[ 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: 137 KB, 404x316, kurz.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16270956 No.16270956 [Reply] [Original]

What are the consequences of a generation growing up with a hard scientific materialistic outlook on the world and a goal of quantifying everything?

What are the drawbacks of Youtube channels that create bite-sized videos explaining and further perpetuating scientific materialism?

>> No.16270975

>>16270956
The death of the ideal of transcendence

The strengthening of infotainment and the death of longer-form focus

>> No.16271025
File: 6 KB, 250x250, Soyjack doomer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16271025

This

>> No.16271043

>>16270956
Lel you sound like a midwit pseud who believes in free will, dualism, skydaddys and practices stoicism !

>> No.16271050

>>16271043
Do you understand how midwit you sound right now?

>> No.16271063

>>16271043
>buzzwords buzzwords buzzwords
Truly midwit

>> No.16271064
File: 102 KB, 1080x1331, giga.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16271064

>>16271043
I do believe in free will, dualism and practice stoic askesis in order to attain my transcendental goals. You weak vermin

>> No.16271087
File: 332 KB, 785x788, bca1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16271087

>>16271064

>> No.16271090

A lot of the new lifestyle that you describe stems from the seek of pleasure that has been the goal of many for as long as humans had existed. Pleasure is easier to obtain, not to mention more enjoyable for many, than trascending.
In a cost-benefit relationship, pleasure and materialism will always be prefered

>> No.16271092

>>16271087
Hahahahahahaha

>> No.16271095

>>16270956
I was brought up on science books and had something similar growing up.
Your question is loaded, but I turned out alright. Science made me skeptical, which has helped me in sum. Trust but verify.

>> No.16271100

>>16270956
I am worried about people having a pop science level understanding of scientific concepts and then creating personal ideologies or ideas about the world based on those things. Especially when it comes to physics. Everybody wants to pretend to "understand" quantum mechanics without any knowledge of math, which leaves one with a perverted idea of what it means - and QM discoveries from the past century have potentially extremely important implications for how we see the nature of our universe, which trickles down into everything, really. But pseuds want to try to impress everyone by talking about tunneling and wave/particle duality without having the first bit of real understanding of where these things come from and therefore what actual metaphysical implications of their interpretations may be.

>> No.16271102

>>16271043
>>16271087
>bro, determinism and hopelessness xD

>> No.16271105

>>16270956
Your question is a little misphrased because it presupposes that this situation is occurring recently, rather than as something that has been going on for some decades.

The consequences are already being seen and are quite clear. But perhaps one of the most important, or the most important, is that the predominance of this extreme materialistic system has created an extreme and unconscionable division between those whose minds have been totally modified by this materialistic vision and those who have a transcendental vision of things. The difference is that the latter have group is transforming the system while the former are part of it.

>> No.16271106

>>16271102
>I only accept ideas that make me feel good :D

>> No.16271109

>>16270956
A swift end to the human race.

>> No.16271110

>>16271106
Who are you quoting?

>> No.16271118

>>16271106
Literally no one said that. But I love deterministic peoples copes just to deal with the fact that taking responsibility is hard work :(((

>> No.16271134

>>16271106
Literally noone with merit who believes in spiritual ideals thinks that pain is not necessary you moron

>> No.16271139

>>16270956
>a generation growing up with a hard scientific materialistic outlook on the world and a goal of quantifying everything?
I think you're projecting a little. Maybe not. But burgeoning revolutionary and neoreactionary movements are a testament to a generation of ideology and ideals.

Thinking about it demographically, I wouldn't put the "scientific materialists" at any more than 10% of the total population in Western countries (conjecture). I have a book which puts the educated, scientifically-literate, STEM graduates and practitioners at around 7%. Although many of these will be of the "got a citation for that opinion?" class, it's important to realise that they are not a monolithic group. Suppose a majority of those are diehards, so around 3-6% of the total population, they still represent a superminority who, politically, will be overlooked - though not ignored entirely.

It's an interesting question, and there's a lot more to be said about it to be honest. But I think it's important to be more grounded, and not overstate the influence of "a generation" with a supposedly singular outlook.

>> No.16271151

>>16271118
I take responsibility for my life for practical reasons, but know that free will cannot exist

>> No.16271152

>>16271105
>who have a transcendental vision of things.
What does this even mean?

>> No.16271155

>>16271151
>I know
Empirically?

>> No.16271158

>>16271151
>I take responsibility
>free will cannot exist
Are you retarded?

>> No.16271162

>>16271152
>what is beyond

>> No.16271171

>>16271152
It means exactly what it says. If you're asking who are this people who I'm talking about you just have to look around this board a bit.

>> No.16271188

>>16270956
Why does that aesthetic bother me so much?

>> No.16271194

>>16271139
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my question formulation, but I by no means was intending that an actual entire generation, meaning a hunderd percent of the individuals, would grow up as a die hard materialist. Quite frankly, I think it's impossible for any generation to grow up as a monolithic group. Humans are too complex for that.

With that being said, it is possible for an entire generation to grow up in a certain historical milleu or climate also known as Zeitgeist. My question, then, pertains the consequences of this or upcoming generations that grow up in this Zeitgeist. Even if only ten percent end up as full embodiments of their time it doesn't mean that many more will be influenced by it, which can be seen in having certain materialistic conceptions of reality or maybe even going full one-eighty by getting into religion spirituality.

P.S. Had to write out numbers because keyboard is messed up, excuzes-moi.

>> No.16271212

>>16271188
It has something lifeless, corporate, borglike to it I feel.

>> No.16271215

>>16271158
Am I? The illusion of choice still exists at the level of the individual

>> No.16271220

>>16271155
Empirically, matter behaves according to deterministic laws.
If our mind is made of matter it follows that our mind is deterministic.

>> No.16271221

Materialism is necessarily degeneration. There's no "solution" but the overtaking and victory of idealism which will also necessarily happen.

>> No.16271242

>>16271220
>If our mind is made of matter it follows that our mind is deterministic
Explain qualia then

>> No.16271261

>>16271242
I can't claim to be able to, but qualia in no way negates determinism.

>> No.16271274

unless there is a massive catastrophe/new dark age/cultural opium epidemy, i don't believe that it's possible to avoid living in such a world. personally truth should be an ideal to aspire to, and it seems to me that scientific naturalism is the best way to reach that goal. I don't believe that living in such a world would necessarily be harmful; and indeed, even feelings/thoughts/art can eventually be quantified, but naturally it's an impractical task to do so with a metric such that one will eventually be able to say with confidence phrases such as "this is art because the shitmann index satisfies the reddy-junichi criterion" without immediately being taken aback by a counterargument like "well i prefer the borenstein criterion, so this is not art".
so long as we remain humans, the ideal of transcendence/hidden knowledge won't die off, because it's too comforting to say "well god looks out for me" or "my ascetic lifestyle and self reflection will help my spiritual growth", even if it's not necessarily true (barring placebo, of course)
naturally one should be wary of the situation as described in >>16271100 , but that's just science being perverted for social capital (same as it ever was). turns out people like clinging on capital in all its forms, whodathunk
not like this post will influence anyone either, but it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling of "heh gottem" even if I may be wrong

>> No.16271280

Read Spengler.

Also, you should actually talk to people in STEM. I'm not sure where you types get these ideas about how people in STEM think from, because it certainly isn't people in STEM.

>> No.16271283

atheism is the only rational position. the end.

>> No.16271287

>>16271283
Agnosticism*

>> No.16271301

>>16271283
'rationality' fails. Read Kant's 'critique of pure reason'

>> No.16271311

miserable narcissitic wageslave midwit world

>> No.16271321

>>16271215
>I believe something that I cannot actual observe myself.
Fucking pseud your ideas only exist to stroke your mental boner and feel smarter than other people. No actual use.

>> No.16271334

It creates mastubatory-minded folks finding everything interesting, yet not interesting enough to do anything with it beside finding it interesting.

Literal know-everything spoonfed idiots obsessed with intellectual jousting and full of theoretical knowledge they will never use in their lives.


This is all part of a grand design aiming to dissolve the quality of knowledge into quantity.
What matters will remain hidden or unaffected and what doesn't will be the subject of everyone's attention. Naturally, this is so normal people do not know anymore what matters in this world. Energy flows where attention flows. You can't expect self centered nu males to throw a revolt or to organise anything concrete beyond what society allows them anymore.

>> No.16271348

>>16271321
Read my other post,
>>16271220

And sure. Most of philosophy is just exercise anyway.

>> No.16271366
File: 113 KB, 1280x720, 20CC5017-077A-46BB-8FC6-4D437ADDD382.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16271366

>>16270956
>a hard scientific materialistic outlook on the world A N D a goal of quantifying everything?

*whispers*
ᵀʰᵉ ᴼᴾ ᶦˢ ˢᵉᵃʳᶜʰᶦnᵍ ᶠᵒʳ ᵗʰᵉ ʷᵒʳᵈ — ᴮᵘᵍᵐᵉn

>> No.16271996

>>16271194
I don't think it's fair to describe progression of scientific knowledge as a zeitgeist. You wouldn't describe the Enlightenment in such a way would you? It's more just us advancing our understanding of the natural world, which will of course have a philosophical impact.

That being said, perhaps that previous statemement is missing your point. I understand that there is a cultural change of how much people use scientific knowledge as a way to turn away from religion or to materialistic ideas. Our scientific and technological advancements have made it essentially absurd to believe in ghosts or something like that (at least in the way they're normally thought of or told of in stories). But they also aren't completely incompatible with Idealism - this is the point that is lost on neckbeard atheists

>> No.16272005

>>16271220
>matter behaves according to deterministic laws
This is a point of debate among physicists at a fundamental level. See: Copenhagen Interpretation

>> No.16272013

>>16272005
That's not a debate physicists engage in.

>> No.16272015

>>16271280
These ideas come from pop science and the reddit midwits

>> No.16272017

>>16270956
>What are the consequences of a generation growing up with a hard scientific materialistic outlook on the world and a goal of quantifying everything?
eugenics, technocracy, and other such nonsense

>What are the drawbacks of Youtube channels that create bite-sized videos explaining and further perpetuating scientific materialism?
annoying college-aged kids avidly discussing shit they understand only superficially

>> No.16272019

>>16270956
>What are the consequences of a generation growing up with a hard scientific materialistic outlook on the world and a goal of quantifying everything?
The result is that they have no worldview, rather than a scientistic, materialistic one. Only thinking people have an articulated, justified worldview. The effects of this materialistic technologized culture is to merely create more direct and effective pipelines for consumerism and to preempt people from thinking.

>> No.16272040

>>16272013
Well it's not debated much today because (due to results of experiments in the past century) almost all physicists have accepted the Copenhagen Interpretation, which is non-deterministic

>> No.16272138

>>16272040
No, that's not true. A physicist's philosophical orientation is not relevant to his day-to-day work.

>> No.16272226

>>16272138
Perhaps what you say is true, as a lot of physicists probably don't spend too much time thinking about the philosophical implications of their work. But what I said is true. Most physicists accept the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. And the Copenhagen Interpretation is non-deterministic. (This bothered a lot of physicists, including Einstein, in the first half of the 20th century.)
My point was that "matter behaves according to deterministic laws" can not be stated as a fact.

>> No.16272321

>>16271996
>It's more just us advancing our understanding of the natural world, which will of course have a philosophical impact.
This doesn't tell us anything about its prominence in culture. In theory, there could be a world where science is as developed as it is right now but it no way influences such a large scale of people. The progression of science isn't necessarily part of the Zeitgeist, although ofcourse heavily influencing it, but the dominance that scientific ideas have on daily lives is.

>> No.16272328

>>16272226
>Most physicists accept the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. And the Copenhagen Interpretation is non-deterministic.
I wouldn't put any stock in that. They are not philosophers, so their philosophical views are irrelevant. What the average physicist outside QM foundations really is is a proponent of "shut up and calculate" -- aka instrumentalism. Most of them only care about the empirical implications, and the empirical implications are the same for all the main interpretations. At first glance, Copenhagen seems to map most closely onto to the operational procedure they engage in, hence its popularity. But those actually working in foundations in physics understand that Copenhagen is incoherent, ambiguous, vague, and a dualistic mess. Apart from the appearance of collapse (Born rule), QM is entirely deterministic. And it turns out the notion of collapse can be jettisoned entirely when the act of "measurement" is understood as the observer entangling with the observed (decoherence). That's why everyone working in foundations is either an Everettian, Bohmian, GRW theorist, or retrocausal theorist. Those are the only major interpretations that make any sense, and they all happen to be all deterministic.

>> No.16272376

>>16271100
>lel cat there and not at the same time! I fucking love physics

>> No.16272565

>>16272328
>turns out the notion of collapse can be jettisoned entirely when the act of "measurement" is understood as the observer entangling with the observed (decoherence)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1355219802000862?via%3Dihub

I like what you're saying but the truth is the existing research and evidence can not fully support the idea of determinism. Nor can it fully refute it. But I don't think we should ignore the measurement problem just because we don't like it.

>> No.16272687

>>16272565
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1355219802000862?via%3Dihub
Oh, I agree it doesn't by itself solve the measurement problem. There is still the problem of multiple mutually exclusive outcomes. Decoherence doesn't get you from multiple worlds back to one world. The point is, you can agree that measurement is entanglement but disagree on how to explain the fact that we only observe one outcome. Everettians say all possible outcomes obtain, and observers split along with the observables, to give the appearance of a singular outcome. Other people give other explanations. But all the main realist interpretations agree that collapse is only apparent. QM is completely consistent with determinism, but determinism is an aspect of philosophical interpretation that cannot be forced one way or the other by the empirical evidence.

>> No.16272791
File: 127 KB, 657x527, 1595943812455.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16272791

>>16271043
>free will
>dualism
>skydaddys
>stoicism
One of these is not like the others

>> No.16272797

>>16272687
It seems to me that to reconcile, for example, Everettian interpretations with the inherent stochasticity of the wave function one would have to introduce another "incoherent, ambiguous, vague mess" of some sort. My point I guess is that it seems all these ways of understanding quantum phenomena have serious problems.

Is there one theory in particular that you ascribe to?

>> No.16272928

>>16272797
>Everettian interpretations with the inherent stochasticity of the wave function one would have to introduce another "incoherent, ambiguous, vague mess" of some sort.
I used to have questions about this, but not anymore. In the Everettian interpretation, the results predicted by the Born rule can be seen as deriving from self-locating uncertainty within the branches of the wave function. See this article for details:

https://academic.oup.com/bjps/article/69/1/25/2669754

>Is there one theory in particular that you ascribe to?
I'm open to any of the realist interpretations -- MWI, Bohm, Time-symmetric. I suppose I would default to Everett because it is basically the result of taking what QM say literally. Bohm's interpretation has a lot of elegance to it, but it requires contorting the metaphysics radically from the mathematical structure of standard QM. Time-symmetric theories are best at making sense of the Bell-test results, imo. In any case, I believe one way or another the metaphysics of QM will be resolved (i.e. a consensus reached) within the next 100 years.

>> No.16273161

>>16271087
Cope

>> No.16273428

>>16273161
He's the one "believing" in nonsense to suit his worldview.
Definition of cope

>> No.16274206

>>16271025
Literally me

>> No.16274237

>>16271043
The scientific concensus is that free will exists

>> No.16274275

>>16271220
>matter behaves according to deterministic laws.
Physics is not deterministic

>> No.16274284

>>16272013
Physicists do not hold to determinism either

>> No.16274373

>>16270956
I'd better say physicism instead of materialism.
Also, this has been happening since XVIII century, even if it's true that societies have became societies of knowledge during the second half of this last century.
Just look around you, depression and anxiety are the pathologies of our era. This has much to do with the superposition of the map to the territory, an abstract system of measurements and understandings of the world that result in a feeling of rootlessness. If you want to know more, there are many works you can look after. Such as:The writings of the Tiqqun collective, the society of spectacle, almost any book from Baudrillard, Marshall Mcluhan, etc.

>> No.16274383

>>16270956
>What are the drawbacks of Youtube channels that create bite-sized videos explaining and further perpetuating scientific materialism?
it starts with materialism, and then it quickly descends into primitive voodoo where they start making moral or subjective claims that they try to back up with unrelated materialistic factoids. basically, in the end, it all turns into scientist kid educator bill nye telling you there's scientifically 538492543 genders and he's proven it in a lab with a lab coat and erlenmeyer flasks and everything. science becomes a cult that can be easily hijacked by anyone with the interest to, a way to launder ideas by going through the motions of science but using trickery to make sure you get the results you want (or simply withholding funding from people who might use science to disprove your dogma, and then saying their claims are unscientific, as is the case with scientific investigation of race and intelligence). you can sort of prove things with science, but you can also use the scientific method poorly to give a stamp of empirical approval to literally anything
the nazis did it with racial science (which may or may not have been true, but whether it was true was unrelated to the purpose to which it was put), we do it to our own ends, and if nobody figures out how to square materialism with divinity then it will just happen over and over again in the future, because science can't actually prove that much. it can make small miracles, sure, planes flying and curing disease, but there are hard limits to what it is possible to understand with empiricism, and this only fills a tiny fraction of the understanding we need even to get through our own daily lives, much less govern an entire society. in the cracks, the kind of thinking that festers has absolutely nothing to do with scientific epistemology and yet forms a whole of what is understood to be "science", the kind of thing you read about in shitty tabloids about what the latest food to avoid is, the latest research into what common activity is "linked" with cancer (what does that word even mean, quantitatively what's the p-value for "linked"?), etc
the result is that you either shut up and count your fruitflies with the woke police looking over your shoulder to make sure you don't accidentally prove anything inconvenient or you have no choice but to rail against the entire scientific institution. or of course, you join them and become a professor of some soft science, and "prove" that there's however many genders they want there to be. there's always places for people like that

>> No.16274493

>>16270956
realizing on your deathbed you've been playing the wrong game, spinning the hamster wheel in the monkey time prison

>> No.16274566

>>16271220
>>16272005
>>16274275
Even if it is probabilistic, there is still no room for agency in a purely material worldview. If effects are always caused, than everything is determined. If there are uncaused effects, than it is just randomness which is still not free will.

>>16271242
Regarding qualia, there is no explanation. However, with purely materialistic and deterministic/probability based axioms, qualia is also purely material and thus purely determined or a matter of probability. There is still no room for agency there.

>> No.16274595

>>16271063
Are you perhaps american?

>> No.16274635

>>16272928
Thanks for the link anon, I'll look into it and a bit more into bohmian mechanics as well. I have a bachelor's degree in physics and math and I'm applying to PhD programs now but we were never taught any foundational stuff really. So it's good to read about this stuff.

I hope you're right about the metaphysics. I sometimes think that way as well, but in my education, professors seemed less optimistic and even unconcerned about it. But I often think that perhaps we just aren't equipped as a species to understand the nature of the universe beyond a certain level, and perhaps quantum mechanics is where we're finding our limit.

>> No.16274704
File: 81 KB, 920x292, 12931273961293712.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16274704

>>16270956
A hollow brain-dead "human" race. What's the point in being on Mars, a spaceship, moving across galaxies, you could heap all the material wealth the world has to offer onto yourself and you wouldn't truly be any better off. How long until we collectively realise that the battles to be fought are within us and our souls, will we ever learn? Will we just continue to fall into decadence and the emptiness of materialism?

>> No.16274733

>>16270956
>What are the consequences of a generation growing up with a hard scientific materialistic outlook on the world and a goal of quantifying everything?
Basedboyism.
>It's ok if my girlfriend pegs me bro, saying it's bad is just a subjective aesthetic opinion. All physical acts have no inherent meaning and are just the arbitrary movement of particles!

>> No.16274758

>>16271095
The problem is, how do scientists get paid?

>> No.16275118

>>16271996
>Our scientific and technological advancements have made it essentially absurd to believe in ghosts or something like that (at least in the way they're normally thought of or told of in stories)
It's more that people are taught from the age of five-years-old to believe in a scientistic conception of the world, and they are taught to have unwavering confidence in the institutions which gatekeep Science™. I really doubt you've personally used the scientific method to investigate ghostly phenomena or poltergeists, but you may have read a story about some scientist doing something like that and trusted them. Scientific "progress" has yielded many technological novelties and comforts but science can't teach anything about justice, ethics, metaphysics, etc. Science is essentially just trivia. Even people in highly advanced societies still have bugaboos and superstitions and dogmas, but these irrationalities are simply different today than the irrationalities of the past. Different institutions, same manipulation and confidence hacking.

>> No.16275264

>>16271043
go back to r*ddit you goofy faggot

>> No.16275391

>>16270956
>What are the consequences of a generation growing up with a hard scientific materialistic outlook on the world and a goal of quantifying everything?
I don't know, it's never been tried.

>> No.16276759

bump

>> No.16277952

>>16270956
something bad in the beginning and something awful or great in the end. fighting against this is a cope, as much as a cope as fighting against tech. not making any moral judgements here pro/anti tech or pro/anti scientific materialism.

>> No.16279172

>>16271274
>truth should be an ideal to aspire to
>so long as we remain humans, the ideal of transcendence/hidden knowledge won't die off, because it's too comforting to say "well god looks out for me" or "my ascetic lifestyle and self reflection will help my spiritual growth", even if it's not necessarily true (barring placebo, of course)
So much this. Definitely gottem

>> No.16279779

>>16274566
>>16272005
>>16271242
>NOOOOOO but Rick and Morty told me about alternate universes and quantums and stuff my free willerino has to be real!!!

>> No.16279787

>>16279779
cringe

>> No.16279819

Some people have the idea that things with the computer are getting out of control, that the machines are acquiring a kind of autonomy. “In summarizing her recent survey of 50 computer owners, Sherry Turkle, an associate professor of sociology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said consumers liked the feeling of power associated with programming a computer. 'When you program a computer, you feel a great deal of control and mastery,' she said. 'People begin with a desire to make the computer do something, and end up being absorbed by its doing something to them,' she said.” [5] This experience of having the tables turned on one is being repeated at many levels and in many contexts.

This brings us to the idea that the computer is no ordinary machine, that it can wield a power over us that no mere tool could. What is it about the computer that makes it special?

To me this is no abstract question. After programming computers at an advanced level for many years and watching what happened to me and to others who developed intimate relationships with the machines, I confronted this question with a sense of personal urgency and in a troubled mood. Most of the experiences I had were not discussed by those who worked with me; indeed, in the atmosphere that attaches itself to computers, certain things about the machines are nearly unthinkable, though nonetheless true. I had no desire to engage in a romantic reaction against the machines, or to struggle against rationality in any way. What troubled me was that I felt my reasoning powers being boxed in and limited, and I found it difficult to be as rational about all of my experience as I wished to be. I felt the need for more understanding, not less, and began to realize that the computer itself had something to do with my lack of intellectual penetration.

What happened to me many other people have also experienced in varying degrees. Specifically, I noticed that my thinking became more refined and exact, able to carry out extensive logical analyses with facility, but at the same time more superficial and less tolerant of ambiguity or conflicting points of view. My feeling life somehow gradually detached itself from the rest of me. The feelings that were closer to me grew flat and grey; they lost their strength and color, and correspondingly played a less prominent role in my life. The feelings that were farther from me, on the other hand, grew stronger and cruder; they lost much of their human quality and modulation. Finally, in the life of the will, I developed a tremendous capacity for application to the solution of problems connected with the computer, and ability for sustained intellectual concentration far above average, so long as the focus of concentration was the computer. In other areas, I lost will power, and what I had took on an obsessive character.