/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8216461]

>idiots try to argue that the universe isn't deterministic and materialistic
you fucker, you're made of atoms, everything is made of atoms, everything that exists as matter is governed by the laws of physics, the laws of physics are predictable, everything is determined by the laws of physics since the beginning of time. To say that the universe isn't materialistic is just showing a lack of concern for science. If you have no concern with understanding the universe you have no place to talk about it, so shut the fuck up. Get beat the fuck down you retarded pseuds. It takes no unique talent or special effort to destroy religion, it just gives you frustration over the idiocy around you.

[Anonymous No.8216482]

>>8216461
>quantum mechanics

yeah man definitely there is no indeterminacy not even at the sub-atomic level

[Anonymous No.8216484]

>>8216461
Nice try Jesus, but if you aren't superstitious, then you're stuck in Plato's cave!

[Anonymous No.8216491]

>itt op rages against the topic nobody cares about

Don't worry op I'm just determined to believe in free will; just like you were determined to be an autistic cuck.
Have fun believing in science-themed destiny/fate.

[Anonymous No.8216497]

>>8216491
Have fun making up answers for whatever makes you comfortable.

[Anonymous No.8216518]

>>8216497
Too bad you were determined to give such shit comebacks.

[Anonymous No.8216525]

>>8216518
That's literally what you are doing though, is just making up answers to complex problems. That's what all religion does, is try to come to a common ground on something everyone can agree on, by making things up and claiming that the stuff they came up with is absolute truth. It would be hilarious if you all got run over by an 18 wheeler and just smeared and crunched your guts and bones all over the pavement.

[Anonymous No.8216528]

>>8216461
If the universe is wholly materialistic, then an immaterial mind should not exist. But without this thing which thinks, there would be nothing to perceive that the universe is made entirely out of matter.

How do you resolve this?

[Anonymous No.8216548]

>>8216528
Why don't you actually come up with a theory of consciousness? Because if you haven't noticed, we don't have a concrete theory of what consciousness is, not that I have been able to find. Once we do have one, and I suspect we will once we create artificial intelligence which can replicate consciousness, then we will see that our consciousness is not special and yes it comes from properties of matter. It's just more making up explanations for things we don't understand as usual without a scientific explanation. I just hate religious people with a violent passion, there's nothing good about religion and it just infects everyone who embraces it. You're literally like a bunch of zombies.

[Anonymous No.8216555]

>>8216525

Fuck; you were determined to be unfunny, retarded, autistic, and edgy. With terrible grammar to boot.
That's rough.

I've noticed science cucks who rage absurdly against free will all happen to have been determined to have terrible grammar.
One of those cosmic mysteries I guess.

[Anonymous No.8216556]

>>8216528
>How do you resolve this?

with further research. every biologist will tell you there is a lot about the brain that isn't well understood.

but a biologist's answer to that is to say "well i wonder how this works / what this does / what will happen if i poke this".

not to say "wooo, it's just so deeeep, we will never understand it, better to just assume that something mystical is happening"

[Anonymous No.8216572]

>>8216555
>>8216525
i can't wait til both of your high school classes start back up and i dont have to read such filth

[Anonymous No.8216577]

>>8216548
To say something 'comes from' matter is not the same as saying it 'is' matter. For the universe to be entirely materialistic, you'd have to prove that the mind (and not the brain) is composed of matter.

>You're literally like a bunch of zombies.
how ironic, I'm sure there's plenty more atheists who would claim that consciousness is merely an illusion, and that we are 'lumbering robots' as Dawkins would have it

>>8216556
I'm talking about the mind, not the brain. try again.

[Anonymous No.8216580]

>>8216577
How the fuck does the mind not come from the brain you fucking retard? Stuff doesn't just happen because it sounds better to you that way, there's logic and order in the universe shut the fuck up you massive blithering retard.

[Anonymous No.8216584]

>>8216556
When they figure out why some people are determined to go "woooooo, so deep and mysterious!" Will they finally stop sperging out?

[Anonymous No.8216585]

>when idiots try to argue that space and time aren't just a powerful illusion of consciousness

[Anonymous No.8216590]

>>8216577
>I'm talking about the mind, not the brain. try again.

oh my dear lord. people like you actually exist

[Anonymous No.8216594]

>>8216580
>How the fuck does the mind not come from the brain you fucking retard?
I said nothing of the sort. I merely said that they are two distinct things. try again.

>there's logic and order in the universe shut the fuck up you massive blithering retard.
there's logic, and there's order, and then there's ranting and raving until you feel like you've proved someone wrong. I think we can all guess which type you fall into.

[Anonymous No.8216597]

>>8216461

historical materialism does not require the absurdity that is philosophical materialism

[Anonymous No.8216638]

>>8216590
You mean cartesians? Yes, it is definitely absurd that there are people who have beliefs different to yours, surrounding one of the most persistent metaphysical problems of our age. And yet, here I am!

[Anonymous No.8216656]

>>8216461
>everything is made of atoms
concepts and emotions-as-phenomena aren't made of atoms

[Anonymous No.8216658]

>>8216556
damn, Im so a legs man.

[Anonymous No.8216662]

>>8216461

>Optics are atoms

[Anonymous No.8216666]

>>8216461
why are your atoms so angry? change them for chill atoms.

[Anonymous No.8216675]

>>8216666
I can't believe I live in a world with religious people, it's something that I have never stopped being upset about for as long as I can remember. I wish that I was born in a society that wasn't based on people's own egoism and superstitions and "beliefs", but based on science and understanding. Yeah, no, there's you're sentence to deconstruct into some barf of a reply, that last one I just made, but if you wanna know the core of what makes me pissed off about the world, without your intrusion of some crack pot meta physical notions of spirituality and "energy", there you go. There's obviously something fundamentally wrong with your brain if you can't see where I'm coming from, and if you really think that putting in explanations of things that are too big for you to understand with fake answers is logic.

[Anonymous No.8216677]

>>8216461
>everything is made of atoms
Light isn't made of atoms, lots of things aren't. But assuming you mean everything is made of matter, that us also not true. Everything you can detect with your senses is matter. How can you know something doesn't exist if you have no way of sensing it. Have you measured anything to prove determinism or to refute free will?

[Anonymous No.8216680]

>>8216677
>LIGHT ISN'T MADE OF ATOMS, GOD EXISTS! BTFO ATHEISTS WAHAHAHAHA
I wish that I could just line you all up and smash your heads with a sledge hammer like a water melon.

[Anonymous No.8216684]

>>8216675
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, friend.

[Anonymous No.8216685]

>>8216528
>without this thing which thinks

You're making the mistake of assuming the process of thinking is not just as materialistic as anything else. Ghost in the machine, by Gilbert Riley.

[Anonymous No.8216688]

>>8216666

[Anonymous No.8216689]

>>8216675
>I wish that I was born in a society that wasn't based on people's own egoism and superstitions and "beliefs", but based on science and understanding

You know the western world is largely secular, right? Most people of faith are cultural believers rather than dogmatic theists. You're trying to engender an antagonism between faith and science which doesn't really exist anymore. Many people believe that their faith is wholly compatible with scientific knowledge.

[Anonymous No.8216690]

>>8216684
You know mutually exclusive means one in the same, to conflate science and religion. I was not conflating science and religion, nowhere in that entire post did I conflate science and religion at all.

[Anonymous No.8216692]

>>8216675

Where the matter comes from?
did someone put it there? is a big simulation as some scientists say?

[Anonymous No.8216701]

>>8216690
>You know mutually exclusive means one in the same
just stop posting

[Anonymous No.8216702]

>>8216689
Well people who believe this are deluding themselves and merely accept science because it's in the realm of mainstream knowledge that everyone hears about, but so is religion. It's as though you give all those people credit for being knowledgeable, they're not. This is why the scientific community has so many atheists.

[Anonymous No.8216709]

>>8216701
I think we've all been had by a convincing troll.

[Anonymous No.8216716]

>>8216709
>all been had
>convincing troll.

the only way this makes sense as a post is if you're op just doing weird cuck damage control

go back to rebbit, summer

[Anonymous No.8216723]

>>8216692
It's been seriously proposed that "stuff" has just always existed. Creating and destroying are largely human notions of re-arranging matter, and nobody has known matter to be created from nothing through any means.
Besides, if some supernatural force created the matter, then you're still stuck with the assumption that the supernatural force, rather than the matter, has just always existed

[Anonymous No.8216728]

>>8216723
Yeah, and we call that supernatural force God.

[Anonymous No.8216730]

On a two-dimensional plane, a 2-D observer, looking at a sphere passing through the plane in front of them, would see first a dot, then a steadily growing arc, then a shrinking arc after the circumference has passed through, a dot, then nothing.

Likewise, how do you think we, living in three supposed spatial dimensions, would perceive a four-dimensional body* that happened to pass through our world? Perhaps it would (like the photon) appear to be sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle, or both or neither?

Thereby potentially qualifying "religious" phenomena as logically explainable; science and religion must cohere for religion to make any sense, they don't necessarily have to contradict each other.

*which must be qualified by saying that if higher spatial dimensions than the 3rd exist, we logically must have them but be unable to perceive them, as (by analogy) there's no such thing as anything truly 2-D in this world, since we can perceive a 3rd dimension to it, no matter how small this dimension to it is --- like a line drawing of a square on a paper, with a microscope, would have tiny ink or graphite particles giving it depth besides just length and width.

[Anonymous No.8216734]

I used to think like that. I studied physics in college and was a hardcore atheist materialist. This is the book that finally planted a seed of doubt in my mind. I resisted it, but it opened my eyes to a whole new way of looking at science and materialism. I'm not kidding, it's the most compelling book I've read. It's very short but incredibly dense and erudite. I havent really seen Barfield mentioned here but I think you guys would really be able to appreciate it.

[Anonymous No.8216740]

>>8216685
I think you're missing the essential point I was trying to make. I wasn't claiming that mental states are separable from physical states, but rather in order to prove the existence of the material world, you have to acknowledge the existence of something - material or otherwise - that perceives and comprehends it. But perception in itself isn't 'material', only the network of neurons in the brain which gives rise to it. It always baffles me when scientists proclaim that consciousness is an 'illusion', but then fail to say what it is that is actually being deceived.

[Anonymous No.8216741]

>athiests who argue yet havent read basic theology 101

Eeew

[Anonymous No.8216743]

>>8216728
At the risk of sounding trite, then who created god?
You're still stuck with the assumption that god has existed forever, or sprang forth from nothing, which seems a harder position to argue than the same for matter, since matter is observable

[Anonymous No.8216755]

>>8216723
The question is not only "when" the matter was created , the question is also why. Or if there is no why and we are here just for the lols (some amoral faggs love this answer).

>>8216743
There are some catholics and muslim philosophers taking on that kind of questions. Some are really good ideas.

[Anonymous No.8216763]

>>8216743
>implying it matters that God should follow the "rules" of matter

That's the point of God. He's the ultimate, the omniscient, the omnipresent, no limitations, end of the line.

[Anonymous No.8216764]

>>8216740
>which gives rise to it

Yeah. There's your mistake. The brain doesn't "create" consciousness, consciousness is just the way we describe the processes of the brain. Consciousness isn't an illusion, the illusion people have is that they treat it as something separate. Consciousness is just countless millions of connections firing constantly. It's the details we don't understand.

I can't explain it very well, I'm not an expert in this field. I would really recommend reading Gilbert Ryle.
http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Gilbert_Ryle_The_Concept_of_Mind.pdf

[Anonymous No.8216767]

>>8216764

Reading the rest of this thread, it reeks of summer. I'm very disappointed in you, /lit/

[Anonymous No.8216768]

>>8216734
That looks very interesting, I am definitely going to read it. Thanks for sharing.

[Anonymous No.8216770]

>>8216702
>merely accept science because it's in the realm of mainstream knowledge that everyone hears about, but so is religion

And why should the same not be applicable for you? Have you independently examined and assessed all of the available data for each and every scientific principle you believe in?

If you haven't, then you're almost definitely taking some of those 'facts' for granted. That isn't to say they aren't true, just that you're grounding your understanding of the world upon things which you haven't rationally concluded yourself - IE, you're taking them on the basis of faith alone.

[Anonymous No.8216776]

>>8216770
This doesn't prove you argument at all, you, fucking, pseud. Kill yourself and take your religion with you.

[Anonymous No.8216778]

>>8216740
>But perception in itself isn't 'material', only the network of neurons in the brain which gives rise to it
Not the anon you're responding to, but im curious as to why you don't think this answers your own question. "Perception" doesn't refer to some extra process that is operating outside of all these other processes of sensation, it's emergent from the systems already at play. The extant systems interact, and the result is more than the sum of it's parts, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is an extra explainable part, just that all these systems are complicated enough to process inputs from the others, via hormones for example

[Anonymous No.8216784]

>>8216734
i second Barfield, nice to see another fan on here :)

[Anonymous No.8216788]

>>8216767
These are just crossposters who originated from these likely places:

>r9k
>v

[Anonymous No.8216803]

>>8216577
>mind and brain are different things

they really should crank up the science programme in middle school.
i believe even booknerds have the right to know the truth about the universe and human beings and not live in some delusional muh metaphysics world

[Anonymous No.8216805]

>>8216548
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/two-dimensional-semantics/supplement.html

[Anonymous No.8216806]

>>8216461
The split between compatibilists and deterministic between philosophers is pretty even.

>>8216590
It's almost like non materialistic views of the world are philosophically viable and thriving.

This is a general problem I've noticed with /lit/ (although it hardly stops at /lit/). You reason yourself to a philosophical position and then act as if everyone is stupid who doesn't agree, but this is said in complete ignorance of what is actually happening in philosophy. Moral nihilism, determinism and materialism are all good philosophical positions to have, but they are not a) so obvious that everyone who doesn't see it is an idiot, and they are not b) without substantial opposition from a huge proportion of the philosophic community. As an example it seems that almost everyone here is some sort of moral nihilist. It's just assumed to be correct by a great many users here. But only about 1/4 of ethicists are moral nihilists, with 3/4 being moral realists. Either you think you are so smart you that your reasoning cuts through that 3/4, that those 3/4 are stupid or you are ignorant of the fact of and the arguments of the 3/4.

[Anonymous No.8216812]

Gurdjieff's views can fit perfectly with OP's. You should check him out, or Ouspensky.

[Anonymous No.8216815]

>>8216803
If your mind and brain are the same thing, think your heart into stop beating for a few seconds.

[Anonymous No.8216818]

>>8216680
now this is shitposting

[Anonymous No.8216821]

>>8216755
I don't really see anything amoral about not being able to answer the question of why. All life seeks to protect and carry itself on. It doesn't strike me as a difference between edgy and moral whether you love your family and friends as a higher spiritual thing, or as a herd instinct or protecting instinct because they make you happy for instance. People bring that up a lot as an argument for human selfishness and baseness pretty frequently, but I think it's a very romantic ideal to say "your happiness is my happiness ..." and so on. Sincerely not baiting, why are you so negative on the idea that purpose might not be assigned?

[Anonymous No.8216822]

>>8216815

I'm not them, but you're a fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.8216828]

>>8216815
Tibetan Buddhist monks can do that.

[Anonymous No.8216833]

>>8216806

I think it's because people treat philosophical ideas as ideologies. Which is really fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.8216835]

>>8216815
>hey mom
>i watched this video about Decartes on CrashCourse™ Philosophy

[Anonymous No.8216839]

>>8216764
>The brain doesn't "create" consciousness, consciousness is just the way we describe the processes of the brain
I'm no neuroscientist, but 'consciousness' isn't the total sum of processes in the brain, right? The majority of what goes on in there are processes related to unconscious bodily functions - keeping our heart beating, causing the production of hormones, etc. - none of which have anything directly to do with the phenomenal experience of consciousness. I dunno, it just seems like a generalisation too far: it treats the mind as an object to be observed from the outside, but in the process excludes our most intimate understanding of the mind as subject.

Thanks for the rec though - its always a pleasure to find material which challenges your way of thinking.

[Anonymous No.8216851]

>>8216776
I'm actually an atheist. You're just very easy to wind up.

Maybe it might serve you better to stop being so dogmatic and lighten up?

[Anonymous No.8216853]

>>8216833
Just getting into philosophy, reading the Greeks. Can you tell me the difference? Im curious

[Anonymous No.8216881]

>>8216778
>the result is more than the sum of it's parts
this is the problem for me, I think. I can readily accept that consciousness is an emergent property of the systems and structures present in the brain, but what I find hard to fathom is the leap from consciousness as a description of these processes, to how consciousness really is for me, that is to say, in the first person - I suppose you could call it a problem of induction.

[Anonymous No.8216974]

>>8216778

>2016
>Kantians still exist

[Anonymous No.8216984]

>>8216461
Mary the Color Scientist BTFOs materialism

[Anonymous No.8216992]

>>8216974

There wasn't anything distinctively 'Kantian' about that post, friend.

[Anonymous No.8216994]

>>8216461
Amen brother, you speak the Truth!

[Anonymous No.8217004]

>>8216984
But is perception equivalent to knowledge?

[Anonymous No.8217011]

>>8217004
Regardless of whether or not it is knowledge it is a distinct "thing" that is immaterial

[Anonymous No.8217013]

>>8217004

Immediate, intuitive knowledge; not discursive, conceptual knowledge.

[Anonymous No.8217016]

Science deprives the ''one'' it's Otherness. Beings and Things are deprived of their qualitative substance - they become matter or exemplar.

OP is a great example of the retardation this reduction and uniformication of all existance creates.

[Anonymous No.8217018]

>>8216577
The ironic thing is that Zombies is the name for a huge problem in the phisicalist account of the mind.
>>8216461
Quick recommendation for all anons in the thread Philosophy of the Mind by Edward Feser is an excellent introduction to the subject.
There's far more to it than pure determinism vs cartesians, there are 30 or so major theories on the problems.
It also covers why the position that science will do x in y time is retarded, which is crucial for the OP

[Anonymous No.8217038]

I encourage all fedoras on this board to read the Dialectic of Enlightement. Atleast have some self-awareness before preaching.

[Anonymous No.8217057]

>>8216853

Only because I would say you're not "supposed" to sincerely believe in any one philosophical concept-they've all been critiqued to death. I study it more as an art than as a science, because I love the logic, the display of intelligence, figuring out the flaws of stuff myself and almost having conversations with geniuses that died centuries ago.

In ideologies, it's very illogical to sincerely believe in one, because they've all been critiqued to death too, but people believe in them anyway. Usually because they ignore the criticism. In ideology, I take less issue with that attitude because of the practical reasons we have ideologies-you can't have a society without them. When people have that dogmatic position in philosophy, though, all they're doing is closing themselves off from learning about the rest. That's all you're supposed to do. Learn, not believe.

[Anonymous No.8217502]

>>8216638
>one of the most persistent metaphysical problems of our age

uh huh. and do you believe in ghosts, too?

[Anonymous No.8217571]

>>8216461
>the universe is deterministic
>scientists still can't tell what the weather will be like 2 weeks from now

hearty kek

[Anonymous No.8217586]

>le science
Bad bait.

[Anonymous No.8217594]

Logical intuition / reason in humans strongly suggests, to me, that humans are aware of an immaterial aspect of reality.

The fact that material things exist suggest an aspect of reality which transcends even this (as existence is illogical).

In summary I believe there are at least three tiers of existence discernible from a human perspective: the material, the logical/mathematical/structural, and the tier from which these emanate. Since this statement already assumes at the outset an observer-observing-the-world structure, I am suspicious of its consistency. It also does not consider the possibility of a material universe in which material is in some sense eternal (and therefore its own cause).


For some reason the other day I suddenly had the thought:

"The soul yearns in a specific and immaterial direction. The body experiences bodily sensations. By directing the body in a certain way in the physical world, the soul moves in a certain way in the immaterial. Reason allows the mind to discern what the 'soul motions' corresponding to a series of bodily motions is. If the person elects to move the body towards bodily pleasure, even when the reason indicates that the soul will move in the opposite direction of its yearning, the soul experiences pain. A person is a body, a soul, a reason and a will. "

I'm not at all convinced that this is true but it was a very strange sort of spontaneous idea which has a certain amount of tidiness to it.

[Anonymous No.8217611]

>>8216684
Yes they are, all relevant religions reject empiricism

[Anonymous No.8217661]

>>8216675
Thanks for the cringe.
Surely with science you should be able to explain differing opinions, no? Not everyone chooses to sink into revenge and spite when they can't find something absolute to hold onto. You're angry because you don't have any hope, so you're choice is to tear down the hope of others. It's really just pathetic.

[Anonymous No.8217664]

>>8217611
Science isn't empiricism.

[Anonymous No.8217666]

>>8216677
This is what I was trying to put my finger on. Good post anon.

[Anonymous No.8217667]

>>8217502
If by Ghosts you mean Kafka's writing ghosts, in which case yes.

[Anonymous No.8217691]

>>8217664
(not him)
They are not exactly equivalent, sure. Science refers to a collection of fields of human inquiry that share an academic and experimental methodology. The experimental methodology (the scientific method) which lies at its heart nonetheless relies on an assumption of (among other things) empiricism, which is a philosophical position on how one can obtain valid knowledge.

[Anonymous No.8217703]

>>8216461
The task of science isn't to say what nature is, but to determine what we can say about nature.

[Anonymous No.8217706]

>>8217691
Which means that science is not empiricism.

[Anonymous No.8217708]

>>8216994
Haha

[Anonymous No.8217721]

>>8217664
Modern science is empiricism.

[Anonymous No.8217729]

>>8217691

Daily reminder that science is not a belief system and is only a method of investigation.

[Anonymous No.8217758]

>have consciousness thread on /sci/
>told to come to /lit/
>you fuckers are actually more autistic
>mfw

[Anonymous No.8217763]

>>8217721
It's not because not everything, in fact a lot of it doesn't lie on empiricism, it isn't tested and repeated in a lab.
>>8217729
A glorified false image is for some it seems.

[Anonymous No.8217777]

>>8216461

Not realizing life is a mapping of loops, with agents having the ability to enter or leave different loops at any point in your perceived time with the inevitable reality that all loops will come to a close before repeating.

The Greatest Conceivable Being logically exists; what else would one define as God?

The foundation of your argument assumes the false dichotomies of determinism vs free will and science vs. religion, but I'm hoping that was just bait.

[Anonymous No.8217789]

>>8216461
>you're made of atoms

correct.

>everything is made of atoms

wrong, non-baryonic matter exists.

>everything that exists as matter is governed by the laws of physics

correct but tautological

>the laws of physics are predictable

see above

>everything is determined by the laws of physics since the beginning of time

see above

blah blah blah you have one correct statement and a bunch of nonsequiturs and tautologies, what was your point.

[Anonymous No.8217797]

>>8217703
science is a process, not a thing.
it does not have a "task".

[Anonymous No.8217805]

>>8216734
I don't have time to read it, could you maybe give me an abstract of what it was that opened up a new way of looking at science and materialism?

[Anonymous No.8217814]

Why even argue with people who disagree with determinism? It's not their fault they're dumb and have dumb opinions, they were made that way.

[Anonymous No.8217818]

It takes two persons to argue.

If you're arguing with an idiot, what does that say about you?

[Anonymous No.8217819]

>>8217758

that picture is fucking gold, and i don't usually care for image arguments, but man that's useful.

[Anonymous No.8217824]

>>8217777
divine quads confirm

[Anonymous No.8217839]

How can material self generate and be contingent upon itself?

Sounds like a miracle to me.

[Anonymous No.8217843]

>>8217818
It tells me that you're even more of an idiot than those engaged in an argument for thinking yourself superior to the debate.

[Anonymous No.8217847]

>>8217777
checked

[Anonymous No.8217871]

>>8217843
Thanks for agreeing, despite your inference that you are inferior.

[Anonymous No.8217880]

>>8217777
I hate these posts with elusive points. Explain your thoughts, faggot.

Also, nice quads, checkmate atheists.

[Anonymous No.8217886]

>>8216461
>he can't distinguish between laws of physics and laws of nature
>he doesn't realize that quantum states are intrinsically undefined until the moment of measurement
>he doesn't understand supervenience physicalism
>he doesn't understand the difference between instrumentalism and realism
>he thinks metaphysics and religion are equivalent

You L I T E R A L L Y do not even know what you're talking about. please return to reddit

>>8217797
any process should have a clearly defined goal. Otherwise what is it doing?

[Anonymous No.8217892]

>>8217886
>any process should have a clearly defined goal.

>predicting the outcome.

very scientific

[Anonymous No.8217897]

>>8217892
If the goal is simply to predict the outcome of a given experiment, then >>8217703 is right.

[Anonymous No.8217904]

>>8217897
>all science is about nature

[Anonymous No.8217924]

>>8217904
Any science that doesn't regard nature has nothing to do with the discussion. We're talking about whether the science of nature (physics) can give a proper account of the reality that it purports to be uncovering. That was a Bohr quote, by the way.

[Anonymous No.8217929]

>>8217924
The nature of this argument has changed.

Keep up.

[Anonymous No.8217938]

>>8217929
It hasn't. Nobody said all science was about nature, >>8217703 was quoting Bohr, who was referring to whether or not physics can and should be describing reality, or simply acquiring, cataloging, and repeating experimental results garnered through observable phenomena.

[Anonymous No.8217952]

>>8217938
>The task of science is to determine what we can say about nature.

>Nobody said all science is about nature.

[Anonymous No.8217966]

>>8217952
'Science' here taken to mean 'physics'. The real quote is "the purpose of physics is not to disclose the real essence of phenomena but only to track down ... relations between the manifold aspects of experience." He meant the science of nature.

[Anonymous No.8217975]

>>8217966
Could you restate it but make it interesting to read?

[Anonymous No.8217991]

>>8217975
sure.

>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.8218149]

>>8217880

>Loops.
This is my interpretation of our metaphysical reality. If you are used to thinking about time in a line, this idea might cause you trouble. If you ever decide to think about time in a recursive way, this idea will stick out to you. For instance, 2 seconds minus 1 second = 1 second; Infinity minus one second is still infinity, how do you measure a moment in time? If you haven't read Gödel, Escher, Bach then I highly recommend the section on Strange Loops. I actually only found this literature after I had an acid trip where everything suddenly and strangely became an infinite loop.

>The Greatest Conceivable Being (GCB) exists.
(1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived.
(2) If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(3) There is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
(4) If God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
(Taken from St Anselm’s Ontological Argument)

>Free Will and Determinism are not opposites.
If Determinism vs. Free Will is a dichotomy, then Determinism by definition means that the subject in question has no Free Will. Who is to say that there is not a being with Free Will (GCB) that the subject is part of? Do your feet have Free Will when you walk? Your actions look determined if not in the context of an agent. I like to believe that the GCB is playing a melody on their guitar in the 10th dimension (String theory joke).

Hopefully some bit of this was meaningful to someone out there, lest this be another unclosed loop.

[Anonymous No.8218151]

>>8217839
>Sounds like a miracle to me.

That's an evolutionary side effect( or was it selected for), things that you can't explain how it occurs feels "miraculous" whatever that means. Probably helps by leading towards creating a self cohesive explanation, regardless of the truth of the conceptual postulate.

[Anonymous No.8218229]

>>8218151

Same could said of you and your ego.

[Anonymous No.8218235]

>>8218229
Gotta destroy the sense of self bruh.

kys :^)

[Anonymous No.8218254]

>>8217789
and you wonder why a philosophy degree is utterly worthless, it's because it spawns bullshit like this.

[Anonymous No.8218262]

>>8218149
I've recently had an acid trip of this nature. After pondering whether or not I'd be okay with doing the same thing over and over my entire life I was sent into something I can't quite put any words to. I felt like I was alone, but also a part of some bigger thing. I was in a lucid state where like you said everything was an infinite loop. I've come to the conclusion that I want to keep pressing the issue and maybe wake up somewhere else. Can you explain this more to me though? I know Nietzche's idea of eternal recurrence resembles this a little.

[Anonymous No.8218276]

>>8216461
>everything is made of atoms
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HOawV6CPmE

[Anonymous No.8218351]

>>8218262
I'm grateful that you have also had this experience. WARNING: That lucid state is extremely powerful and will not always work out in your favor. Further exploration of that state showed me that action brings good fortune, until you find yourself fighting off five of your campus police officers that you called on yourself after delivering a speech about the "promised land", proceeding to rally 20-30 students into a life-long journey to mars in the name of anti-racism. Hopefully you won't learn that lesson first hand.

[Anonymous No.8218358]

>>8218351

[Anonymous No.8218366]

This whole thread is what happens when you give people degrees in philosophy. I'm being dead serious, I was actually interested in a degree in philosophy because I think philosophical thought is one of the most interesting things in the world, but I think bill nye had a point when he said that it just spawns some dumb ideas and arguments, this thread really proves that to me. I still wanna get into philosophy because I love it, but I can see why it's pointless in practical use, this is fucking counter intuitive, anti intellectual.

[Anonymous No.8218397]

>>8218351
I want to talk to you about this more somehow. I've had a friend who had these trips and came back with all sorts of delusions and false visions much like yours. Also, after the trip I previously explained to you, I came out feeling "hoodwinked." That word stuck out to me, along with a feeling that life is like an annoying chain message or a cruel empty joke. Can I email you or something?

[Anonymous No.8218413]

>>8218358
What the fuck is this?

[Anonymous No.8218431]

>>8218358
>>8218351
Also, concerning this disturbing picture, during said trip I felt at one point that I was astral projecting. I felt like I was observing my surroundings from the top, and that I was more than one person at one time.

[Anonymous No.8218483]

>>8218151
>evolution
lol
>>8218254
if something causes ppl to speak against me its worthless because im the arbiter of creation and everything revolves around me

[Anonymous No.8218487]

>>8218397
I'm glad that you also had this connection with your own language. I came out of my trip feeling "loopy"; like I had invented the word or something. This is wonderful that you also have felt words.

I definitely want to know more, here's my email: [e-mail]

>>8218358
Nice belief.

>>8218366
>it just spawns some dumb ideas and arguments
Dumb right now.

>this is fucking counter intuitive, anti intellectual.
Calling the Earth round wasn't a practical idea at first. Neither was the Earth orbiting around the Sun. Don't act like you are above people who ask questions, for questions allow for there to be answers.

[Anonymous No.8218490]

>>8218483
>lol

What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.8218780]

>>8216461
fuckers in my freshmen liberal arts class talm bout the universe aint deterministic the universe aint materialistic

[Anonymous No.8218823]

>>8218151
This is a really bad post.

[Anonymous No.8218838]

>>8218823
If you accept that humans have been subject to evolution, and are now different from our ancestors, then the changes in how we perceive the world be subject to evolution.

Who knows, maybe discovering a fruiting tree feels miraculous to a chimp.

[Anonymous No.8218839]

>>8218838
would be*

[Anonymous No.8218851]

>>8218838
Just a boring, on-topic way to pathologise other people's opinions. That way you can look past what they're actually saying, and instead look down upon them from your makeshift throne of materialism, "wew lad, that opinion you have there is just an evolutionary byproduct, clearly you're no match for me intellectually."

[Anonymous No.8218857]

>>8218851
Not at all, all my opinions are just as fallible as anyone else's.

[Anonymous No.8218859]

>>8216815
Just did, faggot.

[Anonymous No.8218865]

>>8216461
There's a meme in society of some kind of entrepreneurial post-capitalist industrial-scientific "productivity" thing, and they are expressing the meme because they are demi-conscious memebuoys floating on a slurry sea of currents you can only see if you zoom out
It's exhausting even trying to give an answer to this question. You need to like phenomenologically bracket every single word and write a book explaining that they aren't even people. They aren't even conscious. They aren't even having "opinions". STEM people are like robots with human skin stretched over them. To say "they are dismissive of the humanities" is implicitly to admit I think there's a "they". STEM people don't even fucking exist. They are a statistical gaseous nebula of random particles wafting across continents and periodically expressing junk they picked up along the way. Why would you even talk to them?
Talking to a STEMfag is literally like being some kind of Buddha, ascending reality, then coming back down and talking to bees who were dudes in past lives. I'm sure these bee niggas can be saved or whatever, but let's just wait until they're back in human form. Don't walk around going "BEES, STOP BUZZING, PUT DOWN THAT POLLEN, LISTEN TO ME ABOUT HOW EVERY CONCEPTUAL CATEGORY YOU HAVE FOR EVEN THINKING OF THINGS WAS SHAPED FOR YOU BY AN UNCONSCIOUS SLUDGE OF MEMETIC POLYALLOY THAT FLOWS IN PREDICTABLE CURRENTS FROM YEAR TO YEAR THROUGH THE HIVE IN WHICH YOU WERE CONCEIVED"

[Anonymous No.8218880]

This is the most autistic thing I've ever seen on the internet. There is no proof of a consciousness but if you want to believe that we have free will, go for it. 90% of the mass of a human being is literally random shit that comes into and out of existence at ridiculous rates so consciousness wouldn't be the weirdest thing about us.

[Anonymous No.8218888]

>>8216461
What is logic made of?

[Anonymous No.8218892]

>>8216461
Materialism disguised as actualism.

[Anonymous No.8218952]

>>8217777
>>8218149
https://youtu.be/FTb0q_HQPQc?t=13m3s

step up senpai

[Anonymous No.8218990]

>>8217777

>The Greatest Conceivable Being logically exists

'The Greatest Conceivable Being' is a 'logically coherent' concept i.e. it does not contain an internal contradiction, such as a square circle. That does not mean 'the greatest conceivable being' 'exists'. Logical possibility does not entail actuality.

[Anonymous No.8218995]

>>8218990
But this isn't a possibility. It's a demonstration concluding a necessity.

[Anonymous No.8219027]

>>8218995

The 'necessity' is derived from the circularity of the argument. You start with the proposition, which is axiomatic, (1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived which is then repeated in (3) and then proved negatively through (4) by appeal to (1).

It's a sound argument; all circular arguments are. But it's empty. You could construct a similar argument about a perfect island--which, hey! didn't someone already do that?

[Anonymous No.8219066]

>>8219027
The proposition is axiomatic because it is a logical requirement. If God isn't the Greatest then the entity that is Greater than him is logically God. But such thing doesn't exist because nothing is Greater than Him since he's essentially and ontologically the Greatest.

It wouldn't work with the idea of a perfect island because you'd have to define the characteristics of a perfect island.

Anyway, I'm a religious person but I think any rational argument proving God tends to be useless and/or flawed. Only faith matter.

[Anonymous No.8219068]

>>8216734

[Anonymous No.8219108]

>>8219066
>It wouldn't work with the idea of a perfect island because you'd have to define the characteristics of a perfect island.

Existence is a perfection
Ergo the perfect island exists.

fuccking tadaadadadaaaaa

[Anonymous No.8219135]

>>8219108
Except existence isn't inherently perfect. God is. He's the Absolute. He crystallizes everything positive. Otherwise, He cannot be defined as God but as a supernatural mythological figure, merely constructed by specific cultural standards (e.g: Greek "Gods" who were multiple anthropomorphic entites with separate abilities...)

[Anonymous No.8219169]

>>8219135
I think, by perfect, he means invariably consistent.

[Anonymous No.8219180]

>>8216461
>what are quantum mechanics

[Anonymous No.8219215]

>>8219135

>Isn't inherently perfect

Which would mean God is predicated of something imperfect, and so would not be God, therefore existence is perfect

we can do this all night, bb

[Anonymous No.8219235]

>>8219135
>>8219215

Being conceivable does not entail existence, nor does being predicated of x, even if x entails necessity. All your version of the ontological argument entails is that we cannot conceive of God, so defined as the greatest conceivable being, as not existing. But existence as such isn't grounded on our conceptions, nor is any given things existence. If it was, we could conceive anything damn thing we wanted as existing, and it would exist, so long as it was logically necessary for it to.

[Anonymous No.8219258]

>>8219215
that doesnt make much sense tho man.
The idea that an imperfect man could even think they could "know" God.
The guy you quoted is wrong tho too in the sense that God doesn't just add up to the crystallization of "everything positive"

but the point still stands that God is perfect and any flaws you could point out just stem from a lack of perspective and even then its not like our opinion would even matter either way.

[Anonymous No.8219270]

>>8219258
Not him, but I think the point is that, what was and what is are the only way it could have been, and hence are perfect. Alternatively perfection simply doesn't exist no matter how much we wish it did.

[Anonymous No.8219281]

>>8219258
Do you think God likes life becoming extinct?

>muh two of every kind

[Anonymous No.8219295]

>>8219270
the fact that we're having this discussion right now at this point of time in the grand scale of eternity and space is just a small side effect of something that allowed this over-all meaningless but still kinda-miraculous-if-you-think-about-it moment to occur and that's kinda perfect to me, as it the mere concept exceeds even my wildest capacity of wonder and possibility blah blah

[Anonymous No.8219298]

>>8219281
its meaningless to a perfect God imo
by nature he's infallible and your opinion about extinction is definitely iirelevent

[Anonymous No.8219301]

>>8219295
It's incredibly amazing, but it seems a bit absurd to me at the same time.

[Anonymous No.8219303]

>>8219301
those are the same thing imo

[Anonymous No.8219305]

>>8219298
If humans are valued by God, then what is necessary for human life (the biosphere) might potentially be kinda important too yea?

[Anonymous No.8219308]

>>8219305
hey man who said we were valued? We're just the best animal man. we're not like the nicest tho or anything, just the best at killing

[Anonymous No.8219312]

>>8219308
that said, the brain is teh best killer and can be used for pretty amazing non-killing activities that just put us leeeeeeeagues above all other species and might as well be God's favorite as we kinda came up with the concept in the first place (tho in a sense he exists regardless if we do/did or not)

[Anonymous No.8219316]

>>8219308
We might not be the best at longevity though, I guess we, will never know.

[Anonymous No.8219322]

>>8216461
>you fucker, you're made of love, everything is made of love, everything that exists as truth is governed by the laws of attraction, the laws of attraction are predictable, everything is determined by the laws of attraction since the beginning of time. To say that the universe isn't truth is just showing a lack of concern for justice. If you have no concern with understanding the universe you have no place to talk about it, so shut the fuck up. Get beat the fuck down you retarded pseuds. It takes no unique talent or special effort to destroy ideology, it just gives you frustration over the pasta around you


free will
truth
justice
science
physics
love

there's are all terms that are vague because people use them the qualify so much shit.

everything is based on models

"the map is not the territory"-Robert Anton Wilson

you fuckers need to realize that any concepts you come up with the define a certain "thing-ness" about the world, it is just a representation. A model, that has been used for so long its become convention and people coming out of highschool believe theres trillions of tiny little balls bouncing around and thats what you are made up of. Which is completele and utter bullshit.

[Anonymous No.8219410]

>>8216482
/thread

[Anonymous No.8219426]

>>8218149

>(4) If God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined.

What?

>Unicorns are the greatest imaginable mythical creature
>If unicorns don't exist then there is a greater imaginable mythical creature
>Therefore unicorns exist

??? How do you get from 'greatest imaginable' to 'necessarily existent'?

Is existence an intensive magnitude?

[Anonymous No.8219786]

>>8219180
I was so annoyed when I saw that video by michio kaku the other day where he said that particles on a quantum level appear to behave at random. That's bullshit, things don't just happen without something determining why they happen. And I don't see how that would prove free will anyways, how does particles behaving at random at a quantum level mean that we're more free? If anything it would seem like we're less free, because then not only are we not in control of our actions, but there's no basis of reason for why the things we do happen and it's all just random chaos that we're still not in control of. I don't understand what these people who try to make arguments for free will are on about, how can you argue that we have free will on a physiological level, it doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous No.8219802]

>>8216461

>isn't deterministic

see quantum mechanics

for the rest it's only a matter of faith

[Anonymous No.8219803]

>>8219802
see my last post >>8219786

[Anonymous No.8219804]

*tips fedora*

THE BIBLE disagrees.

[Anonymous No.8219810]

>>8216638
>muh gland

[Anonymous No.8219816]

faith is literally the stupidest position one could have intellectually. "The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason." - Benjamin Franklin

[Anonymous No.8219821]

>>8219786
Besides: even if the particles move randomly (big "if", as we might simply not understand underlying mechanisms), what difference does it make. One molecule reacts with another in a very particular deterministic way. the reaction will be the very same, no matter if one of those rare random subparticle events happened. The brain/mind operates chemically. Thousands of molecules are involved to generate thoughts, many thousands are involved in physical movement. The larger the system the less relevant the effects of a few particles could possibly be.

If there is a random even that somehow slightly affects the events of the large picture, even then it wouldn't be free will, it would be merely a minuscule difference in one insignificant event over your lifetime and no greater intelligence was behind that.

[Anonymous No.8219832]

>>8217571
>what is computational complexity

[Anonymous No.8219836]

>>8217594
>as existence is illogical

[Anonymous No.8219840]

People saying that science is just as much a matter of faith as people who believe in god are so dumb. Science changes it's position based on new evidence, if anything a smart scientist doesn't have faith in his own position and is willing to change them when new evidence comes along; that is the mark of a good scientist and an intelligent person; no, not even a mark of a good scientist, just the mark of one who is fucking doing their job.

[Anonymous No.8219841]

>>8219816

Oh sweet summer child. You've just begun your journey. Are truth and faith just binaries to u sweetie?

[Anonymous No.8219846]

>>8218149
Kek.

[Anonymous No.8219851]

>>8219786
>And I don't see how that would prove free will anyways, how does particles behaving at random at a quantum level mean that we're more free?
I haven't seen the video myself, but as far as I'm aware the problem lies with a popular misconception between the observer effect and the uncertainty principle - something which Deepak Chopra is hilarious to me for being wholly incapable of wrapping his head around it.

It's certainly true that measuring one of two entangled particles does appear to have a nonlocal effect on the other, but it has nothing to do with whether or not the measurement is taken under observation of a conscious being, as nature does what nature does whether you're looking at it or not. There are a lot of interpretations for wave function collapse where the act of measuring the system is intrusive, in the sense that the instruments of observation alter the state of the thing they're trying to measure; but there are also arguments which claim there are other mechanisms which introduce indeterminacy into the experimental environment, making it uncontrollable or unpredictable. People tend to jump on the latter in order to defend their wishy-washy spiritual bullshit, but the very fact that this indeterminacy is there does raise some very interesting metaphysical questions.

[Anonymous No.8219858]

>>8219821
Yeah the whole concept of free will seems to be based on the idea that god exists and he gave us free will so we could play out our existences and he can judge whether or not we're worthy of heaven. That's such bullshit.

I think that consciousness is basically an illusion. Life forms are just basically an incredibly evolved bacteria which never had thoughts to begin with (the whole theory of evolution seems to really destroy the whole notion of free will and god anyways), but now that we're more evolved we have the illusion of free will and consciousness. Somehow our ability to sense and perceive makes us feel that we're in control of our actions, when in fact it's just a bunch of events playing out on an atomic (or sub atomic - whatever) level, determined by the laws of physics. There's no escaping this, the idea of free will makes no sense what so ever, it has no basis on reality, it's just more faith thinking which is imo an utter cancer which wracks this world. Liars are sure to get the better of people who think that way (you wonder why atheists are on average smarter than religious folk. It's because we try to get to the bottom of a problem and don't accept general knowledge as fact). That's one thing that really gets me, is that so many people think majority opinion makes an idea more right, if they haven't noticed that the average human being is empty headed and shallow, they're really missing a whole lot of the big picture. I found that out when I was pretty young.

[Anonymous No.8219864]

>>8216803
They should really crank up English and cultural understanding. The brain and mind are not equal to one another. It's very okay for someone to be wrong, but the thing is, you're wrong and you're being abusive to someone else, calling them ignorant, because of your own ignorance.

The brain isn't the mind. The brain refers to the physical anatomical object which we can observe with our eyes. The mind encompasses our subjective states and internal conscious experience.

The brain is responsible for the mind, but the terms denote different things.

[Anonymous No.8219865]

>>8219322
>people coming out of highschool believe theres trillions of tiny little balls bouncing around and thats what you are made up of. Which is completele and utter bullshit.
Why is it bullshit?

[Anonymous No.8219872]

>>8219821
>The larger the system the less relevant the effects of a few particles could possibly be.
Just a thought - you ever heard of the butterfly effect?

We know the brain operates through biochemical processes, and while these processes do give rise to what we would call consciousness, the majority of brain function is dedicated to unconscious bodily mechanisms. I don't think its entirely ludicrous to suggest that indeterminacy might have an effect on the way we make decisions based on nothing but blind insight.

[Anonymous No.8219906]

>>8219858
>I think that consciousness is basically an illusion.
There's no such thing as an illusion and nobody to perceive it. Illusion by its very definition requires a consciousness that is being deceived. You can't deceive a consciousness into non-existence.

>(the whole theory of evolution seems to really destroy the whole notion of free will and god anyways), but now that we're more evolved we have the illusion of free will and consciousness.
Why does evolution deny the existence of free will? Is it not plausible that free will was itself a kind of cognitive faculty which evolved alongside the development of consciousness?

[Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo No.8219963]

>he thinks there are laws of physics
>he thinks laws exist
>he doesn't know the universe is ruled by necessity which is the sum of the conflict between all tensions and powers, which wants and doesn't want to be named Dikè

[Anonymous No.8219973]

>>8219906
Think of a bacteria, do you think that a bacteria has it's own free will? It has a life though, right? Human beings are distant relatives of bacteria, or whatever prehistoric micro organism spawned humanity, it didn't think, I'm pretty sure the majority of life forms don't think. Yet, somehow human beings think we're different from this, because we have the ability to think abstractly. How though, does our ability to think make us any more free than a bacteria, when our thoughts and perception of being in control of our bodies is just an illusion, we're aware of our own existence and the fact that when our body moves we're responsible. I've tried to make the argument that human consciousness is not special and it will eventually be replicated by artificially intelligent computers, but I think science in general is still trying to develop a theory of what consciousness is. I think that precise point is where the entire argument breaks down, because at certain points in science we get to a point where we just don't know. It's not okay to make up answers for what we don't know and say that the answers are any more of a guess, especially if the answers we make are anti truth and anti intellectual.

[Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo No.8219982]

>>8219973
>our thoughts and perception of being in control of our bodies is just an illusion
This statement is inane; to be able to formulate it, the opposite would have to be true.

[Anonymous No.8219987]

>>8219982
We are only aware that when we move a muscle in our body we told our brain to move the muscle, or is the opposite true? Did our brain actually tell the muscle to move, and our noticing of this action was just an illusion, as in it wasn't actually our decision, we just think it was because we thought we sent the signal?

[Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo No.8219997]

>>8219987
Read something else that wikipedia pages on transhumanism and cool thought experiments.

Start with Kant, you'll happily learn that you've been refuted over 200 years ago.

[Anonymous No.8220003]

>>8219997
So you can't refute what I said, so I have to read some insanely difficult philosophy book just so I can prove to you that you were right? Dude, come on.

[Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo No.8220012]

>>8220003
Don't dude me, open a fucking book. You're on a board that's called "literature", not "skimmed-through wikipedia articles", --- your mediocrity does not justify your ignorance, which does not give you the right to speak your mind.

If you don't know, learn or remain silent.

[Anonymous No.8220020]

>>8219963
/thread

[Anonymous No.8220021]

>>8220012
#rekt

[Anonymous No.8220030]

>>8220012
But we're here to discuss ideas, not say "go read this 200 year old book on why we have free will by Emanuel Kant. Like dude, you may as well just say, okay dude yeah go read Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra and come back when you agree with me. Fuck you, sorry dude no offense.

[Anonymous No.8220060]

>>8219997
>Start with Kant, you'll happily learn that you've been refuted over 200 years ago.

Cut the crap - you're embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.8220078]

>>8219973
>I've tried to make the argument that human consciousness is not special and it will eventually be replicated by artificially intelligent computers
Where did I say human consciousness is special? You've essentially proved my point here - if consciousness is something capable of undergoing evolutionary development, it isn't out of the ordinary for it to make the leap from an unconscious primordial soup of chemicals, to conscious biological entities, and then to transhuman/artificial intelligences.

Humans are part of nature, as are our technological creations - Why should we limit evolution to merely genetic variation? Consciousness and free will could plausibly be evolutionary advantages which allows us to autonomously dictate the next phase of our own development. What is AI if not that very next step in evolution brought about by our very own free will?

[Anonymous No.8220098]

>>8220078
You're just shoehorning the words "free will" into transhumanism ideas. What are you even thinking. this makes no sense. Why does artificial intelligence and transhumanism being the next phase in evolution mean that it was caused by free will? No no no no no no.

[Anonymous No.8220198]

>>8220098
>Why does artificial intelligence and transhumanism being the next phase in evolution mean that it was caused by free will?
Because the future is indeterminate only until we have designed it. As technological beings we don't have to be limited to the same biological death and extinction every other species on the planet faces. We are moving towards the potential for exit from real time.

https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/nick-land-on-time-teleoplexy-templexity/

[Anonymous No.8220233]

>>8216525
It's almost as if you think that humanity is able to grasp the totality of the universe or something, that there is nothing intangible to the human mind

too bad you were determined to be a stubborn asshole

[Anonymous No.8220273]

>>8216675
What about art in your utopian perpetual science fair of a society? Something tells me you don't think it has a place there

And so you don't believe that humans posses energy? lolwut

And why are you just complaining about it on 4chan as opposed to going out there and bringing about some great scientific revolution?

You seem to be a second rate fedora tipper who's mad because you think everyone is dumber than you. I don't think you're as smart a you think you are

[Anonymous No.8220286]

munchausen trilemma precludes our ability to establish objective or absolute truths

PLEASE NO MORE

[Anonymous No.8220321]

>>8220273
What the fuck did anything I have to say do with art? You wanna know something? I probably like art more than you, I run a blog where I collect art http://saddude69.tumblr.com/

Everything else you said about energy and revolution and "fedora tipping" is just trolly bullshit and I'm not going to make an argument against that sort of tripe.

[Anonymous No.8220349]

>>8216461
I'm a Physics grad and oh my god are you retarded. Not even Physicist think like this, I sincerely hope you are still a highschool edgelord and that you an hero ASAP

[Anonymous No.8220362]

>>8220349
Nice argument dude, you really convinced me. I'm gonna put on my thinking cap and really contemplate what you just said, because it was really a heaping helping of brain food. Thank you for enriching my day, I hope that you have an enriched day too.

[Anonymous No.8220478]

> What is epistemological solipsism

[Anonymous No.8221364]

>>8219836

it can't be deductively arrived at without assuming other things which exist

[Anonymous No.8221546]

There is immeasurable uncertainty in this universe.

At this time, we can not determine what will happen with 100% certainty.

There is no set of all sets, except a hypothetical god.

If a monistic, pantheist god exists then it might be able to determine the future within 100% certainty.

I don't know if a monistic, pantheist god exists, but we might combine with it in the near future and we will gain its knowledge at that point of spacetime.

Until then, we are left in the dark.

[Anonymous No.8221622]

Yall niggas need Kant.

[Anonymous No.8223137]

>>8216482
/thread