[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 55 KB, 440x600, 440px-Otto_Mueller_Taenzerin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1494818 No.1494818 [Reply] [Original]

"To what extent can truth endure incorporation? That is the question; that is the experiment."

Kindly explain.

>> No.1494825

>>1494818
I am excited you picked this one OP. Its the fundamental question of philosophy:

It basically questions if the ability of being Curious (seeking truths) is built into the nature or not.

Let me clarify it further.

Humans are curious creatures. Nietzsche is asking if this trait is natural or not.

>> No.1494833

>>1494825
Oh yes. He also 'tells' us means to the answer: That it can't be derived from outside us. You have to perform experiments on yourself to know this.

>> No.1494834

Basically, whether the system of truth seeking in human rationality is also strong within evolutionary standards. It's not a question that can be answered reflectively, its a human experiment, the lab being life.

>> No.1494840

>>1494834
>hegoogled it

>> No.1494844

Evolutionarily speaking, curiousness is just a byproduct of our large brains, it evolved like anything else, and was beneficial to our survival.

Is Nietzsche saying that the truth seeking consciousness of deliberate curiousness is a fluke, outside of nature?

>> No.1494843

>>1494833
>>1494825
Thanks. This sounds reasonable. Second opinion?

>> No.1494846

>>1494844
Why couldn't he say is clearly?????

>> No.1494850

>>1494834
Of course it is.
The human evolutionary brain has mental plasticity and creative capacity that has translated into our ability to adapt and create technology.
Curiosity is the result of positive reinforcement when performing the act of seeking the truth, and then solidified as a personality trait.
Of course, it can go the other way, and an individual may experience less fruitful results in seeking truth, and behave more practically.

>> No.1494853

He's questioning the validity of free will you guise.

>> No.1494856

>>1494853
nope.jpeg

>> No.1494861

Of course it's a natural trait...what else could it be?

>> No.1494871

>>1494861
Please explain.

>> No.1494877

>>1494871
Name an unnatural trait.

>> No.1494879

>>1494877
:P

You would very surprised to know that I actually support your claim. But I need a detailed answer.

>> No.1494883

>>1494877
Homosexuals.

>> No.1494896

>>1494883
Aw shit nigga.

>> No.1494897

>>1494879
Now, I haven't read a great deal of Nietzsche, so I am not familiar with his ideologies, beliefs and so forth, so I can't quite grasp what he means.

The truth seeking curiousness inherent in a self conscious, rational being such as a human, is, as I said here
>>1494844
beneficial to our survival. Evolutionarily speaking, our large brains are the result of mutations that were advantageous to our evolutionary line and contributed to the chances of us surviving natural selection etc etc /high school biology

Still, this truth provides a reason in itself for every aspect of our nature and I can't understand how it could be other wise.

>> No.1494925

>>1494897
Fine. It was Orwell who said this:
"No book is free of political bias."

Everybody wants to say something and say it to YOU. To convince you that they are right.

What you are essentially claiming is that Humans are in essence bound by a natural law: Their behavior is a product of some natural order. If that is true then human behavior should be a quantifiable (as opposed to solely quantifiable) entity, as natural laws are also quantifiable (subsets).

This is a nice argument to oppose Subjectivity.

>> No.1494927

>>1494925
> Their behavior is a product of some natural order. If that is true then human behavior should be a quantifiable (as opposed to solely quantifiable) entity, as natural laws are also quantifiable (subsets).
No. We just have a tendency to focus on things which are easily quantifiable.

>> No.1494933

>>1494927
And what is that which is NOT quantifiable in nature?

>> No.1494939

>>1494933
Anything that can not be quantified or measured.

>> No.1494942 [DELETED] 

Everything is quantifiable, or potentially quantifiable.

>> No.1494943

>>1494942
Quantify the halting probability.

>> No.1494948

>>1494943
I think you do not understand difference between uncertain, probable and non-quantifiable.

>> No.1494949

Everything in the physical world is quantifiable, as everything that happens is the result of a preceding reaction determined by natural laws, if there was a supercomputer powerful enough to measure and calculate every physical reaction, down to the molecular and quantum levels, in a supposed situation, then that situation would be determinable.

>> No.1494956

>>1494948
Probabilities can be quantifiable. The halting problem is a real probability, but is unquantifiable.
>>1494949
Computers have trouble seeing a lot of stuff. So do we.

>> No.1494959

>>1494956
I think there is no point arguing it with you. So lets leave the mathematics at that.

>> No.1494966

>>1494956
Well sure okay but it's a theoretical computing entity, not an actual man made computer.

lrn2hypothetical

>> No.1494967

>>1494925

I've found the best argument against subjectivism is spending five minutes talking to any of its proponents. Subjectivism leads to solipsism. To deny an objective truth is to deny God, it is a claim of the omnipotence of man within his reality, which, to me, is an impossibility.

>> No.1494968
File: 16 KB, 400x294, Hannibal_a-team..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1494968

>>1494959

>> No.1494978

>>1494966
Everything is natural, one way or another. I might as well ask "the probability it will rain in a year". Quantum chaos fucks everything up.
>>1494967
Claiming an objective truth is claiming omnipotence surely?

>> No.1494981

>>1494968
Ok. The answer is this. Suppose x is a number that is determined randomly. So you don't know what it is. You can't 'compute it', it being random.

Does it mean that its unquantifiable?

The answer is NO.

When the event that generates x occurs, it become say x=3.

Now it is quantifiable. Actually it was always quantifiable, but just not known. I can't make it simpler than that but do you Get it?

>> No.1494992

>>1494981
That's not the same thing at all. You're just showing your lack of knowledge of the halting probability. There are statements where it is possible to prove that they are impossible to prove; there are things that we know we cannot know.

>> No.1494993

>>1494992
>impossible to prove

Once they happen they can be quantified.

>> No.1495013

>>1494993
Not everything can be or should be quantified. That's the basis of TQM.

>> No.1495017

>>1495013
Does TQM mean Total quality Management? If yes, how can they have any say on the fundamental behavior of nature?

>> No.1495028

>>1495017
Are we talking about the fundamental behavior of nature or nature here? Since if we're talking about nature, it has something to say. It may well have something to say depending on what you mean by fundamentals.

>> No.1495034

>>1495028
Let me paraphrase the argument here:

Subjectivity is wrong because, nature is essence has everything that is quantifiable.

>> No.1495043

>>1495034
That's not an argument. You have yet to show that nature is quantifiable.

Let me paraphrase the two counters:
Some things are fundamentally unknowable, and thus unquantifiable (though they exist)
It is either incorrect or useless to attempt to quantify certain things like quality.

With what it's been tied in with, there's also problems of the immovable mover and serious reductionism.

>> No.1495054

>>1495043
Now we are talking.

Fine. I argue as follows:

Unknowable =! Unquantifiable.

As for quality it is quantifiable. Please pose me an example how it isn't. I am sure it will be related to art/ambiance. But still., in these cases it is potentially quantifiable as an anon said. I am NOT into neuroscience, but you can register the pleasure of the observer through the nerve impulse amplitude and decide the level of response to quantify the 'quality'.

As for it's useless to quantify it arguments, I would like to hear your logical response to why you say that.

>> No.1495072

>>1495054
So if I can never measure a probability which exists (like the halting probability) you still argue it's quantifiable? Hmmm, let's think about that one...

Quantifying quality makes no sense since, what I find high quality, you may not. What is high quality today may not be tomorrow. It's also subject to eternal referral.

Throwing in the word neuroscience is also dumb.

>> No.1495075

>>1495072
Why is it dumb?

>> No.1495078

>>1495075
What do you think neurosci says about emotions?

>> No.1495080

>>1495078
I give up. What does it say?

>> No.1495086

>>1495080
The better question is: Why are you throwing around words you don't understand?

>> No.1495088

>>1495086
what words do you claim I don't understand?

>> No.1495091

>>1495088
Neuroscience.

/discussion, it's boring

>> No.1495096

>>1495091
Bye! Cheerio!

Oh and before I forget: Neuroscience: The science that studies the functioning of brain and neuronal organs (also named nervous system) as related to their architecture and chemistry.

>> No.1495098
File: 31 KB, 363x310, bender_laugh_moar.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1495098

>>1495096
>Dictionaries
lol

>> No.1495101

>>1495098
wowsomedictionaryquicklyadaptedbyadhocdefinition.jpeg

>> No.1495112

Wow subjectivist twats can't even acknowledge that a lexicon of definitions in common use (dictionary) is a helpful tool for human communication. Next you'll be refuting the use of words to describe thought. Like let's use binary code to talk yo it's entirely objective and free from misinterpretation. How's it feel to believe that nothing is real?

Fucking children please grow up, you're not special and every original thought you've ever expressed was done so with more grace, coherance and aptitude by men of true brilliance hundreds of years before you were born.

>> No.1495117

>>1495112
That's a pretty subjective post, bro.

>> No.1495119
File: 15 KB, 482x307, 1258178479272.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1495119

>>1495112
>every original thought you've ever expressed was done so with more grace, coherance and aptitude by men of true brilliance hundreds of years before you were born.

That is so depressing, and what's more, it's compounded by the fact that I actually care.

I actually think i'm special, what a cruel joke, fuck the ego.

/lit/ is so disillusioning sometimes...

>> No.1495127

>>1495112
who defines brilliance?

>> No.1495134

>>1495127
Dictionary dude.

>> No.1495139

>>1495119

Men who lived thousand of years ago are not able to directly address the current state of things with anything other than their abstractions. Abstracts without concrete instances are empty. "No ideas but in things."

You are special if you can take those eloquent things those ancient men said and apply them now with your own eloquence to make the now better because it is more clearly understood. You can be a bridge between countries of time.

And I don't see anything here precluding anybody from discovering something new by chance, even if they aren't endeavoring to do the above. The above, which, in my opinion, makes the excavation of some other inch of abstract knowledge more likely.

Fuck you misanthropic lit-trolls.

>> No.1495162

>>1495134
a dictionary gives an intension, but not an extension, so how is a bunch of words helpful in determining 'men of true brilliance'?

>> No.1495182

>>1495162
>briliance

>> No.1495208
File: 140 KB, 560x604, zyzz come at me bro 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1495208

>>1495139

Perhaps you should read some Qoheleth. Nothing new under the sun, nigger.

>> No.1495211

>>1495208
It's totally the end of history bro. Nothing more to do.

>> No.1495215

>>1495211

We should all kill ourselves then. I'm gonna miss you guys.

>> No.1495246

>>1495112
Was me.

I know my words are depressive in that they imply that in our age no thought of worth can be expressed but that was not my intention. I simply despise those among us who think truth is nonexistent and that any attempt to articulate it is an exercise in futility. I simply want them to see that their nihilism is seriously old hat. It's been done before, and better. It is something to be conquered, not championed, because it's such a lazy, reductive tactic of rebuttal to any idea ever expressed.

>> No.1495253

>>1495119
I will ask you to not be discouraged:

What indeed is originality.............?

Is it the same as creativity?

Is it the ability to think of something that no one has ever thought before?


I think that originality is not thinking or doing de novo things....

That is creativity.

Originality is the ability to reach a conclusion.....which might be pre-discovered or pre-invented or pre-recognized, all by yourself.

It is reaching to such conclusions independently (without help). So I may read a book where I find the proof of an equation...but only if I myself am able to follow the same route of of reasoning and reach the expected destination all by myself then and only then I will call my thinking pattern original.

>> No.1495254

>>1495253

oh and that was me BTW.

>> No.1495277

Further, determinism due to Objective reality is not HARD as philosophers think. There is a concept of emergence that was solidified into pure sciences only recently (about in last 5 decades) and is still under study. It allows Free-will to exist within a frame of complete deterministic viewpoints.

You could read this article.

http://lastubermensch.blogspot.com/2010/11/free-will.html

Sorry, its not a peer reviewed one.

And you are welcome.

>> No.1495446

>>1495277
That's a not a bad article. I can't get to the link though.

>> No.1495452

>>1495277
>Radical choice is new guys
laughinggirls.jpg
That's been around for a few hundred years.

>> No.1495456

>>1495452
Radical choice in deterministic setting? Really? 100 years old? With emergence theory?

wow.jpeg

Its hardly my invention though.

>> No.1495461

>>1495456
None of those things is anything new, which is why radical choice isn't anything new.

>> No.1495465
File: 2 KB, 126x95, 1294071282182s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1495465

you know when a thread is so brainfucked one just has nowhere to start?

>> No.1495473

>>1495461
Fine

1) Did you actually read that article?
2) Do you know what Complexity theory and Emergence theory is? These are mathematical constructs of comparatively recent developments.

>> No.1495479

>>1495473
Yeah, it's clearly going "Omygodsomethingnew" to something which has been around since at least Kant by my knowledge. And yes, I've got a decent basic knowledge of chaotic systems, having done some theoretical "research" on it.

Do you think nobody has ever claimed before that maybe complex behaviours could possibly come out of simple systems? I mean, look at what Darwin proposed for one.

>> No.1495489

>>1495473
You know, it's astonishing how quickly you've become my least favorite trip

>> No.1495487

>>1495479
The idea of emergence is Old yes. The mathematical foundations are new.

>I have done 'theoretical' research

Lolwut? What is that supposed to mean?

>> No.1495499

>>1495479
What ''theoretical research'' have you done in a very esoteric subject friend? Please let me know. Perhaps you read the book 'chaos' and now you are master of Chaos theory!

>> No.1495517

>>1495487
>Doesn't copy and paste
Lolretard.

Frankly, running simulations for some undergrad research isn't true research, and so quotation marks. But I've done 2 projects with a basis in it, and have written up a proposal on a third I'm hoping to be taken up.

And if by recent you mean late 19th C at the latest, yeah (when do you think Poincare was alive?). And the roots of that go back by about another century.

>> No.1495530

>>1495499
I doubt from your comments you've even done so much.

>> No.1495531

>>1495517
So.

Simulation are now theoretical research?

Its called computation. Now tell me what you worked on.

>> No.1495534

>>1495499
>>1495531
God you're an annoying shithead. Get the fuck out of /lit/, Jesus Christ

>> No.1495538

>>1495530
Did I even claim doing a project in it? You did. So the burden of proof and stuff.

>> No.1495545

>>1495531
I'm really going to give you the title of what I've worked on. I might as well tell you my name.

How about you enlighten everyone as to what they've let you near in the field?

>> No.1495548

>>1495534
I won't and you are impotent to do anything about it.

Congrats.

Now you can safely write a novel that translates to you trying to conquer your impotency. Use a worm or something as a symbol.

>> No.1495554

>>1495548
Oh god, guys, he called me impotent... and there's no way he's projecting or nothing...

>> No.1495555

>>1495545
Oh why not! I l already did that last week. I do QM.

Specifically DFT calculations for macro-molecular reaction mechanisms in photosensitive molecules.

>> No.1495559
File: 8 KB, 250x253, funnyhemorrhoids.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1495559

>>1495554
Cry harder and Peter Noone will hear you.

>> No.1495563

>>1495559
this is how i feel about u

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL4cr1pU0nw

>> No.1495564

>>1495555
Erm, I'm reading Masters level Chemistry there. If that.

>> No.1495571

>>1495564
Nice. Tragically I entered the field from Physics side.

Which means I have to code and shit.

>> No.1495573

>>1495564
inb4 He shits his pants for being entry level

>> No.1495575

>>1495563
Safely ignored the video.

>> No.1495588

>>1495571
Says a lot about your institution that their chemistry lab had to close. That's a shame.

Coding's really no biggy. What ya coding in?

>> No.1495592

>>1495588
Its a pure Physics establishment. C.

>> No.1495603

>>1495592
>Codes in C
Lol. Try FORTRAN.

>> No.1495606

>>1495603
I don't really know what to say. You have defeated me finally with this issue. Fortran it is from tomorrow onwards!

>> No.1495623

>>1495606
If you want to be an aspie /sci/ fag:
>>>/sci/
It's there. There's plenty of people who are in the sciences who come here, like me, who are bored of idiots who think shit's black and white, or new, and get asspained when it's not. It's just tiresome.