/lit/ - Literature

>>12442121
Nice "scientific post"

>>12442121
can i suck your cock, OP?

>>12442121
People here will be mad because they can't refute it.

Ok now post the rest of the arguments

>>12442121

> Calculate morality then

A thread died for this, go and measure things. The thing is that you can have very interesting philosophical discussions with physicists and mathematicians if they are good and secure about their skillset and know of the limitations of their field of study. I used to be in a bookclub with a physicist and he had a very interesting take on things. However the worst people are those who are barely making it through their engineering major and feel the need to put others down because of their deep seated insecurity and feelings of low self worth because they know they don't excel. Same goes for the philosophy breaux that disdain people in exact sciences while barely being able to write a decent paper on any philosophical position. They are the two sides of the same shitty coin, both profoundly insecure because they know they aren't good enough to really be doing anything groundbreaking. They resort to name calling and a cultish following of their field of study because it gives them a sense of belonging and false sense of superiority. They are like those people who's whole identity revolves on liking craft-beer, or certain metal music or a sport. Anyone not conforming to their taste is seen as an attack on their identity because they are utterly devoid of one themselves.

>>12442366
What kind of philosophical discussions could a philosopher have with a scientist or a mathematician?

>>12442121
Whether they do or don’t is a matter of philosophy

>>12442433
The problem of if math is a platonic object is very much a think mathematicians think about. Fucking retard.

>>12442433

Topics like determinism, questions on morality or faith and reason. Anything really. The only thing that need to happen is that everyone leaves their ideological trenches and tries to understand the other's position. A dialogue in the way Martin Buber would describe it, a conversation in which both parties don't try to objectify eachother and their position. A discussion should be about learning from one another, not trying to yell the loudest and feeling a smug sense of satisfaction when you have driven others away with your incessant bullshit and claim that you were right all along. I believe that this is one of the fatal flaws of boards like /lit/, rarely people do anything else than attack eachothers strawmen for validation from others that take the same position. At the end of the day people have called eachother nigger a few times, posted some smug anime girl and go back to masturbating. It's rare to see people actually try to understand eachother and learn from one another on /lit/.

>>12442121

>explain reality
That’s about it. Science tells us what things are, but makes no comment on how to act, nor should it. Science is not a totalitarian explanation for life, it explains about 10% of the human experience.

>>12442121
>physics and neuroscience explain reality and human experience better
Go on then. Saying “these fields talk about this stuff best” is totally redundant if you’re unable to talk about it yourself.

Science rests upon a certain philosophical foundation

>>12442121
well, that's a philosophical statement.

>>12442121
>neuroscience
You know you are dealing with "I fucking love science" people when they say stuff like this.
Neuroscientists usually are super careful about the limits of their science.

>>12442917
Positivist Materialism and Determinism (both of which I believe in) are explicit presuppositions that neuroscience bases itself on (and confirms). They know very well that consciousness is a material phenomenon and don't pretend otherwise.

>>12442944
>consciousness is a material phenomenon and don't pretend otherwise.
Elaborate

Someone post that pic with modern reddit scientists dismissing philosophy and dead scientist who actually worked embracing it

>>12442986
>choosing definitely wrong and outdated opinions over modern and less wrong opinions
Can you explain this phenomena please?

>>12442973
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j_OPQgPIdKg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo

>>12442944
Claiming that consciousness is an emergent property of matter seems reasonable on the surface, but it leads to all kinds of further questions that can't really be answered within the sphere of science. The link between consciousness and matter is more an issue of metaphysical speculation. Why is it that certain arrangements of chemical compounds are able to produce consciousness but others can't? If consciousness is a material phenomenon, does that mean those same certain kinds of matter possess intelligence too?

>>12442994
It's like Custard's last stand for humanitiesfags

>>12442433
There's a ton of room for discourse between psychology/neuroscience and phenomenology/epistemology/philosophy of mind.

>>12442121
70% of experiments published in official reputed journals can't actually be repicated. Modern Science's track record is notably worse than the "Christian Dark Ages"'s and only compares favorably to subsaharan africa's cultural output.

Is there any way we can meddle with the brains of STEM people to turn them into the philosophical zombies they so obviously want to be. I am absolutely one hundred and ten percent serious about this. It really is worth considering that we should look into some method of removing all the functions of the brain which allow STEMfags to do anything other than whatever they need for their autistic little field. Honestly. Give me a mathematician and an ice cream scoop and half an hour. Love and passion, nope not using it, you don't need it (*SCOOOP*). Desire for meaning and authenticity, don't think you even knew you had this (*SCOOOOOOP*). Basic ethical and aesthetic sensibilities, well known to any well-adjusted three your old, you certainly won't miss this (*SCOOOOOOOOOOP*). Then we screw the top of his head back on and marvel at our creation: the ideal STEMfag, reduced to his essential part, a human calculator in the case of our mathematician. And I genuinely believe that he would thank me if he could. This is all STEMfags want to be, this is all they're really capable of being.

Give them all to me and with an ice cream scoop I'll fix all their problems. They won't have to worry about any of the dastardly, irritating aspects of life, such as beauty, or religious hope, or virtue, or even sensuality (which will be merely sense-data once I'm done with my scoop).

You really do have to understand, noble reader, that this isn't even in the slightest a cruel thing to do. It's removing from them those things which would do nothing but bother and irritate them till the end of their days. They don't want these things which are so valuable to you and I, noble reader. In fact, their every utterance is a plea to the universe to "reduce" and "eliminate" and simplify and I, and my trusted associates at the clinic, with our scoops would do nothing more than give them that freedom from unnecessaries that they so desire.

It's a perfect solution, which frees us from having to listen to their opinions on things outside of objectively measurable phenomena pertaining to their field and their field alone, and it frees them from the distractions, such as moral intuitions and human consciousness, which they are so disturbed by that they need to deny the very existence of these things.

Just picture it, thousands upon thousands of STEMfags walking out the clinic back towards their test tubes or whatever they do. Imagine the grotesque rictus smiles on their chinless anglo faces. "I'm finally free", they would think, were they not indeed finally free from that thing which they felt most keenly to be a burden on them, qualia, human consciousness, and all the beauty, passion, love, emotion, all the duty, the sense of virtues, the religious hunger, the ups and downs and bends and curves of being *human*, all that aesthetic, moral, spiritual... noise, which plagued them like tinnitus until my act of kindness.

To do anything else, would be utterly inhumane.

>>12442944
>a material phenomenon
Meaningless statement

>>12442999
>but it leads to all kinds of further questions that can't really be answered within the sphere of science.
literally impossible. given enough time science solves everything.

>>12442999
>Why is it that certain arrangements of chemical compounds are able to produce consciousness but others can't?
wtf are humanities fags retarded?

if you put a hydrogen molecule and 2 oxygen molecules together you get water. it's not some grand mystery and to act baffled why other combinations of molecules don't also produce water is a stupidity so profound I'm having trouble computing it.

>>12443008
ah yes, nice baseless uncited pasta.

*yawn* I've seen it before though, sadly, so it's pretty boring at this point

>>12442433
Google cognitive science

>>12443015
>H2O = human consciousness
genius!

>>12443015
>if you put a hydrogen molecule and 2 oxygen molecules together you get water.
I defined consciousness as an emergent property of matter and water is not a "property" of a hydrogen molecule and 2 oxygen molecules. If you don't understand the idea of emergence you shouldn't project that misunderstanding onto me, just read this:

>"Because you cannot without affirming what you wish to deny, namely, intelligent cooperation among the constituent elements of the crystals. When soldiers form lines, or hollow squares, you call it reason. When wild geese in flight take the form of a letter V you say instinct. When the homogeneous atoms of a mineral, moving freely in solution, arrange themselves into shapes mathematically perfect, or particles of frozen moisture into the symmetrical and beautiful forms of snowflakes, you have nothing to say. You have not even invented a name to conceal your heroic unreason."

>>12442994
opinions are not modern or outdated, they are timeless and useless

opinions don't belong in science or philosophy, they belong to intellectuals, which is what these reddit scientists are

>>12443015
>define water as h20
>therefore h20 = water
>Science!

>>12443015
>given enough time science solves everything
Wrong. Science answers scientific questions. It cannot answer questions that are not asked in relation to or about it. This is why there is such a thing as different academic disciplines. I didn't really think this needed explaining.

>>12443038
>define words as other words
I can use words to make real phenomena not real!

>>12443043
>Wrong. Science answers scientific questions
Yeah except for the fact that the realm that constitutes "scientific questions" is expanding at an exponential rate and if you understand the technique of it you would realize it is at bottom all encompassing

just look at all the things that were religious or philosophic questions 800 years ago that have now become scientific.

>>12443051
>Real
In what way it's real ?

>>12443060
>just look at all the things that were religious or philosophic questions 800 years ago that have now become scientific.
You can also look at science the opposite way, namely all of the non-science (nonsense?) that was part of "scientific" enquiry that has now been widely discredited, or at the very least, is no longer part of the discussion. Science getting better at distinguishing what is and isn't relevant to its intellectual project has no bearing on the topics it chooses to exclude, because they necessarily exist outside its capacity to comment on them. Many people (particularly scientists) would believe this to mean they don't exist at all, when in reality its simply that the scientific approach fails to unearth the logic behind the production of its particular phenomena. Only if you take "science" as absolute dogma (in the way that you are) does this process of exclusion become a distinction between the real and the non-existent.

>>12443072
The way that you pick up a cup of water and reasonably believe that it is a cup of water.

Yes, it's not an accurate model, but it doesn't mean that you say that the cup of water doesn't exist like a massive faggot.

I think this thread, and discussions on this board in general, would profit if we used clear examples when we say something general about science or philosophy.

>>12443015
>given enough time science solves everything.
kys

>>12443120
you sound frightened and confused

>>12443120
How can we meaningfully dismiss or verify that statement? It's not logicaly apodictic and we can't use any empirical observation to see if it's true, so it's really just a meaningless statement, akin to "there is an invisble pink unicorn behind you".

Science is merely descriptive

Philosophy deals both with description and prescription

>>12443117
The cup doesn't real. Only consciousness exists

>>12442944
>Determinism

> imagine unironically being a determist

>>12443167
If science is descriptive how does it keep planes in the air?

>>12443181
OK solipist fag, tell me you can have other people in your purely conscious world.

>>12443199
Becuase it explores the laws describing the phenomena of the natural world, which then can be used to manipulate the natural world to construct technological inventions.

>>12443206
He's not necessarily a sollipsist, he could be a subjectivist idealist like berkley.

>>12443199
that's engineering, not science per se

>>12443215
I'm saying that subjective idealism is inherently solipist, as that it doesn't permit people other than yourself to exist.

>>12443209
>manipulate the natural world to construct technological inventions
Doesn’t that mean science is prescriptive in some sense too? we have to rely on pre-established laws and scientific assumptions that govern the way technology is developed, otherwise said technology will not work.

>>12443206
>consciousness can't experience itself
Why would I assume duality or whatever it is you think I am assuming? What distinction do you think I am making between self and other?

>>12443221
>subjective idealism is inherently solipist, as that it doesn't permit people other than yourself to exist.
Big brain post right here

>>12443239
That's the problem. You don't make any distinction between self and others. It's all self. You're right, you can experience yourself, but you can't extend it to others.

>>12443230
>science makes normative statements
>>12443221
>subjective idealism can't be consistently integrated with the idea of other minds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlKL_EpnSp8

>>12443060
>just look at all the things that were religious or philosophic questions 800 years ago that have now become scientific.
In 1219. Ok, name 3?

Science is philosophy mate

>>12443263
But I did. Idealists consistently get btfo in theory of mind discussions.

>>12443261
Or it's all others? Or the self/other dichotomy is false and there is neither self nor others? Does the universe include itself?
You aren't doing a very good job of explaining your objections

>>12443009
cringe