[ 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: 83 KB, 637x679, 10426600_10203816620323647_9155793080541942426_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5062430 No.5062430[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

/lit/, what do you think of The Present on truthcontest com?

pic not related

>> No.5063944

bump

>> No.5064531

>>5062430
Awful.

It's bad science mashed up with the Platonic philosophy of eternal "souls". The creator of the website is misinterpreting the Laws of Thermodynamics, Newton's Laws etc. and this shows their lack of understanding.

That kind of shit belongs in >>>/x/

>> No.5064535

This is dumber than The Secret

>> No.5064542

>>5062430
What a horrifying image.
I really, really wish we would teach logic and ethics in primary education.

Pop-logic understanding makes pop-psychology look erudite.

>> No.5064565

This is what sceintism actually believes:

1.Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, ‘lumbering robots’, in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.

2 All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains.

3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the universe suddenly appeared).

4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same for ever.

5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.

6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.

7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there’, where it seems to be, but inside your brain.

8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.

9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.

10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

>> No.5064571

>>5064565
>sceintism

>> No.5064585

>>5064565
top kek

>> No.5064620

>>5064565
Well, that's not the viewpoint truthcontest.com has. It's saying that consciousness is eternal, meaning that we are immortal and that we have lived other lives in the history of the universe. It then justifies this with scientific theories, saying, for example, that the immortality of the mind is like the First Law of Thermodynamics, where energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

It's an abusive interpretation of scientific theory.

On its own though, I don't see what the problem with scientism is (assuming that that is what it means).

>> No.5064631

>>5064620
EDIT: I mean to say what >>5064565's definition of scientism is.

>> No.5064686
File: 18 KB, 379x374, smith.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5064686

>>5064565

you are an idiot

>> No.5064716

>>5064686
Explain?

>> No.5064726

>>5064716

Not >>5064686, but

>2 All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains.

That's packed with so much retarded bullshit I don't even care to read the rest of it.

>> No.5064731

>>5064686
>>5064716
Not that guy, but the whole "Scientism" post is a huge strawman; it doesn't even make sense that someone would take the time to write it.

It also seems like said person doesn't know anything about science.

>> No.5064732
File: 6 KB, 264x191, download (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5064732

>>5064565

>this entire post

Is this what you get when you homeschool your kids?

>> No.5064736

>>5064726
>That's packed with so much retarded bullshit I don't even care to read the rest of it.
>>5064731
>It also seems like said person doesn't know anything about science.

That post is the famous "ten dogmas of science". It's a complaint against science.

>> No.5064740

>>5064726
Why? What about atoms, particles, waves etc.? They are all unconscious matter. Matter doesn't "think" or have an "inner life", "subjectivity" or "point of view". And since we are made of matter, we are physical, material beings that are the result of complex mechanisms, from which consciousness arises.

I don't see what's wrong with that.

>> No.5064751

>>5064731
>strawman

I don't think you know what that means.

>>5064736
How is it complaint against science?

>>5064571
>>5064585
>>5064686
>>5064726
>>5064731
>>5064732
>>5064736
By the way, you guys realise I'm not the one who posted >>5064565. I'm just defending and seeing what the problem of it is.

>> No.5064756

>>5064751
>>5064731
Actually, sorry man, I misread what you wrote. Please ignore my criticism of your use of the term "strawman".

Sorry.

>> No.5064763

>>5064565
well good, cause that's true.

>> No.5064765

>>5064731
>>5064756
Although just to add, isn't "scientism" the philosophy of science?

>> No.5064771

>>5064740

The events that precede a thought or feeling aren't just neurons firing, they still produce human behavior which is worth observing and studying and which varies from individual to individual.

>> No.5064774

>>5064765
The /lit/ Godsquad use the term 'scientism' to refer to a fictional enemy (apparently every scientist) who believe that science is objective fact and infallible.

>> No.5064778

>>5064751

But science has falsifiability in it and considers unknowns as just that, unknowns. What I get from that post is 'How dare those silly scientists not consider anything that anyone claims real?'

It science, it doesn't matter what you claim, it matters what you can demonstrate. Just about nothing in that post is demonstrable, so it usually isn't taken seriously, because no one has a single reason to do so. What's comedic about is the butthurt tone of that post, even though it's known to pretty much everyone why stuff like telepathy isn't taken serious by anyone

>> No.5064779

>>5064765
No, scientism is whatever I want to represent it as being. Why aren't you paying attention?

>> No.5064783

>>5064751
Believe it or not, what you call "scientism" has direct basis in science.

>> No.5064806

>>5064771
It varies from individual to individual because the physical makeup of each individual is different.

>>5064774
Right... whereas they think religion is an objective fact and infallible. :P

>>5064779
Huh?

>> No.5064807

>>5064778
qualia

>> No.5064832

>>5064807

Again, unknowns are just that, unknowns. They will remain unknowns until we gain more knowledge about them

>> No.5064857

>>5064832
Qualia is known, that's why we have named it and discuss it. Science doesn't have any explanation for it so it ignores it. The result of this being that qualia gets edged out of descriptions of the mind and people like Dawkins, and many other scientists, claiming that the brain is just a biological computer and consciousness and free will are an illusion.

>> No.5064867

>>5064857
>Science doesn't have any explanation for it so it ignores it.

As it should, because nothing meaningful can be tested about it. It just exists as a concept, nothing more, so what's the point of asserting anything about it?

>> No.5064877

>>5064857

Why are we even pretending like this qualia thing is an issue anymore? Really. Brain parts get injured = certain 'qualia' dies too. Isn't it bleeding obvious that the brain is responsible for qualia, and when the brain dies, qualia disappears.

Why is it so hard to accept that the mind does not exist independently from the physical? That there isn't anything magical or special about it? Everything in this universe is pretty crazy, so why do we act as if consciousness is so special? It's just more human arrogance and this need to be special.

>> No.5064882

>>5064867
Ive just discovered a chair. I'll call the four things beneath it legs, but as I don't understand them at all, I'll make up theories about how the seat floats in the air and ignore the legs completely. Now the legs exist as a concept, nothing more, so what's the point of asserting anything about them?

>> No.5064890

>>5064882
>I'll call the four things beneath it legs, but as I don't understand them at all

But those could not have been there. You can actually test whether a chair has legs. You can't test whether a brain or anything else produces qualia, because it can not be falsified