/sci/ - Science & Math

Define "purity"

>>15716280
pic related

>>15716275
NGMI. You probably don't even know pure math.

>>15716275

>he fell for the pure math meme

Math is self-evident
Midwits can’t easily concoct bogus math to suit their personal agenda, they need to datafraud and methodologyfraud which are in the realm of scientific research but not pure mathematics

>>15716566
math is nothing without philosophy
not it's philosophy anything without math
one should ought to know on both of them
one should ought to know of the purest domains of human knowledge, such as math, physics, philosophy, and literature
while mastering all of them is not possible, one must aim as high as possible

>>15717016
typo, it's to is
and on to of

>>15716566
Philosophy became obsolete during the enlightenment and has produced nothing useful, this image is a cope for pseudointellectual midwits who think repeating the words of other men and arguing what their writings mean equals intelligence. The works of two of the most famous philosophers, Marx and Nietzsche, have only been used to build tyrannical governments that have caused war, famine, and genocide.

>>15717016
Both are equally useless.

>>15717050
>Math is useless
You're almost as retarded as philosophers

>>15716275

So pure.
So beautiful.
So unable to contribute to the betterment of mankind.

>>15717062
>So unable to contribute to the betterment of mankind.
Also unable to contribute to the worsening of mankind.

>>15717090

Cool. Eternal stasis. Truly the greatest field of study.

Why do small stupid college children around here make fun of Tooker and entertain his delusional writings?

>>15717062
Contributing to the betterment of mankind is a contemptible goal, as the majority of the benefit would accrue to evil people. Doing nothing is a less-bad choice. I actually do think there's a harm-prevention argument to be made for mathfags going into the insurance industry, though. Briefly, the purpose of insurance is the mitigation of anxiety over uncertain futures. Ergo, adequate insurance may prevent benzodiazepine use and consequent addiction.

>>15717333
*harm-reduction

>>15717040
>argues math is better than philosophy...
>by using philosophy, not math

>>15717352
What is the definition of philosophy?

>>15716275
>Why is Math so superior to science?
Because math is not real, it's a fantasy. It is internally consistent and logical, and many times it for some reason we don't understand can describe things in the real world.

But it's made up, it's "pure" because it's not a real thing it's a story made up of logical tricks. There is no actual such thing as a perfect circle, but with math even a child can describe and think about one.

>>15717016
>should ought

>>15717391
the same can be said of any science

>>15717394
>the same can be said of any science
no, not fucking really

are you dense?

>>15717366
Metacognition, epistemology, ethics, semantics... defining philosophy is a philosophical exercise itself

>>15717040
>and has produced nothing useful
MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION

We'd all be fucking dead and buried under a metric ton of radioactive ash without philosophy.
In truth we've abandoned philosophy not because it's useless but because it's a short cut. We're literally cutting corners in science and we keep pushing ourselves to the brink of extinction, and then we keep coming back to philosophy when we absolutely have no other fucking choice.

>>15717399
A list of examples isn't a definition. Define philosophy.

>>15717400
>Don't throw rocks at someone as they can throw rocks back
A truly profound idea. Thanks, philosophy!

>>15717401
>gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used
>conveys the meaning of a term by pointing out examples
>not a definition
By definition it's a definition. An exhaustive definition isn't possible because the idea encompasses the conceptualization of itself.

>>15717040
>The works of two of the most famous philosophers, Marx and Nietzsche, have only been used to build tyrannical governments that have caused war, famine, and genocide.
Nietzsche didn't have anything to do with fascism, Nietzsche's entire deal was recognizing that western moral systems were collapsing with the slow death of Christianity's influence and just wanted its replacement to be more focused on individuals being wise enough to discover their own moral system.

>>15717425
That is not a definition, it's a category. Philosophy is a meaningless word, which reflects the meaninglessness of everything that's often categorized under it.

>>15717429
It's very curious how whenever someone states what Nietzsche's philosophy is, it differs from what someone else says it is.

>>15717430
a rose by any other name anon.
You can muddy the definition of the word "philosophy" but the idea of it can not be destroyed. Ideas transcend language.

>>15717440
What is the idea of it?

>>15717436
>It's very curious how whenever someone states what Nietzsche's philosophy is, it differs from what someone else says it is.
i don't find that to be true, i am not the guy you are replying to but in general he is right, collapse of christian influence, thinking of replacement etc

in general that is the broad explanation you will always get of him

>>15717441
wisdom

lol math isn't even real. you can't put math under a microscope or prove math exists with science, therefore math is both fake and gay.

>>15717394
i saw an octopus the other day, it was pretty cool and real looking

>>15717445
The broad explanation, but you can find countless arguments on the internet about what he truly meant. It's no different to theologians debating religious scripture.

>>15717448
So you define philosophy as encompassing all knowledge. This is usually given by philosophers when you ask them. Outside of that it seems to mainly refer to frivolous humanities that don't really fit with anything else and are purely subjective.

if i want to make an equation where do i start?

>>15717455
>The broad explanation, but you can find countless arguments on the internet about what he truly meant. It's no different to theologians debating religious scripture.
it's very different because nobody thinks nitchy was a god. When it's all said and done we all know he was just some faggot like you and I with opinions.

theologians debating religious scripture think they are figuring out what a god wants from us; and that is far more dangerous- there is no such thing as god

>>15717459
so everything came from nothing? sorry, i don't have enough faith to be an atheist

>>15717465
>so everything came from nothing? sorry, i don't have enough faith to be an atheist
OMG NOBODY HAS EVER SAID THAT BEFORE THERE MUST BE A MAGIC DETIY

where did god come from? from nothing? from god's god? Where did god's god come from? what about god's god's god? exact same thing

>>15717465
>so everything came from nothing? sorry, i don't have enough faith to be an atheist
some lady ate an apple so god had to imgregnate a teenage middle eastern girl so we could butcher him like an animal, which made the apple thing forgiven, right?

hey math guys, what does the Ph in your PhD stand for again?

>>15717465
>so everything came from nothing? sorry, i don't have enough faith to be an atheist
some lady ate an apple so god had to imgregnate a teenage middle eastern girl so we could butcher her son like an animal, which made the apple thing forgiven, right? to me there is a big difference between giving the idea maybe there is some kind of god somewhere and thinking the creator of the universe came down here personally to reveal himself to a bunch of goat herding faggots in the middle east

>>15717478
to be fair eating shellfish killed a lot more people back then. and slavery was the backbone of many economies.

>>15717481
>to be fair eating shellfish killed a lot more people back then. and slavery was the backbone of many economies.
god is nothing if not practical

>>15717481
>to be fair eating shellfish killed a lot more people back then. and slavery was the backbone of many economies.
That's god for you, not wanting to hurt the economy to stop a little thing like humans being owned and traded like cattle.

>>15717470
>undergrad tier line of reasoning
i thought this was sci, not pol

>>15717478
>strawman
so you have no cogent rebuttal to the actual objection being raised? noted.

>>15717502
>so you have no cogent rebuttal to the actual objection being raised? noted.
you are absolutely fucking retarded if you think you can say "the universe came from nothing" means there was a god, but god is allowed to come from nothing

why are you hear, go listen to a sermon or something

>>15717507
God does not need a logical explanation because the laws of the universe exist in this universe and not outside of it. In our universe everything has a cause, and the original cause was God, and God is beyond physics.

>>15717455
>So you define philosophy as encompassing all knowledge
Knowledge/science and wisdom/philosophy are two different things, but they both need each other. Descartes might argue you don't need knowledge/science but I'd argue you can't function very well or do very much without both. The problem is science uses philosophy so much that people don't really realize they're using it. But think of it this way. Knowledge without wisdom is like data in a computer or information in a book. If it's just 1/0s or words on a page it's meaningless. It only becomes something when paired with a human who reeds, understands, and most importantly THINKS ABOUT this information they've read. AI gets us as far as reading and understanding, but it takes a human to have think about it and spawn new ideas or original thought from knowledge.

>>15717518
>God does not need a logical explanation because the laws of the universe exist in this universe and not outside of it. In our universe everything has a cause, and the original cause was God, and God is beyond physics.
The matter and energy we see in the universe was compressed to a single point. Before the big bang there was no time. It could have existed there beyond time "forever"

however the god you are talking about that apparently sent the universe in motion billions of years ago is a very different one from the one most people in the west believe in. If that is the case and you are still allowed to believe in DNA and fossils we can see that our ancestors were subject to disease and starvation and death long before they were human.

The idea that god set us up in perfect paradise and we fucked it up is wrong, we have always been in this disease ridden painfest for no fault of our own.

Evolution happening really makes the biblical good look like a total bizarre faggot on a billion levels. Almost like a bunch of sand niggers made those stories up.

>>15717527
This is pointless definitions that benefit no one except your semantics babble

>something can say "something can't come from nothing" and this implies the existence of the Christian God as described in my specific denomination of Christianity.
Delusional mad men.

>>15717518
>God does not need a logical explanation
the cop out of all cop outs. Why are you on /sci/ just go believe on bullshit not routed in logic somewhere else

>>15716275
Maths is a priori. And just so you know, formal logic is better than maths. Because some parts of maths are based on more fanciful assumptions, diluting the intellectual purity.

>>15717532
Yes. You're very well conditioned, you keep bringing up religions when it has no relevance to the argument.

>>15717537
Whom are you quoting?

>>15717535
TL;DR version
science gives us data, but philosophy tells us what data is important and why
Without philosophy you'd be counting grains of sand or specks of dust in a room.

>>15717540
That isn't a cop out

>>15717040
principia mathematica was great, cope. Go back to applied maths and stats, dweeb.

>>15717542
>Yes. You're very well conditioned, you keep bringing up religions when it has no relevance to the argument.
The think about believing in god as you do is in these arguments god can mean whatever the fuck you want and apparently you don't believe in the god most people in the west do, the god of the bible, the father of jesus.

so you can have this amorphous vague nothing "god" that nobody can argue against because you have defined nothing about it. You would have to say what you believe about your particular sky fairy before we can discuss it, otherwise what you are doing is cowardly

>>15716275
Physics is not “applied math” any more than art is applied geometry.

>>15717543
Pointless definitions for normal things. You invent these meanings to then use the same word for the field of study to try to make it seem intelligent.

>>15717547
>That isn't a cop out
yes it is

>>15717551
God is the cause. You never asked for what the definition was and it wasn't required in the discussion.

>>15717542
>Whom are you quoting?
Delusional mad men.

>>15717554
How? Why would the logical laws of our universe be in effect outside of it to effect god? It's just a rational deduction.

>>15717556
>God is the cause. You never asked for what the definition was and it wasn't required in the discussion.
"first cause argument" the first thing you hear about in apologetics when you are 13

>>15717562
Okay. Plenty of 13 year olds are atheists and philosophers too?

>>15717507
it points out the ridiculousness of materialism. you can't reason yourself out of your own worldview and the cope and seethe from you is magnificent to behold.

>>15717532
>DNA
an encoded message consisting of 3 billion lines arose randomly from mutations? lol lmao even

>>15717564
>Okay. Plenty of 13 year olds are atheists and philosophers too?
What?

no plenty of 13 year olds are introduced to apologetics and subject to this weak ass argument they have to spend the better part of an hour thinking about. before they see how spurious it is given current human knowledge

>>15717567
>ridiculousness of materialism

>>15717569
If this argument were so weak and childish you'd surely be able to effortlessly debunk it and wouldn't resort to reaction images

>>15717556
>God is the cause
The way you use "God" makes it a word for the cause, not the actual cause itself. You are merely naming the cause not describing it.

>>15717574
>If this argument were so weak and childish you'd surely be able to effortlessly debunk it and wouldn't resort to reaction images
if literally the only property your god has is being the "first cause" then there is nothing to argue about. Your god of the gaps is boring.

if your god has other properties or has ever interacted with humans things get more interesting

>>15717576
The cause is the creation of the universe

>>15717581
So the universe being created is the first cause

>>15717582
That's the result of the causation

>>15716275
Math is literally human made up bullshit attempting to explain the natual world but it doesn't

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s86-Z-CbaHA

If you get a degree in pure math, you're getting a degree in pure bullshit like philosophy. You need to tie it to reality, which your autistic brain can't handle. A better avinue is programming which is also human created but functional. Better than starving in a community college with a worthless degree. STEM should be TE

>>15717567
>an encoded message consisting of 3 billion lines arose randomly from mutations? lol lmao even
We can literally watch it happen.

>>15717579
You'd prefer it for everyone to follow desert cults instead of taking a rational belief?

>>15717602
>You'd prefer it for everyone to follow desert cults instead of taking a rational belief?
does your god have no other property other than causing the big bang?

if there were no god, if we evolved from apes. Then you are doing what is expected. What we always do. First god lived "on top of mountains" like mt olympus then god lived sort of vaguely in the sky. God caused things, god caused things like thunderstorms

whenever we got the chance to look, we never found god. No god at the top of the mountian, no god kind of vaguely in the sky, we find thunderstorms can be explained without god. What you are doing is pointing to the top of the mountain, a place we cannot yet go or see, the instant of the big bang. You take god and put him there, but that's what apes do. That's what we do. We will someday be able to look there.... somehow... and we wont find god, just like we never found him anywhere else.

'god of the gaps' is what you are doing, it's very boring

>>15717619
This is guilt by association, the topic isn't clouds it's the origin of creation

>>15717628
>This is guilt by association, the topic isn't clouds it's the origin of creation
no it's pointing out that men have always done exactly what you are doing.

if the only property your god has is starting the big bang than just go on believing in that god. it does not matter

>>15717634
>no it's pointing out that men have always done exactly what you are doing.
And you're using that as a way to suggest it's incorrect and primitive. No one else in this thread has posted a better explanation for creation.

>>15717634
>>15717638
This argument seems stupid. Like why insist on calling the cause of the big bang "God" just call it the big bang, t=0, or the first cause.

>>15717642
Because the argument for god comes with the claim that there's is something outside of the universe

>>15717638
>And you're using that as a way to suggest it's incorrect and primitive.
Im saying it's what evolved apes would do, it makes sense. Humans feel we need to understand and explain things, it hurts us when we cant. Most humans don't have the balls to say "i don't know" when there is something we can see but cant explain in full, so we throw god on it and can feel that is some explanation.It's our nature as apes

Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.

-Kurt Cobain, insecticide

>>15717649
We don't know if there is something outside the universe though.

It's interesting how often math threads derail into religion threads.

>>15717651
>It's our nature as apes
what evidence led you to this conclusion

>>15717651
>-Kurt Cobain, insecticide

>>15717651
Now you're just being condescending and annoying, you already said this the first time. Some ego thing? Do you feel that talking about humans in third person makes you superior?
You have to actually explain why it's wrong to assume god was the force in the creation of the universe.

>>15717662
>what evidence led you to this conclusion
ive met a lot of apes

>>15717659
I think quite a few math schizos were also religious schizos Godel is one of them

>>15717665
>You have to actually explain why it's wrong to assume god was the force in the creation of the universe.
"assume"

it's wrong to "assume" you should have a hypothesis, then a theory then evidence for that theory. you are jumping forward like 50steps lol

see occams razor

You honest to god sound like a teenager, im being condesending because I taled all the shit you are talking about right now when i was 14 and it's hitting close to home and cringing me out. If you keep searching and learning you will get past this but it takes a lot of thinking and understanding epistemology in context

>>15717656
The logic implies it

>>15717672
It isn't wrong to assume when no other explanation works. You haven't posted a single reason why this might be incorrect. Your insults, patronisation and associations aren't working.

>>15717675
>It isn't wrong to assume when no other explanation works.
INCORRECT

because we have no explanation for something, because no other explanation works out (to you) then you throw god on it. What you are saying is exactly what i am saying you are doing, and you are saying you are not doing it. (lol)

There was a time when we had no explanation for lightning, so we used god as a "cause" THAT IS ASSUMING. You are doing exactly the same thing, just like i am saying by putting god as cause for the big bang like we used to do for lightening

we have done the "It isn't wrong to assume when no other explanation works.' thing with god for thousands of years in hundreds of contexts. He's never there when we get to look

>>15717683
>Saying the ultimate origin of all of creation, the entire universe, the origin of time, all physics, all matter, is god, is the same as explaining that lightning is god being angry
Do you honestly think this? Are you just saying this in fear of losing the argument? Judging by the webm you just posted falling to that level wouldn't be unlikely for you.

>>15717673
There is no reason to assume the universe has an outside.

>>15717688
you are not making an argument

you have an "untestable hypothesis"

>>15717688
>>Saying the ultimate origin of all of creation, the entire universe, the origin of time, all physics, all matter, is god,

Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value the may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.

― Pope Jon Paul IV

>>15716275
Agreed.

t. Science

>>15717391
What is there to stop a perfect circle from existing?

>>15717804
>What is there to stop a perfect circle from existing?
A perfect circle of what?

that should give you your answer

>>15717831
The material of the circle is inconsequential

>>15717911
>The material of the circle is inconsequential
incorrect.

A circle made of atoms vibrates and changes size with tempature. It also is not infinitly divisible. A theoretical math circle can be dividted into .0000onehundredzeros00001 units. A real circle of matter cannot be.

>>15717960
Ok but as per:
>>15717394
the limits of isomorphology of abstract thought to "objective reality" apply to all fields

>>15716275
Have fun never contributing anything to society other than navel gazing

>>15718000
>the limits of isomorphology of abstract thought to "objective reality" apply to all fields
chemistry is a field created by observing how atoms that exist react with each other, in the real world while existing.

that is nothing like where pure math comes from or how it is studied

>>15718029
>What is applied math
>What is theoretical chemistry
It's literally the same, only your perspective on them that is different

>>15718040
it's literally not the same

describing atoms which are a thing in nature based on observations is different than pure math

>>15716566
>Philosophy
Nigga everything that can be talked about was talked about 2000 years ago. Philosophy has generated anything novel since the Greeks and the Greeks probably stole it too.

>>15718045
numbers are a thing in nature that are observed.

>>15717960
>vibrates and changes size
Those atoms could form a perfectly circular configuration no matter how infinitesimally short a time period they could hold it for

>perfect circles can't exist in reality because math doesn't work that way
You're trying to describe nature with a language made up by humans. You're gonna find shortcomings or places where the math is pushed beyond reality

Reality isn't bound by math, and nor is math bound by reality. When math and reality contradict each other, reality wins out.

>>15718099
my guy, math wasn't invented, it was discovered. math describes reality

>>15716566

>>15717040
>Philosophy became obsolete
In an ideal world this statement should bar you from being admitted to a phd program and have any higher academic credentials you may possess invalidated. Truly the sign of a midwit scumbag

>>15717391
math is just a language with words to describe complex operations. It can be used to describe things that aren't real in the same way you can write fiction with realistic and internally coherent paragraphs.

>>15716275
It only seems so, because math has only itself to judge itself, which means that it can't be wrong by definition (it can only be done incorrectly), while all the other fields get the merciless criticism from actual reality.

>>15718245
Lol, lmao, even. I guess english was discovered too, in the same hole in the ground that they discovered the Mona Lisa, the Hoover Dam, and communism

>>15717477
>hey, nazi guys, what does the zi in your nazism stand for again?

>>15718350
Ga-zi-ng ze jews.

>>15717400
invented by von neumann, who was a mathematician.

>pol bot replying to itself
many such cases

>>15717692
Consciousness is evidence. There is no physical explanation for it.

>>15717693
That is an argument. It is an untestable hypothesis that beats every other hypothesis.

>>15717400
Already automated thanks to GPT, nobody needs expensive humans pulling shit out of their assholes when machines can do it for cents.

>>15718265
LMAO, you commies, you really deserve to starve to death.

>>15718505
>Consciousness is evidence.
No it isn't
>There is no physical explanation for it.
Yes there is go find another hole to hide your God in.

>>15719376
Your entire worldview is a consequence of your priest failing to find something better than your hole to hide his dick in. Every opinion you hold stems from being diddled as a kid and yet you think it stems from being your being rational. I lol every time.

>>15719384
Not him but your argument assumes a priest.

>>15716275
>sociology as the chief keef of all sciences
whoever made this is a based Comte knower

>>15720331
>chief keef

>>15719376
When science fails for thousands of years to explain consciousness don't you think it might be a good case to assume something outside of physicality? Are you sentient, by the way? A person alive knows that consciousness is in a category that cannot be placed with material.

>>15722210
>assume something outside of physicality
Even if it's own irreducible thing it'd just be another element of physical reality. :^)

>A person alive knows that consciousness is in a category that cannot be placed with material.
Neither can most of the stuff in moden physics. lol

>>15722285
Do you have an example of something comparable?

>>15722316
No, but that doesn't make what I said any less true.

>>15722320
So you lied?

>>15722321
What did I lie about? Quote it.

>>15722323
>Neither can most of the stuff in moden physics. lol

>>15722332
That's still true. What do you mean by "comparable"? Comparable in what sense? Of having nothing to do with any meaningful concept of the material? Okay, explain what's so "material" about a quantum wave function. Pure abstraction.

>>15722341
It is an aspect of a particle. It can eventually be determined what it does and its relation with other things if it does exist. There is no material explanation of consciousness, no relation between it and anything else.

>>15722349
What makes you think there's anything more concrete to it than the indirect consequences predicted by an abstract mathematical notion?

>>15722356
What?

>>15722358
What makes you think there's something more "material" behind quantum wave functions that humans can probe?

>>15722365
Because it has a relation to particles

>>15722370
So what? I just don't see your reasoning. If anything, it just takes something away from the supposed tangibility and concreteness of particles.

>>15722387
One of them has a relation to particles, while the other does not. Consciousness is actually experienced by people who have and they know it has nothing to do with some physical force.

>>15722398
>One of them has a relation to particles
So what? How does it make it "material"? It just makes particles less "material". What do you mean that shit has no definite location until it's measured? Anything material should have a definite location, right? :^)

>>15722402
It makes it just an force, more like gravity. Consciousness has no definite location, no measurement, people can observe their own consciousness but cannot observe others', it cannot be connected to anything and often scientists say it isn't real, or redefine it to something else.

>>15722407
>It makes it just an force
A force? Still very ghostly. We only ever register the consequences of a force.

>Consciousness has no definite location, no measurement
... and we only ever register the consequences of consciousness.

>>15722425
The forces interact with particles which makes them material. Consciousness does not, it doesn't affect anything, a human could operate without it and no one would be able to tell. It is just there, to be experienced by people.

>>15722427
You're strangely obsessed with these "particles" for some reason. Daily reminder that consciousness also interacts with particles.

>>15722432
How does consciousness interact with particles?

>>15722434
Anon, do you have a body? I don't know how consciousness relates to particles, but it obviously relates to them somehow.

>>15722442
Consciousness does not relate to any specific particles, it relates to human bodies. All the atoms can change and it remains there. It follows them around, and allows the insides to be experienced. But it doesn't affect it.

>>15722449
>Consciousness does not relate to any specific particles
I bet it relates to some pretty specific particles to enable you to use your body for anything more intricate than a literal spazzing fit.

>All the atoms can change and it remains there
So what?

>>15722452
It doesn't relate to anything, humans without certain parts are conscious.

>So what?
It's not bound to anything, it seems to be directed by some force to attach to a body.

>>15722455
>It doesn't relate to anything
Then how did you move your fingers to type that out?

>It's not bound to anything
I don't know what you mean by "bound" but it's certainly interacting with your stupid particles.

>>15722457
>Then how did you move your fingers to type that out?
That doesn't require any consciousness, a computer could write it. A human body can operate without consciousness. All consciousness is is experience.

>but it's certainly interacting with your stupid particles.
How is it interacting with it?

>>15722460
>That doesn't require any consciousness, a computer could write it. A human body can operate without consciousness.
So now you're saying you're a p-zombie?

>How is it interacting with it?
Look, I don't know how it works for you, but I'm pretty sure my consciousness is interacting with the world somehow because I can feel external stimuli and I can move. If you won't even acknowledge that your consciousness has some connection to reality, I don't know what to tell you. Have an nice life?

>>15722464
I never said that you illiterate fucktard. It's that consciousness isn't required for any biological purpose, I said a body doesn't need it. But does have it.

>but I'm pretty sure my consciousness is interacting with the world somehow because I can feel external stimuli and I can move.
That's not consciousness interacting with it, that's your physical, biological body doing it. You touch things, that sends a message in your nerves. The thing is that consciousness experiences that. But without consciousness that would still occur. get it now?

>>15722469
>I never said that you illiterate fucktard
You might as well have said it, because I keep asking you if your consciousness has anything to do with your typing out these posts, and you keep telling me you don't need consciousness to type them. lol

>>15722470
No you don't, machine can do it, chatgpt could give these responses. Is there something you don't understand?

>>15722475
>Is there something you don't understand?
Yes. I don't understand why you keep telling me about what some hypothetical simulacrum could do when I keep asking you if the content of YOUR consciousness has anything to do with the posts YOUR body is typing out. lol

>>15722483
Everything humans do would still happen if there was no consciousness.

>>15722486
I don't know. Suppose it would. That did not answer my question.

>>15722487
What is your question?

>>15722491
Does your consciousness have anything to do with your body typing your posts?

>>15722493
I already answered this.

>>15722496
Was your answer a 'yes' or a 'no'?

>>15722510
Consciousness has no effect on human behavior.

>>15722513
That's not what I asked. I'm starting to seriously suspect you're a bot because your tone and the way you "argue" are identical to the rabid materialists that frequent consciousness threads, all the way down to the strange looping and refusal to answer yes/no questions, It's really uncanny.

>>15722520
It is what you asked, that answers your question. Why are you so petty?

>>15722548
>It is what you asked
Maybe in the eyes of someone reasonable, but clearly not yours, since you opted to rephrase it instead of giving a straight yes/no answer. lol

>>15722552
Honestly? it feels kind of demeaning answering it. If you were asked, for example, what would happen if someone slit your throat open, would you want to answer it in terms of yourself? It's easier to write an impersonal response referring to humans genuinely. This might be an autism thing you don't understand, whatever.

>>15722558
So what's the takeaway from all this? That your body just so happens to act in a manner that reflects your mental state by sheer coincidence? Or that your takes about consciousness are products of a meat-GPT inside your skull, but there's some perfectly neutral observer slapped on top of it that doesn't influence anything or have any opinions of its own?

>>15722577
All of the mental state is biological, the consciousnesses just experiences it. There's no coincidence in this at all.

>rabid materialists
That's what you've been doing this entire time.
>strange looping
You initiated this looping yourself, after finding a weakness and attempting to exploit it to save face. Your typing style is also much more predictable than you think it is, you began doing the smug confident act with emoticons then dropped it after you got annoyed upon losing the argument and revealed the normal, angry 4chan poster personality you have.

>>15722588
>All of the mental state is biological, the consciousnesses just experiences it
So basically this?
>your takes about consciousness are products of a meat-GPT inside your skull, but there's some perfectly neutral observer slapped on top of it that doesn't influence anything or have any opinions of its own?

>>15716566
>They hated him because he spoke the truth.

>>15722597
All of the mental state is biological, the consciousnesses just experiences it.

>>15722603
Is that another oen of your autism fits that I don't understand?

>>15722610
You do understand. Describe what would happen if someone stabbed a knife into your throat. You may answer this, but you won't enjoy doing it.

>>15722615
I would probably bleed out and die? Whatever. In this instance, sure, I can understand. I was rubbing it in your face, after all. Maybe it gave you a whiff of the intrinsic absurdity of your opinion. Imagine hearing a musical masterpiece and thinking it would've turned out exactly the same if the composer couldn't experience the quality of those sounds. I really cannot imagine what it's like to be in your head.

>>15716275
Applied math is just fine if you know the pure math that underpins it.
Honestly, pure math done without the hope that it becomes applied at some point is just masturbation.

>>15716566
What use are philosophers to mathematicians?
Everybody else could go ask the next level up for help if they encounter some special case that doesn't fit their heuristics.
Math and physics are almost equal since there is a lot of cross pollination of ideas.
I can't see philosophy helping with anything above biology.
Maybe they could help the life sciences ensure their subjective observations in their noisy experiments arrive at the proper strength of conclusion.

I'd consider logic the purest philosophical contribution. But after Aristotle's syllogisms, philosophers mostly spun their wheels in the mud with it as they tried to apply it to the wrong things. We had almost 1500 years of going nowhere until mathematicians/logicians started formalizing it and souping it up and to do more powerful deductions.
Current philosophy is at best just applied logic and THEY CHOSE SHIT APPLICATIONS that don't even begin to flex the best parts of logic or even lend themselves to logical analysis.
At worst it is the study of how to not even be wrong by being able to poke holes in everyone else's arguments/frameworks then propose some word soup alternative that boils down to "I guess we can't know anything for certain, teehee".

chemfag here
what the fuck is even happening in this thread???
can you faggots just do your own thing?

>>15717016
>should ought
lmao what a spastic ape you are

>>15723764
He's very upset about philosophy.

>>15717659
math is the pure Platonic paradise

>>15716275
Mathematics just okay around with numbers all day. They're worthless human being.

>>15727490
*Play around.

Needed to get that necrobump.

>>15716275