/sci/ - Science & Math

Philosophy is a deeper understanding that transcends the atheist cock fest found here. This board is really more of a church for the religion of religionless.

Are you asking, is it possible that our brain evolved to comprehend a limited subset of reality?

I'd say, yes, to a large extent that's true. There are many things in science that are very difficult, if not outright impossible, for the human mind to intuit, but can only be studied because they can be modeled mathematically.

>>2648826
I like how you had to rephrase the sentence to add "evolved" in their.

>>2648887
oh for fuck sake this is childish

I am the walrus

Coo Coo Catchoo

>>2648822
>Philosophy is a deeper understanding
lol no, "pondering" without ever coming to a demonstrably correct conclusion has fuck all to do with understanding.

>>2649071

>HURR DURR materialism is obviously true no need to question HURR

you should learn what happened to the logical positivists

>>2649089
And you should learn to construct arguments that aren't based on childish strawman bullshit.

I said philosophical pondering does not lead to understanding, and that's all.

Read

>George Berkeley

>Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, paying special attention to the "Copernican Revolution' portion

>Nietzsche's The Will to Power

> Wittgenstein's Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations

Then you should have some more answers about subjectivity, empiricism, logic, epistemology, and the nature (and impossibility) of objectivity.

> brain limits reality
no, really? (pic related)
However, I think it works both ways as well (reality limits the brain). Since we live in a 3D universe and have been around 3D for our whole lives, we can only comprehend up to 3 dimensions.

The data an instrument can receive is limited by the capabilities of the instrument.

So, yes, our "link" to reality is limited. But we shouldn't use this fact as a springboard for retarded metaphysical pseudoscience about what's "beyond".

>>2649135

umm the universe is 10D + time...l8rn to string theory. Also that strengthens your argument.

>>2649110

mfw

>>2649155
> I just read the elegant universe, I feel so smart!
All but 3 spatial dimensions + time doesn't matter to our daily life.

/sci/ is full of naive materialists. Dualism is the only way.

>>2649155
>string theory
String theory is such a fucking joke.

>>2649187

idealists have more fun :)

>>2649187
>Dualism
Too obvious.

>>2649187

dualism is metaphysical garbage

>>2649148
>we shouldn't use this fact as a springboard for retarded metaphysical pseudoscience about what's "beyond".

This. There is rigorous and academic philosophy (mainly analytic), and then there is bullshit pseudo mystic garbage (Eastern 'philosophy' lol).

>>2649187
>naive materialists.
I honestly don't even know what this shit is.

>>2649213

mind is a function of brain is materialism

mereological nihilism explains pragmatic problems of consciousness and personal identity, bitches

>>2649235
Ah, thanks. Definitions were hard to come by. How is that naive though? The mind is essentially what the brain does.

>>2649237
What's with all these isms?

>>2649244

tell that to a dualist who believes in fucking souls

>>2649257
>souls
Wow. How are materialists naive when these guys believe in souls?

>>2649270

The "naive" is ad hominem. They take it for granted that "god" is real and we are denying him for the illusion of a "material" world. It is pure metaphysical garbage. The only reason they think this way is by indoctrination and a not having the cognitive capacity to question their own fucking ethnocentric world views. It is amazing they can do this when brute facts, to use Searle's word oppose them.

>>2649306
>The only reason they think this way is by indoctrination and a not having the cognitive capacity to question their own fucking ethnocentric world views.

Would this not also apply to the philosophically uneducated lol/sci/entism fags?

>>2649335

Yes it applies to both. There are many nieve scientists too that do not understand biases or even the fundamentals of the philosophy of science. They can be just as biased as religious zealots. However, this does not absolve religious zealots either. There is a true lack of nuanced scholarship and it is trying. That is one reason we get so many junk science papers and that the public misunderstands science and doesn't trust it.

>>2649335
No, because lolscience has testable predictive powers and produces repeatable results.

>>2649361

depends on the thing claiming to be science...medicine and pysch are famous for having invalid and weak controls. Also plenty of trash studies with illogical conclusions and bad methods are funded published and considered as fact for a short time. Science is far from perfect and contains plenty of biases at any time.

>>2649237

mereologicalnihilistfist

If there were something higher than knowledge, would it be existence? By existence, I mean the application of knowledge and working in harmony with it.

>>2649472

learn to wittgenstein...you cant talk about it. its a meaningless statement

>>2649390
>depends on the thing claiming to be science
Well, yes, but that's not what I was referring to. I wasn't advocating what *claims* to be science, but what actually *is* science, namely scientific methodology (and self-correcting scrutiny) in general, not any specific disciplines.

>Science is far from perfect and contains plenty of biases at any time.
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply any opposition to the notion that much bullshit is being done in the name of science. This is most definitely the case. However, to me, "science" as described above, is like a hammer, or a chainsaw. Sure, instead of doing actual work, you could misuse the chainsaw to split open your neighbors, but at the end of the day, this wouldn't prove the tool itself to be inherently flawed, or unreliable. It'd just be another testament to human imperfection. It's the same with science. The tool is useful, regardless of its potential for exploitation.

>>2649472
Lay off the drugs, bro.