[ 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: 34 KB, 739x415, 3B483182-DD4C-467D-948E-1A7D714D0821.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19597131 No.19597131[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>Love is just chemical reaction
>There is no reality beyond material world
>There is no free will
>The world is independent from its observer.

Your move. Now.

>> No.19597137

I heckin' love that there is no God!

>> No.19597139

>>19597131
I am moving now.

>> No.19597144

>>19597131
I recommend reading some philosophy, particularly relating to emergence and emergent properties.

>> No.19597163
File: 148 KB, 219x296, perish.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19597163

>> No.19597167

>>19597163
This

>> No.19597183

69edgy420me

>> No.19597426 [DELETED] 

>>19597131
I don’t know philosophy or science but here’s some responses:
>Love is just chemical reaction
I’m a rationalist so I can’t know for sure if chemicals exist. I can only perceive the world through my senses. The only thing I can confirm is that I exist, and that I think and feel. The only thing that is real is how I feel. If I feel love, then love exists. If I feel pain, then pain exists. I don’t need to rationalize pain, it just exists.
>There is no reality beyond material world
Again, there is no material world. We perceive the world through our thoughts. The material world is what we believe to exist, and even though I do believe it exists, I’m not sure science accurately explains the world as objectively as possible. In science paradigm shifts occur and what were once universally accepted scientific theories are replaced with more accurate theories. It is possible that in several centuries from now 90% of what we know is wrong.
>There is no free will
I can’t answer this one. I choose to believe that I have free will because I feel that it exists. Perhaps those that accept there is no free will are submitting to the order of the universe and those that believe there is free will are rebelling against the order of the universe in order to free themselves from its limits.
>The world is independent from its observer.
Again, I’m not sure.

>> No.19597468

>>19597131
1. Read philosophy, not self-help books or Rick and Morty.
2. Even if you decide not to read philosophy that explains how it works in depth: fall in love, take a decision (any decision) and do something that matters to others. You'll see it's self evident that love is more than chemicals (and therefore there is other things than the material), that you willed something freely, and that you can change the world, however little. Enjoy!

>> No.19597476

>>19597468
sounds like a bunch of chemical reactions trying to explain why it's having those reactions and why it's really more than that.
Cope

>> No.19597496

>>19597131
Saying A = B implies B = A.

If love is a chemical reaction then a chemical reaction is love. It is equivalent to saying chemical reactions are feelings, and unless a differentiating element is modeled, then this equals to saying All chemical reactions are feelings and that matter is just a bunch of subjective qualia. The reduction goes both ways.

Maybe basic math is too advanced for OP.

>> No.19597497

>>19597476
Did you do step one and two before writing that?

> thinking that nothing is real because I'm not rich and famous and also I don't love anyone

Cope.

>> No.19597507

>>19597131
>love is a chemical reaction so it shouldn't be pursued
>instead pursue science because it's fun
>enjoyment is a chemical reaction

>> No.19597550

>The world is independent from its observer.
most cringe part of the post

>> No.19597573

>>19597131
Back to reddix nigger

>> No.19597610

>>19597131
>t.demiurge

>> No.19597647

>>19597144
>>19597468
What’s the best philosophy to read?

>> No.19597653

>>19597496
>all A = B
>all B != A
Next moron.

>> No.19597663 [DELETED] 

>>19597131
I see you've taken Zapffe to heart. Good gor you.

>> No.19597664

>>19597647
Not everything is material: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/

Free will: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

Read the articles, read the sources if you want to know more. Also Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Nietszche etc, but those are more difficult.

You might not be convinced immediately, but you ought to know that they are respectable positions held by very smart people who've thought a lot about it. You can't dismiss it with a Rick and Morty meme.

>> No.19597674

Plato is quite easy to read, and still relevant. Don't dismiss "intro to -" books either.

>> No.19597687
File: 585 KB, 2048x1556, 9644652C-4601-431E-BF44-1EE132CF8561.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19597687

Rick and Morty, as a show, is overtly critical of Rick’s scientism, and undermines it in the plot all the time. His beliefs make him into an alcoholic. All his friends either die or grow to hate him. There’s an episode that ends on a suicide attempt because he’s heartbroken, for fucks sake. Over and over again, the show demonstrates that Rick’s reductive attitude hurts him and the people he can’t help but care about. The fact that people espouse his ideas unironically points to a horrifying lack of literacy. It’s like reading “A Modest Proposal” and revving up the grill.

Read a fucking intro to film textbook.

>> No.19597698

AhahahaHAHAHAHAHA
You loser, was your thread on the biological explanation for the experience of beauty not enough

>> No.19597699

Let me put that chemical under a microscope and find this "love" he's talking about.

>> No.19597711

>>19597131
Science is just a bunch of chemical reactions. So it's just as worthless as love

>> No.19597713

>>19597496
>Saying A = B implies B = A.
That's not what the picture says. It says "all A is B", aka "Ɐ(x)(A(x)B(x))", not "A is B". As in: "love belongs to the category of chemical reactions", same as "dogs are mammals" - it doesn't imply or in any way follow that all mammals are dogs. None of this is "reduction", it is classification.
Maybe basic logic is too advanced for this faggot.

>> No.19597722

>>19597163
based

>> No.19597731

>>19597713
>Ɐ(x)(A(x)B(x))
Ɐ(x)(A(x)->B(x))
dumb site can't support an arrow symbol

>> No.19597735

>>19597131
Verify your claims.

>> No.19597742

>>19597131
>Love is just chemical reaction
Your words are just cringe.
>There is no reality beyond material world
Your cringe is immediately self-evident and of such severity that the material world cannot have created it, it is apodictically spiritual.
>There is no free will
I have chosen to engage with your cringe, with goes against all laws of nature and adaptive human behavior, thus proving that free will exists.
>The world is independent from its observer.
Uh, well, yeah, duh.

>> No.19597766

>>19597131
>Love is just chemical reaction
Yes. reducing something to its basic elements doesn't tarnish it's beauty.
>There is no reality beyond material world
you can neither confirm or deny this.
>There is no free will
people have the free will to make decisions. if you mean truly independent will, then you are retarded if you need will that is truly independent from everything. will should never be truly isolated.
>The world is independent from its observer.
as with reality in immaterialism, you can neither confirm nor deny this. at best you can say it is unlikely because there is not enough evidence for you to believe in it.

>> No.19597781

STEMchads win again.

>> No.19597798

>>19597687
That’s ignoring how much the show strokes his cock. Sure Rick is presented as being flawed but that’s more because the writers feel obligated to create drama than because they have a coherent critique of scientism and at every point the show emphasizes how smart he is. It’s the show’s fault that people idolize Rick, it’s given them a powerful and smart (in universe) character to identify with and so they do

>> No.19597803

>>19597163
/thread

>> No.19597821

>>19597550
>The world is dependent on observers
>to observe: the passive act of watching/noticing
Alrighty then

>> No.19597843

>>19597131
>love is what makes us breed
That's too consequential.

>> No.19597886

>>19597497
>thinking that nothing is real because I'm not rich and famous and also I don't love anyone
What are you even talking about? I'm saying it is real, as real as any other chemical reaction in the world. Philosophy is how you cope with the chaos and meaninglessness of your existence. Doesn't matter how rich and famous you are, ultimately you're worth no more than a bacterium as far as the universe is concerned.

>> No.19597923

>>19597886
Lucky that the universe doesn't decide what I'm worth

>> No.19597938

Love involves more than the ecstasy of new companionship.

>> No.19598028

>>19597886
Love is an emotion, not a chemical.

>> No.19598048

I choose to disagree because life is way more fun that way

>> No.19598080

>Love is a chemical reaction
That makes it more real.

>> No.19598082

>>19597923
The universe is everything, including you.
>>19598028
And emotions are nerve signals in the brain which are caused by chemical reactions.

>> No.19598099

>>19598082
>The universe is everything, including you.
So? That doesn't mean that the universe decides my worth.

> And emotions are nerve signals in the brain which are caused by chemical reactions.
No, that isn't true.

>> No.19598226

>>19597131
the thoughts and emotions that result from realizing love is "just" a chemical reaction, therefore, are also "just" chemical reactions. why let them get you down?

>> No.19598300

>>19597550
isn't that true? am i retarded?

>> No.19598310

>>19597131
There's no answer to consciousness.

"muh evolutionary emergence!" is a cope that doesn't actually address the question.

>> No.19598321

>>19597163
I wanna know which mickey mouse comic this comes from. It's iconic.

>> No.19598341
File: 91 KB, 771x1200, FBYsZXQVcAcs-yW.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19598341

>>19597131
>Love is just chemical reaction
Sexual attraction is not love.
>There is no reality beyond material world
Demonstrably false. You don't even perceive the material world the way it truly is.
>There is no free will
Arguable. Even if your whole life was deterministic in nature there's enough empiric evidence to suggest each single action you take is, indeed, done out of pure free will in some form.
>The world is independent from its observer.
There's so much scientific proof this isn't the case I can't help but feel you should read books past the 18th century.

>> No.19598361

>>19598082
>And emotions are nerve signals in the brain
No, they’re qualia, and irreducible to the material.

>> No.19598364

>>19597131
>Love is just chemical reaction
How does that change anything?
>There is no reality beyond material world
We have yet to discover all of the material world and lack real understanding of most of it.
>There is no free will
How does that change anything?
>The world is independent from its observer.
How does that change anything?

What exactly are these statements supposed to "prove?"

>> No.19598453

>>19597131
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlWDxb0O__w&ab_channel=PorterOlsen
They made a film about you OP

>> No.19598455

That is lust

>> No.19598507

>>19597687
it feels like the Truffaut quote: "It is impossible to make an anti-war film"
everybody will just enjoy the mindless explosions and guns going pew pew

>> No.19598528

>>19597131
Ok:
>Love is everything.
Your turn.

>> No.19598551

>>19597131
"To love another person is to see the face of god"

>> No.19598598

>>19598507
War is inherently appealing. Only an emasculated coward would feel otherwise. Read Storm of Steel

>> No.19598647

>>19598598
>I read a book and played videogames with pew pew
>therefore war good
based retard

>> No.19598656

>>19598598
>Read Storm of Steel
Anon, why are you recommending a book that you didn't read?

>> No.19598757

>>19597131
>love is qualia
>im more sure of qualia than of a material world
>depends on how you think of free will. the past doesnt seem changable from the end of history so in that way things are fatalistic. I dont know if there is a chance for things to have been another way within the way things are. But also fundementally, there cant be a neccesity for things to have been the way they are, since whatever is neccesitating that could be imagined to be otherwise. Anyways thats not really a free will issue tho.
>the world contains the observers subjective experience. I dont know if it is all it contains, probably not

>> No.19598864

>>19598598
War is inherently repelling. Only an sheltered impressionable kid would feel otherwise. I hope for your sake you'll never realize this the hard way.

>> No.19598872

>>19598864
What war did you fight in?

>> No.19598874

>>19598757
>im more sure of qualia than of a material world
Gay

>> No.19598877

>>19597131
Even if a system is based upon only action and reaction. A sufficiently complex system becomes impossible to predict. Despite their physicality such a system becomes unknowable. Thus it does not matter whether all emotions are rooted in physical reactions or not.
The idea that all physcal things can be comprehended and calculated is actually a falsehood. Accepting there is mystery in the physical is what reason demands

>> No.19598878

>>19598874
eunuch

>> No.19598897

>>19598872
Bosnia

>> No.19598997

Why does love being a chemical reaction in a material world diminish it in any way?

>> No.19599007

>>19598997
It doesn't. The experience of love isn't reducible to the chemical reactions correlated with it.

>> No.19599012

>>19599007
That's why he said "in the material world"

>> No.19599018

>>19599012
Yes, we are in agreement.

>> No.19599036

>>19598897
>.t serb*oid

>> No.19599043

>>19599012
The "material world" is an aspect of reality and the mistake comes from claiming that it is the totality. To be clearer.

>> No.19599065

>>19599043
I mean, if you choose to define it that way, man.

>> No.19599080

>>19599065
I don't understand what you are trying to communicate to me. Would you care to elaborate?

>> No.19599082

>>19597131
>The world is independent from its observer.
Wait wouldn't materialism entail the opposite? If you think consciousness is indistinguishable from its material components, then our perceptions themselves are a part of the physical world and so not independent of the world. So there would be no clear demarcation between observation v.s observed.

>> No.19599131

>>19597131
Chemical reactions are the physical processes that necessarily precede the phenomenological datum of us feeling the emotion we call "love". The really funny thing is then asking, in turn, what necessarily precedes those chemical reactions.

>> No.19599135

>>19597131
Posts like these make me wonder how many /lit/izens are teenagers.

>> No.19599136

>>19599082
Based take

>> No.19599169

>>19598099
>No, that isn't true
How so?
>>19598361
>Qualia
Everyone smells phosphorous the same way, the specific molecules trigger specific nerve endings, the same applies to taste and vision assuming all the nerve endings are similar and there's no defect. Emotion is the same.

>> No.19599176

>>19599131
>what necessarily precedes those chemical reactions.
stimulus, like in every reaction

>> No.19599257

>>19599176
Still no answer what causes mental causation in the first place

>> No.19599305

>>19599257
Cells respond to stimuli in order to avoid danger, procure food, respond to their environment etc. You are made of trillions of cells collectively responding to complex stimuli in order to survive. Sensory receptors feel stimuli, transmit them to the brain which responds accordingly. It's basic science, or are you asking what causes thoughts? It's a response to stimuli combined with memory.

>> No.19599347

>>19599305
That's epiphenomenalism.

>> No.19599358

>>19599176
which in this case is the phonomenological datum of us "falling in love"

>> No.19599410

>materialism is true
>how do you know?
>*materialism*
Truly an ideology to overthrow Christianity

>> No.19599440

>>19599410
Christianity is too dumb to even recognize it's own dualist nonsense.

>> No.19599455
File: 106 KB, 1242x1231, 1635880221040.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19599455

>>19597131
>The world is independent from its observer

The world is the totality of all things that exist, and this totality includes my impressions and reactions to it, that is, my subjectivity. With every thought, I change the world; thus the world is not independent of me.

>> No.19599583
File: 161 KB, 1599x1066, 1599px-Flag_of_Ecuador.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19599583

>>19597131
Gayest country on earth

>> No.19599591
File: 248 KB, 800x976, 800px-Christian_Scientists_and_Inventors_Mosaic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19599591

>>19599440
???

>> No.19599623

>>19598864
>War is inherently repelling
Low T.

>> No.19599626

>>19599591
Scientists do not represent the church's dogmas, retard.

>> No.19599632

>>19598647
War good because it’s thrilling, heroic, and can be used to take stuff from others.

>> No.19599640

>>19598656
I read it last year. Fun read. Junger got bored sitting around doing nothing so he started raids on his own volition.

>> No.19599686
File: 361 KB, 1654x2551, why materialism is baloney kastrup.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19599686

>>19597131
Read Bernardo Kastrup

https://www.youtube.com/c/bernardokastrup/videos