/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15023560
Whitehead saw God as necessary for his metaphysical system. His system required that an order exist among possibilities, an order that allowed for novelty in the world and provided an aim to all entities. Whitehead posited that these ordered potentials exist in what he called the primordial nature of God. This primordial nature is eternal and unchanging, providing entities in the universe with possibilities for realization. Whitehead also calls this primordial aspect "the lure for feeling, the eternal urge of desire," pulling the entities in the universe toward as-yet unrealized possibilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy#On_God

I'm don't mean to proselytize my ontological preference, but it is a scientifically sound solution OP's objections.

>"Apart from God there could be no relevant novelty . . . . Apart from the intervention of God, there could be nothing new in the world, and no order in the world. The course of creation would be a dead level of ineffectiveness, with all balance and intensity progressively excluded by the cross currents of incompatibility. The novel hybrid feelings derived from God, with the derivative sympathetic conceptual valuations are the foundations of progress" (Alfred North Whitehead)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232862815_The_Action_of_God_in_the_World-A_Synthesis_of_Process_Thought_in_Science_and_Theology

>>15022062
>No it doesn't. Like I said, the same mental illness exists in societies that don't have gender.
Would that not then be body dysmorphia, as opposed from gender dysphoria? For example, the individual would be fully 'masculine and male', and just feel wrong without a vagina - merely desiring a vagina while remaining fully "man"? That is obviously far different from a desire to be perceived as that social type typical to vagina, i.e. woman. Of course, they could have no concept of man or woman without gender.
>Then why the heck would you say "cures the problem of feeling like people are perceiving you as the wrong gender" if gender has nothing to do with it????
They said "the 6 letter word 'gender' has nothing to do with it." The gender with which we're perceived is an actuality, irrelevant are the words with which we describe it.
>Also, since it has nothing to do with gender, I should not need to call them their "preferred gender."
Again, nothing to do with the 'word' gender, but gender is an actuality. E.g 'El man' and 'La woman'.
>I'm pointing out it doesn't actually have anything to do with gender and hence "gender disphoria" is a pseudoscience lie attempting to distract you from these people's mental illness
Then what "mental illness" is it?

>>12717886
Oh, 21st.. Uh. Zizek.. Baudrillard.. Yeah, aren't many contemporary figures who's work I find significant, and they really do reflect this bat-like nature. Useful for those who would find use in it, progresses schools of thought. But does it progress towards the general goods to which human reason tends? Not really.
>>12717882
They do progress my understanding of metaphysics, even my ways of understanding. But my purposes have always been solitary, ethical, and religious.

>>12717655
Whitehead, Foucault, Deleuze..
>>12717735
Thank you, I was feeling dumb because I really liked it. I think the 'flaw in philosophy' being pointed out is that these are the very questions which philosophy asks. After reading 'What is it Like to Be a Bat?' one might hope to have a better answer than 'I don't know and I'm quite sure I never will.'

It's illuminating, but what has this wisdom brought me beyond a problem to love?

>>12716571
>Algebra 1A.
>Process Ontology
>Specific knowledge in areas of philosophy bridging between science, religion, and needs of society
>Learning to merge the value of individual claims with the objective universe

I find use in this board, even if just to interact with individuals like yourself. We've got different purposes. If I wanted a place filled with undergrads I'd go to college.

In diagnostic context schizophrenia and autism are lists of symptoms.
In analytical and philosophic context anoedipal libido is schizophrenic.
In its original context autism was a 'self-condition' characterized by withdraw into fantasy to escape an unpleasant reality, and a necessary symptom of schizophrenia. In my analytics autism is self-sympathetic resonance of libido.

>>12715932
We can choose to prehend memories of parents, or jacking off, or anything novel. We can choose what to look at, and what to focus thoughts upon. Our choices are influenced by prior occasions - their experience, feel, desire, thought - but not made by them. Those choices causally influence future occasions, including brain development throughout those occasions.
>They would have the same wavefunctions, free will would allow for the same brains to reach different conclusions.
Wavefunctions are abstract. Actually, photons are abstract, so a poor analogy on my part. But it does example the significance of our choice in abstractions.
>When you yield that free will is determined by its physical environment, what is “free” about it?
The actual entities which determine(d) that physical environment, both past and present.
>Thus an electron within a living body is different from an electron outside it, by reason of the plan of the body; the electron blindly runs either within or without the body; but it runs within the body in accordance with its character within the body; that is to say, in accordance with the general plan of the body, and this plan includes the mental state. -Alfred North Whitehead

>>12715723
Oedipal complex

To escape wilderness. Civilization begins with the use of fire to keep wild animals at bay.

I would only be able to communicate its perfection through smell.

>>12713125
I'm INFJ, Fe auxiliary function. I am not 'emotional', but I am deeply empathetic. Without that empathy I can't really give feelings or emotions any real significance. They are never of me, and not mine. I have no motivation beyond survival and concern, no drive towards personal satisfaction or success, only peace.
>>12713153
While generally considered 'woo' (because of ignorance), I find Human Design to be the a significant metric for this type of thing. I have an "undefined emotional center", meaning I do not have a way to generate and process emotional energies on my own. I also have an "undefined symbolic center", meaning I do not have a way to generate and process vital energies(basically 'sacred symbols' - such as the phallus) on my own. If I had either, then my 'authority' - or Dominant Function in MTBI - would be F or S. Driven by emotion, or a sense of 'uh-huh/nu-uh'.

I have a "defined splenic center", and since I lack the others(which would take priority), my authority is Ni - I listen to my body. The only natural way for me to make a correct (Or Jung might say 'heroic') decision is to be 'told' through intuition. While this is complex, anecdotal, woo, and all that, it seems my design type (which is the rarest at 9%~) and MBTI type(which is the rarest at 3%~) precisely reflect one another.
>>12713322
Rationally. Or maybe not at all, as I mentioned above. Some people have a defined way to feel emotions. But lacking that, we only work off the emotional energy we're being given, and avoiding situations/individuals/groups that would give us unwelcome emotions.

I'm from /x/, so pardon my deviation from the /sci/, but I find this stuff genuinely useful. *shrug*

>>12714995
>we can scan people's brains and see we decide before we are conciously aware.
Because we are neither the body nor the mental state, but actual entities which have a body and mental state. We are becoming aware.
>These ways are constrained by physics
Physics isn't physical. The former is abstracted from the ladder, which is concrete.
>So either every single iota of our being down to the individual atom has the ability to choose or nothing does.
Yes. Motes of dust in far-off space have free will.
>The other side of creativity/freedom as the absolute principle is that every entity is constrained by the social structure of existence (i.e., its relations – each actual entity must conform to the settled conditions of the world around it.) Freedom always exists within limits. But an entity's uniqueness and individuality arise from its own self-determination as to just how it will take account of the world within the limits that have been set for it.

>>12714128
>Really a lot of this conversation comes down to the silliness of the phrase, 'free will.
This.
>>12714168
>Memories are caused by outside influences
And we can choose which memories we're prehending and co-creating.
>Do you believe that 2 brains in exactly the same state would make different decisions?
Do you believe that two photons in exactly the same state could make different decisions?
>you would have to propose some agent that is outside the physical realm
Neither the physical or mental are primary, change is. Relations are not secondary to what a thing is, they are what it is.
>>12714283
Every choice and decision we make is causally influenced by prior occasions of experience, and causally influences future occasions of experience.
>>12714317
Even atoms have free will - a degree of self-determination and novelty. We make decisions of diverse experiences, feelings, intuitions. We are interdependent entities of a single organism.

>>12714325
That conception of free will is based upon a nonsensical notion.
>“The misconception which has haunted philosophic literature throughout the centuries is the notion of 'independent existence.' There is no such mode of existence; every entity is to be understood in terms of the way it is interwoven with the rest of the universe.” -Whitehead

>>12714327
God is not omnipotent~
>>12714424
>without any other external influence
Stopped reading there.
>then tell me what it is
I lied.
>When the indeterminism is limited to the early stage of a mental decision, the later decision itself can be described as adequately determined. This is called the two-stage model, first the “free” generation of ideas, then an adequately determinism evaluation and selection process we call “will."
Free? Got it. Will? Got it. Free will? Literally.
>because someone else told you
Of their own free will, adding an aspect of co-creation to our future occasions of experience.

>>12712877
Go on.

>>12712762
"I have a good feeling, I approve."
Feeling is a necessary and rational function.
"If I continue to have this good feeling, I am going to be given happiness."
It's quite easy to confront feelings at such a point to avoid affect. 'Happiness' is not a rational feeling, it is an irrational emotion.

As a more practical example: We can recognize when we're starting to feel pretty pissed off, and we can do something about it before we're given 'anger'.

>>12712589
Observe your feelings and address them before you're affected by them and given an emotion.

>>12712689
Too late.

>>12712588
That's up to the individual. They're capable of reapprehending and retaining lucidity. Fighting to ignore it or just hoping they go away is dangerous and futile. They should be confronted and addressed each and every time.

It's the result of nasal-retentiveness. The Nasal mother (Or moral mother) comes before language of the Oral father, so their Oedipal Complex has an underlying Orpheus Complex - the complex of an irreplaceable lover. They have no desire to replace the lover/mother, but to find the true love that has been taken from them. There is a lack of preference, as gender/sex have no significance in regards to this lost lover. We are to be homogeneous - Self - in relation to a single heterogeneous desire. So all other heterogeneity is grossly oppositional. Since the essential purpose of mimetic desire is 'replacing the mother', the very idea of 'being with a woman' at all can be found as repulsive, as coping, distraction, empty temptation, tragically and immorally attempting to replace the irreplaceable.
https://youtu.be/7aieoOz-dFo

You all know what it's time for: meds.

The thread I was gonna post this in got deleted, so I will post it here.

The issue here is a LACK of religion with science. Religion takes deeply felt emotions and contextualizes them within a system of general truths about the world, helping people to identify their wider meaning and significance; serving as a kind of bridge between philosophy and the emotions and purposes of a particular society. It is the task of religion to make philosophy applicable to the everyday lives of ordinary people. What meaningful framework of truth do individuals have to find their purpose and meaning in? Science obviously cannot serve this purpose. But here is where individuals are left to unconsciously inject their deeply felt - sacred - emotions and desires into scientific materialism, social sciences, and.. politics.. (stupid as fuck. All you /pol/tards are stupid as fuck).

Climate change, vaccines, race and IQ are just not that important. Do they have anything at all to do with my compassion, love, ethics, virtue, and desire? Obvious nope. Religion is firstly solitary, there is always a inner life which must come before the social life. If you are never solitary, you are never religious.

>>12712297
Please, continue.

>>12710351
I get it, and strongly agree. Imagining an apple has little to do with picturing the image of an apple. I'm not thinking about a picture of an apple, I'm thinking /with/ apple.

Fucking granny smith retarts.

My younger brother does play his classic consoles on a CRT~