? The problem as I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring, is with the observer not the subject.
I'm sure a fine specimen of homo erectus would indeed be beautiful also. Few animals are not.
>[Any] being-in-itself is an indeterminate nothing
That is an unfortunate ideological decision, reflecting these times

>>11741973
But if something can be expermintally verified, why would we discuss it? Just do the experiment, it will tell you everything we need, no need for discussions.
That which cannot be proven experimentally is what needs discussions.

>>11743140
>>practices selective refutation himself
Where? If I did, I did not see it/

>That is an unfortunate ideological decision, reflecting these times
What times? It is a philosophical statement, you can find it in Hegel, or Buddhism.

>implying sexual attraction/fetishes are beauty
Could they function in mammals, without the affect of beauty? Seems to be, no.

>is with the observer not the subject.
The subject is the observer. Unless you meant to type object? Its not a problem, its a dependence.

But tell me, if someone experiences fecal matter as beautiful, and magically is relieved of this fetish, does the feces remain beautiful independently?

>I'm sure a fine specimen of homo erectus would indeed be beautiful also
I think you miss the point of the example,

>when we look back at our ancestors, most of us, would not find them beautiful. The *only* thing which has changed here, is the condition of the subject.

>>11743183
>I think you miss the point of the example
What is you point, other than sexual attraction=beautiful. Because that's obviously not true. The Art of Fugue is beautiful but I don't jack off to the manuscript. Why don't you find homo erectus beautiful? Don't you find our orange friend here beautiful? Why don't you find the digestive system beautiful? It is you know...

>>11743233
I have seen primates of greater aesthetic value:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Proboscis_monkey_%28Nasalis_larvatus%29_male_head.jpg

>What is you point, other than sexual attraction=beautiful
That the conditions of the subjects changed (evolution), and that with that, what was beautiful, changed. Leading again to the conclusion that beauty has no independent existence.

Also, beauty is an aspect of sexuality.

Maybe you are segregating beauty only to 'sublimites' such as Bach and the complexity of organs or something. Which is not epistemological appropriate for this discussion. Thus I would still like an answer to this:

''But tell me, if someone experiences fecal matter as beautiful, and magically is relieved of this fetish, does the feces remain beautiful independently?''

>>11743274
>'But tell me, if someone experiences fecal matter as beautiful, and magically is relieved of this fetish, does the feces remain beautiful independently?''
Of course yes. Our bodies don't stop being beautiful just because someone is misanthropic.
>beauty is an aspect of sexuality
No, they are completely separate things
>Which is not epistemological appropriate for this discussion.
You don't get to decide what's appropriate nigga

>>11743274
Also, amazing pic. Why not post it instead of the link? It's more beautiful than some url; )

>>11743294
>Of course yes. Our bodies don't stop being beautiful just because someone is misanthropic.

What? What does misanthropy have to do with this? Are you saying that the subject who sees feces as beautiful, is misanthropic? I am not talking about bodies here. The question is simple, and follows the formula of your premise. Does the object, in this case, fecal matter, remain objectively beautiful, if the person in question has his condition which allows him to see it as such-- somehow expunged?

>You don't get to decide what's appropriate nigga
Strange response.

>No, they are completely separate things
I am quite sure that the same chemicals which enable you to sense beauty are involved in sexual aesthetics.

>>11743313
Using a laptop touch pad for the time being. Couldn't bother. Faster like this.

>>11743339

https://www.livescience.com/43257-beauty-works-like-a-drug-on-the-brain.html

>>11743339
>Does the object, in this case, fecal matter, remain objectively beautiful, if the person in question has his condition which allows him to see it as such-- somehow expunged?
Yes of course. Our natural functions are beautiful - the misanthrope is the person who says they aren't (the problem is with the observer not the subject, you see)
Or a different example, there are probably methane waterfalls on the planet Zargon 5 as yet unvisited by man, and may never be visited by man, but they aren't not beautiful just because we haven't seen them. The giant pangolin of Uganda was beautiful even before we knew he existed.
>chemicals
>le epic 'everything is chemicals' post

>>11742633
And atheism is a religion

you guys smell that? it smells like bait

>>11743425

>>11743364
Read this. It seems to reify my point absolutely.

>The giant pangolin of Uganda was beautiful even before we knew he existed.

It is beautiful and (relating to the popsci link) *as* beautiful, s our condition allows it to be.

>le epic 'everything is chemicals' post
No, those people tend to attribute some form of nihilism or negation to e.g. beauty via reductionism. I am simply saying that beauty is contingent on the condition of the subject/observer. It does not exist independent of this as *an affect*, I am not saying that the objects which set it into motion are unreal.

>>11743461
>I am simply saying that beauty is contingent on the condition of the subject/observer. It does not exist independent of this as *an affect*,
I know, it's just that I'm saying the opposite. I understand you, I just think you're mistaken.

>>11743480

Clarifying he 'le chemicals' thing.

I'm trying to see why you believe this, but so far, your posts have not been able to justify the existence and possibility of ''a priori beauty''.

Person A experiences beauty at an object, person B does not. There is a quantitative difference in the conditions of these observers, which determines *to what objects* they are affected by beauty.This is almost the definition of subjective phenomena.The thing on its own can not posses some substance that is beauty. Beauty, is strictly *an affect* on part of the subject. If you can not experience beauty without these conditions, the it is not the quality of the object but how it is synthesized.

>>11743513
>The thing on its own can not posses some substance that is beauty.
I say it can. It's possible to be a bad observer, to look at things badly.
There is a pangolin. You see the pangolin, and because you are a man of taste and distinction you see the beauty of the pangolin. The pangolin now leaves your field of vision and goes about it's pangolin business. It doesn't change when you stop observing it, and it didn't change when you began to observe it. The pangolin is an independent pangolin who don't need no observer to know she's beautiful. Even if you had never seen the pangolin, the pangolin would still be the same old beautiful pangolin. The pangolin doesn't need you to tell her she's beautiful

First of all I would like to apologize for any language errors find below. That said

>>11743364

This article proves jackshit.The study was done by having men look at pretty girls face and rating them, verifying that chemicals may have had an effect on our sexual attraction based on appearance. The thing is Sexual attraction based on appearance is almost irrelevant to any serious discussion about beauty. It is tempting to reduce beauty at sexual attraction from a positivist point of view because
1) It's easily measurable (or seems to be) from a materialists point of view (dude chemicals lmao)
2) It conforms to an evolutionnist point of view (most of the time anyway).
Many neuroscientifical research have correlated beauty with processi much more complex than simle sexual attraction (cf most of Jean-Pierre changuex's works).
I's almost argue that the confusion between the experience of beauty and sexual attraction is a surcoding of a set of values unto another, similar to the equation between good and moral, or moral and beautiful.

That being said, I'd argue that, even in aesthetics fields, beauty is a problematic concept, especially because of those confusions. I'd argue more in favour of a "aesthetic power". Is aesthetically powerfull that which arranges regimes of signs in a both meaningful and distinctive manner in relation to the history of his own field.

Final point, and why this whole debate is and will be sterile as fuck. By asking us to "prove us wrong" you're trying to ground the debate in a knowledge-oriented field, in the sense that truth is the ultimate criteria of value.

Philosophy (and especially fields of aesthetics and ontology) doesn't work like that. The criteria of value of a concept in philosophy should be it's fecondity, not its truth.

>>11743544

This is a great misunderstanding, I am not talking about some odd ''aesthetic object permanence'', that would be insane.

>I say it can. It's possible to be a bad observer, to look at things badly.

That is an entirely arbitrary statement. Are yo a bad observer for not considering feces beautiful?

>>11743565
>Are yo a bad observer for not considering feces beautiful?
Kinda. To continue the example, suppose you observe the pangolin and don't find it beautiful. That might be likely I'm sure you agree. But my point is, that's not the fault of the dear old pangolin (she's trying her best in a male pangolin's world). That's your fault for having poor taste, you are a 'bad looker', the pangolin is not 'bad looking'. My nephew thinks Macbeth is shit, but really, he's a 13yr old doofus. Macbeth is not at fault, my nephew is

>>11743563

As for sex and aesthetics--- I said that they share some of the same processes. That is all.

>you're trying to ground the debate in a knowledge-oriented field, in the sense that truth is the ultimate criteria of value.

No. I don't know how you got this idea.

> The criteria of value of a concept in philosophy should be it's fecondity, not its truth.
>fecondity
Its fertility, what do you mean?

Also, epistemology is a major subset of philosophy, I don't see your point.


Now, concerning the article as it relates to my point:


''Participants who were given morphine rated the most objectively attractive faces very highly — in other words, they liked them more than the other faces. In addition, the morphine takers spent more time viewing the pictures of the faces they found most attractive and less time viewing unattractive faces, suggesting they also wanted those faces more.

By contrast, the men taking the opioid suppressor showed less liking and wanting: They rated the attractive faces less highly and spent less time viewing them.''

>quantitative difference in the conditions of these observers, which determines *to what objects* they are affected [and to what extent by] beauty

Brackets: somehow I left out this part in the previous post.

>The thing is Sexual attraction based on appearance is almost irrelevant to any serious discussion about beauty. It is tempting to reduce beauty at sexual attraction from a positivist point of view because

I am not making any claim of reducing all aesthetics to sexual processes under natural selection. People find faces to be beautiful, some faces more than others, this experiment shows that their experience of beauty is contingent on their condition, and not on the face itself. The face, or object of beauty is contingent to this insofar as it is and can be synthesized into the affect of beauty, in the observer, etc.

>>11743607

Before I say anything else. Are you claiming here that everything is objectively beautiful?

>>11743664
>Are you claiming here that everything is objectively beautiful?
Not while your mum's still around hahaha. Not everything, but some things are. If I could give you an exact answer I would be one of the great artists of the age, it's an almost impossible question.
I think to attribute beauty to the processes going on in the observer is to confuse the object with the observation of the object. The chemical processes are how we come to be aware of beauty, they are not, and do not create, beauty themselves, in other words the map is not the territory to coin a phrase.

>>11743691

Alright, that's clearer. I do not agree. But this last post has some things to consider.

>>11743664
>No. I don't know how you got this idea.
"prove it" in the OP
"experimentally verifiable answers" in 11742780
"experimentally verifying" in 11742780
and such others expressions.
Those constitue explicit references to the experience - hypothesis - proofs articulations used by the scientific method.
I do apologize if some of those do not belong to you.

Epistemology is indeed a field in philosophy, but it is not, and never was, searching for truth in the scientific sense.

First of all the article is deeply flawed on the aesthetic view because :
"Participants who were given morphine rated the most objectively attractive faces very highly"

here's your problem. Objectively attractive faces say nothing of beauty. They rank those faces to be more attractive when they take the opioids, that's about it.
Of course chemicals and other stuff are able to affect our judgement, I never denied that. But our judgement of a thing, and the thing are separate entities.

Now, I should make clearer that my point about an aesthetic power stands when talking about works of art first and foremost. It could theorically be extended to suit naturally occuring experiences, but that requires an adaptation which I am not able to work out right now.

Now onto the fertility of concepts. Here's a little thought exercise. suppose millenias ago, some guy invented the concept of truth, and formalized it as "what is conform to the real, in any circomstance" (not a sufficient definition, but bear with me).
Since then, this concept has had countless adapations, iterations, has been questionned countless time and all of this has permitted countless evolutions in the fields of thought, science, technique etc... same thing with Beauty, Subject or God.
Now, the latter offers us a look at another property of concepts. They live, they change, they die. While God constinues to inspire countless mundane thought today, I think it's safe to say the number of its new contributions to the fields of abtract thought, has dwindled.
For all of this, the concept of a monotheistic God, and all its iterations (that's important), have contributed to the evolution of mankind's thought landscape for along time. The concept was fertile, whether a God does exists or not is unimportant to gauge the relative fertility of the concept.

But who knows, maybe someone will reinvigorate the concept by giving it a new iteration that connects differently to the contemporary thought landscape. that's another subject altogether.

>>11743796

Only 11742780 is me. I see no possible inference from that, indicating equation of truth as a ultimate criteria of value. If I get what you mean by value. But, it doesn't really matter.

Science is a subset of epistemology. In general, I see nothing wrong with, (to use your quotation of the map example) shifting maps.

>Now, I should make clearer that my point about an aesthetic power stands when talking about works of art first and foremost. It could theorically be extended to suit naturally occuring experiences, but that requires an adaptation which I am not able to work out right now.

In my opinion, there is no singular object of aesthetic value, only aesthetic systems. In this way they can be ''extended to suit naturally occurring experiences,''--- They arise from them in the first place. Think how novel creatures were first formed as combinations of organisms, in art, i.e. chimeras. Likewise, any aesthetic object is a system of object relations with themselves extending to other systems and generating aesthetic references.


Now, the thought exercise. I view it much like the chimera, a self propelling dialectical process of sorts, which generates novelty.

''The criteria of value of a concept in philosophy should be it's fecondity, not its truth''

Concerning value? Sure.You could read Nick Land for a hyper-dose of that or something. But all that, in my view fall under aesthetics. But even with that, that ''fertility'' itself seems more like an epiphenomena of philosophy if anything, which itself must have some power, a determinacy, and thus a reality, otherwise, we could not even consider it.

>Of course chemicals and other stuff are able to affect our judgement
As far as I can tell, they *are* our judgement.

>But our judgement of a thing, and the thing are separate entities.

Yes, but how is the beauty existent in the thing.

>The chemical processes are how we come to be aware of beauty, they are not, and do not create, beauty themselves, in other words the map is not the territory to coin a phrase.

I find this very dubious. Since we can see people who lack certain conditions in their body, and thus are unable to experience beauty. The reward systems in some chemical reduction does not create beauty itself, the process is more complicated, involving the prefrontal cortex etc. Regardless, to make the experience possible, is to create it, otherwise, it can not exist. I am still confounded by the notion that the beauty is there in the object, but the observer is at fault. Its an inversion to the point that it becomes a semantic game which seems to *agree* with my point. If everything has the potential to affect and create a sensation of beauty, then it is arbitrary.

>>11743886

Out of this, because I gotta go work, but I'm >>11743796
and not
>>11743691

Secondly, I think the consequences on history of the existence of the concept of God are very visible, so it does have a power, doesn't it ? The idea of "reality" of a concept is in itself a paradox.

I get what you mean about aesthetics systems. To do something short, I'd argue Beauty is existent as a concept, meaning it's neither inputable to the observator, nor to the object. Concepts and identities are what we navigate the world with, not what is.

I'm sorry, I wish my english was better.

>>11744030


>I think the consequences on history of the existence of the concept of God are very visible, so it does have a power, doesn't it

Anything that can affect, has power, and is thus a reality, imo, even illusion.
>Out of this, because I gotta go work, but I'm >>11743796
and not
>>11743691

Oh. Alright.

>>11743092
Sure, because we gain 100% knowledge of something all at once and there is no evolution of knowledge.

>>11743425
Dude, my shit is not beautiful. Trust me. By your logic everything is beautiful, and if everything is beautiful nothing is beautiful because there's no contrast.

>>11743544
What you find beautiful does say something about you as the observer's nature, but that still does not imply a universal quality of beauty which -precedes- the observer's nature.

>>11742889
>I will endeavour to explain: we, speak of carrying and we speak of being carried, of leading and being led, seeing and being seen. You know that in all such cases there is a difference, and you know also in what the difference lies?
>any state of action or passion implies previous action or passion. It does not become because it is becoming, but it is in a state of becoming because it becomes

>>11744113
>but that still does not imply a universal quality of beauty which -precedes- the observer's nature.
Do you think things like maths or geometry precede the nature of the observer? Take for example page 1 of Euclid where he proves the equilateral triangle with a line and the two circles etc. Is the elegance of his proof dependent on those brain chemicals or does it exist outside them? Not saying there's a right answer mind (though obviously I know what I think).

>>11744598

He was peaking of beauty, not mathematics. Mathematics is still synthetic a priori. It depends on an experience of segregated objects from which it virtualizes them into concrete ideas. Mathematics is not pure a priori. Try to think about three quarters in pure abstraction.

>Is the elegance of his proof dependent on those brain chemicals or does it exist outside them?

Those ''brain chemicals'' are necessary for it to be perceived.

>>11744624
>He was peaking of beauty, not mathematics.
Pic related, just thought it was a simpler example
>Those ''brain chemicals'' are necessary for it to be perceived.
But is it necessary for it to be perceived? Does it exist outside our perceptions of it? I'd say it does and the chemicals are merely the mechanism by which we fleshy creatures perceive it.

>>11742299
>God is never defined, just a goal post in perpetual motion

are you retarded

>>11744649

>Why not both

Different categories. Maybe you can speak of beauty in mathematics. If that was your initial intention then alright. But even then the difference applies.

>But is it necessary for it to be perceived? Does it exist outside our perceptions of it? I'd say it does and the chemicals are merely the mechanism by which we fleshy creatures perceive it.

Seems to be the case. My only point is that it is still a model with roots in knowledge, thus not a priori. But, now this is a bit weird. But ''astral projection'' is most likely real. Studying it and speaking to people who have done it, makes me wonder how they have experience not contingent on the body, but this new body in which they operate, there is still a body which receives some input, since there is still a subject-object division, but that manner in which it apparently does this, is unknown and murky even in the systems which incorporate the practice. It does raise some weird philosophical implications.

>>11742962
>>11743079
>>11743233
>>11743425
>>11743544
>>11743607

You are beyond hope dude. It clearly can't be explained to you but hopefully one day it will 'click' and you'll get it. Just keep reading, good luck.

>>11741973
Can the psyche be experimentally verified? Not really. Does it matter to all of us ranging form our everyday lives to clinical work? Very much so. Why the fuck should we not discuss it and also why the fuck you should decide how one spent his time.

>>11741977
Reproduction

>>11741973
And how do you verify that experimentally?

Please stop entertaining the stemfags.
How can you not tell that these
>>11741973
>>11742179
>>11742299
>>11742780
etcetera are the usual inane NPC musings?
Stemfags can be redeemed (as many /lit/izens are ex-stemfags) but it should be obvious to all of you that this one doesn't want to change his (unironically pitiful) preconceived ideas.

>>11741973
it's actually just the opposite, OP

>>11741980
he posted this on /sci/ and everyone was just confused, so definitely the latter

>>11741977
>>11745562
That's the telos or perhaps more accurately 'function'; meaning is something we attribute to things as not entirely rational conscious beings (which isn't a criticism, if we were entirely rational we'd lack motivation to do anything).

>>11744672
Relative to you? No.
Do you have any idea how many different conceptualizations of god have been proposed? Where would we even start?

>>11744598
The properties of the universe which underlie mathematics do precede the observer, the abstractions upon them (mathematical concepts like numbers and perfect circles) do not. You can't get to the abstractions without first observing the properties though, such as logical consistency and the distinctness of objects.

>>11741973
Hawthorne Studies

>>11741973
What about things that rely on possibly unknowable initial conditions that nonetheless have an impact on your day-to-day, like the weather?

Is something with hidden variables never worth discussing?

>>11741973
>>anything that cannot be experimentally verified is not worth discussing

Experimentally prove this statement.

>>11741973
>trusting your senses

>>11747559
For sure man, I'm interested in De Broglie-Bohm theory as a possible alternative to currently accepted quantum mechanical interpretations, and the main problem with it is hidden variables. Possibly unknowable, still worth investigating.

>>11747608
But what if it turns out hidden variable is an essential quality of QM and therefore reality? Does further inquiry now mean dick?

Just because we can verify results doesn't mean we should close study into original states. That's atheism reasoning its way into anti-science; really killing the process in its grave.

>>11747621
*in its cradle, rather

>>11747547
>The properties of the universe which underlie mathematics do precede the observer
I agree. And the properties of the universe which underlie beauty precede the observer in the same way.

>>11747547
>>11747731
>The properties of the universe which underlie mathematics do precede the observer
The observer changes the numbers even by merely observing. This is a known fact. Then the observer can change the numbers even more by acting.

>>11747731
The properties which give rise to a life form that can experience beauty yes, but beauty is an experience which is dependent upon the condition of the observer. Mathematical abstraction is not similarly dependent (other than requiring the capacity for abstraction), because it follows an observed property of logical consistency. In the case of mathematics, these observed properties are universals which make the truth value of deductions the same for everyone. In the case of beauty, there are no such universals -- only overlap in the nature of observers which allows some to have a similar experience and divergence in said nature which leads to dissimilar experiences.

>>11747621
Well if different QM interpretations make different predictions about things we can observe, we can compare them. Ultimately we'll end up going with whatever has more predictive power, as that's the only sensible standard.

I agree, we should keep open minds -- sometimes things come out of left-field... But actually believing in concepts which we can't even begin to demonstrate seems like a much greater impediment to knowledge than simply abstaining from belief in that which has no demonstrable probability or predictive power (atheism).

>>11747920
>beauty is an experience which is dependent upon the condition of the observer.
Not so, it's a fundamental and logical property of the universe. There are universals of beauty of which mathematics is one

>>11747980
You've provided no logic with that assertion, but ok..

Mathematics obtains its universailty via observation of properties like logical consistency, this universality allows deductions to be empirically verified.

With beauty, divergent observers report substantially differing experiences of beauty in regards to the same objects. There is no way to empirically verify which experience is more accurate, since the experience of beauty is not predicated upon logical consistency. There is no set of rules you can teach someone that will bring their experience of beauty in exact accordance with yours (unlike in mathematical abstraction).

What you've done is simply invent a superset called 'beauty' and then claim mathematics is a part of it so you can pretend it has universality. Complete sophistry.

>>11741973
>>anything that cannot be experimentally verified is not worth discussing

>prove me wrong protip you can't

This is not worthy of discussion.

>>11747980
>Not so, it's a fundamental and logical property of the universe.
Either prove it, like it is done with fundamental property of the universe, or logically deduce it, like any logic-based system such as maths.

>>11742299
>>11744672
>>11747547

>The Good is He who gives all things and naught receives. God, then, doth give all things and receive naught. God, then, is Good, and Good is God.

>>11749703
Doesn't receive worship?
Why does giving without reciprocity = good?

>>11749739

It precludes contracts.

>>11748179
>empirically verified
>empirically verify
>experience of beauty
Yeah, you just don't understand this stuff at all do you? You're like a retard on reddit who can't discuss God without jumping up and down shouting 'sky pixie hahaha'. Why on earth would beauty be subject to your bullshit epistemological categories?
Do you even understand the question you've just begged so pathetically

>>11749798

Now that anon, but:

>Why on earth would beauty be subject to your bullshit epistemological categories?

Most people can experience beauty empirically. Beauty itself is a sensory experience. Now, since he can experience it, he can study the experience and form some observations on what beauty is. He has laid out his observation. If he is wrong, then you should be able to contest it, no?

>>11741973

i have never posted on this board before. i am not super bright, but i do want to say i think you are wrong. ever heard of ray bradbury? love his stuff. anyways one of his short stories is called "the man". in it, this crew from space land on a planet not known to mankind. they come over to a town they see in the distance and approach someone they assume is an elder. to their surprise, nobody seems to care that a new race of men is making contact with them. all these natives seem to care about is that "the man" who had recently come to them healed many, and taught them wonderful things before leaving. the leader of the space crew is upset and thinks maybe a rival group of space men came before hand and had duped the populace. after awhile though in their talks they rule this out. the captain of the space men becomes more furious over time and demands to know what the real purpose of the visitor was, not being satisfied with any answers previously given. he grows even more irate when he discovers some of his crew desires to stay with the native people and learn from them the teachings of "the man". the captain bursts in rage and demands to know where thid visitor went. the elder tells him, but warns that he will never meet him. in wrath the captain storms back to the ship on his own and takes off in search of this mysterious wanderer. in the end it describes that he is a second too late on the first planet, then a half second on the next, then a fourth of a second, then an eighth, and so on. time dilation making it that he goes obsessively searching, but never finding.

this to me is the problem of positivists. there is no "God of the gaps" because the gaps are infinite, and ultimately everything is more than the sum of it's parts. you take one part to observe and yet it means nothing because there is no end to the search, and ultimately you are not seeing the forest through the trees. as corny as this may sound, there is a God-shaped vacuum in every man's heart that only God can fill.

>>11741973
>What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens

I agree, OP. Oh, and by the way, I'm an atheist.

>>11749833
>Beauty itself is a sensory experience.
Okay you don't understand it either. We have experiences of beauty, beauty is not itself an experience, it's a fundamental property of reality

>>11749851

sure, but you may miss something truly important along the way. in my experience it is important to do the opposite of Sagan. let your brains fall out of your head and pick up all sorts of shit that otherwise might have been ignored. remember that reason does not necessitate pure cogitation like a computer. logic can only define what is phenomenal and cannot scratch the questions that truly itch. read Kierkegaard's unscientific post script. it is a hard read but really shakes up your mind. Kierkegaard had a logician's brain and saw where science, metaphysics, economics/politics, and the church were going.

>>11749703
Irrefutable evidence that God is a metaphorical concept.

>>11749882

>it's a fundamental property of reality

Could you define what you think beauty is?
Furthermore, if beauty is an objective property, is non-beauty/ugliness as well? What is beautiful and what is not? How do we come to measure the objective property of beauty, for if it is that, then it should be quantifiable.

>>11749907
>Could you define what you think beauty is?
What do you think poets and composers and artists and architects have been doing the last 6000 years? Do you think Bach was just pressing buttons that sounded nice? Is the great white shark just a big fish?

>>11749933

>Do you think Bach was just pressing buttons that sounded nice

Yes, ultimately. How do you think music came about?

But I'm asking you this, and the following questions, so we can have some clear definitions of what we re even talking about.

>>11749907

well should we make music, poetry, and film through focus group? hey, maybe we can just turn it into an advertising venture with social psychologists and sociologists

>>11749940

Haha. Well, that has kind of already happened. Culture industry and all that.

But no, you are confusing my questions as some weird prescriptions.

>>11749937
I'm saying it can't be quantified in a way that will satisfy your empirical autism. You can't have a clear definition. It exists beyond the realms of your science and categories etc. Sheesh it's the whole point of the thread, it's in OP.
>everything can be understood empirically
This thing can't
>hur dude, you've got to understand that thing empirically otherwise it can't be understood

>>11741973
Anything that you have not, personally, verified experimentally is not experimentally verified.

>>11749955

You can talk about it in any way you wish. You seem to be assuming that my modus operandi is that of some STEM-poster caricature.

>>11749972
>hur dude, you've got to understand that thing empirically otherwise it can't be understood

Just to add: Everything we do understand is reliant on our senses. Thus everything we talk about has its root in some experience. E.g. I can experience beauty, so, I can reason about its nature. I don't see a problem here.

>>11741973
generally 3-4. 2 on a slow day. occasionally 6 if im feeling especially sharp

>>11749789
Really. Don't you go to hell or something if you spurn 'God'? All of Christianity pretty much seems like a contract. Not that your statement was even logical...Just more arbitrary definition.

>>11749955
So it's the same as God then. If you can't define what it is, then neither can you claim what it isn't. How can you say beauty is a property and not an experience if you can't define it? You realize of course that at this point you have abandoned both empricism (induction) and deductive logic. So it's literally 'hurr because I say so'.

>>11742248
>Activate Windows
I'm dead

Can you experimentally verify that something has been experimentally verified?

>>11741973
How do you can tell whether it can be experimentally verified without discussing it first?

Imagine being so miserable and frail of spirit that you want to live in a world where beauty is reducible to neurological phenomena and statistical responses to stimuli, just imagine, I can smell the Comp Sci degrees from here

>>11741973
If it can be verified what are you discussing?

>>11741973
Here we go again...

>>11752954
t. failed high school algebra

>>11752998
yup, bugman codemonkey spotted

>>11753006
>will never understand the beauty of math or physical sciences
>pretends to understand the beauty of books he cant comprehend

>>11753038
>I disagree therefore I am illiterate
>being so singleminded that you don't realize there exists an entire canon of literature and philosophy which disagrees with you

"I've been found out", see how the bugman shrinks back.

I can appreciate the beauty of math and science without reducing all human experience to the terms of engagement in those fields.

>>11753051
>being so infectes by relativism he cant understand that i disagree with a body of literature

>>11752954
Imagine being such a spiritcuck that you need to invent universals to justify and appreciate your own nature, just imagine, I can smell the slave morality from here

>>11741973
>>anything that cannot be experimentally verified is not worth discussing
This statement cannot be experimentally verified, and is also not worth discussing

>>11753066
I have no issue with you disagreeing (other than thinking you're wrong), the way you responded seemed to imply that anyone who disagrees with your stance must be illiterate, which is false.

>>11753082
Shoo nominalist

>>11750646
there's actually no difference between good and evil. you imbecile. you fucking moron

>>11752954
If you are scared of that, is it not you who are frail?

>>11753219
Not scared of, full of contempt for