/lit/ - Literature

>>5885694

>Darwin
>explaining why anything exists

Nice b8

B-b-but muh theology and deconstruction

> XD

>>5885694
How does Darwin explain why we exist?

He tells us how we came to be but that's still a theory.

>>5885694
Philosophy exists to define and express. There are a many things to define and a multitude of ways to feel about them.

>>5885694
No one cares about those questions anymore. How about simply: why?

Protip: you cannot answer this question with science.

>>5885694
Neither philosophy nor religion is not in competition with "science and psychology." Pearls before swine.

>>5885707

> Still a theory

This is what armchair philosophers actually believe.

>>5885707
>a theory

hurr durrrrrrrrrr

Fuck off religion fag, it's a PROVEN theory

>>5885694
That still doesn't explain "WHY" you stupid dickhead. Those are just the things that CAUSED life to exist.

someone needs to read some mckenna

I often like to think that our map of the world is wrong, that where we have centered physics, we should actually place literature as the central metaphor that we want to work out from. Because I think literature occupies the same relationship to life that life occupies to death. A book is life with one dimension pulled out of it. And life is something that lacks a dimension which death will give it. I imagine death to be a kind of release into the imagination in the sense that for characters in a book, what we experience is an unimaginable dimension of freedom."

>>5885710
>No one cares about those questions anymore. How about simply: why?

I think OP is an idiot but he omitted to criticize philosophy for all of the tedious drips like this anon who jam up at least half the seats with irrelevant, pointless statements like the above.

>>5885707
People who say "still a theory" do not understand the etymology of the word theory. Theory means mental conception, tis all.

>>5885724
>etymology

Look at me using big words

>>5885694
masterb8

>>5885694
that's a man right?

>>5885712
>>5885714

No one has empirically proven the theory of evolution. Does that mean it isn't a plausible theory? Of course not, after all a theory is based partially on empirical evidence and direct or indirect experiences, but you'd have present a rationality for why the theory of evolution as Darwin originally laid it out for instance is the only one that can explain what conclusion the evidence we have points to, and you don't do that through a strictly empirical method. It involves some kind of philosophizing about the nature of reality and conceptions of rational immaterial principles.

>>5885721
How is this a tedious drip? Providing reasons against suicide and nihilism is the most honorable thing one can give another, and the singular important aspect of philosophy which science cannot do.

>>5885726
>Ha I'm too stupid to make a counter argument woopdy doo diddly haha

not sure if trolling or

*sniffs*

pure ideology

>>5885694
Another day on /lit/...

>Please see Darwin
Didn't explain any "whys". Outdated, too.

>Please see Big Bang
A model among many other cosmological models; the fact that you don't acknowledge other models merely renders your juvenile, intellectual ignorance. More importantly, it doesn't explain the "why", no matter how some theoretical physicists (Krauss) pretend, and press on it, that it does.

>Please see animal psychology
If you're implying that all human love falls under the same class as all non-human animal love, then you're severely mistaken. There are types of love that non-human animals are incapable of experiencing.

Are you 14?

>>5885733
>prodivide reasons against suicide [...] is the most honorable thing one can give another

The most honorable thing one can give to themself is a honorable death, you disgusting pleb.

>>5885694
Which branch of science tells us how we should live our lives?

>>5885782

Ethics

(oh wait)

>>5885694
'philosophy is pointless'
issssssss a philosophical position m8

>>5885733
>Providing reasons against suicide and nihilism is the most honorable thing one can give another, and the singular important aspect of philosophy which science cannot do.

Why is science axiomatically nihilistic and why do you think it causes suicidal ideation?

Does knowing that chocolate contains x amounts of carbon and oxygen stop you from liking the taste of chocolate?

>>5885851
Because reduction of experience and knowledge to science provides no method of determining the value of actions.

Relying purely on science, you wouldn't be able to determine whether or not you like the taste of chocolate.

>>5885851
>Why is science axiomatically nihilistic and why do you think it causes suicidal ideation?

That's not what he's saying. He's saying doesn't convince you why you shouldn't commit suicide. Science of physical compounds and particles can't tell you why it's a bad idea, only a conception of humanity and goodness that extends beyond the mere quantitative aspects of human existence can really tell you that. And most materialists are of course disingenuous since while they profess materialism, they often tend to believe in ideas of human rights and other things which do not necessarily follow from the materialist worldview.

Epistemology.

>>5885761
An orchestrated act of death is not honorable if there is no one around to honor the act.

:^)

>>5885859
>Relying purely on science, you wouldn't be able to determine whether or not you like the taste of chocolate.

Considering the fact that doing science requires human beings that can think rationally and logically, and that these said human beings have to value evidence, rationality and logic in itself, for it to function I'd say you're wrong.

Besides, philosophy cannot explain why people like the taste of chocolate either. But at least science can figure out what chocolate is made of, and how we can produce it more efficiently and make it even more tasty. I've yet to see philosophy do anything similar.

>>5885868
>And most materialists are of course disingenuous since while they profess materialism, they often tend to believe in ideas of human rights and other things which do not necessarily follow from the materialist worldview.

I don't see how it is disingenuous. Human minds value things and while we might not be able to scientifically get completely underneath why human minds value things like we do, there are multiple fledgling sciences that try to figure out that, like neuroscience.

I don't see how ideas of human rights and materialism are mutually exclusive, I'm pretty sure you don't murder your neighbor just because you know that most of his body is made of water.

>>5885712

to emphasize this: >>5885732

The neo-Darwinian conception of evolution is riddled with inconsistencies; the materialist's reductionist account fails to explain the emergence of consciousness.

>>5885859
>Relying purely on science, you wouldn't be able to determine whether or not you like the taste of chocolate

quick scientific self-survey

>do i like the taste of chocolate
>yes

>>5885938
>the materialist's reductionist account fails to explain the emergence of consciousness.

That's a nice argument. So a theory that doesn't explain absolutely everything down to the minutest detail is automatically false?

You seem like a very scientifically illiterate person.

>>5885782
neuro-utilitarianism

>>5885895
>Considering the fact that doing science requires human beings that can think rationally and logically, and that these said human beings have to value evidence, rationality and logic in itself, for it to function I'd say you're wrong.

rational principles aren't things which can be determined through an empirical method. The empirical method can only tell you that water happens to boil when put over a flame, it doesn't tell you that fire is the likely cause of the water boiling. The empirical method can only tell you at best the coincidence of events in relation to one another, but it's only by the application of conceptual rational principles such as the principle of causality and the principle of non-contradiction that one arrives at any scientific conclusion and these principles are determined by individuals through some form of philosophical reasoning.


>I've yet to see philosophy do anything similar.

Except your conception of value here is purely philosophical. Why should humans value chocolate or seek to make it taste better? Why should human beings enjoy the taste of chocolate? These aren't questions science by itself.

>>5885909
>I don't see how it is disingenuous.

Because if you claim to be a materialist who only believes in a material reality and nothing else, then nothing has any value beyond its quantitative or functional value. But if you claim to be a materialist and yet cling to values of human life, knowledge and other things even it seems to not suit your own best interests, you are essentially believing in abstract concepts that are not necessarily material or which at times conflict with the functional aspects of the material world. Why do you not fuck your neighbor's wife even though your body obviously wants to? Because you're better than just a beast that follows its own physical urges. The fact that humans can even believe in things beyond their own primal instincts and beyond their own material essence much more exponentially than other creatures seem to probably shows that the materialist worldview is peddled either by misguided persons who are effectively agnostic rather than atheist or narcissistic individuals who wish to reduce all values to the realm of subjectivity in order to cherry pick what suits their own selfish desires

>>5885960
>So a theory that doesn't explain absolutely everything down to the minutest detail is automatically false?

Nobody said that at all. All anyone is saying that even if the theory of the evolution of man for instance could be proven beyond a shred of doubt to have happened in history exactly the way present Darwinists say, this doesn't explain why for example it happened that way and not some other way or why it had to be the only way by only relying on an empirical method of discovery.

>>5885960

>a theory that doesn't explain absolutely everything down to the minutest detail is automatically false?

This is a very poorly-written counterargument.

>down to the minutest detail.

Would you not consider the existence of consciousness a fundamental facet of one's account of evolution? The very thing that allows one to experience?

>automatically false.

Nowhere has it been said that it's false, just insufficient and in dire need of significant revision, if anything.

>>5885977

*science can answer by itself

>>5885938
Not him, but

>emergence
But you're begging the question; what makes you think consciousness exists in the first place and we are not merely chasing a chimera? or even if it does exist, why would it *emerge*, in contrast to, say, simply being a specific neurobiological mechanism or an immaterial substance?

>fails to explain
A failure to explain, or a failure to not take an account of, a certain phenomenon, doesn't necessarily mean neo-Darwinism is inconsistent or that it might not supply its theory with an ad hoc explanation of consciousness any time soon.

>>5885733
No it isn't, that assumes existence has positive value, rather than negative. Suicide may be the most reasonable thing for a given person to do, it may even be the most reasonable thing for us all to do, the issue is far from clear.

>>5885993
>what makes you think consciousness exists in the first place

You can only deny consciousness through the use of your own consciousness.

>>5885977
> but it's only by the application of conceptual rational principles such as the principle of causality and the principle of non-contradiction that one arrives at any scientific conclusion and these principles are determined by individuals through some form of philosophical reasoning.

I am well aware, but the reason we value science is because of the results it produces.

>Why should humans value chocolate or seek to make it taste better? Why should human beings enjoy the taste of chocolate? These aren't questions science by itself.

Indeed, but that wasn't what we were arguing. You argue that science causes nihilism and suicidal ideation, simply because science can not give you ought's, it just gives you "is". Which is completely retarded.

>this doesn't explain why for example it happened that way and not some other way

Evolutionary theory is a theory that tries to explain the progression of change in populations. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

>or why it had to be the only way by only relying on an empirical method of discovery.

Please tell me a more reliable way of obtaining information that isn't from empirical research, or rational argumentation.

>>5885983
>Would you not consider the existence of consciousness a fundamental facet of one's account of evolution?

Yes. It is one of the fundamental facets of one species of primate living on one planet, that we know of. At least "self-consciousness" is.

I don't get what your point is. Is your point that, since materialism hasn't explained consciousness yet, it never will, or that materialism cannot possibly prove why we have consciousness because we have some inner daemon that is spiritual and cannot possibly be observed in material reality?

Do tell.

>>5885694
What do you expect OP? /lit/ is full of escapist babbies who don't use textual examples to support any of their arguments.

>>5886012
>I am well aware, but the reason we value science is because of the results it produces.

Why should I care about these results at all? What does it matter?

>You argue that science causes nihilism and suicidal ideation,

I didn't argue that in the slightest. I argued that the scientific paradigm you speak of in particular does not tell me why I shouldn't be nihilistic or suicidal. I also argued that if you have a purely materialist worldview, the burden is on you to explain why human beings should continue to value anything, let alone human life or knowledge, in light of this supposed revelation without being contradictory.

>Evolutionary theory is a theory that tries to explain the progression of change in populations. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Evolutionary theory merely attempts to describe the physical sequence of events from one point to another in time, it doesn't really explain why things had to happen that way or what causes them without leaving the realm of empirical science and going into the realm of rational argumentation.

>Please tell me a more reliable way of obtaining information that isn't from empirical research, or rational argumentation.

Rational argumentation is perfectly valid though is what my argument is because all scientific theories even those touted by supposed empiricists. Without rational argumentation and the application of rational principles, we wouldn't be able to come to any scientific conclusions about what causes what.

>>5886045

*even those touted by supposed empiricists are based on what they feel to be the rational laws that govern the universe.

>>5886006
That's radically cute, but consider:

>You can only deny topkekness through the use of your own topkekness.

But that, not surprisingly, doesn't give any plausible warrant for the existence of topkekness. A mere explanation of how consciousness works won't cut it.

>>5886055
What do you mean by consciousness? Surely subjective experience is self-evident?

>>5886055

My point was you can't deny that consciousness exists without the use of consciousness, therefore the denial of consciousness is itself an affirmation of that object which we generally define as consciousness.

The gradation of consciousness and the implications of consciousness and why it exists are completely different issues altogether.

>>5886061

also

>implying topkekness doesn't exist

get on my level

>>5885694
>all of these questions beginning with why
Why is essentially attempting to discover the final causality, which is the realm of philosophy, not scientific pursuit. All these questions are only answerable by science if you replace the 'why' with the 'how', and even then they automatically become different questions in themselves.

>>5886045
>I also argued that if you have a purely materialist worldview, the burden is on you to explain why human beings should continue to value anything, let alone human life or knowledge, in light of this supposed revelation without being contradictory.

That's what I am trying to get out of why. What about materialism makes life meaningless?

Even if science cannot tell you why you should value the taste of chocolate, knowing what the constituents are, isn't going to deflate the meaning, even though you so adamantly believe that.

I mean, when you look at a sunset, is it less beautiful subjectively speaking just because you know, scientifically speaking, that the Sun is a ball of hydrogen fusing into helium?

Materialism and value aren't mutually exclusive.

>>5886045
>it doesn't really explain why things had to happen that way

That's also not it's objective either. Evolutionary theory isn't teleology.

>>5885960
>you mean my completely arbitrary standards for what constitutes truth are wrong?
Well yeah

>>5885733
>Providing reasons against suicide and nihilism is the most honorable thing one can give another

Bro, you just went full fedora. You NEVER go full fedora, not even on /lit/.

>>5886081
>Evolutionary theory accurately explains most of animal diversity, but since it cannot explain precisely where consciousness comes from, everything about it is arbitrary and false

Toplel.

>>5886091
>implying consciousness can't be explained through science

Its implications, on the other hand, are the realm of philosophy. It's origins are squarely scientific and demonstrable.

>>5886073

>What about materialism makes life meaningless?

My point was that to ascribe "meaning" to any material thing or process is kind of contradictory if you claim to be a materialist, because then you are no longer limited the realm of value to merely the sum of material components. And if materialism is an inconsistent and self-contradicting philosophy (and it is a philosophy) why should anyone follow it or accept it as truth?

>Even if science cannot tell you why you should value the taste of chocolate,knowing what the constituents are, isn't going to deflate the meaning

I didn't argue that it necessarily deflates the meaning, only that one can't find the meaning through an empirical method of merely measuring the quantitative parts.

>I mean, when you look at a sunset, is it less beautiful subjectively speaking just because you know, scientifically speaking, that the Sun is a ball of hydrogen fusing into helium?

No, of course not, but that doesn't tell me why I find it beautiful, let alone why I should or should not.

>>5886076
>That's also not it's objective either. Evolutionary theory isn't teleology.

Didn't say it was, but that's how many neo-atheists tend to treat it. I'm not arguing against evolutionary theory, btw, only arguing against the idea as OP seemed to imply that it explains why we exist when all it attempts to describe is a process. When you start to try to derive meaning from it, either negatively or positively, you are no longer in the realm of empricial science, but the realm of philosophy even if you claim to be anti-philosophical while attempting to derive some sort of meaning from it.

>>5886106
>It's origins are squarely scientific and demonstrable.

Really? Do tell. I mean, I guess we can have a discussion about how we assume consciousness emerges in the brain, but that's not what I was talking about when I said "where consciousness comes from".

>>5885717
this is the smartest thing I've read on 4chan

>>5886126
>I guess we can have a discussion about how we assume consciousness emerges in the brain, but that's not what I was talking about when I said "where consciousness comes from".

If that's not what you meant it's your own error for having been insufficiently specific.

>assume consciousness emerges in the brain
>assume

You don't understand science very well, do you? I think that undergraduate courseload of yours could use a few electives.

Jesus Christ will you just read Wittgenstein and be done with this nonsense.

>>5886056
>What do you mean by consciousness?
Nothing at all, since it's an extremely controversial and vague concept; a concept that many deny, a concept that hasn't settled on a rigorous definition, and so forth. Scroll back, and see that I wasn't denying, but being skeptical of its existence. I was hinting at for a further, empirical or otherwise, elaboration from >>5885938

>subjective experience
In the sense that I am able experience the smell of a rose and that this particular experience is unique in the sense that its instances cannot be identical with other beings' instances?

>>5886125
>When you start to try to derive meaning from it, either negatively or positively, you are no longer in the realm of empricial science, but the realm of philosophy even if you claim to be anti-philosophical while attempting to derive some sort of meaning from it.

Yes, which is why I demanded to know why you tried to equate a scientific understanding of reality with nihilism and suicidal ideation. It seems to me that you're the one who is trying to get an ought from an is, when you claim such a thing.

>>5886151
Can you do anything other than shitposting?

What's wrong with saying assume? There are differing levels of assumption, depending on the evidence.

>>5886061
And my point was to ridicule how weak your point is.

By the same token, I can replace "consciousness" with "topkekness" and pronounce to the world that topkekness exists.

>The gradation of consciousness and the implications of consciousness and why it exists are completely different issues altogether.
They are non-issues (non-existing ones), until you can establish its existence by empirical or a priori conceptual demonstration.

>>5886168
>Yes, which is why I demanded to know why you tried to equate a scientific understanding of reality with nihilism and suicidal ideation

I didn't. I only said the paradigm which you speak of can't tell me why I should or shouldn't, in which case it is insufficient at answering this question by itself.

I think you're confusing the science of material things with the philosophy of materialism and assuming my criticism of the disingenuous nature of materialistic philosophy is necessarily a criticism of science in itself.

(1/2) not the guy you've been arguing with, but:

>You argue that science causes nihilism and suicidal ideation, simply because science can not give you ought's, it just gives you "is". Which is completely retarded.

Not a single person in this thread is arguing that science CAUSES nihilism and suicidal ideation. What is being said is that, if you're a materialist and you're going to be intellectually honest with yourself, there's no hard and fast reason to not commit suicide. Of course, you seem to be the kind of person who would regurgitate the "morality is inherent and suicide would be disadvantageous to the species because the evolutionary drive and survival instinct of the human being is to produce offspring etc etc". You can go on materialist, but if you’re going to take anything you believe seriously, don’t sit there and spout that, in any and every case, it is bad for people to commit suicide. And anyway, the second you’ve uttered “g good” and “bad”, you’ve evoked qualia, as the best explanation a materialist can present of good and evil are things which SEEM to be good or evil based on their ability to either propagate or hinder the flourishing the human species.

Here I would point you to section 1 of Nietzsche’s Gay Science, wherein he (rightly, I think) explains how the human species has reached a such a point, evolutionarily, where it is no longer capable of being damaged. Hence, the preachments of holy men are rendered useless, as they hinge on the possibility of total human suffering and extirpation, something impossible. We have squandered massively (in history); we have survived. If you’re going to sit there and say we SHOULD be good and we SHOULDN’T commit suicide and life DOES have purpose, you’re just like the holy men.

Also, in regard to the aforementioned helping-and-hurting the species thing: if you’re in an Intro to Philosophy course, I’m surprised you haven’t run into the trolley problem, which, based on what you’ve articulated in this thread thus far, would stump you.

(2/2) >Materialism and value aren’t mutually exclusive.

Yes, they are. Values belong to the realm of qualia. Materialism can quantify for us nothing in the realm of subjective experience, and value judgements on non-empirical phenomena (such the perception or ‘feeling’ of good and evil) are entirely subjective, incapable of being quantified. Any conceptualizations of things, which you do every time you argue about the beauty of sunsets, apart from non-empirical phenomena automatically puts you in the realm of philosophy. All this talk about ‘consciousness’ isn’t so much about how we define or understand what consciousness is, but our perception of things apart from sense data, the notion of qualia.
Indeed, everything you’ve said—defending materialism, positing the scientific method as the only way of obtaining true information—has been philosophy. To even claim obtained information as reliable, you need a solid epistemology, or at least understand what epistemology is.

Please stop using the word ‘value’ if you’re going to continue posting in this thread.


Lastly, I will also reiterate what another anon has been saying: someone pointed out that empirical observation—i.e. the scientific method—can only observe cause and effect relationships and describe them. If you are claiming that these cause and effect relationships, insofar as they can be explained by theories and laws, are the only ways of describing the universe and its mechanisms (which, in lieu of the word “description”, I invite you to go read Wittgenstein, Gadder, Indian philosophy, or anything else that deals with the nature of language and how we interpret the world and understand phenomena), then you are met with Hume’s problem of induction. You can’t really say “A causes B”; you can only say “due to my observation of their continually recurring nature, B is followed by A.” Your “empirical” observations are limited by your percepts of cause and effect phenomena.


The problem with everything here is not so much that you want to be a materialist, but that you want to have your cake and eat it to. You want to say there’s nothing beyond sense data, and then you talk about values. You want to say the scientific method is the ultimate way of gaining knowledge without even first inspecting the epistemological assumptions on which you’re making that claim.

Be a materialist if you want, but take off your goddamn fedora.

>>5886209
>I only said the paradigm which you speak of can't tell me why I should or shouldn't

Well there isn't a paradigm that CAN explain to you why you should or shouldn't.

>>5885694
Facepalm. Did you ever read a paper about philosophy?

>>5886219

That's a philosophical conclusion, not a scientific one.

>>5885707
The theory is in biology and how we bring our genes to offsprings and had been changed.

Darwin explains how animals became so diveresed even into subspecies.

>>5886218
*Gadamer

>>5886218
*"due to their continually recurring nature, I can observe that B follows A in every observed case"

damn I need to proofread more. OP just has me so flustered.

>>5886232

>Darwin explains how animals became so diveresed even into subspecies.

the keyword here is "how" not "why" Darwin actually refrained from trying to explain the why even as he was grappling with the concept of God.

Also, he only explained the how from one perspective, he didn't attempt to explain how multiplicity itself came into being.

>>5886214
>>5886218
Interestingly enough, I agree with most of what you say with the exception of:

>You want to say there’s nothing beyond sense data, and then you talk about values.

Because, even if one concedes that the universe is just information processing, I am still a member of a species of primate ape that has feelings, aspirations and hope, which yes, I cannot explain where come from by physical causes, that converge to make my experience as a human being.

Who here is with Aristotle about the 4 elements. I'm not buying into that periodic table shit.

And Gravity, pahh.

Fucking Theories.

>>5886218
>due to my observation of their continually recurring nature, B is followed by A
...which is to say, "A causes B". That's more or less what "cause" means; you are just expanding the description of the concept by a paraphrase.

Take a class in statistics and probability.

>>5886261

define each of the "four elements" and explain why or why not each cannot have several layers of reality

explain how the periodic table necessarily contradicts the conception of the four elements laid out either by Aristotle or other thinkers.

and explain the cause of gravity and why it must exist.

>>5886279
Nah, I'm going to go watch a Seijun Suzuki movie instead. Probably The Story of a Prostitute.

>>5885694
>science and psychology
I think this is more infuriating for scientists than for philosophers.

>>5886056
Subjective experience isn't beyond the material. The materials that construct humans react differently because they aren't arranged the same way for each one.

>>5885707
So is gravity.

>>5886973
>Subjective experience isn't beyond the material.
If that was true, we could objectively observe and study dreams. fMRI, of course, does not count.

The only thing Science has ever answered is how things are, not why things are.

Move the fuck along. You sound like a scumbag Biology freshman

>>5886300
I have been ignoring Fighting Elegy for years. I keep watching the first 10 minutes and I can't stand the acting, does it get better?

>>5887018
We could, if we had better technology.

>>5887027
Why should I care why things are?

>>5885694
Science is the department store, where philosophy is the Designers workshop

>>5887040
I didn't realize anyone asked you your opinion on why things are. No, you do not need to care. I don't need to care how things are. Stay in your little bubble if it frightens you so much, no one can or ought to force you to have a healthy interest in your world.

>>5887040

>>5887054
>ad hominem
So then you give up.

>>5887054
>I don't need to care how things are.
If you don't know how things are, what is it that you're asking why it is there?

>>5886973
Different anon, but while it's definitely a function of the material, I feel like it has to be distinct. If the experience were the matter, then you'd be looking at someone's sight when you looked at their neurological patterns, and it's clearly different, in the same way that looking at these words is not the same as looking at the machine code, except that the 'words' don't seem to physically exist.

>>5887063
Please point out any attacks on character that we're already there such as "bubble." Unless you're offended by the implication of being unhealthy, in which case fucking grow up and deal with it.
>>5887070
Why isn't necessarily in the how. Learn to ontology dumbass.

>>5887080
>If the experience were the matter, then you'd be looking at someone's sight when you looked at their neurological patterns
Looking at those is barely conveying any information.

>>5887096
Could you elaborate on what you mean/why you think it's important?

>>5885713
theories can't be proven, they can only be evinced and falsified
>>5885875
an act can be inherently honorable and unhonorable within context
>yah dingus
>>5887040
for the same reason you care how they are

>>5887081
You didn't answer my question of "What benefit is there to caring about "why" things are".

When did you realise you aren't as smart or kind or funny or unique as you thought you were?

>>5887040
Literally the most pleb answer you could ever give.

>>5887126
Seeing something is a process of acquiring all kinds of information about something. If you are looking into somebody's brain in a way that isn't also conveying all of that information to you, it is necessarily not equivalent.

"philosophy belongs in a history class", is itself a philosophical statement

check and mate

>>5887133
You didn't ask me.

There is no reason to care to ask why. There is no reason to care to ask how either. If you equate the monetary benefit of asking how with some sort of universal "reason to care," then you're far too sad to even bother conversing with.

To pursue philosophy and learn to ask why makes you infinitely better at asking how, if you insist on placing some sort of arbitrary preference on one particular subset of questions that is somehow more "relevant" for no stated reason (seeing as how you've already submitted to the fact that science cannot answer "why")

>>5887081
>all this defensive posturing
If you're not asking how, then your question of why can and oftenwill be rather shallow and limited. After all, if you limit the things you are aware of by not asking how, then you surely can't have all that much to question the why of. It doesn't have to always be this way to be this way, shit-for-brains. Learn to diversity of nature and human experience.

>>5885717

Dude, what if, like, dude. What if, like, drugs, dude.

>>5887163
>There is no reason to care to ask why.
That's entirely subjective and I think it reflects more upon you than the question of why.

>>5887146
But is the experience of sight "information about the brain"? Is the green of "Anonymous" information about the computer?
>>5887133
Well, to say whether you want to ask 'why' or 'how,' you have to take a philosophical standpoint - that you should or shouldn't ask one or both of those questions.

>>5887177
I don't think you read that whole post.

>>5887183
I don't think you really think that, else you would have articulated my supposed error.

>>5887179
If you were to look at the brain in a way to see what the person is seeing, you would not be acquiring information about the brain, you would be acquiring information about the things that person is seeing. It's just information that is conducted through the brain just how information about an apple is conducted through photons.

>>5887177
Well the question of why is primal to how.
But the asking is entirely up to the person, exactly.
That's why this entire thread is bullshit, because to say philosophy is "irrelevant," (acknowledging the fact that science cannot answer why and is thus not a complete theory of all Being) is nothing other than stating that "what is not my worldview is not useful in pursuing my worldview." aka pointless.

>>5885752
I want to suck on his hair

>>5885694
op pics a lad tbh

>>5887191
> If you were to look at the brain in a way to see what the person is seeing
But this is exactly my point - that looking at the brain is NOT seeing what the person is seeing. Yes, you could view what they see through different modes (although it would still be filtered through YOUR sight), but you can also translate a sentence back into English that has been translated into French and then read it - that does not mean the French text is identical with the English.

>>5887192
>>5887177
>>5887177
>>5887192
Furthermore, a "reason to care" about any question is inherently objective and beyond subjective experience. So no matter what you ever think or do, you cannot invent a reason to care about science more than philosophy.

So Science does not explain all of Being. Surely this is some sort of push towards caring.
However there is no reason to care about anything whatsoever.
Got any other questions to ask? Seems you've got no leg to stand on

>>5887192
It's up to us all to determine whether we personally find the reasons necessary enough to our own experience to spend the time asking why, but those reasons are nonetheless persistent.

All science is grounded in philosophy.

>>5887227
>you cannot invent a reason to care
>therefore
>no reason to care about anything whatsoever
Except nobody is doing anything but recognizing those reasons; it was never suggested that they were somehow fiat.

>>5887216
It's just a matter of the integrity of the information being lost.
>you can also translate a sentence back into English that has been translated into French and then read it - that does not mean the French text is identical with the English.
It is if it's able to convey the same information(which it probably can't).

>>5887238
There is no reason to care about anything whatsoever.
A good number of human beings tend to care about attempting to learn things that are unknown.
"why should I care" is thus a fallacy because A there is no reason to care and B to care about science on the grounds that it explains how does not preclude caring for philosophy's pursuit of why. Indeed, to care for one and not the other retreats from even the shadow of objectivity that "human curiosity" is and offers no other recourse than personal preference.
If you would care to construct a system of care, in which you receive care-points that trump other cares, it is more important to care about the primal question of why than to care about the secondary question of how.

>>5887273
The reason to care about science is because it increases the ability of humans to create technology, which increases their ability to survive and reproduce.

>>5887255
>It's just a matter of the integrity of the information being lost.
How is the integrity lost? I could give you every fact about someone's brain, and that would not cause you to experience the same 'sight' that they were experiencing. It has to be filtered through a brain. If X is identical with Y, then seeing X is the same as seeing Y, and that is clearly not true here. If sight isn't working as an example, consider pain - and yes, I realize Wittgenstein is lurking around the corner, ready to jump me, but not being able to refer to private experience does not mean it doesn't exist.

>It is if it's able to convey the same information(which it probably can't).
I think you're hung up on the informational aspect of it. It has a different physical form (which you could, if you wanted, consider 'information' of a different sort). Erasing certain letters will affect the meaning/intelligibility differently. If I can't speak English, I can only read the French. If I tore up the paper with one on it, the other would be unharmed. They are different things. The same with code and product. The same with neurological activity and subjective experience.

>>5887298
You have to care about their ability to survive and reproduce for that to matter, though.

I can't wait for the day philosophy becomes a science.

>>5887316
What the fuck does that even mean? It doesn't describe physical realities. It can't be a science any more than number theory can.

>>5887035
I haven't seen that one yet. Go watch Story of a Prostitute though.

>>5885859
>Relying purely on science, you wouldn't be able to determine whether or not you like the taste of chocolate.
What an idiot.
The scientific method requires experimentation. Let's design an experiment to determine whether you like chocolate.
>put chocolate in mouth
>observe results
>if you felt endorphins being released, you like chocolate

>>5887298
That's nothing but an appeal to a scientific theory of how things work. It is not a reason to care, nor even a full-proof explanation of how that caring is beneficial (at the most basic level: my not caring to discover the superconductor does not harm either my reproductive faculties nor those of the human race. If we're going to appeal to evolution, which places a precedence on the specimen's reproduction and not the species (because if you know anything about biology, there is no will or -why- to natural selection: neither nature nor the species pursues the active survival of its race (and don't even introduce the fact that humans have sentience because that entirely fucks the theory of evolution in the 21st century)), then surely my sitting around reading Sartre gets me more laid than working a lab-job).

A because A dictates A. Try again please.

>>5886012
>You argue that science causes nihilism and suicidal ideation, simply because science can not give you ought's, it just gives you "is". Which is completely retarded.

Except that's exactly what nihilism is you retard. Existential nihilism and moral-value nihilism are inherently linked; science on its own, the description of the universe, cannot produce values by itself. The absence of values is nihilism.

If you think science produces values you are a spook-ridden dumbshit and you have made science into an ideology based off probably enlightenment rehash drivel.

>>5885712
Note he was asking about the why and not the how. you just got distracted by the "still a theory" meme. I wouldn't get butt-flustered over something like that. It's like fundies getting flustered over being asked to "prove" god exists

>>5887273
>There is no reason to care about anything whatsoever.
You keep repeating that like it makes you any more correct. The truth is that you're an unimaginative, simplistic cunt without a shred of purpose in her own life and chooses to project it on the world to escape the crushing sense of loss she feels for the years she'll never get back and will probably waste in the future.

>>5887370
You do realize that the anon you're quoting isn't promoting nihilism, right?

>>5887377
That doesn't change the stupidity of her laughingly reductive assumption.

>>5887304
>How is the integrity lost?
That depends on how the information is being conveyed to me in this thought experiment. If you are directly inducing the same reaction patterns in my nervous system as theirs, then I do have the same sight for a very brief moment. The analytic system of my brain would butcher it when converting that to memories, but it would be the same for that one moment.

>>5887310
You don't have to care because you don't have a choice. It's impossible to do nothing. If you try to achieve "nothing", you are trying to create the homeostasis we're already trying to create through survival.

>>5887381
Give a reason to care about something.

>>5887370
So which side of the argument was declaring ad hominem again?

You've said nothing at all in this post. The least you could have done is explain why there is some objective universal reason to care about one thing rather than the other without appealing to another construct like scientific theories. Didn't do that I see.

>cunt
>assuming I'm a woman
Hold up man lemme whip out my psychology books that'll tell me ----why--- you're acting this way won't it :)))))

>>5887389
I have my own reasons for things. You must have yours as well. Like the reason you're so butthurt about people having reasons that you're still arguing about it.

>>5887393
>which side
I'm not on any "side" so you can stop lumping me in with others to avoid critiquing my observation.
>prove to me here that people have reasons
You can't be this stupid.
>getting this mad about being called a name
>getting this mad about being called a woman
You should get over yourself, lady.

>>5887381
The argument has been reduced to that basic fact because that is what people keep insisting on: that there is a reason to care about one thing above another OBJECTIVELY.
>>5887394
Or if you would now like to retreat into perspectivism, what use is your declaring that science is more valuable in your own life than philosophy? >>5887192 The "this is all so irrelevant now that we have science and psychology. Why does anyone bother with this garbage?" question becomes moot, contradictory, and frankly embarrassing.

>>5887298
>The reason to care about science is because it increases the ability of humans to create technology, which increases their ability to survive and reproduce.
this is not the objective of science, and if you really believe this... then you should read more.

>>5887414
>I don't care to think about the reasons anything exists so they themselves don't exist
Ostrichize much?

>>5887403
I don't give a shit what side you're on, the irony was too perfect.

>>prove to me here that people have reasons
I think you might need to work on your reading skills.

People have their own reasons. I have said that.
There are no universal objective reasons to care about anything whatsoever. I've explained that.
There is a difference between the two. If I haven't explained that thoroughly enough for you, then "surely you can't be this stupid" right?

>you're made you're mad you're mad
Point me to where I'm mad. You can assume whatever you want about me (good argument skills btw), I don't care. I'm just going to laugh at you like I did in that post and am doing currently. Have another meme picture, you're really not deserving of too much more at this point

>>5887415
It's the objective of doing anything, so it is necessarily the objective of science.

>>5887429
>still buttblasting all over 4chan about being wrong
You're trying to split hairs to sound smart, but you're just digging a big hole you can't climb out of with all the physical manifestations of all the letters you type and will never be able to assemble into a sane and articulate thought, let alone a ladder.

>>5887420
No reason has hitherto been discovered objectively and explicitly in all of human history. If you want to keep hunting for one, I really wonder what discipline you're going to search for that "why" in, philosophy or science??

>>5887440
Again, another useless post.
You keep diluting the question at hand to "you're dumb" without even providing any reasons why. Sorry if letters words and language aren't good enough to transmit ideas, I guess I'll just have to keep doing the dumb thing of explaining what I'm saying right?

Objective or subjective is a pretty big hair that needs splitting if the entire question is about this.

If you're done posting, stop posting.

>>5887429
>>5887454
You are dumb, though.
>People have their own reasons. I have said that.
>There are no universal objective reasons to care about anything whatsoever. I've explained that.
This is called doublespeak, because
>no univversal reason
implies everything is universally relative and you can't simply muddy your original intentions by moving the goalpost.
>>5887447
What an ignorant, bigheaaded faggot you must be to keep this going for so long. Blog more, lady. Here, I'll spoonfeed you an example. We all have the reason of staying alive to eat.
>inb4 you argue with this
You don't sound smart, you sound desparate.

>there is no reason that everyone can 100% identify with for asking why
>therefore there is no reason
Now that we can all agree that this faggot is arguing over nothing and playing a sad, stupid game of semantics, let's move on.

>>5887394
M8, that was my first post responding to you, and this is my last.

>>5887466
That is the dumbest reduction ever, just so we're clear. There are obviously reasons for everything, both subjective and objective depending on whether the experience is shared or not and trying to use an accompanying (and contradictory) statement to somehow flesh out the fact that you worded the first incorrectly shouldn't be doing your ego any favors.
>>5887469
Try harder.

>yfw an A.I. trolled this thread into feeding it an opposing absolute

>>5887458
Objectivity (universal reason) does not necessitate universal relativity. By definition. Objective: beyond the subjective. As in, even if everything in the human sphere is subjective, and indeed it is, there is something not subjective. Like a universal reason. No goal posts have been moved. If the question is human concerns, this objective reason does not exist or does not concern us (hitherto stated). If your "universe" is the human then indeed there is universal relativity, but there is no objectivity in this universe.

>jokes on you you're a faggot and dumb and a woman
>jokes on you for arguing with me for so long
this is 4chan 101 by this point. Either find something to argue or stop, I'm getting bored with this desperate name calling.

>>5885694
Maybe it will be someday.

>>5887496
>let me just try to mince words some more to further convolute my asinine assumptions
There are reasons for things and there is objectivity despite everything not being one, colorless, nabulous, blob, we're both on the same page. You can stop trying to sound like you disagree with me by generalizing about how things have their own form and function now, asshat.
>there is no objectivity
>stop calling me a girl
Defensive fedora/10

>>5887393
>>5887429
>>5887496
Are these meme images boosting your precious ego, anon?

>>5887480
> objective depending on whether the experience is shared or not
Hey buddy. The word for that is inter-subjectivity. All subjective observers perceiving a tree as green does not make the tree objectively green.
What was that about wording things incorrectly?

>>5887518
>>5887524
> objective depending on whether the experience is shared or not
Explain and argue how, or this conversation is over. Nothing else you are saying in these posts is of any relevance or consequence.

>>5887528
>All subjective observers perceiving a tree as green does not make the tree objectively green.
That example sure does prove your point well when you discount the possibility of determining the pigments actually present in the tree. Nobody said making an observation makes something so.
>>5887537
I laugh at your dribble too. You can go back and reread my posts and find what you've evidently missed if you really feel like you need to, Miss Observant.

>>5887545
>Nobody said making an observation makes something so.
Someone just did:
>determining the pigments actually present in the tree.

If this all comes down to a misunderstanding older than Socrates, then I'm going to be very embarrassed for you.

>You can go back and reread my posts and find what you've evidently missed if you really feel like you need to, Miss Observant.
Oh please point out where you explained where objectivity can be found, women can't find anything amirite?

>>5887554
>b-but you're just an observer, so you can't be trusted!
I think you need to lrn2science, kid. You're just twisting the definition of the word 'objective' to something so beyond the bounds of material or philosophical possibility, into something so vague and unrecognizable that one wonders why you're even speaking at all.

Protip: before you try saying something doesn't exist, make sure you're not just parroting people you don't understand

>>5887572
I'm using the definition of objective. Would you prefer essence? or universal? or noumenon? All of which are beyond possibility. That is what the entire fucking question is about.

I just love that you have managed to reduce the entire discussion of the value of philosophy to Berkeley, a question entirely beyond you or I or anyone for that matter. What was Berkeley again?

Protip: before you try saying something does exist, make sure you're not just parroting people you don't understand (kough kough)

s-e-m-a-n-t-i-c-s. We're done here.

>>5887603
>objectivity doesn't exist because I am a deluded fool
>reaffirming my observation that you're manipulating semantics and convoluting the topic to sound like you know what you're talking about
Indeed, we are done here

can we just talk about dat ass for a minute

>>5887433
no you fucking retard, the objective of science is either search for a "truth" as much as philosophy (whatever this "truth" means), or to control nature and other people.
if you think people become scientists because >muh darwinism, you are really stupid. if any, science has made us more wary of having childs and more disposed to kill one each other en masse, even if we don't really have good justification for that.

>>5887603
>>5887610
P.S. There is reason, you just don't see it. Just like you'll never see what makes something undeniably true in the face of all your romantic and misguided ideals of a fluid reality. Get your head out of your ass and into the game, slacker.

>>5886988
The reason it is still a theory is because there are theories stating that it may be more electric field and not gravity.

>>5887159
no it's a statement about schooling

>>5887385
...Apparently we just disagree a lot, because those posts are both mine. Anyway.

>>5887385
> If you are directly inducing the same reaction patterns in my nervous system as theirs, then I do have the same sight for a very brief moment
Yes, but that's different and, I think, irrelevant to my point. That you would see something if your brain was in the corresponding pattern does not make that pattern identical with the act of seeing - again, no more than a code is identical with its result.

> It's impossible to do nothing
Oh, I agree with that, but I'm just saying that that anon's explanation does nothing but shift the question to "Why care about reproduction?" And of course, that's what every explanation necessarily does, because you can't stop us from asking "But why?" ad infinitum like five-year-olds if we want to.

not reading all of this retarded thread but Darwinian evolution does not answer the question of "why" we exist. evolution has no teleology.

http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/polymorphously-perverse-nature/

>>5885694
>new atheists