/lit/ - Literature

didn't read

>>3679915
You're an idiot

>>3679915
It is relevant and you'd see it if you stopped being a self-righteous asshole who congratulates himself for his own brilliance and looks down on everyone else.

>>3679944

>implying thats not what every philosopher in history has ever been like

>Major in psychology

Stopped reading there

0/10

>>>/mlp/
>>>r/eddit/atheist

>>>/sci/

is it really not apparent how stupid you sound?

>Or are they mad that their degree is paying money to read books they could of gotten from the library for free.
you can get check calc and physics books out from the library

>>3679915
>we now know we descended from apes
>know
>we know about space
>know about space
>know
>that smug feel when he thinks he has figured out everything
>is heavily ignorant of philosophy of science
>philosophically illiterate
>le carl sagan face.jpeg

haven't laughed this much in a long time.

>>3679915

>implying that science is itself not problematic...there will always be the problem of induction

>implying that academic philosophy is rehashing old problems and not ANALYSIS!

>>3679915
>the uselessness of historical philosophy

>Also they argue that somehow the mind is somehow separate from the body, when a rational person rejects this dichotomy

wtf


Reductive physicalism is untenable!

You and your naturalist ilk are conflating a property with a substance!

http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1000/Nagel.pdf

people who are obsessed with carl sagan are stupid

>majoring in psychology

cuz... itz like interesting, ya know?

>>3679915
The fact that morons like you are allowed in college astounds me.

We, as humans, know nothing.

>>3680071
>Nagel
>Like mind IS matter, but it's like, more than matter, but it's all the same still.
>like we can never have machine consciousness because of my appeal to Searle,
>but determinism, err?
>like subjective experience is real, but umm we transcend matter, but not dualism. No, there is no soul.

Yeah, no.

>>3679946
>implying they have

Wow, OP, wow.

Of course it's relevant, even without our modern technology, culture, and lack of discrimination those philosophers made some incredibly relevant assertions about various philosophical topics.

Maybe if you'd studied those philosophers a little more you wouldn't come across as having the opinion of a brain-dead cretin.

>>3679915
Well I, for one, am impressed that someone like you can greentext.

This is like that episode of Big Bang theory when Leslie and Leonard break up over the wave/ particle debate. The canned laughter is what you should take note of Op, you're a silly man who should just be ploughing her.

le epic troll

>>3680123

can you not into non-reductive physicalism?

>>3679915
You have a shitty understanding of the whole philosophy is midwifery analogy.

Strangely I find some of the more dated philosophy the most life changing. Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius shaped who I am at crucial junctures of my life.

>>3680182
>physicalism
>non reductive
>laughingwhores.jpeg

physicalism is reductionism, anyone claiming anything else is just sophistry, at least man up and accept that - see Dennett and Churchlands

>>3680404
>Dennett and Churchlands
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHHAHAAHAHAH

>>3680407
Nice argument.

>we now know we descended from apes, we know about space, we know about germ theory, DNA, etc, all this has dramatically changed our perspectives or should have at least about who we are as a race and our place in the universe.

Modern science has advanced much, but ancient thinkers also had theories of atomic matter, heliocentrism, other worlds and even ancient forms of evolution. None of those are perfectly correct, but they were on the right track, modern science hasn't really changed perspectives that much, ancient greece had physicalists too.

Also modern psych has a lot to learn from the ancients too, see Albert Ellis making use of Stoicism for his rational emotive behavioral therapy and the modern use of mindfulness meditation.

>>3679915
>What is Hard Science and Soft Science.

>>3679915
>science
>disclosure of the sein

pick one

>>3680407
I'm not a physicalist and I'm not arguing for it you shit, I'm pointing to reductive physicalists to prove a point

>>3680154
>you will never be Steve Buscemi

you have to read the arguments of the past greak thinkers because otherwise you just make the same mistakes, Whitehead said all western phil is just footnotes to Plato because almost all the shit you will argue for you can find in Plato

>>3680449
>2013
>still reading socratics

pick one

>>3680461
masterfully argued

>>3680483
>2013
>thinking you can step twice in the same river

pick one

>2013
>reading socratic debauchery and moral abasement as if it were absolute truth

pick one

>2013
>thinking Plato understood metaphysics more than presocratics

pick one

>2013
>not considering socrates as the end of the search for the Sein

pick one

>>3680498
>>3680461
>>3680427
g2bed heidegger

>>3680498
Socrates =/= Plato. The sooner you learn that the sooner you will again find faith in humanity (and in yourself). Also, try to appreciate Sartre as an unprofessional philosopher.

And give up on presocratics. They were full of one element.

OP here, thanks for the complete and utter lack of intelligent rebuttals, other then LUL U STIPID, and HEHE I R SMRTR THEN yOu, U ARE TOO STUPID TO BE ON COMPUTER EVEN

>>3680607

You're welcome.

>talk to girl
>try to tell her what she's based her life around is useless
well aren't you don juan

>>3680607
but what you said is stupid, is like trying to do calculus without basic algebra.

not to mention that some ideas are still relevant, like theory of forms.

It's okay OP. Both your degrees are useless.

>le bernard williams face

captcha: mind colonizer

>>3679915
>says history of philosophy is useless
>this is because those old guys taught <x>
>he doesn't know how wrong he is because he doesn't know about the history of philosophy

9/10

>>3679915
>makes fun of someone for majoring in a useless degree
>goes for psychology major
enjoy working at taco bell
Though if it makes you feel better
>>3679988
that guy is an idiot too, but so are you.... So i guess it doesn't work out so well

>>3680703
Your forgot to call yourself an idiot, too.

>>3680607

Philosophytardfag major here, on my last class for the major so I am basically done.

I actually agree with you OP. I am sick of reading about the ideas of individual philosophers. I got into philosophy because I want to know more around the universe, but was only partially satisfied with science (dual major in physics) because of epistemic issues.

Still, I found the philosophy classes are all about "okay, this week we read this philosopher and talk about HIS ideas". Nothing new. Nothing original. Nobody cares about whether or not he is actually right or wrong. I sympathize with people who laugh at philosophy degrees because it literally is about studying people and not ideas.

That being said, if you are smart enough to cut the ideas away from the philosopher and apply logic, you can start to get a sense of the ideas that are actually floating around. She has a point that ancient philosophers are still arguing about the same issues (some of which are somewhat relevant still, but for technical and semantic reasons).

Also, people in the /lit/ forums are notorious for being elitists. Just ignore the hate and dig through the comments for the useful stuff. They should be busy reading instead of posting if they are THAT dedicated to literature and philosophy.

tl;dr: philosopherfag agrees with you

>>3680831
>Philosophytardfag major
oh, an undergraduate armchair philosopher who calls himself a philosopher!
yay!

>>I got into philosophy because I want to know more around the universe
ahahahah what a fucking moron

>>3680843
hawking pls, it's time for your spongebath.

>>3680831
where did you get the idea of ideas as separable from people from? plato?

tl;dr, I have no idea what your talking about

>>3680831
You sound like a huge cunt.

>>3680831
>guy postures as elitist over a girl with incorrect position
>tell him not to worry about elitists bringing him down

Look at all the butthurt ITT. Do you dimwits seriously believe in a magical soul / consciousness? That's sad and funny at the same time. Without effects that garbage can be dismissed.

>>3680607
Seems to me like you're just blatantly rejecting arguments that don't agree with yours. Did you expect to have everyone laugh at the girl and be in your favour? There are legitimately dickish posts in this thread, but their implications are something that's sustained across the whole board. Read more philosophy if you want to try and understand why people do philosophy. Of course psychology is 'more useful in the real world'. Philosophy differs where it's a specific mode of discourse.

>>3680831

>Implying a BA makes you an expert...and that all schools are equal.

What's your pedigree? 2nd tier state school?

>>3681002
It's not necessary to believe in a soul to reject OP's position.

>>3681009
I'm not addressing OP's point. I'm addressing the irrational and butthurt /x/ trolls ITT who are baselessly supporting the hatred of reductionism. Eliminative materialism is the only philosophy compatible with rationality and the scientific method. Magical qualia and consciousness have no evidence and can be dismissed. Humans are biological machines and the result of evolution.

>>3681002

The evidence for consciousness is staggering. The evidence for souls is lacking. They are not self-same.

>tell someone their degree is "useless"
>they get kinda pissed
>"WOAH HEY MAN DUDE HEY I'M JUST CALLIN IT LIKE I'M SEEIN IT DON'T GET SO BUMRUSTLED JESUS YOU FEMINAZI DAMN ARE YOU ON YOUR PERIOD OR WHAT SHIT I'M JUST SAYIN

True tact, OP.

>>3681021

I don't think you know what rationality means. You cannot have the a priori on one hand and reject all modes of inquiry but the a posteriori on the other.

have you even taken modern philosophy or did you just not pay attention to Kant?

>>3680831
>>3680831
Studying philosophy in a college (French Canada) seems to yield more results than this major you're talking about, but this might be because I study it on my own.

As a "philosopher"fag, you only seem to study hermeneutics and history of philosophy.

Have you read some phenomenology and (post) structuralism ?

>>3681021

how are qualia magical? do you not feel pain, anguish, see colors, or taste food?

>>3680607

I'm inclined to disagree with you on a few points, OP.
The world hasn't really changed, the way we think of it has. Our philosophical stance is a bit different, so we have different knowledge at our disposal in the use of arguments, and for me to believe you saying that all of historical philosophy is rendered moot from this stance would require that you analyze the stance of every philosopher who has ever existed. Simply put, you can't say that EVERY philosopher would have his beliefs defeated by our knowledge, especially considering that many philosophers are more inclined to philosophize with reason as opposed to observations.

tl; dr:
1. you can't say that historical philosophy is stupid without studying every philosopher who has ever lived.
2. the world hasn't changed; the way we think about it has.

3. a lot of historical philosophy is very relevant today. are you saying that kids shouldn't be taught the Pythagorean theorem? Or that Plato's Allegory of the Cave isn't relevant to society? Furthermore, given the parallels between a lot of old philosophy and current findings, such as the stance of the British empiricists and how neatly it ties to the British empiricists, the old philosophers serve as a good source of hypotheses to check our findings.

In typical /lit/ fashion, I will conclude my argument with a statement of how much of a pleb you are:
>implying that historical philosophy is irrelevant

>>3681023
>The evidence for consciousness is staggering
Show me the evidence.

>The evidence for souls is lacking.
Exactly. Non-interacting spirit nonsense can be dismissed

>>3681030
Hitchens' razor is a principle of rationality. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>3681039
>how are qualia magical?
They are dualism nonsense without testable effects and can be dismissed just like all the other non-interacting ghosts.

>do you not feel pain, anguish, see colors, or taste food?
Pain, vision, taste, etc are biological processes. Every step from processing the visual, nociceptor, gustatory input to the motorical output is biochemically explicable. There is no need to resort to any kind of magic claims. No metaphysical or spiritual magic is involved in the process.

>>3680123
In another paper, Nagel raises a more interesting objection to physicalism:
Even if you can understand the brain inside and out, you still don't know what's it like to experience it; we can study the brain of bats all we like, but that won't tell us what it's like to be a bat; the closest thing we can do is modify our own perspective with all the knowledge we have.

>>3680222

My nigga. The same thing happened to me, but with the Eleatics.

>>3681046

The entirety of human conversation and literature. Your internal monologue...

or are you an aspie robot Turing machine?

>>3681042
*the stance of the british empiricists and how neatly it ties to our understanding of perception

>>3681046

so the only things that are real are testable?

can you not into the synthetic a priori

how can you experience this 2+2 = 4

go read kant you twit

>>3681055
>>3681046
yup, i'm with this guy. but i admire how much you cling to your skepticism. ever read parmeinedes?

>>3680831

You seem to have something bordering on a phobia for history and people in general. You might wanna get that checked out.

>>3681055
>The entirety of human conversation and literature.
What does that have to do with your spiritualist claims? Those are products of deterministic biological automata.

>Your internal monologue
I don't have any magical "internal monologue", you silly /x/ troll.

>or are you an aspie robot Turing machine?
I am not. Do not abuse Asperger's as a buzzword. You clearly have no idea what it means.

>>3681059
>so the only things that are real are testable?
Yes.

>experience
Meaningless /x/ drivel. Ramblings devoid of content are irrelevant to this discussion.

>2+2 = 4
The photons depart my monitor, enter my retina, and are processed by my brain. No magic involved.

>go read kant you twit
Pseudo-philosophy goes to >>>/x/.

>>3681046

Do you understand that one can be a substance monist and a property dualist.

Ryle's university metaphor is a great example.

>>3681046
>>3681071
Look out everybody -- a wild Dawkinist has appeared! Beware -- he knows everything!

>>3681071
this one is a troll obviously

>>3681046

I think this is a different poster...could be wrong though

>>3681084
He trolls /sci/ 24/7, ignore him.

>>3681073
>Do you understand that one can be a substance monist and a property dualist.
No, because the concept of "emergence" is meaningless. It's a funny way to say that you believe in magic. Using the word "emergence" makes only sense when there is an observable phenomenon that can be considered to emerge. Claiming that an unobservable metaphysical phenomenon without evidence is "emergent" is pure bullshittery. "Hurr, the non-interacting invisible demon in my closet is an emergent phenomenon."

>>3681075
I do, thank you.

>>3681084
Both of those posts are mine.

>>3681089
Nobody is trolling.

>>3681089
>>3681084
>>3681075
how about trying to philosophize instead of blindly insulting? or are you crushed by the weight of his rouse?

>>3681101
crushed by the weight of his ruse*

This thread, I genuinely raged at this thread.

I haven't read enough books to make an educated, informed argument against it, but I raged.

>>3681101

I feel no inclination to engage in polemics with a contrarian who is inconsistent in his own argument.

>rejecting experience
>arguing for empiricism

bye

>>3681037
>studying disconnected philosophy not applying to the real world

>>3679915
sagan is a jew

>>3681162
scary

>>3681142

THIS.

>>3681142
>>3681200
What does empiricism have to do with your magical soul?

>>3681211
What does soul have to do with your magical empiricism?

>>3681214
I don't care about your fictional spiritualist distinctions. They are all untestable and unobservable.

Empiricism isn't magical, you cretin.

>>3681236
How do you know that your senses are reliable?

I disagree with you OP, mainly because I'm a Christian. Do with that what you will.

>>3681252
inb4 sky fairy unicorns santa claus

>>3681243
>hurr durr muh solipsism
I'm not an edgy high schooler.

>>3681262
Answer the question, please.

>>3681236
I don't care about your fictional materialist distinctions. They are all untestable and unobservable.

Soul isn't magical, you cretin.

>>3679915
fuck jews

>>3680843

b-b-but... I thought philosophy wasn't about j-j-just hearing other peoples opinions and was supposed to have truth value!

>>3680864

Might be one of the few valid points addressed at me. I think there is some valid truth here, but at the same time it makes the act of reading philosophy a bit superfluous once you find a model of reality that works well enough.

>>3680957

Awww, thanks!

>>3681000

I didn't think he was being elitist. *shrug*

>>3681007

It doesn't, and I wasn't trying to assert my authority as an argument in his favor. I was simply stating that I agree with him and I study in the field. I have met many "unauthorized" people who make good arguments while also come across "authorized" people who say profoundly stupid and intellectually insulting things.

>>3681037

Actually I spend the majority of my time reading in the subjects of Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Religion (inb4 "dawkinsfag"), and Epistomology. Unfortunately I lack in knowledge in other branches because of my focus, but I only commented on the OP because there is a general trend in classes I take where I go.

I do plan on widening my reading soon enough though, probably during the summer (it has been on my to-do list).

>>3681066

Yes. I hate everyone and everything. I hate history. I hate god. I hate myself too. I am the edgiest person you will ever meet because of how much I hate everything.

I would get my hate checked out, but I hate psychiatrists, doctors, and I hate people in general.

You know, because of how edgy I am.

2edgy4u

>>3681236
bitch causality is magical, you can't prove that shit a priori, qualia is like that, just because you're an aspie doesn't mean other people don't have qualitative experiences

>>3681267
Perception is a physical process. I do not have brain damage or peripheral neuropathy.

>>3681268
>They are all untestable and unobservable.
Wrong.

>Soul isn't magical, you cretin.
Name one testable effect of your invisible rape demon.

>>3681284
What the fuck are you talking about? What does any of this have to do with your /x/ claims?

ITT: Retards

Hume tfw

>>3681290
>Perception is a physical process. I do not have brain damage or peripheral neuropathy.

You can only perceive that you do not have damaged perception through your senses, which is begging the question as you have not demonstrated that your senses are reliable.

>>3679915
>could of

>>3681243

How many dimensions can you perceive?

Idiot.

>>3681290
I'm talking about Hume's criticism of causality you fucking capite censi

>>3681294
Wrong. My sanity is objectively verifiable.

>>3681298
What does that have to do with a soul/consciousness/qualia nonsense?

>>3681303
>Wrong. My sanity is objectively verifiable.

Please objectively verify your sanity.

>>3681308
How can I do that without giving away my identity?

>>3681308

I think he has done quite the opposite (he claimed to have no internal monologue).

>>3681308
My ability to post on this message board

>>3681290
>Wrong.
It's pretty accurate actually, you would have known that if you had any understanding and literacy of contemporary philosophy; but as you're a stubborn youngster, probably in his teens, that just has discovered the magical teachings of lord Dawkins, I'll just let this one go. ;-)

Keep on spreading the edge, sport.

>>3681312
You are only perceiving that you are posted here through your senses, which you have not demonstrated are reliable.

>>3681311
> (he claimed to have no internal monologue)
Where is your evidence of that magical phenomenon?

>>3681313
>It's pretty accurate actually
Please show us the evidence.

>you would have known that if you had any understanding and literacy of contemporary philosophy
Unlike you I am educated in philosophy.

>but as you're a stubborn youngster, probably in his teens
>projecting

>magical teachings of lord Dawkins
Dawkins is the lord of science.

>I'll just let this one go.
Way to quit after being thoroughly disproved in every point.

>>3681310
>How can I do that without giving away my identity?

How about you tell me the method you would use then?

>>3681327
im monitoring this thread watching the discussion and im still waiting for you to prove that our senses are reliable.

>>3679915
NIGGERS JEWS BAD NEWS. GAS THE KIKES RACE WAR NOW

>>3681334
A neurological examination. What else do you think it is? Magic and unicorn poo?

>>3681336
See >>3681303.

>>3681340
You can only perceive the results of a neurological examination through your senses, which you have not demonstrated are reliable.

>>3681327
>Dawkins is the lord of science
This. Did you know that Dawkins was Boltzmann's research buddy, and that he taught mathematics to Poincaré ?

>>3679915
>Most of those historical people were arguing from a fundamentally religious view that humans are unique and more valuable than other animals, or above them somehow and that simply isn't true

You're confusing theologists with philosophers.
Philosophers are responsible for arguing against such positions and bringing forth the enlightenment and creating the epistemological foundation for science itself, which you apparently value.

> Also they argue that somehow the mind is somehow separate from the body, when a rational person rejects this dichotomy.

There's no rational reason to reject it.
Equating the mind and the brain is sometimes useful, and sometimes it isn't.

>>3681340
what if you are insane in a room with no windows and making all this stuff out of your imagination, including the neurogical examination??

>>3681327

> (he claimed to have no internal monologue)
Where is your evidence of that magical phenomenon?

My evidence is through application of reason. Cogito Ergo Sum. There are few necessary truths but this is one of them (along the FORMAL sciences which cannot exist given your standpoint)

>>3681359
Existing doesn't mean your senses are reliable.

>>3681345
Fuck off with that solipsism retardation.

>>3681347
Unlike other scientists Dawkins isn't just an uneducated hipster who talks some soft dumbed down drivel consisting of insufficient analogies. But at least their intentions are benevolent and they might even appear helpful to those who will never go deeper into scientific understanding. Boltzmann and Poincare on the other hand are malicious trolls. Under the guise of physics they present falsehoods and blatant incorrectness. Her videos are an insult to every scientifically educated person and are not only devoid of educational value but even full of cancerous disinformation.

>>3681357
>imagination
Please prove that such an entity exists. If it cannot be measured, it doesn't exist.

>>3681359
>write a program that echos "cogito ergo sum"
Oh look, my computer has a consciousness. Go back to >>>/x/

>>3681345
Fuck off with that solipsism retardation.

>>3681347
Unlike other scientists Dawkins isn't just an uneducated hipster who talks some soft dumbed down drivel consisting of insufficient analogies. But at least their intentions are benevolent and they might even appear helpful to those who will never go deeper into scientific understanding. Boltzmann and Poincare on the other hand are malicious trolls. Under the guise of physics they present falsehoods and blatant incorrectness. Their videos are an insult to every scientifically educated person and are not only devoid of educational value but even full of cancerous disinformation.

>>3681357
>imagination
Please prove that such an entity exists. If it cannot be measured, it doesn't exist.

>>3681359
>write a program that echos "cogito ergo sum"
Oh look, my computer has a consciousness. Go back to >>>/x/

>>3681369
>Please prove that such an entity exists. If it cannot be measured, it doesn't exist.
Does measuring itself exist?

>>3681369

>>3681373
>Fuck off with that solipsism retardation.

All you have to do is demonstrate your senses are reliable without begging the question. Surely you can do that since you aren't into "magical" thinking or whatever you call it.

>>3681367

I do not think that I have reliable senses. I know that not to be the case.

>>3681369
Write that program then. Bet you can't. Conflation of belief with computation is a category confusion.

>>3681373
>Unlike other scientists Dawkins isn't just an uneducated hipster who talks some soft dumbed down drivel consisting of insufficient analogies. But at least their intentions are benevolent and they might even appear helpful to those who will never go deeper into scientific understanding.
10/10

>>3681373

>along the FORMAL sciences which cannot exist given your standpoint

Address this point now.

If reason does not exist explain necessary truth!

>>3681373
>Boltzmann and Poincare on the other hand are malicious trolls.
I thought they were genuine hacks. I mean, of course I know they're wrong, I'm an educated scientist since I watched all of Carl Sagan videos on youtube, but Boltzmann for instance obviously hasn't, that's why he sounds like a troll while he simply is mislead.

>>3681375
Measurement is a physical process.

>>3681376
Who are you quoting?

>>3681378
Argument by repetition won't work. The nervous system is an objectively observable physical object. Its functioning can be verified with a neurological examination.

>>3681380
>Conflation of belief with computation is a category confusion.
Your 'belief' is a low-level Christfag fallacy. You exist because you are measurable. "Thinking" does not exist.

>>3681384
What do those numbers and symbols have to do with my post?

>>3681392
>If reason does not exist explain necessary truth!
Truth is a construct of brain activity. I'm sorry for overestimating your intellectual capacities.

>>3681396
Exactly.

>>3681405
>Measurement is a physical process.
measure the measurement for us please... if it cant be measured it doesnt exist.

using your own words!.


>Tfw when you feel like socrates.

>>3681405
>Argument by repetition won't work. The nervous system is an objectively observable physical object. Its functioning can be verified with a neurological examination.
And again "you can only perceive the results of a neurological examination through your senses, which you have not demonstrated are reliable".

>>3681405
>Measurement is a physical process.
There's no meaning in physical processes, sir.

>>3681405

>Truth is a construct of brain activity. I'm sorry for overestimating your intellectual capacities.

So 2+2 !=4 by necessity

Fuck off troll. I'm sorry I jumped back in this thread. I should have kept out at this point >>3681142.

You simply do not have the education to argue for or against the points you making.

come back when you understand these distinctions

phenomena/noumena

a priori / a posteriori

analytic / synthetic


power down robot, your earth man commands you! [/spolier]

>>3681423
>measure the measurement for us please... if it cant be measured it doesnt exist.
What kind of measurement? What's your educational background? Did you drop out of preschool?

>>Tfw when you feel like socrates.
You are nothing like Socrates. Is your deficiency genetic or did constant meme spouting and consumption of anti-intellectual media damage your brain?

>>3681426
Obtaining physical information from a physical entity is known as "observation".

>>3681428
>So 2+2 !=4 by necessity
Yes.

>Fuck off troll.
Nobody is trolling but you.

>I should have kept out at this point >>3681142.
You should have kept out at the point you decided to leave >>>/b/.

>You simply do not have the education to argue for or against the points you making.
Nice projection. How does this address the valid points I made? Why do you shitpost in an immature manner just to avoid having to admit that you were wrong?

>come back when you understand these distinctions
I understand all of them. You obviously don't.

>>3681441

>Yes
Gibberish

>I understand all of them. You obviously don't.

Demonstrate. Your argumentation has suggested otherwise.

>>3681425
>you can only perceive the results of a neurological examination through your senses
Wrong.

>which you have not demonstrated are reliable
...under the assumption that an objective reality does not exist and the results of the neurological examination have not been objectively verified. What a baseless claim! Where is your evidence?

>>3681449
>Gibberish
Please provide a testable effect of your magical "Peano axioms". Else they can be dismissed with Hitchens' razor.

>Demonstrate.
Why? How should my education make up for the lack of yours?

>Your argumentation has suggested otherwise.
Where? Show me. I can't wait to laugh.

>>3681453

Give me an example of a novel synthetic a priori proposition.

>>3681455
>freshman philosophy major tries to derail a discussion with babby trivialities that he himself does not understand
Comedy gold.

>>3681453
>Where? Show me. I can't wait to laugh.

So 2+2 !=4 by necessity
Yes.

Case in point.

>>3681453
so how can you perceive and know that your neurological examination is ok without your senses???

>>3681453
usually when you present arguments you need to like qualify it with something rather than saying "you're dumb if you don't know". it's not really an exercise in knowledge; rather it's an exercise in applying that knowledge. i could know the exact same things as you but we could come to different conclusions entirely. you shouldn't trust the other person to be able to read your mind and then write out what they assume your point is while qualifying their own. it's intellectual laziness.

>>3681449
>>3681453

Both of you seem to have difficulties with the concept of scientific (or in this case: mathematical) theories and models.

>Please provide a testable effect of your magical "Peano axioms".
Please provide a few natural numbers, then we'll talk

>>3681458
>freshman philosophy major tries to derail a discussion with babby trivialities that he himself does not understand

I'm a doctoral candidate in the philosophy of science. >>3681453 makes no sense at all.

>>3681455

I'm waiting on my proposition. Show me that you know the difference between a priori and a posteriori. I don't think you have the education needed to argue about empiricism v rationalism.

>>3681466

Why are you lumping me with >>3681453

I am arguing that mathematical truth is necessary. This is an accepted position.

>>3681474

ITT: We wait for a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis to come up in this thread.

>>3681476

There is no formal concept of mathematical truth.
lrn2Tarski

>>3681336
>im monitoring this thread watching the discussion and im still waiting for you to prove that our senses are reliable.

Not the person you asked the question to, but what standard are you holding for reliable senses?

>>3681478
>Riemann Hypothesis

If it is true it so through appeal to reason not observation. It will be a necessary truth once solved.

>>3681480

I am arguing from a formalist standpoint.

>>3681483

And if it is undecidable, then what? There have been undecidable theorems before, you know.

>>3681459
>Case in point.
Yes.

>>3681460
>so how can you perceive and know that your neurological examination is ok without your senses???
It is objectively verified by another human who can insert the results into my working memory.

>>3681466
>Please provide a few natural numbers, then we'll talk
14, 11, 6, 24.

>>3681467
>I'm a doctoral candidate in the philosophy of science
Prove it. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>makes no sense at all.
Why? Is your degenerate mind not capable of understanding it?

>>3681474
>Show me that you know the difference between a priori and a posteriori.
What do you think I failed to comprehend? What does this red herring have to do with my post? I'm legitimately curious. Obviously posting definitions will not do this justice.

>I don't think you have the education needed to argue about empiricism v rationalism.
Why? Where is your evidence?

>>3681476
>I am arguing that mathematical truth is necessary.
Ha ha ha, oh wow. Are the rules of chess "truths"?

Both of your positions are flawed because they're correct for the wrong reasons.

Philosophy sets out to examine and improve how we interact with our environment. We have a greater understanding of both ourselves and our environment than we did, so it's not incorrect to think some classical philosophers might've held different positions had they known what we now.

On the other hand, we've changed very little as people. Even with new information, technology, and understanding, we still deal with things in very much the same way. Old as it may be, insight is still insight - studies in behavior and belief from the past are no less poignant today than they were in their own times.

To dust off the old cliche, "What good is knowledge if you don't know how to use it?" We have lots of new shiny truths to play with and it's improved our technology, but still very few people form an accurate model of the world around them. We're still an angry, frustrated, lonely bunch of people who constantly misunderstand each other, time hasn't changed that. You have knowledge, perhaps even more than me - yet you hold many positions which track from incorrect premises.

Philosophy doesn't set out to question or compromise the knowledge we have, it just tries teach us to use it better. Imagine you're a table, or a chart. Even if you fill yourself with all the right answers, they're no good to you scattered all between each other in no particular order. Some philosophy offers preset templates to help get you organized quickly, and other philosophy gives you the tools to make your own.

>>3679947
w-w-what's wrong with psychology?
i want 2 help ppl 2

>>3681485

In a sense, I am in your corner. However, if the 20th century in mathematics has taught us anything, then it is that we have no idea why mathematics works so well in the realm of physical reality. There are no reliable foundations, most mathematics we use are definitorial extensions of ZF.

>>3681489
this guy is clearly a teenager educated by the books of dawkins, hitchens and similar, fashionable pseudo-intellectuals and conquerors of the internets.
stop feeding the goddamn dummy.

>>3681489
>Is your degenerate mind not capable of understanding it?

see this just seems like you're compensating for a lack of argument

>>3681489

You've provided me with strings of digits. On that kind of symbolic level I don't have any difficulties to prove

PA ⊢ 2+2 = 4

But that has nothing to do with the truth of the intuitive notion of 2+2=4

>>3681489
>What do you think I failed to comprehend? What does this red herring have to do with my post? I'm legitimately curious. Obviously posting definitions will not do this justice

You have argued continuously that we only have knowledge through observation. I have given many examples of knowledge only accessible through reason. This leads me to think that you do not know the a priori / a posteriori distinction and how knowledge is generated in the formal sciences.

>>3681495

shelve mathematics...sub in self-verifying systems of first order logic. these are still knowable a priori

>>3681495
>we have no idea why mathematics works so well in the realm of physical reality
How can you claim that when "it works so well" is a human construct? Platonism is fucking retarded.

>There are no reliable foundations
What's wrong with topoi?

>>3681497
>this guy is clearly a teenager
Why do you project your flaws onto others?

>by the books of dawkins, hitchens and similar, fashionable pseudo-intellectuals and conquerors of the internet
By pseudo-intellectuals you mean SCIENCE gods? Bow down and worship them! Or give up, you have no chance against the TRUTH of SCIENCE.

>>3681498
What argument? You haven't posted any.

>>3681500
>On that kind of symbolic level I don't have any difficulties to prove
How is this a testable effect? It isn't. Go back to /x/ with that nonsense.

>>3681501
>I have given many examples of knowledge only accessible through reason.
Where? I don't see any.

>>3681489
>It is objectively verified by another human who can insert the results into my working memory.

like pluging a usb in your neck, and then copy the files with the resoults....

or maybe with an inception in your dreams.

>>3681507
>Why do you project your flaws onto others?
>Being a teenager is a flaw.

Check your privilege, ageist.

>>3681506

>these are still knowable a priori
Tautologies maybe so. But I'd like to see you demonstrate how mathematical (not logical!) axioms can be made evident as a priori.

>>3681507
>Where? I don't see any.

2+2 = 4 for one but any deduction will do.

>>3681507
>What argument?

this is my point. you're just trying to bully your way to victory instead of posting any substantial reply. you're swatting away responses instead of actively engaging in an argument.

>You haven't posted any.

my argument is the above

>>3681516

I am not a logician but am instead an ethicist. I defer to Kant in this case.

>164 posts for a thread with Sagan's pic in it and a laughable troll of scientism
/lit/, you're better than this

>>3681510
>like pluging a usb in your neck, and then copy the files with the resoults....
Yes.

>or maybe with an inception in your dreams.
This is the literature board. Take anti-intellectual "movies" to >>>/tv/.

>>3681513
Oh fug.

>>3681519
>2+2 = 4
Where is your evidence? "Muh intuition" or "muh feelings" doesn't work.

>but any deduction will do
Where is your evidence for your premises and metalanguage? Baseless shit without evidence can be dismissed. Hitchens' razor.

>>3681522
>this is my point. you're just trying to bully your way to victory instead of posting any substantial reply. you're swatting away responses instead of actively engaging in an argument.
Wrong. Read my posts again. With your bad reading comprehension we can't expect you to understand immediately.

>my argument is the above
You mean the fallacy I just disproved?

>>3681529

Well, Kant at last!
After all, that should tell you that the questions at hand can't be settled to the satisfactions of all parties in this thread.
I also have to admit that I am losing the track of who's who and what's what. I only entered the discussion to remark that some people here presuppose their own naive conceptions of scientific theories.

>>3681533

I know...but if we can't corner him here what chance do we have out there? Too many think like this nowadays. Just look at OP.

>>3681535
>Read my posts again

ok i'll read this one:

>Is your degenerate mind not capable of understanding it?

and i'll respond the same way i did the last time i read it:

>see this just seems like you're compensating for a lack of argument

and then we see you attempt the same thing again:

>With your bad reading comprehension we can't expect you to understand immediately.

notice how your reply just now didn't add to the conversation at all? so i note again the following:

>you're swatting away responses instead of actively engaging in an argument.

here is another example:

>You mean the fallacy I just disproved?

you didn't highlight any fallacy. you said "read my posts" and "you can't read". you also didn't disprove anything; if anything you just gave more examples of your childish thrashing about

>>3681535
at this point you should be saying "if you reply to my post then you concede defeat"

>>3681545
>notice how your reply just now didn't add to the conversation at all?
I added to the conversation by pointing out your lack of understanding. Not my problem that you are offended by scientific observations. Grow up.

>you also didn't disprove anything
I disproved all of your nonsense. Untestable and unobservable phenomena can be dismissed.

>if anything you just gave more examples of your childish thrashing about
>projecting

>>3681550
Exactly. Why can't these shitposters just take that dualism troll shit to >>>/x/?

OP came here like a Christian preaching the sins of homosexuality and the virtues of his faith.

Yet, to prove his point he engaged in an orgy of homosexuality and is now realizing how fun it is.

>>3681560
>I added to the conversation by pointing out your lack of understanding

i haven't actually been trying to argue with you over whatever unsubstantial argument you're trying to make. i've come into this conversation commenting on that your "you're stupid" shtick isn't demonstrating any insight into your own position

>I disproved all of your nonsense.

see above

>>projecting

not convincing

>>3681567
>unsubstantial argument
Wrong.

> i've come into this conversation commenting on that your "you're stupid" shtick isn't demonstrating any insight into your own position
So you admit to posting red herrings and other cretinous low level off-topic bullshit?

>not convincing
No.

>>3681570
>Wrong.

i can see otherwise

>So you admit to posting red herrings and other cretinous low level off-topic bullshit?

you, as someone in this thread who is making an argument, are a subject that is very much on-topic

>No.

i'm still not convinced

>>3681570
>Damage control

>>3681570
pls