/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11443981
double slut experiment

get double vision drunk and dunk your dick in a double vision double slut. you can't know whether your dick went into the right slut, left slut, whether the slut was a double slut or there were two sluts.

in any case there is a distribution density function determining the amount of child support that you're gonna have to pay, and it looks like two tiddies.

now the philosophical approach to the whole conundrum according to pope rattinger would be to keep it corked next time, and consume mass wine by the chalice, and not by the barrel, even though it's called mass wine it's not that kind of mass wine.

>>11443991
this is your brain on i dont even know what

>>11443981

>The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other - he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy - but it would be the only strictly correct method.

>>11443991

>>11444023

>>11443981
physics is studying actual physical phenomena, philosophy is studying schools of thought humans have made up, essentially a subfield of psychology or sociology

>>11444033

>>11444035
>>11444032
>>11444027
stop.

>>11444040

>>11443981
delayed choice double slut experiment

get double vision drunk and dunk your dick in a double vision double slut. you can't know whether your dick went into the right slut, left slut, whether the slut was a double slut or there were two sluts.

after the double slut double dunk you can take the second modulus of the double sluts' social security numbers flip a coin to determine whether you double dose the truthy slut or the falsey slut with plan-b.

in any case you will notice that the distribution density function determining the amount of child support that you're gonna have to pay looks now like a single tiddie if you tally all the sample runs where you picked the truthy slut or the falsey slut. however, if you merge the two sets together you'll get the classical double slut dubble tiddie again.

now the philosophical approach to this new connundrum is that erwin schrödinger's younger dumber brother sepp schrödinger initially performed the experiment with an experimentalist mindset after ordering a mass schnaps instead of a mass bier. no one ever does this anymore however because it's way too expensive and doesn't yield particularly good or consistent results.

>>11444041
You can go back to your home website now.

>>11444033
>subfield of psychology or sociology
No, those fields borrow their ideas from philosophy. In fact, everything is a subfield of philosophy.

>>11443981
There are still philosophical implications for new discoveries of physics, and often physicists philosophize about them as well
Study more, stop being a /sci/encebrain

Physics is the study of matter. We only know 5% of matter. Physics is incomplete. Philosophy will remain speculation as long as that remains. Consciousness doesn't fit into the 5% of matter we know. Everyone who will tell you otherwise is a fucking brainlet.

>>11444778
you go away, I like that guy.

>>11445606

>>11444778

>>11443981
If you count mathematics as a branch of philosophy perhaps.

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME IF THE BOARD IS BROKEN I CAN POST BUT NOTHING IS GETTING BUMPED EVERY THREAD IS REMAINING IN PLACE

>>11444027
>>11444032
>>11444035
>>11444041
>>11446367
Based faux oldfag dabbing on clueless plebbots.

>>11446427
nvm the catalogue is broken everything else is k

>>11446474
Based retard.

>>11443981
To engage with you OP, why do you think reconciliation is relevant or not achieved? What issue do you even want to overcome with that supposed reconciliation.
Nevermind that "philosphy" might be too broad of a concept to actually put meaning to the sentence.
Ethics and political philosophy are much further away from physical theory building than e.g. Kants thoughts on the mind.

>>11444033
This sounds extremely naive.
Firstly, to even conceptualize and describe "actual physical phenomena", you need a philsophical grounding. If you say "I describe the phenomena of this stone falling", then you're already in a framework derived from a physical conceptualization (maybe notions such as "there are thing", "there is space", "there is motion", "there is time"). The interplay between describing words and their individual intended semantics aren't even easy to isolate - if at all - from all their possible contexts you can use them for.
At the same time, the ways of us describing the world with math in physics is also "just" a "schools of thought humans have made up." You must take a leap to project some naturalness to the ways of doing physics that humans have come up with.

I have a PhD in physics, but I'm not a realist. E.g. if you're not taking the problem of induction seriously, we won't have much fun together.

>>11446516
>I have a PhD in physics

>>11446526
Just to make a case that I could engage in a longer serious discussion about the philosophy of science and don't make things up as I write.
There's no subtle way of bringing that point across without sounding like an ass, afaik.

>>11446516
It’s not relevant but it would be nice. I desire some sort of metaphysical closure. All of the bright minds of science felt there was something more to the world and I’m not that smart but I share the same sentiment

The image is a bit confusing the left side is the side I agree with, the right side I disagree with.

>>11446530
>There's no subtle way of bringing that point across without sounding like an ass, afaik.
1: don't bring it up at all
2. ?????????
3, PROFIT!!!!

>>11445040
Philosophy is, at its core, a study of systems of thinking people have made up, whether it is religions or morality, or ethics. It has no connection to any objective truth

>>11446754
Theology however does have objective truth as it comes from the creator. Philosophy which is derived based on deductions from these objective truths of theology will also be objective.

>>11446775
Theology is just the philosophy of cults and the supernatural

>>11446775
>Theology however does have objective truth as it comes from the creator
which theology exactly is that?

Even if you want to assume your theology is true, whatever, you can still agree that every other theology is just another type of philosophy analyzing a bunch of bullshit men made up a long time ago

>>11446782
True, but that doesn't undermine my point. It is still objective as it comes from the all knowing.

>>11446784
Islam is the most reasonable. Al-ghazali once said to read from the philosophers you must be like a merchant who can pick out the true gold coin from a bag of mostly fake ones just by feel. There is truth in the other faiths, but you must be able to pick it out.

>>11446796
or they are just like all fake

>>11443981
Physics and philosophy aren't opposed. I really wish people knew what philosophy is.

>>11446801
They are opposed, physics, or science more broadly tries to characterize how the universe works and study real phenomena, while philosophy is just a study of ideas people make up to try and confuse that (or sometimes stuff that is just unrelated), the problem is philosophy tries to bill itself as a study of truth too when its anything but that

>>11446799
That is a possibility, but easily refuted as we know of objective truths. It is objectively true that murder, adultry, idolatry, etc are morally wrong. You don't need religion to prove these things you can use the moral imparative of Kant based on the idea of generalizing an act to all people. If all people were to kill on a whim for example we would all die, this result is unjust. So we can conclude the act of murder is morally wrong. That assumes the preservation of our race is a moral imparative. That assumption isn't too bad, definitely better than the axiom of choice won't give contradictions.

>>11446811
You don't know what philosophy is.

>>11446816
>It is objectively true that murder, adultry, idolatry, etc are morally wrong
There is absolutely no thing as objective morality, those are things we agree should be considered wrong for the most part ( i mean, not so sure about idolatry)

>>11446840
let me guess "physics is actually everything so good things to care about are technically philosophy too"

The problem really is philosophers and what trivial pedantry they choose to care about, not everything that could possibly be considered philosophy in general

>>11446816
>you can use the moral imparative of Kant
You realize that if you are choosing to use a system made up by a guy it is not objective, right?

If you are making assumptions and defining value and justice, it is not objective

>>11446840
Except he does. It's you that doesn't understand the definition of Philosophy. Philosophy is diametrically opposed with science. Imagine if you tried building a rocket ship that would be sent into outer-space based on sentiment and not mathematical calculations.

Philosophy has its place but it's not in science. You're clearly so enamored with philosophy that you're philosophical even about the definition of it, which is straight forward. Don't fucking ask me to define it, that's what you have Merriam Webster for.

>>11446853
You should take a course on philosophy you critique the basis of all human thought. You sound like someone who has never learned science criticizing science.

>>11443981
No

>>11446861
The problem is philosophers using the fact that all human thought is technically a sort of philosophy in justifying all the bullshit and literally made up stuff that forms the huge majority of what they do and care about.

The vast majority of philosophy is low grade sociology, just studying systems of definitions people made up to explain how what some fucking 1800s Europeans guy thought was a cool way to think, and building layers, and layers of bullshit on that, none of it based on anything real

>>11446870
Why do you keep trying to describe philosophy when you don't know what philosophy is? That's a weird thing to do.

>>11446891
again, to be clear, the problem is people who consider themselves philosophers (post enlightenment specifically), not the concept of philosophy in general

>>11446891
please elaborate, how am I wrong?

>>11446900
What is wrong with post-enlightenment philosophy?

>>11446924
Well the enlightenment saw science split from philosophy, before that they were the same thing and the same people studying them. What remained had absolutely no value, just arguing about things that have no actual answer

>>11443981
>what is quantum immortality
>what are akaschic records
>what is the many worlds interpretation
>what is the holofractographic unified field theory
>what is quantum physics
>what are the elf like beings people see on Dimethyltryptamine experiences
>what is chaos theory

i think physics and philosophy go hand in hand, fucking fight me

>>11446928
In philosophy you start with some basic assumptions and draw conclusions based on those assumptions, just like in mathematics, as well as in the implicit assumptions which form the basis of science.

>>11443991
Holy shit cap this

>>11446956
Mathematics are objectively true, they are not based on assumptions

And while you an argue that Science has some assumptions at its core, it is not fundamentally about those assumptions, in stark contrast to philosophy which is specifically about making up subsets of assumptions and arguing what the implications would be

>>11444778
>t. highschool AP bio

>>11446969
>Mathematics are objectively true, they are not based on assumptions
You couldn't be more wrong. Just stop.

>>11446982
quantities and their relations to each other exist regardless of our assumptions about them

>>11446986
Mathematics is based upon axioms which can't be deduced from other statements. We assume that axioms are true so we can deduce all of the wonderful theorems and results of mathematics. If you believe 1 + 1 = 2 is self-evident, you should read Principia Mathematica, where Russell and Whitehead take several hundred pages to deduce 1 + 1 = 2 from more fundamental axioms.

>>11447024
1+1=2 regardless of what hoops you jump through to justify it to yourself. It requires no assumption

>>11447024
>you should read Principia Mathematica, where Russell and Whitehead take several hundred pages to deduce 1 + 1 = 2 from more fundamental axiom
Why tho. Thats the fundamental problem with post enlightenment philosophy, its inventing problems that absolutely do not exist in order to justify getting paid by a university to talk about them

>>11443981
yes, through String Theory.

>>11443991
o i am laffin

>>11447046
You should read up on the foundations of mathematics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom?wprov=sfla1

>>11446754
You're an idiot, learn the history of philosophy and you'll find out that science is actually philosophy's bitch.

>>11446754
>a study of systems of thinking people have made up, whether it is religions or morality, or ethics
I'm sorry but you don't know what you're talking about. Every field is in a sense "made up," but what you are describing is something like intellectual history or cultural anthropology. Philosophy encompasses more than the study of existing philosophy. Several branches are concerned with basic phenomena (as is science)

>>11447077
lol no. The fact that scientists used to call themselves philosophers does not make science "philosophers' bitch"

Scientists left you pedants behind for a reason

>>11447065
You should read up not being a pedantic little shit. You know exactly what everyone itt is referring to yet you're choosing to be difficult for (You)'s. Well heres another one so you can sleep at night le ebin troll xbbb

>>11447060
Most mathematicians would say Principia Mathematica was a pretty important work in the history of mathematics. Maybe it didn't lead to the invention of iphones, I don't know what your criteria are for considering something valuable.

>>11447085
>Every field is in a sense "made up,"
No, scientists study the universe, things that exist regardless of our presence. Philosophers study things humans have made up, like religion and morality, things that have no objective truth to them, no right answers, only things to argue endlessly about

>>11447085
What was the last major contribution to philosophy that actually mattered and advanced our understanding of the universe?

>>11447095
Philosophers aren't primarily concerned with studying religion. That is actually its own field of study. As for ethics (which, now that I tell you you will know, is usually interchangeable with morality in philosophy), it is only one branch of philosophy. But philosophers also study things like logic, the nature of consciousness, perception, and causality. And I should also point out that even though scientists study the "universe," that doesn't necessarily mean science has some privileged or unmediated access to reality. Science is a practice and a method, not superimposable over the things its business it is to describe.

>>11447100

>>11447100
Do you mean in the sense of being able to describe and predict physical phenomena? Because in that case you are asking me "when was philosophy last science?" And I think that question has already been answered.

Science gives us better things, longer lives
Philosophy gives us Donald Trump

>>11447124
>Philosophers aren't primarily concerned with studying religion
Theology is almost certainly the most studied subsection of philosophy

>>11447128
give me the TLDR

>>11447124
>that doesn't necessarily mean science has some privileged or unmediated access to reality
Not true, science is literally the study of reality. If something exists and can be studied, that is science. It by definition has "privileged access". There is no study of the universe outside science

The study of consciousness is another great example of the problem with philosophers. Consciousness is a unscientific concept with no real meaning. A problem entirely made up by philosophers to justify their existence. These is absolutely nothing in science to suggest there is a mystery to consciousness beyond our biochemistry yet you people insist there is to guarantee a paycheck

>>11447174
Things have no attributes onto themselves, only ever-changing relations between things. Also God exists.

>>11447167
>theology is almost certainly the most studied subsection of philosophy
Certainly it was in the middle ages. But the fields mostly diverged during the Enlightenment.
>Not true, science is literally the study of reality. If something exists and can be studied, that is science. It by definition has "privileged access". There is no study of the universe outside science.
I am going to need a more rigorous definition of concerns to continue. Something existing is obviously not "science," but I know that isn't what you meant. I could tell you that metaphysics is literally the study of the fundamental nature of reality, but I doubt that would satisfy you, and rightly so. So I will ask you to do me the same favor I would do you and tell me in what way science is the exclusive, definitive study of reality. For that matter, why don't you go ahead and tell me what you mean by reality. And I'm afraid an answer of "that which can be described by science" would be begging the question.
>consciousness is a [concept] with no real meaning
I find it hard to believe you really think that. Do you mean to say that you do not experience consciousness? If you do, then you have to concede that it exists, and if it exists it can be meaningfully conceptualized and in turn analyzed. So unless you believe consciousness simply doesn't exist, I'll have to ask you to expand.
>there is nothing in science to suggest there is a mystery to consciousness beyond our biochemistry
This is interesting, because although subjectively I experience consciousness, as a layman I do not really understand it. Could you link me to an article that biochemically explains it?
>yet you people insist there is to guarantee a paycheck
Yes, one thing we can agree on is academic philosophers in the year 2020 are definitely in it for the money.

>>11447228
>>11447248
definition of terms*

>>11447198
What does /sci/ think the threshold IQ is in order to understand the hard problem of consciousness? I would say /sci/'s average IQ is 110, and easily 75% are incapable of understanding the hard problem of consciousness. 130 IQ maybe? 140?

>>11443981
The guy in your picture was both a physicist and philosopher. He obviously seemed to think so.

>>11447259
/sci/ is (relatively) clever but most posters are soulless bugmen, redditors-in-denial, human calculators and all around the wrong kind of autists to think about concepts outside of the demesne of normal science in a constructive way

>>11447228
>Things have no attributes onto themselves
Why do you think this?

>>11447248
Metaphysics is literally the study of things humans made up. If it existed it would be called physics

>>11447248
>Do you mean to say that you do not experience consciousness
I do not experience consciousness beyond the chemical reactions in my brain. There is absolutely no reason for philosophers assume there is more to consciousness than chemistry

I have never seen a single convincing argument for why philosophers belong in the discussion of brain chemistry

>>11447259
lol, its the exact opposite. Suggesting there is a hard problem is the low IQ stance, its just a form of religion

>>11447277
You'll have to read the book.

>>11447281
My friend, what you are doing is the definition of begging the question, something no self-respecting scientist would do ;^)

>>11447274
>to think about concepts outside of the demesne of normal science in a constructive way
There is no constructive thought outside science, only pedantry and superstition

>>11447295
I would rather read a book about real things that exist or have happened, or even outright fiction I guess

>>11447296
no, it is not begging the question.
Metaphysics by its very definition is fictional, physics (or science more broadly) already contains all real, studyable phenomena

>>11447287
>I do not experience consciousness beyond the chemical reactions in my brain
Do you really not? I'm not trying to say consciousness is some kind of spooky, immaterial, transcendental thing, but manifestly it is more than chemicals, no? I don't even think a biochemist, a behavioral neuroscientist, or whatever, would claim that. If you are the experience of consciousness is reducible to chemicals, I would have to ask if that is really a satisfactory description of what we actually mean when we talk about consciousness.

>>11447292
I've thought this, that maybe denial of consciousness is just a really bizarre idea like quantum mechanics, an idea so strange I just can't comprehend it because I'm a brainlet. But then I listen to all the other nonesense these people spew and I realize they're just retarded.

>>11447298
Can prove this assertion scientifically?

>>11447312
>but manifestly it is more than chemicals, no?
No, there is absolutely nothing to suggest it is

Now we haven't fully characterized every biochemical brain pathway and how they all interact, but there is no reason to believe there is more to it or suggest there is some "hard problem"

>>11447315
This post actually does prove my assertion on its own

>>11447307
See, but you have already assumed what you are trying to convince me (or yourself) of. What I am seeing is a lot of rhetorical bluster masking a shaky understanding of the things you are trying to criticize as well as the thing you are trying to claim is something it is not and has never been purported to be by its most gifted practitioners. Do you seriously not see the problem in claiming that the things that science is (conveniently) able to describe are the only things that are real and worthy of study? It's shoddy reasoning, my friend. Specifically, like I said, it's begging the question.

>>11447320
Yes, very clever, but my point is obvious: you are making a value claim that is insupportable by science. Science cannot be self-justifying.

>>11447313
I genuinely do not understand why philosophers insist they belong in the discussion of consciousness and why they think it must be beyond science. Why is consciousness special in literally every other thing that exists in that its nature is not explicable by science? Every other real thing has a scientific explanation

>>11447321
What do supposed metaphysists study that also exists outside of our fictions?

>>11447317
NPCs are real guys. They can only recite what they've read about the brain. They have no inner experience and have no idea what we're talking about when we refer to consciousness.

>>11447324
luckily for all of us it doesn't have to be as this is an arbitrary standard

>>11447321
>Do you seriously not see the problem in claiming that the things that science is (conveniently) able to describe are the only things that are real and worthy of study?
Its only a problem for people who don't like the idea of scientists being right. If your subject exists in reality, and has objective truth behind it, not just man made concepts, its study is inherently scientific

>>11447326
>Why is consciousness special in literally every other thing that exists in that its nature is not explicable by science? Every other real thing has a scientific explanation
Great questions. You're starting to sound like a philosopher.

>>11447329
please elaborate what about your "experiences" cannot be explained through science. What needs a supernatural metaphysical explanation?

>>11447317
I suppose I don't really understand. I am not meaning to suggest that the deliverances of the science are not meaningful, enlightening or whatever, but only that science is a circumscribed mode of inquiry that exists among others and is not unimpeachable nor comprehensive in its conclusions. Why you say that biochemistry can totally describe consciousness, I'm baffled, because from what I can see it can only locate the manifestation of some elements of what we call consciousness following certain physical states in the body. Science is very good at describing brain states that would seem to accompany phenomena in the realm of consciousness, but to me that clearly isn't the whole story, and in fact it leaves out (or merely presupposes) the whole question of the subjective experience of consciousness -- which is not vacuous, and can be explored rigorously in philosophy. Basically, there are questions that science is fundamentally ill-equipped to answer.

>>11447340
>Basically, there are questions that science is fundamentally ill-equipped to answer.
How is consciousness possibly one of them? What about consciousness is not fully explained by chemistry?

>>11447338
My perception of the color red. The color red doesn't look like the electromagnetic wave which it's associated with, it doesn't look like activity of photoreceptors in my eye, and it doesn't look like action potentials moving across neurons in my brain. My perception of the color red is wholly different from any of the physical processes which gave rise to it.

>>11447332
If it is arbitrary, you yourself have implicitly set the standard. You seem to be claiming that nothing is meaningful if it cannot be analyzed scientifically. So, can this claim you are making be justified in this way?
>>11447328
The fundamental nature of reality. Not that I believe they're right, of course.
>>11447334
I worry you are getting the idea that I am hostile to science, which is simply not true. I simply have reasons for not treating it dogmatically. And the legitimacy of disciplines is not a zero-sum game at any rate. It's not a contest. Philosophy doesn't "win" at the expense of science.
>>11447345
How does consciousness emerge at all from physical states in the brain? What is consciousness?

>>11447340
>and can be explored rigorously in philosophy.
lol, I wouldn't say rigor is quite philosophy's strong suit
>Basically, there are questions that science is fundamentally ill-equipped to answer.
Only such questions for which there is no objective truth behind them, like morality. Consciousness is not like this, it is a naturally occurring phenomena, the exact thing that science is precisely designed to explore and characterize

>>11447340
>Basically, there are questions that science is fundamentally ill-equipped to answer.

Only questions that don’t have real answers.

>>11447356
>and it doesn't look like action potentials moving across neurons in my brain
I disagree, that is precisely what it looks like.

Thats exactly what our brain does, it turns physical stimuli into thoughts that exist as chemical reactions in our brains

>>11447362
So when you look at an apple, you see action potentials moving across neurons in your brain? That's pretty amazing dude. You should donate yourself to science.

>>11447358
>>11447358
>lol, I wouldn't say rigor is quite philosophy's strong suit
That condescending attitude is irritating given that you clearly have very limited firsthand experience with philosophy.
>only such questions for which there is no objective truth behind them
Again, this is begging the question, and moreover an egregious abuse of terms. You literally cannot employ categories like "objectively true" without recourse to something outside of science, specifically (you guessed it) philosophy.

>>11443991
fpbp

>>11447360
What qualifies as a "real" answer?

>>11447357
>You seem to be claiming that nothing is meaningful if it cannot be analyzed scientifically
Seems fair enough, at least nothing can be rigorously studied, there is no objectivity, no truth or legitimate answers without science, only ideas

>And the legitimacy of disciplines is not a zero-sum game at any rate
Legitimacy makes something science, not the other way around

>How does consciousness emerge at all from physical states in the brain
Consciousness is simply the net sum of the current chemical state of your brain's interactions. There is nothing ebyond it

To people who think there is a mysterious supernatural aspect to consciousness, when does consciousness start. When did animals evolve consciousness, what is the most complex brain that is not conscious?

>>11447374
>when does consciousness start. When did animals evolve consciousness, what is the most complex brain that is not conscious?
Great questions. You're starting to sound like a philosopher.

>>11447366
>you see action potentials moving across neurons in your brain?
What we call sight is literally just our web of neurons firing. Just as our sense of kinesthesia is just neurons transmitting data from the further reaches of your body to your brain and your brain interpreting it into spacial data to make it more useful to you. These are just chemical skills we evolved

>>11447378
Thats the problem with the hard problem. It uses a non-rigourous, non-scientific concept of consciousness to make it impossible to nail down and define opening a window for supernatural explanation

>>11447378
Well philosophers better be able to answer these basic questions if they are going to assert that consciousness is some sort of problematic blindspot for science

>>11447374
>nothing can be rigorously studied
I would ask you to apply rigor to your own line of reasoning. This is simply a circular argument, where you point to the things describable by science as proof that science is the sole legitimate mode of inquiry.
>Legitimacy makes something science, not the other way around
Oh yeah? No it doesn't.
>Consciousness is simply the net sum of the current chemical state of your brain's interactions. There is nothing ebyond it.
But why should I believe you? Basically what you are saying is consciousness is the sum of those brain-states that we decide to call consciousness. It is, again, a recursive and (to my mind) unsatisfactory definition.
>a mysterious supernatural aspect to consciousness
I think this belies a caricatured understanding of philosophy that could be remedied by a little bit of self-study. Philosopher generally don't appeal to the supernatural, certainly not modern ones, and if it your position that anything description of phenomena that is not science is a supernatural one, well, that's more circular reasoning.

>>11447383
Yes, but either you have to acknowledge a distinction between the chemical and physical processes in the brain giving rise to conscious perception and the conscious perceptions themselves, or admit you're an NPC with no inner experience and no clue what I'm talking about.

>>11447397
>that science is the sole legitimate mode of inquiry.
Its not this, its that science is the only legitimate mode of inquiry for things that have objective truth behind them

Its the legitimacy of the question that makes rigorous inquiry about it science. So the supernatural/religion cannot be addressed by science so we need philosophy, likewise with morality where there is no objective truth
>Basically what you are saying is consciousness is the sum of those brain-states that we decide to call consciousness
Exactly, just like a foot is the structure we use to walk on, we defined the terms but that does not mean we need anything supernatural to explain how our bodies work

>and if it your position that anything description of phenomena that is not science is a supernatural one
Can you please provide some examples of explanations of how natural phenomena work that are satisfactorily answered philosophically but not explicable by science? I honestly have no clue how such a process would work

>>11447406
>a distinction between the chemical and physical processes in the brain giving rise to conscious perception and the conscious perceptions themselves
Why? Where is the gap? What about your ability to experience things suggests your brain has an extra-chemical existence? Just because its hard to describe in words how chemical reactions lead to perception?

>>11447413
Because my perceptions are not chemical reactions. They simply aren't. There is little I can be more sure about.

>>11447418
Sorry to break this to you man, but you are literally just a complex bag of chemicals acting in a long term self replicating reaction

>>11447411
>objective truth
See, but "objective truth" is not really a meaningful category within science. Surely it has to mean something more than replicable or observable. To get at what makes something objectively true (or even to get at what that might mean) we would have to turn to philosophy.
>supernatural/religion cannot be addressed by science so we need philosophy
Again, you misunderstand what philosophy is at a very basic level.
>Its the legitimacy of the question that makes rigorous inquiry about it science.
My friend, let me break it down
>we have a question
>it can be meaningfully answered through scientific inquiry;
>therefore, it is legitimate
[...]
>the question is legitimate;
>therefore, it is solely and definitively a scientific question
You -- again -- are arguing in circles.
>Exactly, just like a foot is the structure we use to walk on, we defined the terms but that does not mean we need anything supernatural to explain how our bodies work
I will reiterate the philosophy is not the study of supernatural causes and does not necessitate an appeal to them. Your broader point, that consciousness is the neurochemical reactions that we call consciousness, also happens to be a circular one. Someone else ITT has mentioned that conscious experience is manifestly differentiable from a chemcial reaction that -- seems -- to cause it or coincide with it. How can science answer to that? Will it ever be able to?
>explanations of how natural phenomena work that are satisfactorily answered philosophically but not explicable by science
Why not consciousness?

>>11443998
Something tells me it's mass wine and schizophrenia.

>>11447431
>See, but "objective truth" is not really a meaningful category within science.
Its the only category within science.

All science is about characterizing what is happening in the universe. It it is not seeking truth, not trying to answer questions about how things fundamentally and predictably work, it is not science.

>Someone else ITT has mentioned that conscious experience is manifestly differentiable from a chemcial reaction that -- seems -- to cause it or coincide with it
It isn't though. The only reason to even suggest it is is to weasel philosophers into a scientific discussion

>>11447431
>Why not consciousness?
What answer has philosophy ever given us about the nature of consciousness?

Please do not sidestep the previous question. I genuinely want to know what you think. You stated
>if it your position that anything description of phenomena that is not science is a supernatural one, well, that's more circular reasoning.

What are some non-supernatural explanations of natural phenomena that philosophy gives us that science was unable to address

>>11447440
>Its the only category within science.
No offense, but I'm getting the sense that you're ESL. I assume you study science, or at least engineering. I challenge you to demonstrate how "objective truth" is a functional category in the everyday practice of normal science.
>It isn't though. The only reason to even suggest it is is to weasel philosophers into a scientific discussion
I don't find this to be a satisfactorily rigorous answer. If you expect me to take it seriously, you should support your claim with evidence and logical argumentation.

>>11447443
>What answer has philosophy ever given us about the nature of consciousness?
Well, there are competing theories. I worry that you might think I am claiming philosophy can deliver definitive answers. It cannot, but I'm sure you would be the first to point out that science cannot either. As for an example, I suggest you check out Dennett's "multiple drafts" model of consciousness.
>What are some non-supernatural explanations of natural phenomena that philosophy gives us that science was unable to address
I don't claim to be totally up to date, but there are naturalistic explanations of consciousness that appeal to things other than scientific inquiry (see above)

>>11447445
>I challenge you to demonstrate how "objective truth" is a functional category in the everyday practice of normal science
What do you mean by functional category?
All science is simply trying to characterize how the universe objectively works. If objectivity isn't the goal the issue is not related to science

The universe is the way it is. It exists objectively. Science is our attempt at documenting and understanding that nature, specifically by testing repeatable, predictable pathways

>>11447445
>ou should support your claim
my claim that your claim is semantic nonsense?

>>11447461
>functional category
A category applied meaningfully in the practice of science. Afaik, science does not need to make grandiose claims about the things it merely purports to describe.
>objectively
In a colloquial sense, I agree.
>The universe is the way it is. It exists objectively.
See, but this is at best an article of faith (which you seem to abhor) and at worst an example of the kind of meaningless pseduo-statements you seem to think philosophy consists of. Science, I'm sure you will agree, is not interested in proving something as abstruse as you claim that the universe exists and it is the way it is.

>>11447458
>It cannot, but I'm sure you would be the first to point out that science cannot either
I am saying that for anything that has an objective answer to it, science is the only path to it. If science cannot by its nature provide us with an answer, no such objective truth exists (not to imply that there are not scientific questions we have not yet answered, just that those are only due to the difficulty of the measurements involved).
Furthermore, I think to assert that there are physical aspects of our body that do not have objective explanations is absolutely absurd

>>11447465
But it isn't semantic. Nothing could be more manifest, to me at least, than conscious experience. Saying "it is equivalent to this neurochemical phenomeon" is not an adequate response. I put it to you that you are the one hiding behind semantics.

>>11447476
>Afaik, science does not need to make grandiose claims about the things it merely purports to describe
But it does claim that the things it is measuring actually exist in an objective, describable manner, its the very basis of science, not some category of it

>>11446856
>made up by
discovered by*

>>11447139
Best way to illustrate how both are necessary.

>>11447476
To clarify I use the term "universe" broadly to mean the collection of all things that exist

Science is not trying to prove things that exist exist, it is describing things that do exist and how they work. It is exploring the entirety of existence or the universe. Its not trying to prove the universe is the way it is, its trying to characterize the way the universe is

>>11447479
Do you consider consciousness a physical aspect of the body (rhetorical)? Do you regard science as having an adequate answer to this previous question? Another anon ITT mentioned qualia, e.g., the subjective experience of color, which we can nonetheless be sure "exists." Can science describe the nature of such a phenomenon? If so, how? And finally, what do you mean by objective? If you just mean "empirically verifiable," I will once again have to disagree.

>>11447298
I take it you're too dense to notice the irony of your post?

>>11447480
please elaborate. Why do you think there is more to it that science and chemistry, why is this manifest?

>>11447307
>Metaphysics by its very definition is fictional
>Another episode of redditor uses big-boy words without knowing their meaning
Oh no no no no

>>11447491
no, absolutely not, he literally created it, there are no discoveries in philosophy, only inventions

>>11447510
Nope, discovered it.

>>11447501
>Do you consider consciousness a physical aspect of the body
What else could it possibly be?
> Do you regard science as having an adequate answer to this previous question
Yes, absolutely
Qualia is not a scientific concept, it is a philosophical term invented by people without any interest in a scientific understanding of how the body works trying to muddy the waters. Qualia do not exist in any supernatural state outside the chemistry of our brain, and there is no reason to suggest they do, its just a word describing things our brains evolved to perceive through chemical means
>And finally, what do you mean by objective? If you just mean "empirically verifiable,"
Yeah, sure. How can something be objectively true if its not verifiable by nature?

>>11447506
You right now are having the conscious experience of reading my post. You are reading it, and meanwhile you are aware that you are reading it, and aware of a myriad of other things. I frankly cannot see how this is reducible to a chemical description of what is going on in the body. It is "subjective," but what could be more real than what you, yourself, are experiencing minute-by-minute? And I do not just think it is a case of imprecision -- I think science would never be able to adequately be able to describe the nature of this experience because of the mode of scientific inquiry itself, and its limitations.

>>11447507
Please expand on some metaphysics that actually exist

>>11447519
>. I frankly cannot see how this is reducible to a chemical description of what is going on in the body
That doesn't mean it isn't
I can't see Pluto, but I am pretty sure it exists

>>11445040
cope.

>>11447519
>I think science would never be able to adequately be able to describe the nature of this experience because of the mode of scientific inquiry itself, and its limitations.
I think this is a ridiculous thing to believe. If we had precise enough instruments to measure the place and energy and type of every molecule, and powerful enough computers to process that information everything would be predictable. You would absolutely be able to simulate a human brain and any consciousness contained within

What specifically about this concept makes it outside the realm of science's abilities in you mind? Why is this special relative to every other part of our body and the observable universe for that matter?

>>11447526
OK, then demonstrate it. I (and you) certainly shouldn't have to take it on faith.
>>11447533
Maybe it is that I don't think conscious experience itself can be observed in a way that would yield a scientific explanation of it. I think you would always be reducing it to other phenomena, which would ultimately be missing the point.

>>11447522
spacetime is a metaphysical concept

>>11447517
>qualia is not a scientific concept
No, but your point is that qualia are reducible to things that are described by science.
>it's a philosophical term invented by people without any interest in a scientific understanding of how the body works trying to muddy the waters
The truth is more exhausting. If you read any philosophy at all, you would realize much of it is keenly attuned to the deliverances of natural science. Again, it's not a pissing contest.
>Qualia do not exist in any supernatural state
Agreed
>outside the chemistry of our brain, and there is no reason to suggest they do
Other than the fact that brain chemistry does no work whatsoever to describe them, of course.
>its just a word describing things our brains evolved to perceive through chemical means
But didn't philosophers make it up to "muddy the waters?"

>>11443981
No, because philosophical speculation is fundamentally meaningless

>>11447522
>he still doesn't know what metaphysics is
Anon, this is embarrassing. Just look it up on Google.

>>11447128
based whitehead. mathematics, mathematical physics and metaphysics. seriously based.

nuke everyone in this thread.

Philosophy just won't die. There must be a reason for this.

>>11447600
if you weren't a retard you'd understand that actually philosophy is necessary. if

>>11446969
>Mathematics are objectively true, they are not based on assumptions
just stop honestly, i think it's bait at this point

>>11443981
No.
There are no rules in philosophy. You can concoct a "strong" argument for pretty much anything. How are we supposed to upheave one "truth" from the other?

>>11447298
empiricism is not the only epistemology and is in fact quite weak for many important questions concerning the universe and reality at large.

>>11443991
Just wait til reddit sees this one

>>11447627
Try to explain it.

>>11444023
Who are you quoting?

>>11443991
Somehow this makes complete sense to me

>>11443991
I had lost all hope.

>>11443991
kek

>>11443991

>>11448721
things are more complicated than they seem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP8teUgZcBY&list=PLGV2ddg-PFGvWKDeTyrUji7TXY8y1SHjl

>>11448740
wittgenstein

>>11443991

>>11443991
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>>11443981
I think so

>>11443991
what the fuck

>>11443991
Put me in the screen cap!

>>11443981
Easily. Just defund and retire philosophers.