Philosophy is dead

[Anonymous No.21462321]

>Most of us don’t worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead
>Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.
>Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge. New theories lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it.
What did he mean by this? Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.21462330]

>>21462321
>Why are we here?
>Where do we come from?
It's 2023, and with all the scientific development today, what are the answers?

[Anonymous No.21462335]

>>21462321
Retard can't into even basic philosophy. He literally didn't even ask himself the philosophical question 'how do new theories in physics change our understanding of our place in the universe?'.

[Anonymous No.21462347]

>>21462335
>how do new theories in physics change our understanding of our place in the universe?'
They haven't? How close are we to understanding the existence of universe?

[Anonymous No.21462369]

>>21462335
Yet his books are still more philosophically interesting than nth commentary on a particular word choice by Heidegger. Might not be perfect, but philosophy, as a rule, is worse. Ontology is a bullshit based on Classic Greek linguistics, thankfully not widely in use now.

[Anonymous No.21462379]

>>21462321
Hawking was a midwit retard

[Anonymous No.21462386]

>>21462321
if we spent less money stolen from taxpayers to build football stadiums, we would have more time to think about these things. unfortunately, we only have time to think about consumption and earning.

[Anonymous No.21462396]

>>21462386
philosophically speaking, what is more important than the fulfilment of oneself's pleasure?

[Anonymous No.21462475]

>>21462321
Mostly accurate, there's no way to distinguish whether or not your favorite metaphysical or moral theories are true or not so people just end up choosing one that goes along with their innate disposition.

[Anonymous No.21462547]

>>21462369
>Yet his books are still more philosophically interesting
There is zero philosophy in his shit. The closest is vapid, unoriginal cliches small minds come up with, like 'life is about creating your own meaning'.

The fact that you could hold any interest in his philosophical ideas makes you a moron pure and simple. You would have been spared of that if you were truly familiar with philosophy, even if you rejected most philosophy, you would have the basic critical thinking skill you fail to display here. Hawking wasn't a critical thinker, he wasn't even a thinker. And etymological investigations are very interesting and should be obviously prescient for philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21462551]

>>21462475
>there's no way to distinguish whether or not your favorite metaphysical or moral theories are true or not
For you.

[Anonymous No.21462570]

>>21462551
If your favorite metaphysical/moral theory were provably true, it would be akin to a theorem or widely-accepted scientific theory. This isn't the case for any of the major branches of metaphysics or moral philosophy that I'm aware of.

[Anonymous No.21462582]

>>21462570
If a metaphysical/moral view was provable in the same way as a theorem or widely-accepted scientific theory then it would be just as shallow.

[Anonymous No.21462583]

>>21462475
>there's no way to distinguish whether or not your favorite metaphysical or moral theories are true or not
lol

[Anonymous No.21462590]

>>21462321
Well, it's not surprising since philosophy hasn't done shit for anyone thus far. Fuck philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21462592]

>>21462582
>If a metaphysical/moral view was provable in the same way as a theorem or widely-accepted scientific theory then it would be just as shallow.
Why? Do you think it needs to be arrived at through mysticism instead?

>>21462583
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.21462593]

>>21462590
Nice philosophy you've got there.

[Anonymous No.21462619]

>>21462593
i'm gonna beat you up

[Anonymous No.21462627]

>>21462592
>Do you think it needs to be arrived at through mysticism instead?
The fact that you think the only alternative to the scientific method is mysticism says it all. You're completely stuck in philosophical principles taken for granted hundreds of years ago. I'll put it simply: is science the only framework which you view reality through? From the obvious answer to this question you should be able to progress to the point where you can see how insufficient the scientific method is for philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21462630]

>>21462619
Beat him, beat that anon like Hawking's wife beat the great physicist!

[Anonymous No.21462636]

But what about us? Culture, idea, politics, all other social aspect.. science can’t solve that. Philosophy still feels importation.

[Anonymous No.21462639]

>>21462636
Important

[Anonymous No.21462640]

>>21462321
>Why are we here? Where do we come from?
I don't give a fuck

[Anonymous No.21462650]

>>21462640
You do.

[Anonymous No.21462652]

>>21462640
Holy shit! Certified badass over here!

[Anonymous No.21462656]

>>21462627
>I'll put it simply: is science the only framework which you view reality through? From the obvious answer to this question you should be able to progress to the point where you can see how insufficient the scientific method is for philosophy.

I don't think the scientific method is relevant to philosophy at all. Like I said in >>21462475 I think most people interest in philosophy will end up developing a philosophical "worldview" according to their innate disposition and then go from there. But nothing here is ever going to be established at the level of a scientific theory, and that's fine.

[Anonymous No.21462670]

Philosophy was human reasoning, and this was also the soul. The soul was man's ability to reason, and this set him a part from animals. But now we know that was just a delusion. Art also used to be access to a real realm that was the mind's home that the mind was accessing. But now philosophy is tied in with psychology, we don't have the confidence to seriously take ourselves as reasonable, so we can only know the bounds of our unreasonableness. And art is just an expression of the gradience in our darkness...

[Anonymous No.21462672]

>>21462656
>nothing here is ever going to be established at the level of a scientific theory
A = A

[Anonymous No.21462690]

>>21462656
>But nothing here is ever going to be established at the level of a scientific theory, and that's fine.
By why is that your only standard for certainty?

[Anonymous No.21462695]

Do you look at or even bother to learn what we know about the universe now?
No reject that, the greeks knew better 2000 years ago.

[Anonymous No.21462703]

>>21462379
Says the retard on 4chan kek

[Anonymous No.21462705]

>>21462695
We don't know anything about the universe now, we have more hypotheses and machines operating upon those hypotheses.
>No reject that, the greeks knew better 2000 years ago.
They did. But they had less astronomical data.

[Anonymous No.21462730]

>>21462321
>Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead
>Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.
What a dumb quote, there are lots of philosophers of physics and they publish in both philosophy and physics journals. Pic related for example.

[Anonymous No.21462750]

>>21462369
>All philosophy is historical and humanities focused.

There is a whole subset of philosophers who specialize in the sciences, most often physics, information theory, or interdisciplinary areas. They just fulfil a less glamorous role, sort of akin to mathematicians who work in foundations, physicists who work in quantum foundations, or purely theoretical computer scientists. It's not that the stuff isn't interesting or doesn't sometimes help major developments in the field, it's just too far removed from headline discoveries to grab attention.

Hawking was from the peak anti-philosophy Copenhagen orthodoxy days, where people were literally hounded out of their jobs for questioning Copenhagen orthodoxy. It set physics back decades. The next gen, guys like Tegmark, have plenty of respect for philosophers of science, as did Bohr, Einstein, etc.

[Anonymous No.21462755]

>>21462672
>A = A
No, A ≠ A.

[Anonymous No.21462761]

>>21462755
Madness.

[Anonymous No.21462780]

>>21462321
>Thoughts?
Figuring out "how" the world works is for the sciences
Figuring out "why" is for philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21462790]

>>21462755
Hegel never claimed that.

[Anonymous No.21462826]

>>21462321
>What did he mean by this?
Can you not read?

[Anonymous No.21462836]

>>21462640
You sound panicked

[Anonymous No.21462896]

>>21462640
Good post.

[Anonymous No.21462910]

I hate rationalists so fucking much. Both theist and atheist.
It's due to assholes like Plato and Descartes that rationalists plague the world today.
For your information, your senses never ever lie to you. That's not even possible for a perception to lie in the first place, contrary to what pieces of shit rationalists keep saying.

When you make a mistake stemming from a perception, the perception is never faulty, it's your interpretation which sucks.

And then those rationalist assholes spend 2500 FUCKING YEARS saying rationality is the sure way to truth. AND GUESS WHAT MOTHERFUCKER< NONE OF THOSE RATIONALIST FOUND ANY TRUTH WITH THEIR MIGHTY RATIONALITY. FUCK

2500 FUCKING YEARS THEY"VE BEEN AT IT. FUCK YOU


the truth is that rationality is a meme by rationalists. Rationality is just imagination and then the rationalists are in a dead end, because since FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT PLATO , they try to distinguish between ''''''''retarded imaginary takes'''' and ''''''''totally truth stemming from LE MIND LOL"".
"JUSTIFIABLE KNOWLEDGE"" MY ASS. FUCK YOU PLATO. PRAISE DIOGEN.

[Anonymous No.21462959]

>>21462755
WE'RE BREAKING THE CONDITIONING!!!

[Anonymous No.21462967]

>>21462910
>When you make a mistake stemming from a perception, the perception is never faulty, it's your interpretation which sucks.
Your perception IS the interpretation.

>PRAISE DIOGEN.
Holy cringe. Go back to r*ddit.

[Anonymous No.21462995]

>>21462321

[Anonymous No.21463019]

>>21462321
Those are metaphysical questions, and have nothing to do with physics, math or science, as they imply that the answers are currently beyond the knowledge of the phsyical, hence meta-physical. The Greeks and Romans of 2000 years ago already explored all this to death and there really isn't much more to say, unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.21463022]

>>21462321
>What did he mean by this? Thoughts?
He was admitting he doesn't have a background in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21463050]

>>21462330
I wish science would be destroyed so people like Richard Dorkins and Nigger Science Man would lose their jobs.

[Anonymous No.21463052]

>>21462910
ok a bent stick in a vat of water must be really bent then?

[Anonymous No.21463424]

Every philosophical claim falls into 1 of 5 categories:

1. Pointless language games
>Look at my made up mathy-larpy definition of knowledge/morality/existence or whatever ambiguous natural language term. Oh no, it doesn't work because of trivial counterexample. Repeat ad nauseam.

2. Making up unfalsifiable nonsense without real world applications
>Platonic realm of ideas, noumena, thing-in-itself etc

3. Dogmatism
>You morally OUGHT to behave like this ... because you just have to, okay?

4. Outright anti-intellectualism and blatant falsehoods
>Science is le wrong, logic is le wrong, there is no truth, there are infinitely many genders etc

5. Trivialities hiding behind unnecessarily verbose language
>Everything is happening in a social, economic and cultural context? Wow, that's so deep, we need to write 1000 pages about it.

[Anonymous No.21463440]

>>21462369
>Yet his books are still more philosophically interesting than nth commentary on a particular word choice by Heidegger
Emphatically no.

[Anonymous No.21463474]

>>21463424
Imagine being this retarded

[Anonymous No.21463628]

>>21462547
Science is inherently philosophical, retard. You're the classic example of the type of idiot that got into philosophy as some sort of a counterposition with science, and based on how it enhances your "identity". Too bad people like you rarely recognize the levels of stupidity you reach, apparent to everyone else. Philosophy outside of science = bad philosophy that has no say on truth ever.

[Anonymous No.21463636]

physics is awesome at all in its own right but its ultimately a dead end and anyone with half a brain knows it. its no replacement for metaphysics

[Anonymous No.21463647]

>>21462750
You know full well what you're describing is the minority
Yes, good philosophy of quantum mechanics is better than Hawking, but Hawking is better than anyone who is primarily a philosopher and who isnt lead to philosophical questions through his engagement with science first. This is why the anti-science memes on this board are such parody: you cancall people midwits, but if you aren't a professional scientist first, you're invariably in the lower end of the curve (i wonder where their philosophical scepticism of science disappears with iq results, hardly the shining beacon of scientific achievement)

[Anonymous No.21463656]

>>21463474
Seethe. My post remains unrefuted.

[Anonymous No.21463669]

Science and math are our only methods of gaining objective knowledge. There are some questions science and math can't answer, but if they can't then nobody can. Any other methodology is low IQ cope. In particular philosophy neither has a defined methodology nor has it ever solved any problem.

[Anonymous No.21463679]

>>21462790
Hegel literally says exactly A ≠ A, but the truth is rather the whole process of a thing coming into being, the truth is the whole, the flower does not refute the bus, etc.

That's paraphrasing but it's right in the famous preface to PhS and is literally one of the most famous Hegel quotes. I had a whole paper on the handful of philosophers who denied the normal, reflective etc. conception of identity and Hegel was the only famous one who radically parted from the norm on identity, Liebnitz equivalence, etc., but we were told not to pick him if we couldn't deal with parsing page long, 36 clause sentences that bordered on totally incoherent. I thought I could do it and had to write a later email begging to change after I tried to actually read the Phenomenology and Logic and thought I was going to be sick.

[Anonymous No.21463697]

>>21463679
>I thought I could do it and had to write a later email begging to change after I tried to actually read the Phenomenology and Logic and thought I was going to be sick.

You lucky you walked away with your mind in tact

[Anonymous No.21463699]

>>21463628
>Science is inherently philosophical, retard.
I missed the part where something being philosophical made it philosophy you numbskull. Or do you mean to say vapid unoriginal cliches should be put on the same level as Aristotle? Nevertheless it is completely safe to say that Hawking, like modern science in general, has no direct relation to philosophy and only carries unconsciously certain philosophical principles with him from hundreds of years ago. This is why it seems possible to scientists to oppose philosophy with science.

>Philosophy outside of science = bad philosophy that has no say on truth ever
Hahahaha. Sorry Kierkegaard, this numbskull anon says science is the absolute arbiter of truth. We'll have to throw you in the bin.

[Anonymous No.21463700]

>>21462755
>>21463679
*The flower does not refute the bus. The acorn does not refute the tree. The truth is acorn to tree, to the branch that begets more acorns, a circle of circles, the universal is the thing, the tree that grows from the nutrition of the soil of particulars in a process of circular generation, blah, blah, blah.

I couldn't get all of it but the dudes does seem like the godfather of cybernetics/complexity studies in a way. And A isn't A because A is the process by which A is. Sort of a precursor to process philosophy/theology.

I know Hegel was the main influence for Russel and analytic philosophy in that he triggered them all so hard they had to totally change philosophy to banish Hegel's ghost, but he seems to have really influenced Whitehead's later split off too. Now ironically analytic logicalists are into his shit because the objective logic isn't subject to incompleteness and undefinability the way axiomatic systems are.

I can't make heads or tails of category theory so I don't know if it's even coherent, it's just funny to see it come full circle. I dont think anyone since Aristotle has so dominated people's thoughts behind the scenes for so long. Even politics, modern liberalism, modern nationalism, communism, and fascism, is just 150+ years of Hegel's children fighting each other.

[Anonymous No.21463703]

>>21463669
This is only true if you take for granted the philosophical position that philosophy is intended to solve a formulaic problem.

[Anonymous No.21463729]

>>21463679
>Hegel literally says exactly A ≠ A
No, he doesn't.

[Anonymous No.21463765]

>>21463019
This simply isn't true. New physics has given us all sorts of new challenges in describing what "reality is really like?"

For example, pic related is in part a scientific history and physics primer, but then focuses on the ways through which we have to interpret mathematical models and empiricism using instruments that allow us to observe thing like quarks, etc. It's certainly changed quite a bit since the days of the Greeks.

Hell, you had a massive sea change just from the philosophy of Aristotle, which dominated through Scholasticism and the Renaissance, to conceptions of being and time in Liebnitz and Newton, which different fairly radically from one another.

Advances in philosophy are inevitably bound up in advances and mathematics, and most of the main figures in either did both until quite recently, e.g. Decartes and linear algebra, Liebnitz and calculus, Hilbert, Boole, Mach, etc. Even figures primarily seen as physicists did a lot of work that is now considered philosophy until somewhat recently, so you have folks like Newton to Boltzmann, to Maxwell, to Bohr. Bohr basically helped generate a (deeply flawed) logical positivists interpretation of quantum mechanics, a system which is definitely in part metaphysics and radical empiricism.

This is like saying math and science haven't advanced since ancient Greece. The scientific method IS something generated by philosophy. Kuhnian paradigm shifts are generally new ways of looking at being, both in terms of mathematical modeling and metaphysical descriptions of what being is.

>>21463424
Pointless logical language games gave us the theoretical computer science of the 10s-40s that later gave us the information revolution.

You can claim the same thing about mathematical foundations, which is essentially the same thing as philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of information is essentially just theoretical computer science bracketed off to the most theoretical topics with a more interdisciplinary focus through information theory. Advances in these areas certainly trickle down to major changes in applied sciences.

Also, you get a whole lot of nonsense from scientists with no philosophical training trying to do foundational work that borders on metaphysics. This leads to bad science and incoherent, e.g., biologists trying to mix and match biosemiotics based on Pierce and Shannon's quantitative theory of information. Obviously work that parses the difference between different forms of information, e.g., Deacon on the links between Boltzmann Entropy and Shannon Entropy, or Floridi's (IMO failed) attempts to create a definition of information that can span physics to biology to economics, is important for advances.

Trying to banish "word games" and metaphysics from science. It's called logical positivism and was hugely influential in early quantum mechanics through the 90s. If you just try to read "just the science" from conservative older physicists you're actually reading Carnap

[Anonymous No.21463782]

>>21463729
Phenomenology para 16:
>If it was once the case that the bare possibility of thinking of something in some other fashion was sufficient to refute a given idea, and the naked possibility, the bare general thought, possessed and passed for the entire substantive value of actual knowledge; similarly we find here all the value ascribed to the general idea in this bare form without concrete realisation; and we see here, too, the style and method of speculative contemplation identified with dissipating and, resolving what is determinate and distinct, or rather with hurling it down, without more ado and without any justification, into the abyss of vacuity. To consider any specific fact as it is in the Absolute, consists here in nothing else than saying about it that, while it is now doubtless spoken of as something specific, yet in the Absolute, in the abstract identity A = A, there is no such thing at all, for everything is there all one. To pit this single assertion, that “in the Absolute all is one”, against the organised whole of determinate and complete knowledge, or of knowledge which at least aims at and demands complete development – to give out its Absolute as the night in which, as we say, all cows are black – that is the very naïveté of emptiness of knowledge.

>The formalism which has been deprecated and despised by recent philosophy, and which has arisen once more in philosophy itself, will not disappear from science, even though its inadequacy is known and felt, till the knowledge of absolute reality has become quite clear as to what its own true nature consists in. Having in mind that the general idea of what is to be done, if it precedes the attempt to carry it out, facilitates the comprehension of this process, it is worth while to indicate here some rough idea of it, with the hope at the same time that this will give us the opportunity to set aside certain forms whose habitual presence is a hindrance in the way of speculative knowledge.

The Lesser Logic, sec 115

>When the principles of Essence are taken as essential principles of thought they become predicates of a presupposed subject, which, because they are essential, is 'everything'. The propositions thus arising have been stated as universal Laws of Thought. Thus the first of them, the maxim of Identity, reads: Everything is identical with itself, A = A: and negatively, A cannot at the same time be A and Not-A. This maxim, instead of being a true law of thought, is nothing but the law of abstract understanding. The propositional form itself contradicts it: for a proposition always promises a distinction between subject and predicate; while the present one does not fulfil what its form requires.

Cont...

[Anonymous No.21463787]

>>21463782
But the Law is particularly set aside by the following so-called Laws of Thought, which make laws out of its opposite. It is asserted that the maxim of Identity, though it cannot be proved, regulates the procedure of every consciousness, and that experience shows it to be accepted as soon as its terms are apprehended. To this alleged experience of the logic books may be opposed the universal experience that no mind thinks or forms conceptions or speaks in accordance with this law, and that no existence of any kind whatever conforms to it.

>Utterances after the fashion of this pretended law (A planet is a planet; Magnetism is magnetism; Mind is Mind) are, as they deserve to be, reputed silly. That is certainly a matter of general experience. The logic which seriously propounds such laws and the scholastic world in which alone they are valid have long been discredited with practical common sense as well as with the philosophy of reason.

[Anonymous No.21463789]

>>21463699
>Hahahaha. Sorry Kierkegaard, this numbskull anon says science is the absolute arbiter of truth. We'll have to throw you in the bin.
Based. He was just a conman you know?
>This is why it seems possible to scientists to oppose philosophy with science.
Nah, philosophers did this to themselves by pretending they can do philosophy outside the context of science. And why? All to satisfy some frail egos. Hawking has unironically more in common with aristotle than most modern people into philosophy: his metaphysics was interwoven into his practice of the sciences, thats why its, you know, metaphysics - "after the" physics. See how it's"after", not "before", as it turns out. This is what modern day philosophical plebs do not get, simply because they lack the capability to become masters of any science, the only thing that would allow them to tackle any philosophical problem in a meaningful way

[Anonymous No.21463885]

>>21463789
Yeah, what plebs. They can't into science. It's not like philosophers of physics take graduate level courses in physics, have worked in physics shops like CERN, or hold advanced degrees on physics. Ok, sure, some "philosophers of physics," might have their PhDs in physics, not philosophy, or both, and some might have done a physics undergrad or biology master's or something. Just look at the jokers in pic related, they think they can understand science. Lol!

[Anonymous No.21463891]

>>21462321
What the fuck does science explains? It doesn't explain shite. They still get buttblasted over the question of consciousness. They tell smugly tell you that there are neural corelate for everything but ask why certain neural corelate produce certain experience and they will be silent. What they create are model out of thin air. If you wanna hate philosophy then at least hate science otherwise you're giant fag.

At the end of science it is same cope as philosophy that
>it is because......because it is, okay?

[Anonymous No.21463897]

>science
>metaphysics

Pick one.

[Anonymous No.21463919]

>>21463885
Again, thats the minority. Philosophy is also something much different, as you well know. Besides that note, you could well argue that their study program is suspicious in the extreme, dince majority of it is philosophy, in the previous sense too, rather than majority being physics. Making philosophy of science, sonething AFTER physics, while being more ignorant about the science than the actual scientists, is an outrageously stupid idea. They should enter science programs and then write books,like Heisenberg. So, even if philosophy of science has some nominal respectability, and certainly much superiority to the rest of the gsrbage heap that is philosophy, in its current form it really is misguided.

[Anonymous No.21463966]

>>21463897
>Science and metaphysics can't go together.
T. The logical positivists.

The above position is actually retarded, T. Actually also the logical positivists a few decades later, including your boy in the pic being on both sides.

[Anonymous No.21463983]

>>21463765
>Pointless logical language games gave us the theoretical computer science of the 10s-40s that later gave us the information revolution.
I disagree. Those were never pointless, but were directly tied to applications. They came up with the whole computation theory to solve problems in math, physics and engineering.

>mathematical foundations, which is essentially the same thing as philosophy of mathematics
Wrong. Foundational math is rigorous and has a well-defined methodology. It's about reverse engineering which axioms are necessary to guarantee at least the same results we have already established.

>information theory
... has nothing to do with philosophy. Information is a well-defined concept that originated in engineering applications relating to signal communication, and was later found to be paralleled by descriptions of entropy in thermodynamics.

>Also, you get a whole lot of nonsense from scientists with no philosophical training trying to do foundational work that borders on metaphysics.
Someone with "philosophical training" has no advantage in this regard. In fact, there is not even such a thing as "philosophical training".

>This leads to bad science and incoherent, e.g., biologists
Biologists are the low IQ plebs of STEM. Nobody takes them seriously.

>Trying to banish "word games" and metaphysics from science.
I want to ban them from philosophy as well.

>It's called logical positivism
"Logical positivism" is a poorly constructed strawman only ever used by philosoplebs to discredit actual methodological criticism. Just because "logical positivism" (which was only another philosopleb failure and never related to actual science) failed, it doesn't imply that questions like "Does existence exist?" become any less meaningless. Wittgenstein btfo'd metaphysics cucks and their language games in the 40's already.

[Anonymous No.21464011]

>>21462321
>Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.
He lived in SUCH a dogmatic little bubble. The real scientific development that philosophers by and large are not keeping up with is what we are learning from NDEs, and they are ripe for a philosophical harvest.

Of course, nothing gets normies and NPCs more uncomfortable than the idea that NDEs are ACTUALLY real, and that there are valid reasons to think that they are and that we should take them seriously.

Here is an extremely persuasive argument for why NDEs are real:

https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

It makes a huge deal about the fact that NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and that when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

>"Statistics collected show that the "deeper" the NDE the greater the percentage of those who come away certain of the existence of the afterlife. Among those with the deepest experiences 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"."

Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. And so would you, me, or anyone, including the most dogmatic atheists and skeptics, because it is VASTLY more self-evidently real than this brief little experience of life on Earth we have now. When you dream and wake up, you instantly realize that life is more real than your dreams. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as you immediately realize that life is the deep, deep dream and the NDE world is the undeniably real world by comparison.>>21462330
We are here to learn to love and be kind and thrive here despite how hard it is in this world.
We come from paradise. As one person quoted in pic related summarized their NDE:

>"As my soul left my body, I found myself floating in a swirling ocean of multi-colored light. At the end, I could see and feel an even brighter light pulling me toward it, and as it shined on me, I felt indescribable happiness. I remembered everything about eternity - knowing, that we had always existed, and that all of us are family. Then old friends and loved ones surrounded me, and I knew without a doubt I was home, and that I was so loved."

[Anonymous No.21464014]

>>21463983
>Someone with "philosophical training" has no advantage in this regard. In fact, there is not even such a thing as "philosophical training".

Hegel:

>In teaching philosophy in the gymnasium the abstract form is, in the first instance, straightaway the chief concern. The young must first die to sight and hearing, must be torn away from concrete representations, must be withdrawn into the night of the soul and so learn to see on this new level, to hold fast and distinguish determinations.

>>To learn to think speculatively, which is specified in the directive as the chief purpose of preparatory philosophical instruction, is thus surely to be seen as the necessary goal. Preparation for it is first abstract thinking and then dialectical thinking, and beyond that consists in attaining representations of speculative content.

>abstract thinking

John Locke defined abstraction in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding:

'So words are used to stand as outward marks of our internal ideas, which are taken from particular things; but if every particular idea that we take in had its own special name, there would be no end to names. To prevent this, the mind makes particular ideas received from particular things become general; which it does by considering them as they are in the mind—mental appearances—separate from all other existences, and from the circumstances of real existence, such as time, place, and so on. This procedure is called abstraction. In it, an idea taken from a particular thing becomes a general representative of all of the same kind, and its name becomes a general name that is applicable to any existing thing that fits that abstract idea.' (2.11.9)

Simply put: Scientists cant META.

That's why their dislike of metaphysics is nothing but very salient case of sour grapes.

More clearly expressed: Scientists seethe and cope

[Anonymous No.21464021]

>>21464011
>The real scientific development that philosophers by and large are not keeping up with is what we are learning from NDEs

How out of the loop do you have to be to think this?

[Anonymous No.21464028]

>>21464014
The pinnacle of abstract thinking is math though and not philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21464038]

>>21464028
Oh you mean that science dealing with shapes and measures rather than abstracting even from these and dealing with pure concepts?

[Anonymous No.21464066]

>>21463789
>philosophers did this to themselves by pretending they can do philosophy outside the context of science.
If philosophy encompasses science then it by definition is outside the context of science. You have trouble with definitions don't you? But such a confusion is only the result of your rigid, dogmatic view.

>Hawking has unironically more in common with aristotle than most modern people into philosophy
(Embarrassingly ignorant statement, nevertheless.) Yet somehow I don't think Aristotle wouldn't consider Plato a charlatan...

>>21463919
>Again, thats the minority.
Mega-cope. Hawking's statement was about the nature of philosophy itself, not the particularities of what modern philosopher's believe. You haven't understood him here, yet because you need to defend his statement no matter what you're trying to find a reason to explain why science has taken the responsibilities of philosophy, so you come out with a pathetic excuse like 'they're the minority'. Even if we ignore your constant generalisations about *all* modern philosophers it's just completely false to pretend there aren't countless science-centred philosophers today, or who don't entirely fit in with your dogmatic religion of contemporary Scientism. You're lower than an ape, because you're too stupid to even see how half of modern philosophy itself, Analytics, may align with you. You're just throwing your arms about, screaming that philosophy doesn't fit with science today. Refusing to engage with any of the well known responses to such a statement (from every direction) and typing out any pathetic response you can think of, just to stay on your position. Just to be right. Would you mind telling us what this marvellous, *meaningful* answer contemporary science gives to philosophical problems? No! You couldn't actually respond with anything substantial. Because you have nothing, you're just dogmatic, like Hawking.

[Anonymous No.21464123]

>>21464066
>If philosophy encompasses science then it by definition is outside the context of science.
No, that's again a misinterpretation of the "meta" part, which you can't seem to shake due to your dogmatic adherence to philosophical frauds. Metaphysics = after physics. This relation doesn't grant independence to metaphysics, but rather that of contiguity with science: hence, science-independent metaphydichs is a fraud by pseuds.
>Yet somehow I don't think Aristotle wouldn't consider Plato a charlatan...
Yet he felt the need to improve on Plato's bullshit
>Hawking's statement was about the nature of philosophy itself, not the particularities of what modern philosopher's believe.
Yes, nature of philosophy as it is viewed today, which is the philosophy he knows and sees, one diverged in many places from science. But on a deeper level, there is a rejection of the concept of philosophy, after it has been polluted like this: the word science should encompass also the problems of result interpretation and method, since philosophy has come to be associated with so much baggage from a flawed heuristic and a mistake about its true role.
>Would you mind telling us what this marvellous, *meaningful* answer contemporary science gives to philosophical problems?
There are no philosophical problems except those that arise in the context of science. Most philosophical problems are predicated on the false notion that metaphysics is an independent avenue of study accessible to non-physicists, and thst you can extend your knowledge from piling concepts and words on top of each other. Only terminal midwits with ego issues are unable to see this. It's time to stop talking sbout philosophy, time to stop smuggling these stupid egoist cunts anywhere near legitimacy, and return metaphysics to the hands of scientific experts. Explications of Greek grammar should not interest anyine in the current year, but I haven't much hope for truly stupid fucks like you.

[Anonymous No.21464268]

>>21463765
This dude gets it. The rest of this thread is just pointless infighting between the two respectable academic fields of Science and Philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21464307]

>>21464123
Epistemologists, mathematicians/philosophers of mathematics (hardly a distinction anymore), and logicians definetly have something to add to science vis-á-vis methodology and an understanding of how science can arrive at knowledge.

You are absolutely correct that philosophy should be more informed by science. Example: Jaworski's Philosophy of Mind is an excellent primer to the field as far as philosophy is concerned but suffers badly from lack of background on the findings of cognitive science and neuroscience. But you also have stuff like the Great Courses series by Grim that blends them excellently.

The idea that physics is the starting point for metaphysics is a little ludicrous when you have no less than 9 major interpretations of quantum mechanics, none with majority support anymore. Said work in quantum foundations has been carried along by a significant degree by philosophers of physics or partnerships between them and theoretical physicists and mathematicians more often.

Just because the origins of "metaphysics" has "physics," which didn't exist in its modern form then, doesn't make physics necessarily foundational. There is the entire issue of Kant's trancendental and the way in which human faculties and tendencies of intuition shape how we view reality. For example, the attack on the entire idea of distinct objects that exist "of themselves," i.e. sans relations, has come under attack from both the side of cognitive neuroscience and physics, particularly vis-á-vis QFT/QCD. Pic related for example, which is obviously in part a philosophical work, but is by a cognitive scientist.

Plenty of philosophy of science/metaphysics informed by science IS published each year. It just tends to be scientists who publish it because philosophy is a small field and a large proportion of it is historical philosophy or humanities related (aesthetics, ethics, etc.). I don't see how you can claim that there is a sensible way to ground aesthetics and ethics in physics.

It's also hard to have any background in cognitive neuroscience and claim philosophers like Chalmers and Dennett haven't made a huge impact on the field and interpreting research findings in a holistic (if sometimes dumb) framework.

[Anonymous No.21464398]

>>21464307
My metaphysics professor told me scientists do lots of philosophy and they do it very badly. He said they should work together with the philosophers instead of arguing back and forth but really what he meant is that scientists should shut the fuck up for a second and sit down and listen to them lecture on metaphysics. I wholeheartedly agreed with him.

[Anonymous No.21464407]

good riddance to that which has clogged the poor mind of many a man

[Anonymous No.21464504]

>>21464407
YWN achieve actual knowledge or attain the Absolute with that attitude. Behold.... the basis for knowledge and being...

[Anonymous No.21464522]

>>21464504
Dear God, people have been mixing category theory, the most autistic fringe of mathematics with Hegel's Logic, the most autistic fringe of philosophy. This is truly planet-destroying, anti-matter weapons' grade autism.

[Anonymous No.21464546]

>>21464011
take your faggy substance dualism back to /x coping faggot

[Anonymous No.21464829]

>>21463983
>information theory
>... has nothing to do with philosophy. Information is a well-defined concept that originated in engineering applications relating to signal communication, and was later found to be paralleled by descriptions of entropy in thermodynamics.

Way to show you have at best an undergrad survey understanding of information theory or an extremely siloed engineering view.

The information theory literature is absolutely fucking full of references on how the field lacks a coherent definition of information to use across various disciplines and levels of abstraction. You can't make it more than 10 papers into the subject without this point being hammered home and the same constellations of papers on the topic getting cited.

It's also fiercely debates even within single sub-disciplines. In quantum mechanics you have the John Wheeler's boys claiming "it from bit," and the John Bell's of the world saying "that doesn't make sense, 'information about what?'"

[Anonymous No.21464852]

>>21462321
Most of it is wrong. Any of Foucault's interviews can offer a quick rebuttal to these claims. It's scientists and their institutions the ones that are out of touch.

[Anonymous No.21464867]

>>21464504
Source? For uh research purposes

[Anonymous No.21464881]

>>21462321
Sorry, Steve. Philosophers are too busy figuring out how science -particularly physics- came to be a servant of power and the oppressor of free thinkers.

[Anonymous No.21464882]

Science grew out of philosophy and there is tons of implicit philosophy still stuck in it.

If you don't study both you get stuck internalizing Newton's theological instincts into your theories without even realizing it. All the evidence for relativity was there before Einstein published his papers, it's just that people were totally entrapped in Newton's way of thinking.

Today it is conservative orthodoxy to consider that the physical world is determined by universal, causal, eternal, and perfect laws that do not vary with the universe's conditions.

This is not something that emerged from empiricism. It's Platonism wed to Christianity plus the enlightenment ideal of a clockwork creator, that was embraced by the great pioneers of physics.

But the concept runs into serious issues. If experimental evidence supports the idea that the universe "computes itself," and that the universe is also finite and has a finite information content (or at least that the visible universe does), then how can such laws require computing with infinite real numbers? They can't. And there are ways to test the difference in theory, although they are beyond us for the moment. But if you just accepted conservative dogma in science, you'd never challenge the primacy of eternal Platonic laws as an essential facet of the physical.

And here is where you need philosophy. Landauer and Davies, etc., had places to turn and systems to use when their intuitions and findings began not to match up with orthodoxy.

Ironically, things have flipped and now it is atheists and those hostile to religion who seem more into embracing eternal Platonism as something that MUST be true aprori, going as far as to denigrate anyone who questions the idea and claim any such questions are unscientific. I don't have a dog in the religion fight, it's just ironic that they do this and are really defending Newton reading church dogma into physics. It's just like how determinists have a hard on for the Principle of Sufficient Reason, but fail to grasp that this grew explicitly out of Liebnitz religious convictions, to say nothing of the fact that Liebnitz actually saw it as necessary for free will, not counter to it, but that's a whole different can of worms.

[Anonymous No.21464897]

>>21464852
How does Foucault refute the claims in the OP?

[Anonymous No.21464898]

>>21462321
Stephen Hawking is proof that having a high IQ doesn't take the midwit out of you. He was basically a redditor, only smarter.

[Anonymous No.21464900]

>>21464867
Nlab, one of their articles on The Science of Logic or sublation. IDK, there is a lot of schizo shit there.

If you search academic papers for category theory and Hegel or Lawvere you can find even higher level autism. There is also "information theoretic Hegelian/Boehme inspired models of the 'Bit Bang'" out there, and an entire, remarkably usable, description of quantum mechanics, mostly used for quantum computing but I think also for theory, called XY Calculus built up from category theory. That's a bit more down to Earth, but no doubt they will get combined soon enough.

[Anonymous No.21464919]

>>21464897

[Anonymous No.21464922]

>>21462910
>>21463052
Instantly refuted

[Anonymous No.21464927]

>>21464028
Define what you think philosophy is.

[Anonymous No.21464982]

>>21464898
He's s product of his era. Bertrand Russell was used to being the smartest in his class and having things come easy to him and got brutally filtered by Hegel. He also tended to pronounce things in very black and white, condescending tones and had clout from being friendly with a lot of high profile mathematicians and scientists. Between him in the Anglophone world, which became more and more dominant after WWII, and the Vienna Circle, they convinced a lot of people that philosophy was mostly broken nonsense, even parts that weren't, and tried to radically purge it and shrink its scope and connections to science except through prescribed ways. Whitehead split off on another angle but his work is incredibly difficult and so has way less impact. Russel sounded authoritative but was easy enough to parse and so he has way more influence. Particularly, these guys influenced Bohr, who then locked very specific ideas about philosophy and positivism into physics as a sort of dogma until really the 1990s.

You here about multiverses and Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation all the time now, but they often neglect that Everett was heavily pressured by Bohr's circle to recant, almost to the point of not getting his doctorate. He got hounded out of physics entirely and ended up dying early, pissed off about the whole thing. His work was later discovered as this great landmark achievement, but even in the late 90s it was almost impossible to find.

What is funny is that despite this, and the collapse of Russel's project, people still buy the stark black and white pronouncements from appeals to (then) advanced mathematics as gospel, and assume all the logic Russel wrote off is actually garbage. But The Science of Logic will almost certainly be talked about long after the Principia is a historical footnote.

Also, IDK how people fell for it. This was a guy who ended up saying of Zeno's Paradoxes, "yup it's basically right, motion doesn't exist," because he couldn't grasp the denseness problem and Cantor's continuum any other way. He thought he was so far beyond Aristotle's logic that he got blinded to Aristotle's perfect refutation of the Arrow Paradox as a fallacy of composition, i.e., time is emergent, a consequence of change. He mistook the map, representing time as a line, for the territory, change over three dimensions. Time "flowing" at all is incoherent, a mixed metaphor.

[Anonymous No.21464984]

>>21464011
You are very dedicated

[Anonymous No.21465003]

>>21464982
MWI isn't a great achievement, it's just another interpretation of QM that's necessarily experimentally indistinguishable from all the others, of which there are quite a few nowadays.

[Anonymous No.21465004]

>>21465003
At least, as of right now. There may be some experiment in the future that rules out MWI, and the same could be said of any other theory of quantum foundations.

[Anonymous No.21465136]

>>21464984
Has he done this before?

[Anonymous No.21465224]

>>21465136
Do you not lurk much?

[Anonymous No.21465251]

Philosophy is just like mathematics, maybe five percent of it actually has any relevance and usefulness in the real world and everything else is completely invented theoretical mental masturbation

[Anonymous No.21465610]

>>21465251
I think the contrary is true. Keeping people occupied thinking is a marvelous contribution that benefits all of the world. On the other hand, pragmatic people eager to make things that are "useful in the real world" are the ones that have us all fucked up.

[Anonymous No.21465755]

>>21462321
What a trite, philstinic view.

[Anonymous No.21466077]

philosophy is like that one sperg kid you played dungeons and dragons with, who thought he could cast spells in real life
its just entertainment, taking it seriously is extremely embarrassing
>why
guys who study aeronautics can make flying things, reliably and predictably
guys who study nuclear reactors can make electricity, reliably and predictably
guys who study surgery can fix you, reliably and predictably

now, what the fuck can philosophers, political scientists, gender scientists, social scientists and so on do, reliably and predictably?
if you are one, you are an embarrassing mental midget, your field has no predictive power, you are not an intellectual, you are a pseud

[Anonymous No.21466101]

Physics doesnt concern itseld with the why but the what and where ans ho- ACK!

What a tired cliché... Pointless semantics...
We have a working theory for HOW the universe evolved from a very dense and hot state, but we don't have a theory for HOW that state came to be. When Hawking said "what's north of the north pole" or whatever in reference to time before the beginning of time he was just trolling midwits.

[Anonymous No.21466212]

>>21463628
So you're arguing that subjective truths are < objective truths because muh science. When in reality subjective truths that are undefinable by the senses but within the mind provided by the infinite nature of God, as Descartes puts it despite saying that 'we should never allow ourselves to be persuaded except by the evidence of our reason" and It is to be observed that I say 'of our reason' and not 'of our senses' or 'of our imagination. This does not warrant however the REDDITOR CLAIM that OBJECTIVE TRUTHS FROM OBSERVABLE/SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS INHERENTLY > SUBJECTIVE NATURE OF OUR DIRECTED THOUGHTS FROM GOD THROUGH FAITHS.

>>21463699
literally this pseud >>21463628 deserves to be banned for disrespecting the father of existentialism who proved that by virtue of the absurd against rational reasoning one can attain freedom (PARALLELING KANT by sufficing that reason is still insufficient for attaining freedom) through the absurd nature of one holding faith as either a 'knight of infinite resignation/faith'

>>21463789
>He was just a conman you know?
How if he's literally the first mf to claim that muh Basedence is a joke, even dispelling all mental health shit.

Faith > Science. Simple as

[Anonymous No.21466230]

>>21466077
>guys who study aeronautics can make flying things, reliably and predictably
>guys who study nuclear reactors can make electricity, reliably and predictably
>guys who study surgery can fix you, reliably and predictably
Midwit take

[Anonymous No.21466283]

>>21466230
ok if philosophy isnt fake and/or wrong, why cant it solve/do anything? it honestly seems like a field of /x/ schizo retards, so not even the entertaining few ones, but pathetic /x/ kind, that cant do stuff with actual math so they cope with their gay field that doesnt achieve anything

if aeronautics can say 'we built hypersonic missiles!' as their crowning achievement (so far), what can philosophers say?

[Anonymous No.21466329]

>>21466283
they stole grant money with class

[Anonymous No.21466364]

>>21465003
It's one of the first, Bohm aside, and extremely elegant in that it doesn't have ad hoc collapse, keeping entirely to the Schrodinger Equation. And it's not just MWI, he was apparently a very impressive student, someone Wheeler was very excited to introduce in person to the Bohr circle, so the brow beating out of the field is especially bad.

It takes time to come up with good experiments for falsification. Davies has a theoretical way to distinguish It From Bit, at least Landauer style, "the universe computes itself," flavor, which would also determine if infinite reals are really required for physics.

Versions of objective collapse have actually been falsified.

Modified Wigner's Friend experiments with photons at least give us some reason to doubt consciousness causes collapse, since if two observers can't necessarily agree on the status of a system and you have contextuality, that doesn't seem to fit. Granted, that's not a popular one.

[Anonymous No.21466384]

>>21466283
>what can philosophers say?
For it is the same thing that can be thought and that can be.

[Anonymous No.21466416]

Philosophers are like a government. It doesnt matter if its monarchical/feudal or modern one. They simply demand taxes. Gimme gimme gimme gimme!

You sold an apple today? Gimme half!
You had a thought today? Impossible without philosophers! Gimme gimme gimme!
Ooh is that a physics? Physics did thing? Im philosopher!!! Gimme gimme gimme!!!
They cured cancer? You want to congratulate them? But did you forget someone? Im philosopher, I am responsible [?], the thought tax, gimme gimme gimme gimme!!!!
Wiped your own ass? Tied shoelaces? Impossible without Plato and Aristotle!!! Gimme gimme gimme gimme!

Philosopher genocide best day of my life.

[Anonymous No.21466423]

>>21466077
IDK, economics grads on Wall St. seem pretty good at making money and making other people's money vanish.

[Anonymous No.21466454]

>>21464011
>100% of people who have NDEs come to believe in an afterlife
uh, can I get a source other than the book itself?

[Anonymous No.21466471]

>>21463983
retard
>>21463765
only worth post itt

[Anonymous No.21467738]

>>21466416
>Philosophers are like a government.
I stopped reading since this is a bad analogy.

[Anonymous No.21467774]

>>21463897
>Wittgenstein
>not being concerned with metaphysics

[Anonymous No.21468157]

>>21466416
The government takes your money though. Philosophers get paid McDonald's wages or work at actual McDonald's.

When you don't do what a philosopher tells you too, I rarely hear of them raiding someone's house and shooting their dog. Dumb comparison.

[Anonymous No.21468197]

>>21462321
these people are scared of philosophy because it so easy btfos their petty beliefs and prejudices, throwing their dependent and ill-formed mind into chaos. they rather not into it at all.

[Anonymous No.21468207]

>>21462475
That's entirely correct.
Same goes for pseudoscientific areas like Economics, which is why Marxists, Austrians, Neoclassicals all coexist within the same field and their opinions will never change.
None of those people are really interested in knowledge, they are interested only in confirmation bias, all they want is to search for as many arguments as they can to support the views they feel instinctively more inclined to accept.
That's why philosophical progress is only about getting newer and newer arguments for the same old views. Even after two centuries you still have utilitarians and deontologists, realists and non-realists, coherentists and foundationalists endlessly arguing about the same old issues in the same old way other than for a few more polished arguments here and there (which they devise ad hoc so as to escape previous criticisms).

It's only in mathematics, science etc. that you can really escape that frame of mind - or in art, of course, which is not concerned with truth but with pleasure and beauty.
Which is not to say all scientists do it, but they can. The area basically forces them to: if the experiment shows you're wrong, then you're wrong.
As for philosophy, well, maybe one or two very technical philosophers such as Kripke, Putnam or Quine maybe, as well as some old ones like Aristotle, Bacon and Hume, are genuinely interested in knowledge, I don't know, but other than that it really is just about searching for whatever arguments may support your favorite ideas.

Philosophy is only useful insofar as you can understand the concepts you use in your every day life more clearly, but it can never provide answers.
When it comes to science and math, on the other hand, once you accept the premises (the axioms in math; the empirical methods in science; the rules of logic in both), which of course you are free to philosophically reject if you want (it's up to you whether you believe airplanes work by sheer magic/coincidence or by following the true or at least nearly-true laws of the nature), then everything becomes way more rigorous and you start to discover many, many truths about numbers and even more truths (or near-truths, depending on your view of science) about what we experience empirically. And it's no longer up to you whether you have to believe something or not: if the science says it, and you accept the method, then you'll have to believe it even if you don't like. Unlike philosophy, where if you are a socialist you never have to stop being one; and if you're a capitalist you never have to stop being one either, even though both positions seem to contradict each other (at least in most formulations, I guess).

[Anonymous No.21468213]

>>21463050
based

[Anonymous No.21468227]

>>21463424
>there are infinitely many genders
lol

[Anonymous No.21468245]

>>21462321
>the realm of thought requires to be rooted in the realm of material and physics
he is basically asking people to prove thoughts through scientific method and then smugly laughing that they cannot put a thought on a scale, it is how nihilism via science butchered religion, philosophy is dead because we ran out of questions that we can answer the only real way to practice philosophy these days is to write about philosophy of other people who were there first to ask the questions and form speculation and theories as solutions to those
>why are we here?
age old question but we don't have a solid answer to it
>where did we come from
for all we know we might've come from the meteors that are said to have wiped out the dinosaurs as foreign bacteria that interacted with the primordial soup of the earths seas
tldr; philosophers killed philosophy by asking all the "easy" questions and leaving only the ones we can't answer yet

[Anonymous No.21468281]

>>21463424
>1. Pointless language games
Cringe
>2. Making up unfalsifiable nonsense without real world applications
Based
>3. Dogmatism
Based
>4. Outright anti-intellectualism and blatant falsehoods
Cringe
>5. Trivialities hiding behind unnecessarily verbose language
Cringe

[Anonymous No.21468296]

>>21463424
>dogmatism
LMAO

[Anonymous No.21468427]

>>21468227
That's not real science, though, that's propaganda.
Science still maintains the XX-XY chromosome distinction.

It's just that propagandists have redefined "gender" to mean something more different from that biological distinction than it ever did (at least as far as I'm aware of), when in reality the word used to be pretty much synonym with the biological distinction (at least in my language and culture I know it was).
And that *redefinition* is philosophy, a mere fight between different concepts of what "gender" *really* means, when in reality it means whatever you want because you're free to define terms as you feel like it. If I want to call a horse a dog, I can do it...

The basic biological fact of the XX-XY chromosome distinction in many animals still remains a fixed scientific truth - same for all the consequences of this distinction, such as average hormone differences, height differences, strength differences, what organs you have in your body, etc., because the phenotype is ultimately an expression of the genotype (with some environmental influences too).
You're free to invent whatever definitions you want, but the biological fact in itself remains the same.

Biology doesn't say anything about "gender" because it's not in the business of defining dumb philosophical words that people wanna use indiscriminately.
*Even if American scientists themselves say it is*, because scientists are mere technicians who have little general idea what science actually says, most of them read and think very little, and many of them will lie for twitter fame anyways - it's curious how these biologists who talk about many many genders rarely seem to be Saudi, Indian, or Chinese, even though we know those countries have some competent scientists too.

Biology says things about what genes an animal has, how likely it is that it might show this or that phenotypical characteristic, this or that behavior, etc. etc.

Ultimately, everything in biology can be reduced - or at least should be reducible - to long series of extremely dry statements about genes, cells, chemistry, physics, and interactions with the environment (which is also cells, chemistry, physics). The only reason it hasn't happened yet, and probably won't, is that biological systems are too complex to be as well understood as physical or chemical ones. Thing like "Ellen Page is real man because she feels like it!" are not in the scope of biology to decide. All Biology can do is determine her chromosomes, hormone levels, genital organs, sexual fluids, things like that.

[Anonymous No.21468611]

>>21463765
First off: Springer will publish whatever sounds groundbreaking.
Second off: physicists own and want to keep the monopoly on determining 'what reality is' and 'what reality is not'.
Philosophers have known for a long time that phenomenology is just a portion of reality, and have since then -with every ounce of reason- focused more on how culture influences the way we interact with the realm of phenomena. Take space exploration for example, which came right in line with the theory of relativity and the cultural perception of light as the ultimate form of energy. All parallel to a nationalistic competition between two superpowers to harness the power of the atom. Fast forward 50 years: new millennium!! the power of the atom is the devil, now we want to know about quants, entanglement, time travel, information, we live in a simulation you know? like a videogame!!! The power of information. All in an environmentally friendly context!
All along, philosophers, mathematicians, physicists and the rest of science next have been the primary cog that pushes the perception of reality that best serves the powers that fund them. You can name drop experiments, paradigms, theories and currents of thought all you want, but it all begins and ends inside a power structure. Power of humans over phenomena, of phenomena over humans, of humans over other humans, even the power of language, intellectual power at the service of physical power and all of that permeates and takes form in culture, which is the medium, and what's captured the interest of philosophers, leaving the fundamental questions to whoever wants to entertain themselves with them, in this case physicists.
One last thing: 'good science' needs the test of time. In the meantime, all of it is 'bad science'.

[Anonymous No.21468636]

>>21468427
Gender isn't sex, hence two different words for them (in English anyhow). Ancient Greek complaints about men not acting like men don't make sense if gender is sex. How can males not act like all/most males act? Male behavior is what males actually do. Men's behavior, re: gender, is different, a prescribed ideal.

Also, quite a few languages assign gender to all sorts of things that lack biological sex. Tables and chairs have gender. Colors have gender associations, which obviously aren't rooted between any sort of antipathy between Y chromosomes and pink or violet wavelengths of light.

Only sex matters for most animals, and of course many animals lack sex, can have both sexes, or can even alternate sexes or alternate between non-sexually and sexual reproduction.

Gender is context dependant. It's clearly multidimensional and there are "infinite genders," simply in the trueism that there are infinitely many points in any n dimensional object due to denseness.

Gender is important for understanding human biology because it affects human mating behaviors and behaviors in general.

Gender is an emergent phenomena. That doesn't somehow make it "soft." Is time not a real feature of reality? Zeno claimed it wasn't because an arrow in flight is never moving at any particular instant, frozen in time, and denied the existence of motion. As Aristotle pointed out, and Russell missed because he thought he was so far beyond Aristotle with set theory and a bad understanding of Cantor, is that this is a fallacy of composition. Time emerges as a dimension across which change occurs. No change, no time. There is no atom of time except inasmuch as physics may show us that no changes occur in less than n amount of time, where the standard is an arbitrary repeating pattern that can be transformed into a continuum via calculation.

Abstractions are plenty real. So polka dot patterns not exist because no one circle makes polka dots? Gender affects human behavior and so is essential to human biology, it is that simple.

What people miss is the ability to keep and use the abstraction and not be drawn into social advocacy by fringe, but noisey political minorities.

[Anonymous No.21468641]

>ITT people call Hawking a retard and claim they are smarter than him
Fucking top kek, losers.

[Anonymous No.21468793]

>>21468611
Of course, but Springer Frontiers has some absolute gems, like Asymmetry: The Foundation of Information. It's the bleeding edge, although many books have excellent reviews of scientific history and established paradigms. But you also have many books which are collections of essays that disagree with one another.

BTW, you have to hit return twice to make paragraphs on 4chan.

>>21468427
>All biology is physics and only makes sense in that way.
Modern biology is impossible to understand without reference to information theory/biosemiotics. You're talking about a paradigm of hard reductionalism that's been pretty dead since at least the 1980s. You've had two huge paradigm shifts across the sciences, information theory and chaos theory. The first is essential for understanding life in the current paradigm.

Information isn't really reducible to physics, at least not easily. Information is substrate independent and can be isomorphic at different levels of emergence. Plus, you have plenty of physicists arguing that information is ontologically basic, not physical fields or particles. That is, our conception of particles is emergent from information, the universe computes itself, etc.

Chaos theory introduces the idea of fractal geometry and fractional dimensions, Mandelbrot's insight that the dimensionality of a system depends on the level of analysis. You have fractal recurrence of patterns at higher and higher levels of scale and emergence, which has led plenty of people to posit that the patterns are what is fundemental, not the constituent components. Then, with QFT, there is also the idea that the "particle" is only analyzable in the context of the whole, rather than the classical idea of objects being composes of small "building blocks."

Point being, there is plenty of doubt that biology can ever be described, even in theory, by physics.

If things only exist relationally, then the larger structures become essential. Things only existing relationally, along to mathematical formalism, e.g. "a number is what it does," or "a molecule is what it does in a given local context," also helps explain Wigner's "surprising" coincidence of mathematics explaining nature so well. If nature is fundementally relational, discrete objects do not exist "of themselves," then of course the study of patterns and relationships can be applied to nature.

Unfortunately, 19th century corpuscularism/ Newtonian theological intuitions are drilled into kids until college, and into bon-physicists until grad school, so this sea change is missed.

[Anonymous No.21468867]

>>21468636
>Also, quite a few languages assign gender to all sorts of things that lack biological sex
Such as my own native one (Portuguese), but that has really nothing to do with "sociological gender".
A table is a "she", but no one calls a table a "woman".
A "woman" (mulher) is a female (fêmea), a man (homem) is a "male" (macho), which is why dogs are frequently referred to as "girl" and "boy", so if a male dog is well-behaved you say "good boy!".
At the same time, a homosexual can be called a "little woman" (mulherzinha), but that's meant as a kind of insult, not to say that the individual in question is, literally, an actual woman.

All of these things are language games, however. If you wish to define Ellen Page as a man, you can certainly do so.
Her chromosomes will remain the same unless there's some kind of genetic intervention, and this is what biology as a discipline (separate from sociology and psychology, which btw are not sciences yet) is concerned with.

>Gender is important for understanding human biology because it affects human mating behaviors and behaviors in general.
Only insofar as it has to do with how humans, *as biological systems*, behave.
You can easily even imagine a human being with no language and no concept of gender, such as one who grows up among wolves - he will be, biologically, 100% human.
The actual definition of "what is a woman" or "what is femininity" and "the gender spectrum" etc. is only relevant for sociologists who want to understand how humans see themselves. There is no actual "essence" for any of those concepts, you define them more or less as you please within certain "boundaries" determined by custom, which can change a lot - in my language it includes animals, dolls, but sounds weird if you apply it to tables, but then again there's no rule saying 'don't be weird', and you can be weird if you want, trespass the "boundaries", and say the sun is a woman.

[Anonymous No.21468885]

>>21463424
This dude gets it. The rest of this thread is just pointless infighting between the two unrespectable academic fields of Science and Philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21468917]

>>21468867
2/2

>Abstractions are plenty real
>Gender is an emergent phenomena
>polka dot

They might be seen as real by the human mind, which recognizes patterns in the world and interprets them.
Polka dots are as real as a perfect human-looking robot would be human. Human beings arrange the world according to patterns and other cues which may help them survive, thus creating abstract categories in order to help the mind to make decisions faster and organize itself. Polka dots are real to us, "womanhood" is real for people who use this concept in their language - in reality it's just a bundle of dots or behaviors which the mind abstracted into something definable through language. And "womanhood" is certainly way more elusive than polka dots, which can be described chemically already - just a bunch of black substances arranged according to a certain mathematical pattern. "Womanhood" can never be described like that, because people would just start arguing about which substances really qualify, etc. etc. and it would once again turn into a philosophical game of definitions, like the old problem of vagueness or the ship of Theseus - which are actually very trivial but people pretend are profound because they think words have some kind of inner essence and there is such thing as *the* actual *ship of Theseus*, when in reality there isn't - "ship of Theseus" is just a pattern the mind creates.
Which is not to say such emergent concepts cannot be studied or are unimportant. We understand the world through emergence, after all.
Saying biology is reducible to chemistry, which it is, is not the same as saying that higher levels of explanations are to be discarded, only that they must be harmonious with the lower levels in order to be true. Biology itself is one such study, and as such is entirely harmonious with chem, phys, math. But it's concerned with human qua biological animal, and gender interests it only as a kind of concept this animal employs, not as a kind of "essence" with a definite "meaning" for something called "womanhood" which nobody knows how to define precisely.
Sociologists and others might be very interested also in how such concepts are understood by society, and may even go as far as saying "in society X, 'woman' means Y", but never "the essence of womanhood is Y" because that's empty philosophizing.

>>21468793
>Information isn't really reducible to physics, at least not easily
>Point being, there is plenty of doubt that biology can ever be described, even in theory, by physics.

"Reducible" is not "reducible by humans".
Reread my post and you'll see I have said how biology will probably never be reduced to physics, due to the complexity of biological systems.

[Anonymous No.21468934]

>>21468793
>BTW, you have to hit return twice to make paragraphs on 4chan.
I write like this intentionally.
BTW, nice job evading the substance of my post. Since you're not eager to participate, I am:
Modern biology is just a consequence of the rethoric of modern physics. Biologists earlier than Humboldt have sensed that what people now call 'non linearity' was an inherent aspect of living systems, but they were subject to the Newtonian structure of scientific language. Now that physicists have 'authorized' the use of fuzzy terminology to build scientific constructs comes a landslide of biology papers around complexity. Same with information theory. Genes and the discretionary nature of heritage were intuitively there, but the power of Darwinism wouldn't let people speculate. Now that technology has the power, processing information has become top priority, to the point biologists now say were mere vehicles of information. Philosophers are the only ones with the broad perspective that lets them look at it all and laugh, since eventually all of it falls in the realm of the current language and the current power structure. If you want excellent reviews of scientific history and established paradigms -for the third time itt- read Foucault.