/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2564217
Hard Quinism Representing

>>2564247
agree

>>2564217
>Groks

Groks can go suck a dick

>>2564247
>>2564252
>>2564256
Full Retard

Hard Quinism
The only rational one.
Grokism is for retards who don't get math.

>>2564263
Grok scum!

>>2564217
Bitches don't know about my Hard Quinism

There are people on /sci/ who actually believe in OMTs?

That's almost as bad as mind-body dualism or something.

>>2564279
Almost as bad as anons who post pics that cant be read

It's possible that someone would invent different maths than us, but I do think it's likely that a lot of our math will be isomorphic to theirs to a certain extent.

So I'll take Quinism. Of course, as long as we know that we are using the same axioms, it should be possible to communicate. There are certain systems which are simple and obvious enough that one could imagine other alien beings to have reached those. I wouldn't expect all of the math to be the same, but certain concepts will probably be reached by any intelligent being developing a math, even if there may be differences in notation and definitions.

>>2564279
But there are OMT. Example "pi":

Any Euclidean geometry will lead to the concept of "pi". Any being smart enough to build shit in euclidean geo, will have to stumple upon the concept of "pi".

>>2564279
Faggot.

>>2564297

Hard Grok-Quinism FTW

>>2564297
sort of, but pi itself is a set of symbols in a subjective language construct employed to describe an objective reality. That reality is so fundamental and prevalent that likely any intelligence will produce language to describe it in a recognizable manner, but the language isn't objective. math is language to describe reality, but it's reality, not math that can be considered objective.

>>2564297
However, real numbers (irrational and transcendental) and Euclidean geometry is actually a lot more weirder than one would expect (compared to more discrete math). It (R) seems intuitive on the surface, but it's a lot stranger than most people expected and it's actually difficult to give proper axioms for it (only happened in the past 100-200 years). Not to mention that it's not computable and probably impossible to realize in any physical universe.

The only problem with Quinism is that it assumes a sapient alien would even want to build the same structures we do. I think this is a premature assumption.

>>2564217
As wel live in the same "universe", all beings applied mathematics will have to be isomorphic on some level.

E-geo is the same on any planet. And basic prep logic is the fuckng the same everywhere.

Advanced abstarct maths may differ, and certainly the "smarter" species will have math concepts that ther others don't yet.

Hard Quinism!

There are just too many problems with the notion of Quinism and Objective Mathematical Truths. They presuppose that beings would evolve co-linearly despite living under totally separate circumstances on completely separate worlds, and that they would have the same mathematical goals and ways to reach those goals as humans do. I challenge you all to read some Wittgenstein so you can remove from your heads the outdated idea that extralinguistic abstractions like OMTs could possibly exist in reality

>>2564319
You will actually stumble upon "pi" as long as you stumble upon the "circle/spehere".

You assume that it is possible that a species will not stumble upon the concept of a circle/sphere? WTF?

Circle/spheres are fucking everywhere in the universe! Any species will notice them! FUCKING SUN YO!!!!

Since there are different forms of logic ON OUR OWN PLANET and within our own species, why the fuck would alien logic overlap with our own?

Shit, humans didn't even agree on the existence of zero at one point, and many people in India and China had different axioms than Westerners up until colonialism, like the Fourfold Dialectic. Imagine how other SPECIES would perceive the world.

>>2564338
The notion of 'circle' may be as arbitrary for them as asymmetric blotch#235 is for them. I get your frustration but think you might be missing the point.

>Quinism
>OMT

see: religion

Same axiomatic system? hell no

but the same implications of math are guaranteed to a large degree, because math is represented in physics, and physics is objective.

hard-grok-quinism here

>>2564343
is for us*

Forgive me, I'm tired.

>>2564315
>>2564315
I undersatnd your point. However, it really depnds on how you wish to define "maths". As long as two species have the same concept, the different types of maths used can be said to be isomorphic to eachother, and the same in that sense.

It is just like how you can represent any number is an infinite amount of bases, all "reprenations" are equivalent, as they all convey the same concept.

quines, serious question, do you think elephants understand 1+1=2?

>>2564343
>See circles everwhere
>dont notice them

Anyone who expresses any certainty for either Grokism or Quinism is making a huge presumption since we have never yet met aliens.

>>2564352
MOAR?

>>2564356
Again, you're missing the point. We see circles everywhere because the mental architecture of our brains is wired to search them out. There may be countless other shapes that are meaningful to other beings but not to us, for reasons we may never comprehend.

Grok-quinism is the right answer.

If you actually believe you can "feel" the answer then sorry you're a retard. Softs are out.

If you actually believe you can know something for certain then sorry you're a retard. Hards are out.

If you actually believe the laws of physics are different over there and aliens would not follow the same logical steps as us then you're a retard. "Groks" are out, if that's even a real word.

If you actually believe our perceptions and methods of thought are not different from aliens, let alone other individuals, then you're a retard. "Quines" are out, another ridiculous word, use latin next time.

>>2564364
>"Groks" are out, if that's even a real word
Looks like you're out.
>retard

>>2564315
You don't seem to actually know what real math is.

You seem to think math is actually about the "formal structure" and not the "concept".

Fundementally math is about the "concept", with the "formal structure" second (and often being trivial).

Engineering math is not considered "real math" in general. That shit is fucking trivial.

>>2564352
just semantics, but I like to impose a strict dichotomy between things and the language that describes them. This presents a dualism of identity, but that's a problem for epistemology to worry about.

is the thought of a circle the same as a circle? I can't imagine any other way of conceptualizing the idea than observing it, abstracting it, turning it into symbols, and manipulating or communicating it... but just because I can't imagine a thing doesn't necessarily make it impossible.

that said, I tend to think any alien intelligence we would be able to recognize is of course going to have to fit our definitions of intelligence, indicating that anything lacking intersubjectivity very like our own will go unnoticed.

>>2564369

>>2564369
concepts aren't objects, I don't need mathematicians to tell me that.

>>2564361
It's not just that we're wired to seek them, but because they really are everywhere. Planets? Spheres. Moons? Spheres. Sun and other stars? Spheres.
Aliens may not put particular importance on circles/spheres for whatever reason, but I severely doubt that they wouldn't know that a circle's diameter is a certain ratio of its circumference.

>>2564370

You fail to understand what mathematics actually is. Math is not about "formal structure", math is about the "concepts".

Have you ever even take a real math course? (engineering maths does not count)

>>2564375
How old are you?

>>2564217
Hard Quinism is the only logical choice

>>2564381
39.

If I say younger you'll imply I'm naive, if I state my real age you'll imply I'm senile.

either way, you're correct... I don't understand math. you have yet to convince me it's objective though, even with my agreement that an objective reality exists. Your assertions are fun, but ultimately no more trustworthy to me than anyone's.

>>2564376
But what you denote as a sphere or circle might be perfectly trivial to a life form that has evolved to find blotch#442 everywhere in the same way we find circles everywhere. It seems counter-intuitive, but so is quantum mechanics.

>>2564385
only logical person itt

>>2564389
thanks, but I give it five seconds before someone calls us samefag.

>>2564386
We didn't evolve to find circles everywhere.
We evolved to find patterns. Patterns of Patterns. Patterns of patterns of patterns of patterns of ... You get the idea.
Other general intelligences that may evolve or get engineered by some species will of course need similar pattern finding capabilities to be intelligent. Recognizing one specific pattern and not nothing anything else would not be intelligent.
If a race as generic enough and thus developed a way to recognize statistical patterns in their environment, they may have a chance at inventing a math (or more), hence I think they will notice some similar patterns as our abstract thinkers do, and they may develop /some/ systems which are isomorphic to our own. Of course, the farther they dwelve into the abstract, the more likely it is for both of us to invent systems that the other didn't.

>>2564385
>I don't understand math

GTFO THEN!

You are talking out of your ass, and making really fucking bad conclusions.

Educate yourself little guy! Maybe one day you can actually form a valid view-point.

>>2564367
>googled the etymology
>comes from some flopped pseudo-intellectual book written in 1961
Looks like no one has to care about this irrelevant obscure bullshit.

>>2564398
still not convincing argument.

are you lazy or just stupid?

>>2564399
>Heinlein
>SiaSL
>obscure

Did your hole deeper, dumbfuck.

>>2564389
>>2564385
Hey GUZE I DONT UNDERSTAND MATHS! HOWEVER IM GONNA MAKE UP BULLSHIT ABOUT MATH AND PASS IT OFF AS LEGIT!

>>2564399
wat

>>2564402
Who is arguing with you?
You are to illknowledged to even attempt anysort of logical debate. Seriously, you don't even know what math is? WTF dude?

I suggest you go read a book or go back to school or somthing.

>>2564404
skipped philosophy, didn't ya?

you can't math without logic, show me that a concept is the same as the thing it abstracts.

I'm trying to piss you off enough to dispense some knowledge. It would seem you have none though.

While Quine was a full retard when it came to epistemology, I can't see how anyone HONESTLY couldn't be a Quine.

You know, OTMs and Quinism remind me a lot of Plato's World of Ideal Forms.

Which is exactly what they are.

You dolts.

>>2564415

What the hell is this shit?
Someone should make a graphic about gnostic/agnostic/weak/strong santaism (santa, the guy with the beard, not satan, the guy with the horns) or easterbunnyism.

>>2564415
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Hat's off to you. You are the true Joker.

>>2564420
yes, trolling, but also curious.

I don't mind being wrong, if someone can explain why I'm wrong. So far I've got a ton of reaction pictures and no arguments. Great for trolling, but ultimately nothing of value was said. You guys are weak.

>>2564418

> Objective truths
> Platonism

Gödel was a pretty cool guy, you know..

>>2564217
Subjective mathematics?
WTF am I reading?

This nonsense is why philosophy is a dead field.

>>2564436
Wait, wait, wait, hold the phone.

You think math evolved identically in all civilizations?

>>2564433
1) Pick up a real math book
2) Read

>>2564440
I don't think you know what math really is

>>2564445
That's not a rebuttal, nor an answer, nor even an original post. Be ashamed.

>>2564436

> Discussing math
> Why philosophy is a dead field
> philosophy
> math

Philosophy of math is a interdisciplinary subject, just as much math as philosophy. derp.

>>2564441
I'll give it a try, since nobody here has anything to offer.

my interest isn't math though, it's epistemology. I think you guys know a ton of math and almost nothing about knowing. a common failing I suppose, but an irony nonetheless.

Mathematicians should keep numbercrunching instead of doing this, nonsense philosophical question that has no impact on our lives whatsoever.

Get a life.

>>2564440
Their math would be isomorphic to theirs if they pick a set of axioms which can be proven to be equivalent to ours, for one specific math. Math describes an idealized reality to a certain degree, and if they are intelligent (can predict and understand patterns) they may eventually develop some form of math, possibly similar to ours.

I do expect notations, definitions and many many things to be very different, but I do believe that a lot of their systems could be proven to be isomorphic to ours eventually. We find symmetries and equivalences in our own maths all the time, and we as humans have invented plenty of systems in our short time.

>>2564449
>epistemology

which starbucks do you work at?

>>2564454
Math isn't about numbers. Use a computer.

>>2564454
People arguing in favor of grokism aren't mathematicians.
Philosophers in best case.
Retards in worst.

>>2564449
>philosophy

A field that hasn't done anything productive in over 2000 years! The rest of the world has moved on! Why haven't you?

>>2564469
Math major here. If you aren't a grok, you're probably dumb as a bag of hammers.

>>2564466
I don't work.

Not sure why you'd associate an interest with a profession, but for statistical purposes I'm retired, 39 years old, bored, and worth more than you ever will be. I'm kinda happy about that, though of course you won't take my word for it or even consider the possibility that I speak truth. I'm also an insomniac, and just about tired enough to get some sleep. See ya tomorrow.

>>2564475
God here.
I created the world, so I know better.
I also fucked your mother.

>>2564470

I suppose it's easy to dismiss a field you know nothing about.

>>2564487
This.

>>2564470

You don't know much philosophy, do you?

>>2564466

> Mathematician
> Talking about earning money

You'd probably be jelly knowing I majoring in philosophy as well studying at a occupational preparing program, if money is what you're caring about.

>>2564487
Naw, I took a couple of phil courses. Even thought about getting a phil major once. Phil is intresting, however it genenally don't really lead to anything helpful or meaningful.

All phil courses generally help you develop some critical thinking ability, but that is it. They teach no "substance". It is pretty much just a big circle jerk.

Modern Phil is just people arguing about nonsense, that has no importance, and cannot be proven or disprove. It is the definition of a waste of time.

Maths is independent of the observer. Maybe there are some OMTs of theirs that aren't apparent to us, but they're still true in our part of the universe. Maybe some of our OMTs are non-obvious to them, but they're still true.

Are OMTs untrue for retarded little kids who are too thick to get maths? No, the OMTs are still there, they just don't get them.

>>2564507
>Phil major jumping to bad conclusions
>as always

Who ever mentioned money? How fucking reatrded are you?

>>2564518

>>2564507
>occupational preparing program

>>2564518

No offence, but what shit university did you go to? With AI and computers, philosophy of mind is alive and well. Epistemology is more alive than ever after all these late reduce it to just psychology. Ethics, well, always have an impact on peoples life, and philosophy of politics. Philosophy within the social sciences have a huge impact, law is a perfect example where there's positivists VS natural right-believers.

Not to mention that Kripke kicked metaphysics back into the game again.

>>2564537
>trying to justify the importance of phil

>>2564537
FAIL

>>2564534

> Find a field where you know there's few people working, or they're really undermanned
> Get a few contacts
> As a trainee, 45k/year
> When I'm finished, 100k starting.

What?

>>2564537
Are you sure your not an english major?
You seem great at writing fiction!

>>2564546
>>2564543

> mfw no refuter

>>2564548
>make up bullshit
>post it on /sci/
>hope no one notices I'm trolling

wat?

>>2564556

No idea what an underwater welder makes, do you?

>>2564554
Refute: You are posting nonsense

You are making an "extrodinary claim", then expecting others to refute it? Wtf? I thought you knew basic logic bro? That is not how shit works....LMFAO

You make an "extrodinary claim", the burden of proof in on you bro.

Please show the "impact" of modern phil. Yall have "Impact factors" like in real journals? Any concrete evidence that backs up your nonsense? Links?

>>2564549
>your
Looks like you could have done with an English course.

Math major Grokfag here.

whether or not OMT's exist is a philosophical question. Specifically an epistmological one.

it's ironic that so many mathfags would volunteer an opinion while mocking philosophy.

my dad has a PhD in mathematics and all he did was shake his head when I showed him that picture

come on people, this is just stupid

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but where do this chart and these terms come from?

>>2567044
Pretty much this, though I suspect most of the idiot quinefags were trolling. You'd have to have the brainwaves of a mollusk to think humans are divinely inspired by the "objective" laws of the universe or whatever.

Grok is the only rational choice. People who are Quinists might as well be religious fundies.

>>2567089

Grok is a scifi term. Quine is a mathematician and philosopher of science. Its from a thread a week or so ago about logic and math in astrobiology. The original question was if or math would be compatible with an alien's.

>>2564331

Agree and agree. Adorno, Foucault, Fleck, and Kuhn won''t hurt either.

My knowledge of Quine is limited to his 'Two Dogmas of Empiricism'. Can anyone explain to me why Quinism is related to Quine? It seems to me based on that essay that Quine would be "Grok" if anything.

>>2568646
Quine is also a type of computer though.

>>2567509
Anyone stupid enough to be a Grok, should be shot to make sure that they don't reproduce and continue to pollute the gene pool with retardation. All mathematical truths are objective. The overlap of used axioms between us an an alien race is completely irrelevant. There is some strong inevitable overlap, but the objectiveness of mathematical truth is irrelevant of the choice of axioms. The axioms just set the context from which we are going to view the OMT.

>>2569551
>holy fuck I think this moron's serious

Quines should be sterilized.

Groks should have their genetalia and instestined cut off and burned in front of them, and drawn and quartered.

>>2569670
0/10
everything he said was obviously correct

>>2564217
Hi all. It's this thread again.

I don't believe in Platonic Ideals as anything more than a fantasy, but I do believe any alien culture as technologically advanced as our own will have Natural Numbers and the Pythagorean Theorem.

Put me down whereever I belong.

It would be interesting to see how an advanced alien species' math would evolve. From our own evolution, we can see that workable notation is necessary for evolution of advanced concepts. The Greeks and Romans were rather stuck because they didn't have Arabic numerals, but once they did it was off to the races, and their evolution would be hard-pressed to be much different.

As a matter of practicality in trade, everyone starts with whole numbers and addition and multiplication. From there there is a natural need for both inverting functions and forming groups.

Inverting addition leads to subtraction, and the need for groups under subtraction leads to the set of integers (the inclusion of negatives).

Inverting multiplication leads to division, which leads to fractions. We know there are different ways of approaching this, but to make a group it must ultimately add to the set of rationals.

Geometry leads to the irrationals. The reals (and geometry) lead to algebra, and invertability and the need for groups lead to the complex set.

>>2570445
So they'll only be able to work with triangles made up of pythagorean triples? I don't think they'll get far like that.

>>2570493
I didn't say only. It was implied "at least".

The problem is I think the OP's picture is flawed. There's the "objective mathematical truths", whatever the fuck that means, and the laws of physics, which presumably are the same everywhere.

They will have at least natural numbers, and they will have at least the Pythagorean Theorem, because they live in the same physical universe as us. (Assuming they arose like us through Darwinian natural selection. If they were created by some other lifeform, then they could be programmed to be stupid and not have the Pythagorean Theorem.)

>>2570445

By saying that you just affirm you believe in platonic forms. You don;t seem to get this is an implication of saying that natural numbers exist as something beyond social construction.

>>2570513
I don't know what a Platonic Ideal means. It suggests that it exists apart from the intelligent mind thinking about it. I don't think that there's some ideal number 2 out there.

As a matter of physics, I do think that the number 2, and the rest of the natural numbers - or something isomorphic to it - are indispensable when describing the natural physical world.

I don't think 2 exists, but I think the concept of two is a highly likely co-evolution of memes in an alien memepool.

I for one am a plotonist. However, that seems to be a much stronger position than being a quine. Quinism is apparently the self-evident fact that if you have the same axioms you will get the same results. If that is true, then there are objective mathematical truths.

>>2570557
*platonist

>>2570538

Why would they have have to have similar cognitive abilities to humans? I think the chance of them having a logic and mathematics that resembles human logic and mathematics is very slim. The manner in which we interpret the world is due to the manner in which we evolved. It it due to a set of circumstances that cannot be replicated. It does not follow that for an alien to share any of our epistemology.

>>2564300
Basically an agnostic.

>>2570575
Logic has nothing to do with how we evolved. Nor does the need to count things. Nor does the way that numbers worked. The number 23 is not prime because of any way that we evolved. It is prime because of the fundamental structure of number.

>>2570557

wow a real life Platonist. I didn't know they existed anymore. Is that like a Neo-Pagan. Do you enjoy being anachronistic. Don't mind me I'm off to catch up on readings for alchemy and phrenology.

Hard Grokism is the only sensible answer of the matured mind.

>>2570581

>has never read Wittgenstien

>>2570575
My argument is simple. While building a spaceship, you will need to cut a pieces of metal so that two of them edge to edge are as long as a third. This requires at a very minimum Natural Numbers. A similar argument can be made for the Pythagorean Theorem.

Also, to reply more broadly to your claim, evolution isn't as divergent as you think it is. The eye has evolved, what, 4 times, and the ear a couple dozen? That's completely independent evolution on Earth. Thus it seems likely that for an evolution on an alien planet, we should expect ears, and probably eyes.

That is, evolution is constrained by the laws of physics in how it goes about replicating genes (or whatever unit of replication the alien life would have).

In that argument, there's good reason to think that they will have a mind similar enough to ours, or they would be highly unsuccessful at navigating this physical world of ours.

>>2570596

And our noses exist to hold up our glasses in this the most perfect of all possible worlds. Your arguments are naive and panglossian.

>>2570611
That's like, your incorrect (IMO) opinion man.

>>2570596

logial positivism is dead dead dead. learn some modern philosophy of science.

Just because the universe operates under what we call laws doesn't mean we'll all have the same interpretations of said laws. I think it's a bit naive to assume alien life would see the world as we do, even if we're observing the same world.

>>2570627
I don't know what that means, and I think you're mis-attributing that to me anyway. I'm making claims purely about what is likely in independent evolutions of life, on possibly alien worlds. I've been sort of avoiding this nebulous concept of "objectively true math", again whatever the fuck that means.

>>2570628
>Just because the universe operates under what we call laws doesn't mean we'll all have the same interpretations of said laws. I think it's a bit naive to assume alien life would see the world as we do, even if we're observing the same world.
Well, yes, but thus far, the best evidence I have is that there is a singular shared objective natural world. We have imprecise perceptions of it, but precise enough that with time we can distinguish between the singular shared objective natural world and our own faulty perceptions.

Your argument would deny some of what I just wrote.

>>2570628
Math doesn't come from external observation. It's just fundamental universal logic. We started observing logic first, and then SECOND noticed that the external world follows it too. It's not dependent on our biology or culture. Except that our biology has to provide for a minimal amount of intelligence to be able to start observing logic, just like it has to provide eyes before we start observing things in the external world.

>>2570644

Has just argued for the existence of familial resemblances and language games while disregarding wittgenstien....now take it step further and look at problems we have with communication between members of our own species. It would be exacerbated much more with an alien and quite possibly there would be no meaningful overlap since there is no shared evolutionary history.

>>2570663
Not really. You see, while all mathematical proofs are done in isolation of the evidence, the basic axioms and definitions of math were chosen with their utility in describing the world in mind. Math is not entirely divorced from evidence, but it's damn close.

It's simple stuff, like do we have an axiom of choice or not. There's no "a priori" reason to have it. It's not something innate. Mathematicians picked one, and ran with it, largely because of its utility in modeling the natural world.

>>2570663

As I said logical positivism is dead.This is an old argument that is no longer though valid. Few (if any) logicians would think that logic is beyond human construction.

>>2570663
>It's just fundamental universal logic.
I have a problem with this. I mean, I'm not familiar with the literature on subjects like this, but this doesn't sit well with me.

Hopefully someone more informed can elaborate.

>>2570668
Again, you argue that our language is the result of our evolutionary history. I strongly disagree. We can almost communicate with dolphins, but they had a completely different evolutionary path for its brain and its language processing capabilities.

I still posit that any alien species that arose through Darwinian natural selection, which is capable of building a space ship, will have minds comprehensible to us, perhaps still radically alien with horrendous moral values like "kill the infirm at birth", but such propositions will still be parseable and understandable.

>>2570690
Well, is an alien species going to disagree with the transitive relation of identity, such that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

If yes, I think you have a screw loose. If no, then logic is universal and fundamental.

>>2570707
I guess what I meant was that while the conclusions would be the same, the process might not be.

>>2570719
Yea. That's the distinction I'm trying to make. I'm not arguing for or against objective math truths (well, kind of against), but I definitely am arguing for certain co-evolutions as highly likely, like eyes, ears, and natural numbers.

>>2570727
Is this all under the purview of philosophy of math? I might need to do some wiki research. I'm honestly unfamiliar with a lot of these terms.

>>2570695

Dolphins are a mammal and shares the same neurological functions as we do. There are many other ways to organize a nervous system (if that is even the only way for sapience). There is no reason for an alien species to even follow the central dogma (DNA->RNA->Protein). There can be alternative organic chemistry. There is no reason to think that on a planet with different, gravity, pressure, and chemical composition that an alien would evolve with parallel cognition to humans.

The feeble-minded Quines seek to pervert us with their universalist discourse. They must be stopped!

ONWARD, GROKS!

>>2570748
>Dolphins are a mammal and shares the same neurological functions as we do.
Citations please.

Either way, their brains evolved along a radically different path than ours. Language only entered us humans recently, definitely not before the common ancestors of humans and dolphins.

>There is no reason to think that on a planet with different, gravity, pressure, and chemical composition that an alien would evolve with parallel cognition to humans.
As it would evolve to meet the same criterion as life on Earth, how to best navigate the physical world, I think there's good reason for it to be similar in some ways.

>>2570769

They are a mammal, They have a cerebrum, a cerebellum, and a hind brain. Their nerves form synapses and utilize neurotransmitters to transmit information. I do not need a citation for this. There is no reason to assume an alien's seat of knowledge would function like this.

>>2570789
Ok, I think we got to the crux of my argument. Let me repeat it.
>As it would evolve to meet the same criterion as life on Earth, how to best navigate the physical world, I think there's good reason for it to be similar in some ways.

>>2564217
Hard Quinism

>>2570804
>gibberish
>implying it needs to be similar whatsoever to navigate the physical world.

Just because you cannot imagine another way to "navigate" the world does not mean that one does not exist. The fact that you cannot imagine one is actually my point.

>>2570804
Sounds like you are in the Grok-Quinism camp.

>>2570824
And you are on team Grok.

>>2570824
Imagination need not apply. We're talking about the laws of physics. Sometimes there is a best solution to a problem. Evolution will likely favor that best solution. Again, as an example, eyes, ears, echo location, and so on.

You cannot simply use your imagination, or something beyond your imagination. You are bound by the laws of physics and evolution, which will favor the minimalist solution. Your solution space is not infinite, and it is heavily biased towards the simplest solutions.

>>2570848

The laws of physics are a human construction. The manner in which we interpret them is due to the manner in which human minds, sense the world around them, store that knowledge, and integrate it. The manner in which we perceive physics, math, logic, and everything else is the direct result of our own unique evolutionary history. Math, physics, and logic while useful for humans to make sense of the world they live in do not have universal epistemological privilege.

>>2570866
>The laws of physics are a human construction.
I'm not sure if you're saying our formalization is a human construct, or if there is no singular shared objective natural world.

I think you're rejecting the singular shared objective natural world, or you're rejecting that humans can ever have knowledge of it.

I reject both arguments.

>>2570866
Math is a human product. An abstraction we've developed to make sense of the world. Alien life might have something different.

>>2570848

>I think you have a serious misconception about how evolution works. There is nothing special about ears and eyes. They are one out of many possible ways to perceive a world. The fact they appear on so many species is because we share a common ancestor with them. This is not the case with aliens. There is no reason for them to even have a brain as we know it.

>>2570894
The numerous independent evolutions of eyes and ears suggest that there is something special about eyes and ears. It also suggests that an alien biosphere is likely to have animals with eyes and ears.

>>2570875
You're a fucking idiot.

>>2570902
At the very least, you could argue that they have analogous structures that grant them the ability to perceive and interact with the world.

>>2570874

I am not rejecting the natural world. What I am rejecting is that the manner in which humans interpret the natural world is showing a 1:1 correspondence.

>>2570906
U mad because math isn't real? It isn't phenomenologically sound (or something liberal artsy like that).

>>2570894
1) You don't need a brain as we know it to discover universal mathematical truths, and more than you need eyes as we know them to observe the stars.
2) Eyes have evolved multiple times independently.

>>2570911
You're doing something stronger. You're saying that human perception systems are so flawed that we cannot obtain reliable evidence about the natural world. That's what I reject.

I know human perception systems are flawed, but they are not flawed to the degree necessarily that we have no reliable evidence about the natural world.

>>2570902

>doesnt know about hox genes

>get a better education on the evolution of development and you will learn about how these can disappear and reappear in species in the fossil record

>>2570925
What does that have to do with anything?

>>2570875

thats what I was saying

>>2570932

this has to do with why ears and eyes seem to have evolved many times. All these species have a common ancestor and a shared genetic mechanism that allows for using regulatory genes to make similar structures. This will not be the same for a true alien.

>>2570916
lol
>>2570906
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics
>Through the use of abstraction and logical reasoning, mathematics evolved from counting, calculation, measurement, and the systematic study of the shapes and motions of physical objects.
I could have worded it better, but it's still true. How do you know aliens, creatures with potentially radically different ways of perceiving the world, would develop math? They might come up with something similar, maybe even something better, but there's no guarantee it'll be the same.

>>2570958
Interesting argument.

>>2570875
Anyone who can't understand this most basic of principles should be put down like a limp horse.

>>2570967
Now you have me thinking. Dawkins and crew quote that somewhat regularly. Is it true that our shared ancestry makes the evolution of the eye more likely than a different ancestry? I'm highly tempted to say no, but this is a reasonable argument on which I'm ill equipped to argue.

I don't think this has any particular bearing on my main argument though that
>As it would evolve to meet the same criterion as life on Earth, how to best navigate the physical world, I think there's good reason for it to be similar in some ways.

>>2570958
No eyes evolved different ways each time. Any alien being will also evolve some kind of eyes.

>>2570923

There is no reason for our math, logic, and physics to seem flawed. This is because they are the products of humans to solve human problems.

>>2570916
If I'm mad about anything, it's having to sharing the planet with uneducated and unsophisticated luddites like you who assume that math is some invented cultural artifact.

>>2570990
I think most people who say this are taking a rather dogmatic view, which dismisses the singular shared objective natural world, or that humans can ever obtain reliable evidence about the singular shared objective natural world. It's hard to reason against such relativistic and/or nihilistic claims.

>>2570989

did they still use proteins to make the eye? do they share photoreceptors? This is because animal biology works in a limited number of ways.

>>2570962
That's like saying they'll be in the same galaxy but won't see the same stars. If they have minds capable of thinking about logic, there are the same universal truths there to discover about how numbers work. They won't necessarily discover all the same truths that we've discovered, but the set of truths to be discovered, are identical, just like the set of laws of nature and stars in the galaxy to be discovered are identical.

>>2571006
We're talking about multicellular life capable of technological achievements like our own. In that case, they might not have proteins, but they will have building blocks of some kind, and I think it's rather silly to say that their building blocks are somehow incapable of eyes or ears. This is an interesting argument which I'm not outright dismissing, but I think it's not true based on my absurdly small knowledge of chemistry and biology.

>>2570975
You've obviously never seriously studied math. The study of math requires no anthropology course. Anyone of any culture can do it. It's the study of how numbers inherently interact with each other.

>>2571003

It is relativistic but not nihilistic. In fact it comes from a much more nuanced understanding of logic and biology than you have. Read some more on these topics. Look into the philosophy of science some more. You will see why you are wrong if you are reasonably intelligent.

>>2571024
Again, you seem to be dismissing the singular shared objective natural world, or arguing that humans can never have reliable knowledge of it. I don't think reading a paper will change my mind on that.

>>2571013
>That's like saying they'll be in the same galaxy but won't see the same stars.
Actually, it's more like they'll see the same stars, but not as we see them. We might come to the same conclusions, but through completely different processes.

>>2571018

>Isn't indoctrination great! I love having a childish closed mind. I will surely advance science without even understanding what knowledge is or how it is constructed.

>>2571006
Sure, and just like earth animal life, any other biology sophisticated enough to make intelligent life will have several different ways to make eyes too.

>>2571018
We're talking species here, not alternative cultures. We're talking about completely different lifeforms.

>>2571032
Thought processes are physical processes in the brain. Thus there are a finite number of such processes for evolution to choose from.

I further argue from my CS background that there are almost certainly a very small number of possible algorithms which will give it Darwinian survival value.

>>2571035

>>2571029

Way to take what I said and turn it into something I didn't. There is a real world. We have meaningful knowledge of it. This knowledge likely to only be useful to other humans who share basic epistemology. We have shared epistemology owing to 1) culture and 2) shared neuro-architecture from evolutionary history.

Aliens will have neither of these. Aliens have different epistemology. Alien math does not equal human math.

>>2571041
Can't say I disagree with that. I don't think they need brains, but a structure similar in function would likely be necessary. I also don't think they need human logic, but they'll likely need a corollary to that as well. To quote you:
>As it would evolve to meet the same criterion as life on Earth, how to best navigate the physical world, I think there's good reason for it to be similar in some ways.

>>2571059
>This knowledge likely to only be useful to other humans who share basic epistemology.
Simple example. We're flying in a spaceship. We know a star is there. We know we'll die if we fly into the star, so we avoid it.

How the hell can an alien not come to this conclusion through /exactly/ the same thought process?

>>2571062

Why cant you get that using your own knowledge to predict what another being without shared neural morphology is capable of thinking is futile.

This thread is basically asking for weather predictions without instruments.

>>2571059
I don't follow at all. This is has got to be some of the most obtuse reasoning I've ever followed. Let me see if I understand you.

1- There is a singular shared objective natural world.
2- Humans can obtain reliable evidence about this singular shared objective natural world.
3- The evidence thus obtained is only useful to humans.

I'm pretty sure 2 and 3 are logically inconsistent, bro, as I explained earlier with my spaceship flying into star example.

>>2571108
To continue, either the aliens exist in the same natural world as us, or they don't. If they do exist in the same natural world as us, then they will be able to make sense of the proposition that "There's a star directly in front of us at X distance." The nicest way I can put it is that it's asinine to say otherwise.

>>2571077
You must be trolling. Math is not dependent on biology.

>>2571126
Well, math is, but physics is not.

>>2571108

Seriously just try and read Wittgenstein. Look into epistemology. Read up on the philosophy of science. I am very tired of arguing with you. however, you should be aware that anyone who studies this seriously would laugh you and your lay-knowledge out of the room.

>>2571108
I can receive visual stimulation through color. I find this to be useful, reliably consistent, and shared. If you are blind or colorblind, however, this information is irrelevant.

>>2571035
Wow. Congratulations. You're a complete moron.

>>2571140
Not the same guy but you're using a shitty argument of authority, and it's not an answer.

>>2571149
Color vs non-color yes. But in terms of presence of food and predators is not so relativistic. They still live in my physical world.

>>2571152

what is shitty about pointing out that someone has now idea what they are talking about because they lack education in the relevant fields.

>>2571180
I too would like to know this.

Wouldn't it be pertinent to shout "read Einstein" at me if I showed an inadequate grasp of relativity? If that's true, then why is it different for Wittgenstein?

>>2571163
Lord almighty, Scientist, you are one stubborn poster.

>>2571492
When arguing with non-trolls, yes. I am persist in the beliefs which I believe to be correct.

And duty calls.

>>2571493
I can understand the urge, since it's the same on my end. Regarding these grok/quine threads, however, I've resigned myself to the belief that groks and quines disagree so fundamentally about the most basic logical principles that either has as much truth-value as the other. Or something like that.

>>2571508
It is pretty dogmatic. I don't quite understand the opposite side though.

I understand if you think that there is no singular shared objective natural world. I understand if you think that human perception systems are so flawed that we can never get reliable evidence about the singular shared objective natural world. (I disagree with both, but such propositions at least make coherent sense.)

I do not understand what it means for an observation of the singular shared objective natural world to be useful to humans only. The example is "There's a lion over there." This doesn't depend on DNA, on the human perception system, or anything else. The existence or non-existence of a lion is a material fact of the material world. An alien creature sufficiently sapient to build a space ship will have an understanding of whether there is a lion there, or not. I cannot fathom a world where such knowledge is "human specific", but there is a singular shared objective natural world. It's almost logically inconsistent.

>>2571520
>I cannot fathom

Now you finally understand.

>>2571534
>troll

>>2571534
No, thinking over it more clearly, let me try it like this. These are your options

1- There does not exist a singular shared objective natural world. Thus to some people, there is a lion there, but to others, there is no lion.
2- There does exist a singular shared objective natural world. The question of whether there is a lion there has a definite objective answer. Humans, due to their faulty perception systems, can never obtain reliable evidence about such objective truths though.
3- There is a singular shared objective natural world. Humans /can/ obtain reliable evidence about these objective truths.

You have thus far disagreed with all 3 of those options. I think that's equivalent to dismissing logic. If that is your intent, you'll have to forgive me for entirely ignorant any argument made /using logic/ which disputes logic. It's a complete non-starter.

>>2571534
No, thinking over it more clearly, let me try it like this. These are your options

1- There does not exist a singular shared objective natural world. Thus to some people, there is a lion there, but to others, there is no lion.
2- There does exist a singular shared objective natural world. The question of whether there is a lion there has a definite objective answer. Humans, due to their faulty perception systems, can never obtain reliable evidence about such objective truths though.
3- There is a singular shared objective natural world. Humans /can/ obtain reliable evidence about these objective truths.

You have thus far disagreed with all 3 of those options. I think that's equivalent to dismissing logic. If that is your intent, you'll have to forgive me for entirely *ignoring* any argument made /using logic/ which disputes logic. It's a complete non-starter.

>>2571550
Of course they dismiss logic. Or rather they dismiss the applicability of logic to anything but the inner workings of human minds. Thus they dismiss science altogether. They are morons or trolls.

>>2571553
I guess. I didn't realize it until now.

>>2571553
>Or rather they dismiss the applicability of logic to anything but the inner workings of human minds.

Why would it need to be anything but, you utter tard?

>>2571561
Because the human mind is simply a physical machine. An alien mind would also simply be a physical machine. Both would have been "designed" by evolution by natural selection to solve the same problems. The problems relate to the singular shared objective natural world. As such, the existence or non-existence of a lion would be useful comprehensible information to both the human and the alien.

>>2571550
I like how you pretend to just now stumble upon the 'heart' of Grok claims even though you've been arguing against them for over a week, contributing tens of thousands of words (that's a whole short story or an essay, mind you) to the debate. No, I elect to think you're tired mentally, tired of iterating the same trite, baseless points against people who have have read their Wittgenstein and their Foucault and who take this stuff seriously.

tl;dr - Go to bed or pick up a book.

>>2571571
>An alien mind would also simply be a physical machine.

>Both would have been "designed" by evolution by natural selection to solve the same problems.

Quite a leap in logic there, sport.

>>2571578
Well, that's because we've been using different definitions of objective, I think. I've been asking throughout this thread if he believed that we could have reliable evidence of the objective natural world. He answered yes, but he also answered that that objective evidence is useful only to humans, aka not objective.

It took me so long because my opponent has been using rather obtuse and inconsistent arguments.

Also, I don't bring baggage from previous threads into this one, so the whole "last week" stuff doesn't apply. I don't assume every anon I see posting is the same anon.

>>2571578
And I think I'll wait a min or two, and go to bed. I am tired.

>>2571584
>I don't assume every anon I see posting is the same anon.

Hey now. You and I both know that the point of namefagging at all is to reap responsibility, good or bad, for your posts. Can't have your cake, etc.

>>2571592
I have no clue what you're trying to say. Well, off to bed.

>>2571590
youve fought the good fight fellow quine, we're outnumbered but persistent

HOLY SHIT

I had no idea there was as many post-modern faggots on /sci/. I mean, holly shit.

>>2571624
>>2571584

Neither of you are smarter than Wittgenstein or Foucault no matter how much noise you make or tired arguments you shout over and over.

>>2573538
Which is why Scientist should listen to Wittgenstein instead of me. Yet he stands steadfast in his obstinacy.

>>2568646
I was the one who brought Quine into the "alien logic" argument last week. This was because of his view of so-called "radical translation." The relevant text is Word and Object, Chapter 2.

>>2573538
Being able to make complicated arguments doesn't make you smart if the arguments are unsound. Pretty much any "quine" is smarter than wittgenstein and foucault, if "smart" is gauged on connection to reality.

>>2573993

>has never read either author.

>>2574011
This.

It is impossible to have any kind of formal logic without the very basic concepts of assumption, proof, and conclusion. Hence, there are objective mathematical truths because all reasoning without these fundamental OMTs is neither logic nor math, and from those fundamentals follows every form of math and each is equally valid for humans and aliens alike.

Hard quinism is true by definition.

>>2574119
Quite the opposite, my neuronally impaired friend.

>>2574133
Oh dear, someone on the internet disagrees with me an he even called me stupid! I'm immediately going to change my position so I can be accepted by some anonymous stranger who made no argument whatsoever.

>>2574011
>believes as dogma the beliefs of whatever 3rd rate author his teacher last made him read.

>>2574233

>Thinks Wittgenstein and Foucault are third rate.

I've got news for you friend. They are just as important to philosophy as Einstein and Newton are to physics.

>>2574233
>dogma
>Wittgenstein and Foucault
>mfw you've obviously never read their works

>>2564217
This thread is still here, really?

>>2574275
LOL, is that what your professor told you? They happen to be in fashion now. In 10 years it will be other people.

>>2574315

> In fashion now
> Wittgenstein died 1951
> Foucault 1984
> wat

I can sorta understand Foucault, if you haven't read him, but Wittgenstein? Are you a retard?

>>2574309

Asperger's, et cetera.

>>2574348

Einstein died 1955
Newton died 1727

Lets just throw them out along with all their contributions.

Your argument is invalid you half educated twat. It seems you are too ignorant to even bother discussing epistemology and the foundations of mathematics with. Read some books on the subject. Mature a few years. Learn some more about the world. Then we can talk as equals.

>>2574560
I still just cannot understand how one in good faith can say "There is a singular shared objective natural world on which we can obtain reliable evidence", and "Oh, but that evidence is useful only to humans and wouldn't make sense to aliens, aka it's not objective".

>>2574573

There is an objective world yes. However, all human knowledge is subjective. Alien knowledge is subjective as well. We can only perceive the world according to models and abstractions. In other words we have a unique human filter. We share various iterations of this filter with the rest of humanity. The filters are similar due to a shared neural architecture. Aliens would have had a different evolutionary history giving rise to different neural architecture. The different neural architecture imparts a different filter.

...You are an Objectivist aren't you. Do you honestly think you perceive the world in an objective fashion? Ayn Rand is a two bit hack of a philosopher. She is not taken seriously by anyone other than half educated pseudo-intellectuals and right-wing nuts. Which are you? I bet a little of each.

>>2574560
Not the poster you're responding to, but you have got to be the least convincing Quine in this thread.

>>2574641
Lols. I just called someone else an Ayn Rand wanker in another thread no less than 10 min ago.

I understand human perception systems are flawed, but I strongly disagree that they are sufficiently flawed that we cannot obtain objective evidence about the objective world.

The question of whether there is a lion to my side is an objective question on which we can gather objective evidence. Any alien could gather the same objective evidence.

Of course, I'm just repeating myself now, and so are you, so we're likely not going to get anywhere. Still lol-ing at being called an Ayn Rand follower.

>>2574648

That is a pro-Grok argument in response to Quines not wanting to read epistemology.

>>2574658

I think she would be sympathetic to your arguments on OMTs.

>>2574671
Well, even an insane bitch is right sometimes through blind luck.

>>2564297
Pi is a good example. Many alien races, assuming for the sake of argument that they use symbols for important numerical constants, won't have a symbol for "pi." But they would have a symbol for something related, such as 2pi (arguably the better choice), or pi/2 or pi/4, or maybe even 2 pi i. Decoding their language will take some work, but since our mathematics describes the same universe, their should be some relation between our ideas and theirs.

>>2574658
>>2574679

Any other grok want to help out here. I am really having trouble convincing this hardheaded person. I am beginning to think he is rejecting grok arguments on whim and poorly read Wikipedia articles.

He is also a fan of poorly thought out reductio ad absurdum and slippery slope arguments.

>>2574798
He's been blathering on about the same nonsense for weeks now. I and several others have tried to elucidate the very simple fact that humans are inherently limited by their neural make-up to access and describe the objective universe. He's the type of person who might not believe what he posts, but has to defend it now because he's invested so much time and energy into his arguments. The true curse of namefaggotry.

>>2574348
I'm not sure what particular kind of retardation you suffer from, but yes they are in fashion now, and no their dates of death have nothing to do with when they start or stop being fashionable.

>>2574798
Maybe you can give us an example of of a mathematical truth that you feel would be untrue with different neural anatomy. For example, does different neural anatomy make the number 13 evenly divisible by integers other than 1 or 13, or is its primality objectively true under the axioms of integer arithmetic?

Any alien races describe the universe the same way we do.

They may have different ways of representing symbols and ideas, but they will all be representing the same thing.

The fact that our symbols, arbitrary, actually WORK for doing things in the universe are a testament to this.

The pythagorean theorem is true everywhere. Pi is pi no matter where. So is e.

Our mathematics enables us to do things in this universe SUCCESSFULLY - that means we MUST be correct and that everything is the same everywhere.

Surely axioms are axioms *because* they are objective.

>>2564386
But such a species would not evolve. Evolution would not favor understanding of random splotches over circles. That's asinine and a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

>>2574870
It's not axioms that are "objective". Mathematical truth is objective, and OMTs are viewed at from a contexts of axioms. These axioms are in principle arbitrary, but any developing intelligence is going to follow a natural axiomatic path at least to the point where it gets to a level comparable to ours.

But the potential axiomatic overlap is irrelevant to the observation that the mathematical truths are what they are regardless.

i believe there is a planet where if you take one rock, and another rock, you have three rocks

>>2566989
Agreed. Discussing whether it is likely than an alien species would co-evolve similarly enough, and whether the memes in their memepool which we might call "math" would evolve similarly enough, is an objective testable prediction about the natural world. It is science, not your philosophy.

>>2567468
Divinely inspired, no. "Designed" by evolution by natural selection, yes.

>>2574896
>>2574895
>>2574878
Wow those replies went back in this thread. I lost my place. My bad.

>>2574892
We need to find this planet and set up a rock exporting industry there.

>>2574878

Dr. Pangloss rears his head once again.

reCAPTCHA: plotY apprehend

>>2574892
You assume (erroneously) that an alien would see rocks the same way you do, in terms of arbitrarily clumped atoms. It may well see "two" rocks as three simply because it associates a unit of something in other terms than you (perhaps on the basis of density, or atomic count, or something).

>>2575363
Please give us a more specific example. In what way will the alien see 3 rocks?

>>2575397

Assume a human culture that calls all groupings of 5 a hand. To such a culture to say that a hand has 5 fingers would be nonsense because to them you are saying a hand has hand fingers.

>>2575363

Just a semantic difference, has nothing to do with differing mathematical axioms.

>>2575454

Semantic difference, nothing more.

>>2575454
This is what I figured. Groks are just morons.

>>2575454
Sorry man, no, you're not even making sense any more. It's ok. You can have your silly little book denying the singular shared objective natural world. I'm going to go build some spaceships.

>>2575641

>implying all groks are the same person.

>>2575641
You're retarded. That was the only post I've made in this thread.

>>2575728
No need to be hostile about it. ;_;

I love when other people post under this name. It's my secret goal to get everyone to post under "Scientist" in /sci/.

>>2574275
Philosopher here: Wittgenstein and Foucault are nowhere near as important to philosophy as Einstein and Newton are to physics. Einstein and Newton are maybe the greatest physicists who have ever lived. Nobody thinks that of Wittgenstein or Foucault. I would say that both Einstein and Newton are more important to PHILOSOPHY than Foucault is, and arguably more important than Wittgenstein (and indubitably if you include indirect influence). See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/; http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

>>2575363
Your point of view was refuted 150 years ago, according to almost all philosophers of mathematics. See Frege, Philosophy of Arithmetic, trans Austin, NU Press, p. 30. For a defense of Mill (a minority view that would favor you), see "Frege, Mill, and the Foundations of Arithmetic" by Glenn Kessler, Journal of Philosophy, 1980.

This is not a /phil/osophy board, but if anyone is getting a bad idea of poor Ludwig Wittgenstein from this discussion, you should know that one person here has studied him for years, read everything he's published, read his biography, read works by his followers, and this person can tell you that the author(s) of these posts would have made poor Ludwig want to puke up his cocoa and oatmeal and then go after him with a fireplace poker.

>>2564331
>>2570668
>>2571140
>>2571578
>>2573538
>>2573748
>>2574275

Come at me, bro.

Some interesting points about the universality of mathematical structures described here: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9704009 (the paper is about a different subject, but it goes into this particular subject (OPs) before dwelving into the greater one).

>>2576441
So, are you, and this dude, for, against, or agnostic about the assertion that "There is a lion next to me" would necessarily be "understandable" to an alien intelligence capable of technology at least as advanced as our own?

>>2576441
>read everything he's published

All two of his works? My, what a feat.

>>2576744
Agnostic, as you should be.

>>2576752
Understood. See else-thread for my disagreements.

Quinism is the only one that makes sense.

I don't see how geometry could change if they exist within our reality.

>>2576441

I wrote a few of them an was taught by a scholar who is 1 degree from studying directly under Wittgenstein. We seem to have read the same texts and have somewhat of a different synthesis. I think that Wittgenstein (or at least Feyerabend) would be OK with that.

>>2576757

>so much hubris

>>2576962
Using Latin to sound cool, eh? Pride in my convictions? Yes. Are you suggesting that I ought to be meek and feeble when discussing what I believe to be true?

>>2576971

Yes you should. Only the delusional have 100% conviction especially when doing science or philosophy.

>>2576994
I never claimed 100% certain you nimwit, just ridiculously likely.

>>2576999

>A mature scholar is aware of his own limitations.

>>2577020
Yes and? Are you implying that, if I were to admit that I have limits to my knowledge, it must immediately follow that alien minds would be inscrutable? Sorry, that doesn't logically follow.

>>2577041

No I am implying that you, Scientist, as a person are boorish. This is based on the style of your comments. Your lack of humility. And, most importantly on fact that you give zero consideration to the rich literature on this subject in both philosophy and astrobiology and instead rely on a very hastily constructed conglomeration of wild speculation and lay knowledge likely gleamed from popular science pulp which to defend as if it were the word of god and you were a bronze age judean.

>>2577090
Wow. I wrote so much I need a two part reply.

>No I am implying that you, Scientist, as a person are boorish. This is based on the style of your comments. That's-nice.jpg

>Your lack of humility.
Matter of perspective. I have humility for things which I do not know, or of which I'm unsure.

>And, most importantly on fact that you give zero consideration to the rich literature on this subject in both philosophy and astrobiology and instead rely on a very hastily constructed conglomeration of wild speculation and lay knowledge likely gleamed from popular science pulp which to defend as if it were the word of god and you were a bronze age judean.
Again, just a different interpretation of the evidence.

When I read that, it struck me as just like when that dude refuted Dawkins' The God Delusion by saying "Dawkins hasn't read all of theological literature, so he's ill equipped to refute it. He must have read it all to pronounce judgment." I disagree with that idea. It's a silly idea. You can write all the treatises you like on the flying spaghetti monster, but it will still be fiction, and I don't need to read all of the nonsense on the flying spaghetti monster to strongly declare it fiction.

>>2577112
Reply 2/2

Similarly, your ideas lack a rational scientific basis. As such, it doesn't matter if I'm versed or not. I'm not going to waste my valuable time reading books and books of pseudo-science just to refute it, when I have all of the appropriate tools to refute it now.

If you want, I will repeat the same offer I offer the flying spaghetti monster people: Give me a brief, succinct argument for why I might be wrong, which can be expounded upon in those books, and I might actually read those books. All you have presented thus far is "Well, it might be different", whereas I have presented rather sound arguments based on science as to why it's more likely than not that they will have a similar math as us. (When I say ridiculously likely, that's me stepping over the bounds a little, but I don't think by too much.)

>>2574663
Science is epistemology. Math is logic, and if you will, ontology.

>>2577112

>you are not Richard Dawkins and you haven't studied this literature as much as Dawkins has studied philosophy, biology, and comparative religion. Furthermore, I think Dawkins would most likely sympathize with the Groks here.

>>2577115
Damn. Now I really want to find that critique of critique of Dawkins, and the original critique. The original critique was pretty witty.

>>2577137
>Furthermore, I think Dawkins would most likely sympathize with the Groks here.
Lolno. Most real scientists would not. They like to believe in a singular shared objective natural world, and that we can obtain objective evidence about this singular shared objective natural world, something which apparently the "Groks" reject.

>>2577140
Can anyone help me out here? I forget where Dawkins replied to it. It was quite beautiful.

>>2577141
SPOILER: The "groks" are all trolls. None have put forward a single rational argument. They just make cryptic reference from authority to famous people they claim would agree with them.

>>2577142
Let me check my copy of The God Delusion. It might be a second edition or something, with some replies to critiques. Maybe that's where I saw it.

>>2577141

No Dawkins understands how evolutionary process work much better than you do and would likely acknowledge how they have shaped the manner in which humans can uniquely perceive the world. You on the other hand think that we can perceive true to life laws of nature instead of empirically supported models of human construction...

At least read Kuhn. Your complete ignorance about the philosophy of science is troubling. This is getting to be like arguing about spelling with a person who cannot read or write.

>>2577146
Ah there it is. Apparently it was Dawkins replying to a mock reply written by PZ Myers.

http://books.google.com/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=dawkins+god+delusion+%
22recognize+dangling+genitalia%22&source=bl&ots=1gkKX8GevT&sig=hmTrMbpqZBlVwplnIbUKnBbfe
QA&hl=en&ei=fxRiTcP8JYnWtQPFgLXPCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&am
p;ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Starting with
>You can't criticize religion without a detailed analysis of learned books of theology.

>>2577151
No, it's like arguing with someone who refuses to put forward an argument and instead refers me to book after book.

>>2577154
It starts on page 14. Scroll up one page.

>>2577151
Yeah, but if you ever get around to studying math, you will learn that it is based on PROOFS, so that it is completely independent of how we or any other organism evolved. Any organism that evolves the ability to create deductive proofs will provably come to the same fucking conclusions.

>>2577137
Quoting PZ Myers, mock critiquing Dawkins' The God Delusion.

>His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

That's about what I think of your argument, that "Their thoughts be not be understandable by humans". You're welcome to present a different argument.