/lit/ - Literature

>>17364738

>>17364738
Yeah, science! Mr. White!
I hope you get the reference.

Natural philosophy is a subfield of philosophy.

>>17364738
Neuroscientist here (about to wrap up my PhD). Neuroscience doesn't say what you think it does.

>>17364738
I know you're baiting but i am still going to get mad at your post anyway

>>17364738
worse bait than the philosophy is useless shitters

>>17365149

>>17365149
I just know that sausage fingers typed this

Don't think I've ever since anyone bait this hard

KEK triggered. Philosophlets and scienlets are pure KEK

You mean to say, they have not found scientific evidence of
1) The soul in studying the brain.
2) An Intelligent Design in studying the cosmos.
3) Divine guidance in studying the evolution of life.

All of which are debatable by the way.

You see, there is the hard problem of consciousness, fine-tuning of the parameters of universal constants, and mystery of abiogenesis.

These could be taken as signs of a divine power to some.

Friendly reminder there has never been an observed case of life being created from nothing.

>>17364894
retarded argument and I see it all the time.

And then Hitchens fucked Dawkins in the ass, until he came, gushing gallons of his virile high-IQ sperm. At the same time, Sam Harris, who was jerking off in a corner of the room while lustfully staring at them, reached his climax and screamed "GOD IS FAKE RETARDS!!" as his cum shot from his two-foot dick with such hydraulic pressure that it stained the ceiling.

>>17365247

>>17365306
>Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one
Albert Einstein

>Hence it is clear that the space of physics is not, in the last analysis, anything given in nature or independent of human thought. It is a function of our conceptual scheme. Space as conceived by Newton proved to be an illusion, although for practical purposes a very fruitful illusion.
Albert Einstein

>>17365333

>>17364738
>t. Humanities major that doesn’t read anything
You don’t understand the sciences you claim to love, you people never have and never will.
t. Scientist

>>17365374

you bait but the board has been flooded by midwits who unironically think this

>>17364738

>"Materialism, then, is a metaphysics of the rejection of metaphysics. It is an of faith-assumption that nature is a closed system whose every feature is caused by and explainable by matter alone, and that nothing exists beyond the physical order. Naturalism is a picture of the whole of reality that cannot, according to its own intrinsic premises, address the being of the whole; it is a transcendental certainty of the impossibility of transcendental truth, and so requires an act of pure credence logically immune to any verification… Naturalism’s claim that, by confining itself to purely material explanations for all things, it adheres to the only sure path of verifiable knowledge is nothing but a feat of sublimely circular thinking: physics explains everything, which we know because anything physics cannot explain does not exist, which we know because whatever exists must be explicable by physics, which we know because physics explains everything."
- David Bentley Hart

>Moreover, the Materialist ought to be asked what is the exact nature of that consciousness which he supposes to be exuded from the elements. For he does not admit the existence of any other principle apart from his four (or any number of) elements. He will perhaps try to define consciousness as consisting in the mere fact that the elements and their products are experienced. But then they would have to be its object, and it could not be a property of them at the same time, for it is contradictory to suppose that anything can act on itself. Fire may be hot, but it cannot burn itself, and not even the cleverest acrobat can climb up on his own shoulders. And, in the same way, the elements and their products cannot form objects of consciousness if consciousness is their property. A colour does not perceive its own colour or the colour of anything else. And yet there is no doubt whatever that the elements and their products are perceived by consciousness, both inside and outside the body. Because, therefore, the presence of a consciousness which takes the elements and their products as its objects has to be admitted, it follows that it has likewise to be admitted that consciousness is distinct and separate from them.
- Adi Shankara

Atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.

>>17364738
The four sciences, like the four elements and the four directions, are only complete when applied to the firth element. The Human Element.
The bit that perceives.

>>17364738
>The soul does not exist (neuroscience)
What experiment proves this? Serious question.

>there is no God (astronomy)
How does astronomy of all things prove or disprove the existence of God?

>evolution is real (biology)
Obviously.

>things are explainable by natural laws (physics)
So far, yes.

>>17365426
>implying it’s bait.
talk to anyone under 18 and there is a 90% chance they’ll unironically agree

>>17365264
Natrual philosophy didn't historically emerge wholly formed from nothing. And it isn't the only field of inquiry that exists. Deal with it.

>>17364738
any philosophy ever try to refute the concept of science itself?
I know Goethe kinda dabbled on it

>>17365253
Well, the creation of life from nothing hasn't been observed, we've only seen amino acids created from organic compounds in chemical reactions involving electricity. Amino acids are also present in comets and nebulas. Life is far more complex chemically, that's like casting a piston and saying you've built an engine.
>>17365357
>>17365306
Ironic that you use a well-known Christian in an argument against Christianity.
>>17365422
Based
>>17365468
Take your meds or study more, it's already been observed that matter has wavelike properties.

>>17364738
Science doesn't tell me how I should live my life; Science is only useful because the information it gives you has utility

This is /sci/ trolling /lit/. what would /lit/ trolling /sci/ version be?

>>17364998
I got my BS in Neuroscience, and I probably understand the field better than you.
But yeah, Neuroscience as a whole is bullshit, and your degree is worthless. A BS in Computer Science is literally worth more than shitty Neuroscience.

>>17368262
The guy has a PhD soon, calm down brainlet.
Youre not as smart as you think, just more insufferable for acting like it.

>>17365333
BASED. Heil Kant, heil Berkeley, Heil Spinoza, Heil Schopy!

>>17364738
Science cant even exist without philosophy.
Science is a tool, philosophy of science is the hand that guides it.
Science itself cant even determine what is science and what is pseudoscience, it requires philosophy to do so (demarcation problem).

>>17364738
>Why read philosophy when all of its assertion have been refuted by science
they haven't.

>things are explainable by natural laws (physics)
implicit in a model is a philosophy, assertions about the world which lead to certain perceptions and concepts. in reality today you see many sciences becoming more philosophy once they've exhausted the low-hanging fruit: immediately practical physical models and shallow social models. this is because when take one set of givens you can only generate a certain amount of things because you are stuck.

>Why read philosophy when all of its assertion have been refuted by science
they haven't.

>things are explainable by natural laws (physics)
implicit in a model is a philosophy, assertions about the world which lead to certain perceptions and concepts. in reality today you see many sciences becoming more philosophy once they've exhausted the low-hanging fruit: immediately practical physical models and shallow social models. this is because when you take one set of givens you can only generate a certain amount of things before you are stuck or degenerate into fruitless autism and looping. the only way to improve is take a step back and rethink your underlying perceptions and concepts.

>>17364738
>>17368326
>There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.
-Dennett

>>17365306
Intelligent Design is not an argument from ignorance, it is an inference to the best explanation. Regardless, this picture of him makes me think that this is bait, unless he always looks this goofy.